42800 From: gazita2002 Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 5:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Four Great Elements as Foundation / Howard Dear Howard and Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Nina - > > In a message dated 2/27/05 9:57:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, > vangorko@x... writes: ......snip...... > ======================== > I think I may have been unclear. What I find strange is the assertion > that mind is derived from the 4 great elements! > > With metta, > Howard Azita: I also find this strange, the 4 great elements are rupa and the mind is nama. so why is mind included in this? Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita 42801 From: jonoabb Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 5:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Four Great Elements as Foundation / Howard Hi, Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > >TGrand458@a... writes: > > > > >>eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind; are derived from the Four Great Elements... > > >>(The Path of Discrimination, (PD), Patisambhidamagga) ... ... > I think I may have been unclear. What I find strange is the assertion > that mind is derived from the 4 great elements! Perhaps the anwer to the apparent inconsistency lies in the reading of the original passage. Would 'eye'... 'mind' be a refernce to the rupas that are bases, and thus 'mind' be actually a refernce to heart-base? Just a thought, but haven't checked the text. Jon 42802 From: Hugo Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 6:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddha said: That's how .......Hugo Hello Charles, On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 15:13:05 +0100, Charles DaCosta wrote: > When talking to beginners, I like to limit its meaning to the mind being clear of feelings, emotions, daydreaming, etc... A mind that is ready to learn something totally new, so you must put all your prejudices (prejudgments) aside and be "open" to new possibilities. > > I always ask: "When is a cup most useful; when it's empty, full, or any where in-between?" If you think of your mind operating like the cup, then ... And yes sooner or later you will desire more, but get this practice down first (a mind ready to learn). Thanks for remembering the cup analogy, when I used to read Zen it was one of the analogies got stuck in my mind for many years, I remembered it with the phrase "Empty your cup". Greetings, -- Hugo 42803 From: Hugo Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 7:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddha said: That's how .......Hugo Hello Azita, On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 23:54:03 -0000, gazita2002 wrote: > Azita: so you agree that there is frustration, and that 'you' > experience this frustration? Yes, and that "you" is a self that is created and is anatta. > Yes, I am saying do something specific, with the understanding > that there is no 'I' who is doing. There is the intention to do, but > where is the'me' in that intention? I'm not intention, intention is > not me. > Hearing is not 'me' but there is hearing. There are these > realities which arise for a very brief moment and then fall away > again. Where is the 'me' in these very brief moments? As I said many, many times, I know the theory. > > I don't want to hear any specific kind of words, I just want to know > > "The Truth". > > Azita: IMO we have to hear the words to eventually know the truth. :-) Azita, you didn't understand what the situation was. First, you didn't reply to what I originally wrote, you replied to what Sarah said. And Sarah made this self out of my reply and gave it some characteristics, in this specific case she gave the characteristic that this self wants to hear comforting words, you believed that to be true and then you replied to that same self that Sarah created, ignoring what I originally said. My reply to you had the intention to reveal that. In other words, I don't expect "to hear comforting words" as Sarah believed and you believed Sarah. Also it shows that you are supporting Sarah and not replying to me, which is a subtle but important difference, and that's one of the dangers of getting involved too much with a group of people, you start "following". > > Azita, do you have a self?, do you cling to it? > > No, in reality I don't have a self, but I often cling to that non- > existent self :-( Here is the key part of the position I am trying to explain. The fact that you cling to that non-existent self means that practically for you that self exists, why? because your actions are based on its "existence". So, yes in Truth there is no self, but because you believe that there is one, we can say that "you have a self". So it is important to define if the Buddha said "there is no self", or if he said "all things are no-self". Or, if he said "there is no self", or if he said that "there is no permanent self". It is a subtle difference but depending on your point of view is the way you will "attack the problem" of the no-self. > Patience, courage and good cheer, - without a self - Were you clinging to a self when you encouraged me to do that? How do you expect me to have patience, courage and good cheer without a self if I am not a Sottapanna? Now if I am a Sottapanna, I think I don't need to explicitely have patience, courage and good cheer, isn't it? This is what I say that it is contradictory. Doesn't it sound better to say that the "Hugo self" is the one that should be patient, should have courage and good cheer? BTW, I think we are just tilting windmills, we both seem to understand the real issues but we are looking at them from different point of views, one little difference I perceive (but I am not sure) is that you think I am wrong and you are right, while I think we both are right just different point of view. Greetings, -- Hugo 42804 From: Hugo Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 7:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddha said: That's how .......Hugo Hello Charles, On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 12:16:29 +0100, Charles DaCosta wrote: > Dear Hugo, Truth is relative; at least in this world. And as for the questions about "Who": please take a look in a mirror -- That is "Who." I know that Charles, the reason I asked those specific questions in that specific way to Azita was to try to get her responses on that specific topic. > PS: You must find your-self first, before you can give up the Idea. I am 100% sure about that!!! That's exactly what I am doing, that's why I don't like the approach of "denying the self" because it is there, yes, it is an illusion but we do all that we do because "we" keep obeying it! Greetings, -- Hugo 42805 From: Charles DaCosta Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 7:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddha said: That's how .......Hugo I make this a regular practice. It is my strategy for seeing others perspective, and for seeing my own -- attachments can fill a cup too. CharlesD ----- Original Message ----- From: Hugo To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Charles DaCosta wrote: > When talking to beginners, I like to limit its meaning to the mind being clear of feelings, > emotions, daydreaming, etc... A mind that is ready to learn something totally new, so you > must put all your prejudices (prejudgments) aside and be "open" to new possibilities. > > I always ask: "When is a cup most useful; when it's empty, full, or any where in-between?" > If you think of your mind operating like the cup, then ... And yes sooner or later you will > desire more, but get this practice down first (a mind ready to learn). Thanks for remembering the cup analogy, when I used to read Zen it was one of the analogies got stuck in my mind for many years, I remembered it with the phrase "Empty your cup". <....> 42806 From: Charles DaCosta Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 7:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddha said: That's how .......Hugo Good points, but then it is better not to think of it as an illusion because it is real, a cold slap in the face will prove it. The illusion is permanence and the thought of being in control/ownership. CharlesD ----- Original Message ----- From: Hugo Charles DaCosta wrote: > Dear Hugo, Truth is relative; at least in this world. And as for the questions about "Who": please take a look in a mirror -- That is "Who." I know that Charles, the reason I asked those specific questions in that specific way to Azita was to try to get her responses on that specific topic. > PS: You must find your-self first, before you can give up the Idea. I am 100% sure about that!!! That's exactly what I am doing, that's why I don't like the approach of "denying the self" because it is there, yes, it is an illusion but we do all that we do because "we" keep obeying it! Hugo 42807 From: Christine Forsyth Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 8:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Four Great Elements as Foundation / Howard Hello Nina, Azita, Howard, Jon, TG, Not having read the whole thread, and hoping I'm not repeating anything or being irrelevant, I wonder if this article by Peter Harvey may be of interest: "The mind-body relationship in Pali Buddhism: A philosophical investigation" http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebdha205.htm metta, Chris 42808 From: Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Four Great Elements as Foundation / Howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 2/27/05 2:34:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@x... writes: > Hi, Howard, > op 27-02-2005 16:11 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > > >I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying that the contact of one > >mindstate conditions the feeling of a subsequent mindstate, so that there > is > >feeling in every mindstate, but the feeling of a mindstate is conditioned > not > by > the current contact, but by the contact ot the previous mindstate? That > would > >suit well with me. In fact it is something that has occurred to me. But > perhaps > >you mean something else? > N: I mean something else. How could contact linger on for a while and wait > for a following feeling so that it could contact it? Are they not, all of > them, impermanent? > -------------------------------------- Howard: Of course. I didn't mean to imply anything about contact lingering on. It occurs & is over. ------------------------------------- > 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) 42809 From: Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 4:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Four Great Elements as Foundation / Howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 2/27/05 8:55:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > I think I may have been unclear. What I find strange is the > assertion > >that mind is derived from the 4 great elements! > > Perhaps the anwer to the apparent inconsistency lies in the reading > of the original passage. Would 'eye'... 'mind' be a refernce to the > rupas that are bases, and thus 'mind' be actually a refernce to > heart-base? Just a thought, but haven't checked the text. > > ====================== It's a good thought, jon. I hope you are correct. 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) 42810 From: Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 4:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Four Great Elements as Foundation / Howard Hi, Christine - In a message dated 2/27/05 11:19:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, cforsyth1@b... writes: > Hello Nina, Azita, Howard, Jon, TG, > > Not having read the whole thread, and hoping I'm not repeating > anything or being irrelevant, I wonder if this article by Peter > Harvey may be of interest: > > "The mind-body relationship in Pali Buddhism: A philosophical > investigation" > http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebdha205.htm > > metta, > Chris > > ======================= Thanks for the article. I think a lot of Harvey, so I look forward to reading it. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 42811 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 9:44pm Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 132 - Applied thinking/Vitakka, Sustained thinking/Vicaara(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.8 Applied thinking(Vitakka),Sustained thinking(Vicaara)contd] *** 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 at and thresh— for the meditator(2)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 Atthasåliní (Book I, Part IV, Chapter I, 114) gives a similar definition. This commentary uses a simile of someone who wants to “ascend” the king’s palace and depends on a relative or friend dear to the king to achieve this. In the same way the citta which is accompanied by vitakka depends on the latter in order to “ascend” to the object, to be directed to the object. Vitakka leads the citta to the object so that citta can cognize it. *** 2) The Visuddhimagga deals with vitakka in the section on samatha. The meditator is someone who cultivates samatha. ***** [Ch.8 Applied thinking(Vitakka),Sustained thinking(Vicaara)to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 42812 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 0:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Comments on the Sabba Sutta Hi Larry & Agrios, Larry, sometimes you really pleasantly amaze me:-) … --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > > Hi Agrios, > > There is a little controversy about whether 'dhamma ayatana' includes > concepts even though concepts are included in 'dhamma arammana'. The > 'Guide' in CMA p.287 says they are not included, but Note 9 SNIV,24 says > dhamma arammana are included in dhamma ayatana. B. Bodhi wrote both > notes from commentaries. > > Sarah might have something to say about this. She brought it up a couple > of years ago. … S: You got it, Larry and you have a very good memory. Firstly, Agrios, I recommend you look at the posts saved under ‘Sabba Sutta’ and 'Ayatana' in ‘Useful Posts’, Files section, to complement the other discussions going on. I think that ‘intellect and ideas’ for manayatana and dhammayatana is highly misleading. In brief: *Manayatana includes: all kinds of consciousness, all cittas *Dhammayatana includes: all cetasikas (mental factors which accompany cittas), all subtle rupas and nibbana (depending on context). Concepts such as tables and streets are not included, they are not paramattha dhammas or part of the ‘all’ to be directly known. Note these suttas, such as the Sabba Sutta, are included in the section of SN concerning the Ayatanas - so we have to understand what the ayatanas refer to. Briefly, ayatana refers to the dwelling-place, birth-place and meeting-place for cittas, cetasikas and rupas. For example, at a moment of seeing, there is a meeting of a)the seeing consciousness itself, (manayatana), b)the accompanying cetasikas including vedanaand phassa (dhammayatana), c) the visible object (rupayatana) and d)the eye-base (cakayatana). In the same way, there is a meeting of ayatanas at each moment of consciousnes. .... Secondly, yes, usually on the other hand, arammana or dhammarammana refers to any mental objects or mind objects which of course includes concepts which the thinking cittas think about. ….. Thirdly, note 9 which Larry refers to, SN p1400 is rather unclear/misleading, imho. In the sutta it refers to,i.e ‘Abandonment’ (SN24(2)), eye-consciousness etc are included in manayatana, as is ‘the mind’ (mano). According to BB’s own note, mano here refers only to the bhavanga cittas, but I don’t see why it cannot(like in the earlier suttas)refer to all cittas, including the bhavangas, otherwise we’re left with some loose ends (I need to check this). (Mind consciousness (mano-vinnana) refers specifically to mind-door adverting consciousness and the javana cittas (accord. to comy note BB gives). As for mental phenomena(dhamma) here, this refers to dhammayatana including all cetasikas and subtle rupas (but not nibbana). The cetasikas vedana (feeling) and phassa (contact)as BB says are included too, as well as being listed separately. When BB refers here to ‘other mental concomitants and dhammaaramma.na, the objects of mind-consciousness’, he is not quoting from the comy and I think it is rather unclear/misleading. Note also Larry, that in a footnote 4 on p.1398 there is another reference to dhammayatana which is glossed in the commentary as ‘dhamma ti tebhuumakadhammaaramma.na.m’ (dhammas of the 3 planes, i.e the sensuous plane, rupa and arupa planes), Again BB’s note is not quite clear (imho) when he defines dhammaayatana. He doesn’t mention the subtle rupas and another comment is rather misleading. He refers the reader to the Vibh and Vism. It’s very clear at these references that Dhammayatana is defined as I’ve stated. ..... Finally, the note you refer to in CMA, p287 is correct. Here he states: ‘the mental-object base’ (i.e dhammarammana) comprises the fifty-two mental factors, the sixteen kinds of subtle matter, and Nibbana’. I think there was one other reference which was not correct and which he agreed to change. You’ve reminded me that I had intended to raise these notes in the SN transl when I next write. Metta, Sarah ======= > > Larry > ------------------- > Agrios: "Hi Howard, > I better get your (and others) opinion here, as my understanding of this > sutta may be way off. Here how I understand it: > Tables, streets, children etc. arise as > 1. Ideas (listed as "intellect & ideas".) > 2. They are conditioned by various conditions and triggered by > sensual experience of specific contacts (listed as "eye & forms, ear > & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile > sensations" .) > The range here is drawn around six ayotana & their aramana in sensual > experience of kamma loka. > Thats All there is - it is said. 42813 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 0:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dialogue with RobM-2 Hi Agrios, --- agriosinski wrote: > Now, after reading Ninas explenations on subiect of namarupa > and her advices of putting attention toward citta, I realized > that there is a line between Dhamma and sensual clinging to > speculations about reality. > > Seems like namarupa is just rupa experienced in our sensual world. > There is no escape from sensuality in this world, but there is > way of not being hijacked by this sensuality. ... S: Nina may not have seen these comments as she went away. I'm not sure which post of hers you were referring to but I've never read her as advising 'putinc attention toward citta'. Perhaps I've misunderstood you. In any case, if you clarify a little, or ask any further questions, I know Nina (or I) will be happy to discuss further. .... > > I am very thankfull to RobM for his texts on D.O and conditions. ... S: Like others, I hope he continues with his posts on this topic and that others like yourself, Suan and Htoo add your comments and any text references as well. A deep, deep topic... Appreciating all your input, Agrios. Metta, Sarah ======= 42814 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Test Your Knowledge .../ Robertk's Finding about A. Mun Hi James (& Connie), Firstly I’m sorry to hear about the little kitten – I know you will have tried your best to give it a good home. (Maybe they are taken away from their mother too young? – I remember how small Simon looked). Now down to business – just picking out a couple of points from your posts, probably against my better judgment:-). --- buddhatrue wrote: >J: Sarah, I will give you three guesses as to how I value the opinions > of Buddhaghosa!! (But I'm sure you'll get it in one guesss) ;-)) … S: Yes, I’m sure I got that one right. No problem this end. … >J: Secondly, I greatly doubt the authenticity of the Cullavagga and > don't believe the Buddha gave any such prediction in the first > place. …. S: So you don’t accept it as an integral part of the Vinaya Pitaka (vol 5 of the PTS translation of the ‘Book of Discipline’)or you don't accept the authenticity of the entire Vinaya Pitaka. You don’t accept the comments and accounts attributed to the Buddha here? No problem again, though I'm surprised this time. There’s a wealth of detail, including the section devoted to bhikkhunis which starts with the Buddha’s important statement that women are capable of attaining arahantship before the 8 rules are laid down. >J: Honestly, the issue of women in Buddhism is one that bothers > me because the texts portray the Buddha as a blatant sexist and, in > my heart of hearts, I don't believe that he was. <...> … S: Yes, you’ll just have to post any short extracts you’d like me to look at. No need to say that I disagree with your conclusion about the portrayal, but you’re opening up another can of worms here. …. Post #2 … > > S: I have an opinion on the point about cittas and paranibbana. If > anyone > > suggests they can communicate with the cittas of the Buddha after > his > > paranibbana, I think it's wrong. > >J: There. Now,that wasn't so hard was it? So,in other words, you > believe that A. Mun was either crazy or a liar <…> … S: No, that isn’t what I said or think and wouldn't dream of suggesting the same with regard to your comments on the Cullavagga, for example. … > J:Maybe you should see the post by Cosmique. We are not really > talking about the khandas subject to clinging, we are talking about > the consciousness which has been freed from clinging. Nibanna isn't > anicca, dukkha, or anatta. … S: I think Cosmique made some good points, but we should be quite clear that Nibbana isn’t consciousness of any kind. “Just as nibbana is nowhere (to be found) amidst conditioned (sa’nkhata) things, since it has as its own nature that which is antithetical to all formations (sa’nkhata), so are all conditioned things (not to be found) therein either, for the collection of things conditioned and unconditioned is (a thing) not witnessed. <…> “that which is the unconditioned element, which has as its own nature that which is the antithesis of all conditioned things, such as earth and so forth, is nibbana, for which same reason he (next) says “There too, monks, do not speak either of coming” (and so on) (Udana comy, Patal Villagers chapter, #1 Nibbana) * I know you’ll reject the quote, but I give it for others who may like it:-). … >J: Again, the texts don't cover everything. The Buddha clearly said as > much with his 'leaves in the hand compared to the leaves in the > forest' metaphor (I'm sure you know it). … S: I know this is conveniently quoted from time to time;-). …. > > >J: <…>Life and > experience > > > are a lot more than what is written in the suttas. > > … > > S: no comment > >J: Why no comment? This is the main point of this conversation! Can > there be a realm of experience to the enlightened which isn't > described in the texts? … S: I smiled because you reject the Abhidhamma and commentaries when they don’t appear to accord with your experience. Now it seems that you may be doing the same with the Vinaya and suttas, but I may misunderstand you. I agree that what we read needs to be checked out and understood rather than blindly followed. I believe the truths are in the suttas but we are blind most the time to these truths. …. >>S:I'd > > be happy to discuss any points of dhamma. I think this is more > useful than > > `A.Mun study', `K.Sujin study' or even `James' or `Sarah' study;-). > > J: Huh? I don't understand what you are implying. If I post any short > extracts it would be a dhamma and an A. Mun study. I don't see how > you can separate them. … S: It’s an interesting side question. Connie quoted from a book of Nina’s: ”The Buddha explained to his disciples that there should be neither apporoval nor disapproval of persons, but that they should simply teach Dhamma. In that way people will know what is real”. When we’re engaged in people study,usually is it kusala or akusala? Does it lead to more or less detachment and awareness of dhammas? Does it lead to more or less detachment from the idea of people and selves? You don’t need to answer. I know what my answers are and though I see no problem in discussing ideas or views that anyone expresses or has expressed, I don’t see it as being very useful to discuss the people themselves. I mentioned this to a friend on our last trip – if it isn’t dhamma study,I think it just leads to expectations and disappointments. After all, the Dhamma is not A.Mun’s, K.Sujin’s, yours or mine. I’d be v.glad if Connie would add more in her own way. Funny thing, James – it’s never easy writing to you, but I always learn something when I do, so I appreciate your posts ‘with love’;-). Gosh, I miss Phil's posts already . Metta, Sarah p.s hope you get your computer fixed. ======= 42815 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 3:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions (II) Hi, TG >Rupas are those dhammas that *do not experience an object*. Rupas are >not characterised by virtue of their *being experienced by namas*. (Of >course it is true that rupas can only be experienced when they are the >object of nama, but that is not a distinguishing factor of a rupa. Other >namas, and concepts too, are object of consciousness.) > >All dhammas arise, subsist and fall away. As regards the rupa that is >the present sense-door object, that arising is nowhere said to be >dependent on, or related to, the present sense-door consciousness of >which is the object. > >Hi Jon, (Howard) > >I just thought I'd butt in and say that I completely agree with your >assessment in this post Jon. > Thanks for the comments, TG. It's good to know we do agree on something ;-)). The key to all this is the study of conditions. If these are sufficiently known, as for example by a Buddha, then it can be said with certainty whether or not there is a nexus between the precise moments of arising of the two dhammas of sense-door consciousness and its object (and to my reading of the texts, the answer is that there is no such nexus). If there were such a nexus one would expect to find explicit reference to it somewhere in the texts. Instead, the references tend to suggest otherwise (such as your sutta quote from SN). Jon 42816 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:29am Subject: [dsg] Re: Test Your Knowledge .../ Robertk's Finding about A. Mun Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Hi James and Sarah - > > I have been following your dialogues about Achariya Mun with great > interest mainly because your perspectives are diametrically opposite. > Maybe I can help bring the discussion to a fruitful conclusion. ;-)) That would be nice; but my conversations with Sarah never come to a fruitful conclusion. ;-) > > James, can I ask you what special achievements and characters of A. > Mun have convinced you completely that he was an Arahant? Because he did the practice as taught by the Buddha and he achieved the paths and fruits in the manner described in the texts and in the order described in the texts. Also, he did not try to impress anyone or announce anything to the world. He simply communicated his achievements to his closest disciples in order to teach them. However, I do have to admit that I am more willing to believe in the achievements of A. Mun because he also developed very strong psychic abilities along the same lines as what I have developed through my practice- except his abilities were stronger and more focused. > > I believe the discussion on A. Mun's achievements and characters > should be more productive, since we will be looking for facts and it is > impersonal. Do you agree? Sure. Have you read the biography? Really, I cannot summarize the entire biography for you. > > > Kindest regards, > > > Tep > > =============== Metta, James 42817 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:30am Subject: [dsg] Re: Test Your Knowledge .../ Robertk's Finding about A. Mun --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Sorry, James! :-( > > With metta, > Howard Thanks Howard. Very kind of you. Metta, James 42818 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Comments on the Sabba Sutta Oops - a typo which may mislead:-( --- sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Larry & Agrios, > Finally, the note you refer to in CMA, p287 is correct. Here he states: > ‘the mental-object base’ (i.e dhammarammana) comprises the fifty-two>> >mental factors, the sixteen kinds of subtle matter, and Nibbana’. .... *that should read 'the mental-object base' (i.e. dhammayatana)* Sarah ====== 42819 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 5:02am Subject: [dsg] Re: Test Your Knowledge .../ Robertk's Finding about A. Mun Hi Sarah, Well, my computer is still not fixed and I am once again in the Internet cafe. It is hot, dark, crowded with Egyptian kids (some who need to bathe), and filled with cigarette smoke. What I endure for dhamma discussions! ;-)) . --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > Hi James (& Connie), > > Firstly I'm sorry to hear about the little kitten – I know you will have > tried your best to give it a good home. (Maybe they are taken away from > their mother too young? – I remember how small Simon looked). Thanks. This kitten seemed to have an intestinal problem. He threw up about five times before he finally died. It seems I got him that way. This is a very dirty country and they don't have much respect or appreciation for animals. Very backwards. I believe it was Ghandi who said that a country can be evaluated by the way its animals are treated. Egypt gets a big 'F' in that category. I have decided not to get another kitten. I can't go through that turmoil again. :-( > > Now down to business – just picking out a couple of points from your > posts, probably against my better judgment:-). > > --- buddhatrue wrote: > >J: Sarah, I will give you three guesses as to how I value the opinions > > of Buddhaghosa!! (But I'm sure you'll get it in one guesss) ;-)) > … > S: Yes, I'm sure I got that one right. No problem this end. > … > >J: Secondly, I greatly doubt the authenticity of the Cullavagga and > > don't believe the Buddha gave any such prediction in the first > > place. > …. > S: So you don't accept it as an integral part of the Vinaya Pitaka (vol 5 > of the PTS translation of the `Book of Discipline')or you don't accept the > authenticity of the entire Vinaya Pitaka. I don't accept that part of the Vinaya Pitaka. There are several inconsistencies. Please refer to the article I linked to you before. You don't accept the comments > and accounts attributed to the Buddha here? No problem again, though I'm > surprised this time. You won't be surprised if you read that article. The author quotes several inconsistencies and explains them in detail. I believe that there are about 15 significant inconsistences he details. I don't have the original so I can't say much. > > There's a wealth of detail, including the section devoted to bhikkhunis > which starts with the Buddha's important statement that women are capable > of attaining arahantship before the 8 rules are laid down. > > >J: Honestly, the issue of women in Buddhism is one that bothers > > me because the texts portray the Buddha as a blatant sexist and, in > > my heart of hearts, I don't believe that he was. > <...> > … > S: Yes, you'll just have to post any short extracts you'd like me to look > at. No need to say that I disagree with your conclusion about the > portrayal, but you're opening up another can of worms here. I won't really get into it. I don't care to convince you of anything regarding that. It is minor. > …. > Post #2 > … > > > S: I have an opinion on the point about cittas and paranibbana. If > > anyone > > > suggests they can communicate with the cittas of the Buddha after > > his > > > paranibbana, I think it's wrong. > > > >J: There. Now,that wasn't so hard was it? So,in other words, you > > believe that A. Mun was either crazy or a liar <…> > … > S: No, that isn't what I said or think and wouldn't dream of suggesting > the same with regard to your comments on the Cullavagga, for example. Well Sarah, you can't have your cake and eat it too. > … > > J:Maybe you should see the post by Cosmique. We are not really > > talking about the khandas subject to clinging, we are talking about > > the consciousness which has been freed from clinging. Nibanna isn't > > anicca, dukkha, or anatta. > … > S: I think Cosmique made some good points, but we should be quite clear > that Nibbana isn't consciousness of any kind. First, that isn't what we are saying. Second, you don't know what Nibbana is- unless you are enlightened and have failed to inform anyone. I bet you couldn't even tell me what consciousness *is*. It is just a word to the unenlightened. > > "Just as nibbana is nowhere (to be found) amidst conditioned (sa'nkhata) > things, since it has as its own nature that which is antithetical to all > formations (sa'nkhata), so are all conditioned things (not to be found) > therein either, for the collection of things conditioned and unconditioned > is (a thing) not witnessed. > <…> > "that which is the unconditioned element, which has as its own nature that > which is the antithesis of all conditioned things, such as earth and so > forth, is nibbana, for which same reason he (next) says "There too, monks, > do not speak either of coming" (and so on) (Udana comy, Patal Villagers > chapter, #1 Nibbana) > * > I know you'll reject the quote, but I give it for others who may like > it:-). Yeah, it seems a little overly simplistic and dualistic in thinking. > … > >J: Again, the texts don't cover everything. The Buddha clearly said as > > much with his 'leaves in the hand compared to the leaves in the > > forest' metaphor (I'm sure you know it). > … > S: I know this is conveniently quoted from time to time;-). Hmmm, that's a rather patronizing thing to say. The Buddha gave that sutta for a reason: he wanted his monks to know that they would experience things that he hadn't taught them directly. It is an important aspect to always keep in mind. Reading the suttas isn't the whole of the practice, or the whole of experience. > …. > > > >J: <…>Life and > > experience > > > > are a lot more than what is written in the suttas. > > > … > > > S: no comment > > > >J: Why no comment? This is the main point of this conversation! Can > > there be a realm of experience to the enlightened which isn't > > described in the texts? > … > S: I smiled because you reject the Abhidhamma and commentaries when they > don't appear to accord with your experience. Now it seems that you may be > doing the same with the Vinaya and suttas, but I may misunderstand you. You smiled? What, you like to smile when you think about how ignorant you think I am? Well, that isn't very nice. Second, I don't reject the Abhidhamma anymore, I reject the way Nina teaches the Abhidhamma. As far as the commentary, some I agree with some I don't. Just depends. You mean I'm supposed to blindly believe everything written in order for you to give me respect rather than condescending smiles? (Sorry for the rough language, but I want you to be mindful about your attitude. It seems to be very condescending.) I > agree that what we read needs to be checked out and understood rather than > blindly followed. I believe the truths are in the suttas but we are blind > most the time to these truths. This is oxymoronic. > …. > >>S:I'd > > > be happy to discuss any points of dhamma. I think this is more > > useful than > > > `A.Mun study', `K.Sujin study' or even `James' or `Sarah' study;-). > > > > J: Huh? I don't understand what you are implying. If I post any short > > extracts it would be a dhamma and an A. Mun study. I don't see how > > you can separate them. > … > S: It's an interesting side question. > > Connie quoted from a book of Nina's: > > "The Buddha explained to his disciples that there should be neither > apporoval nor disapproval of persons, but that they should simply teach > Dhamma. In that way people will know what is real". > > When we're engaged in people study,usually is it kusala or akusala? Does > it lead to more or less detachment and awareness of dhammas? Does it lead > to more or less detachment from the idea of people and selves? > > You don't need to answer. I know what my answers are How can you know what your answers are when the answers would depend on the situation? Maybe you have generalized ideas which are generalized answers. and though I see no > problem in discussing ideas or views that anyone expresses or has > expressed, I don't see it as being very useful to discuss the people > themselves. I mentioned this to a friend on our last trip – if it isn't > dhamma study,I think it just leads to expectations and disappointments. > After all, the Dhamma is not A.Mun's, K.Sujin's, yours or mine. > > I'd be v.glad if Connie would add more in her own way. > > Funny thing, James – it's never easy writing to you, but I always learn > something when I do, so I appreciate your posts `with love';-). Gosh, I > miss Phil's posts already . > > Metta, > > Sarah > p.s hope you get your computer fixed. Thanks, I hope so too. Metta, James > ======= 42820 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 5:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Descriptive training from The Buddha, support for my "experiments" Hi, Hugo >Anyway, if at least this sutta is prescribing and not describing, then >we can stop categorically saying that the Buddha only described and >not prescribed, right? And this is the issue I am bringing about in >this thread not any of the other questions you asked. > > Well actually, the prescriptive vs. descriptive issue is another issue again, but I wouldn't advise getting into that one now if you're trying to wind up the thread ;-)). >In other words, the issue is if The Buddha encouraged people to do >some specific things or if he was just describing. And if one of this >specific things was to "check" your behavior and adjust it constantly. > > Yes, I think the issue we were discussing was the significance of the references in the texts to training oneself and in particular whether they are to be read as setting our specific things to be done. Looking at the sutta itself at the link you gave, I see that the passage quoted was spoken by the Buddha in response to 2 different questions. The first question was: "Seeing in what way is a monk unbound, clinging to nothing in the world?" and the answer given includes the following: "He should put an entire stop to the root of complication-classifications: 'I am the thinker.' He should train, always mindful, to subdue any craving inside him. Whatever truth he may know, within or without, he shouldn't get entrenched in connection with it, for that isn't called Unbinding by the good. He shouldn't, because of it, think himself better, lower, or equal..." The second question was: "Now tell us, sir, the practice: the code of discipline & concentration." and it was in answer to this second question that the rules of conduct ('code of discipline') were mentioned. So, as far as this particular sutta is concerned, I'd have to say it doesn't really support the idea of specific 'actions to be' done as part of the development of insight. I think you can see why I say that, but I'd be happy to elaborate further if you'd like. Sorry that I couldn't be more agreeable ;-)) Jon 42821 From: Hugo Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 7:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddha said: That's how .......Hugo Hello Charles, On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 04:56:59 +0100, Charles DaCosta wrote: > Good points, but then it is better not to think of it as an illusion because it is real, a cold slap in the face will prove it. The illusion is permanence and the thought of being in control/ownership. I understand it that way, you phrased it better than me. Thanks! -- Hugo 42822 From: Hugo Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 7:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Descriptive training from The Buddha, support for my "experiments" Hello Jon, On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:16:31 +0800, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Well actually, the prescriptive vs. descriptive issue is another issue > again, but I wouldn't advise getting into that one now if you're trying > to wind up the thread ;-)). Good idea. I will bring it back later, in my next "comeback", now I am really looking for a break. :-) > So, as far as this particular sutta is concerned, I'd have to say it > doesn't really support the idea of specific 'actions to be' done as part > of the development of insight. I think you can see why I say that, but > I'd be happy to elaborate further if you'd like. Yes, I understand why you say that, and I agree with you as long as we talk strictly about "development of insight", I still think that the prescriptions are suggesting or encouraging methods, techniques or ways to support the conditions that will make the development of insight eaiser. But, let's put this in a pause and talk about later, ok? > Sorry that I couldn't be more agreeable ;-)) :-) I am not looking for you to agree with me, I am trying to learn from you. Thanks again for your replies, -- Hugo 42823 From: Hugo Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 7:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Realization: Sitting for My Final Exam Hello Maya, On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 10:27:12 -0600, Illusion wrote: > > "In the school's examination hall, I was poring over the last paragraph of my essay paper. There is half an hour to go, before we have to lay our pens down. The essay is finished. But as usual, I know it can be improved. These 30 minutes, however, feel like all the time in the world... much more than needed for me to brush up this essay. I lean back and relax for a while. [...] >going to make it... No, I might not... Maybe I can! 4 minutes to go... 3, 2, 1... The bell rings. Time's up." > It's not fair, you didn't tell us if the essay ended up being good or bad!!! -- Hugo 42824 From: Hugo Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 7:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Tsunami Experience from a Buddhist Perspective Hello RobM, On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 20:27:37 -0000, robmoult wrote: > I will be introducing a twist into my Sunday morning Abhidhamma > class. During the first Sunday of each month, there will not be a > formal Abhidhamma lesson but rather a discussion of various topics > (selected the previous week). Here is one of next week's topics; I > would like to collect feedback / impressions from the group. > > The following article was written by U. Mapa and appeared in the > 31st January issue of "The Island" (A Sri Lankan Newspaper). I liked the article, specially the emphasis on not making a lot of fuss about whether the images of The Buddha were damaged or not, it think it is important to re-inforce that, otherwise not far in the future we will start reading about images of Buddha appearing here and there, or images of The Buddha crying, etc. Greetings -- Hugo 42825 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 7:32am Subject: Dhamma Thread (272) Dear Dhamma Friends, Still there are some reduction of cittas in beings who are also in human realm. In the previous post mostly there will be 45 states of mind in most people. There are 9 possible states of consciousness or 9 cittas that can serve as rebirth-consciousness and also as life-continuing- consciousness in human beings. These 9 cittas are 8 mahavipaka cittas for most people and one citta with ahetuka vipaka which serves as rebirth-consciousness for people with congenital defect like deafness, blindness etc. So far different cittas in human realm have been discussed. Now let us see those cittas in 4 woeful planes of existence. These 4 realms are bad destinations and there is little chance to do meritorious deeds there in those four realms because they themselves have to struggle to escape from sufferings of the worst while it is not possible for them to escape. As soon as one descends in one of these four realms there arises the very first consciousness called rebirth-consciousness or patisandhi citta. This citta is unique and no other citta can do the job of this citta. The citta here is called 'upekkha saha gatam ahetuka akusala vipaka santirana citta'. It has a feeling, which is indifferent. That is it is not happy, not angry, not pleasant and not unpleasant. Ahetuka means root-less. This citta does not have any root-dhamma such as alobha or non-attachment, adosa or non-aversion, amoha or panna or wisdom, lobha or attachment, dosa or aversion, and moha or ignorance. This citta is resulted from unwholesome deeds. So it is called akusala vipaka. As it can do the job of investigation, it is known as santirana citta. This is the very first citta when a being is born at one of 4 woeful planes of existence. This is followed by the first bhavanga citta or 1st life-continuing consciousness, which is essentially almost the same as that rebirth-consciousness. But as it does the job of continuation of life, it is called life-continuing consciousness. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts on Dhamma Thread. 42826 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 7:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] change and decay Hi TG, op 27-02-2005 21:08 schreef TGrand458@a... op TGrand458@a...: > I view impermanence as more of a continuous "transformation" rather than some > type of digital "on/off" activity. > > I think the Buddha demonstrates the "transformation" idea as he describes -- > arising, persisting while changing, and ceasing. He also talks about the Four > Great Elements as -- of the nature to be worn away or rubbed away in > relation to impermanence. N: You are right, there is changeability, decay, jaara, before a dhamma falls away. However, this changing or decay is much faster than we could ever imagine. The four Great Elements are worn away or rubbed away, I think that this is figurative language used to clarify the truth of impermanence. We just had this subject on the Pali list. Are you on this list? I could repost some of it. N: PTS transl: Gradual Sayings, Book of the Threes (III, 5, §47) Conditioned (sankhata): < Monks, there are three condition-marks of that which is conditioned. What three? Its genesis (upada) is apparent, its passing away (vaya) is apparent, its changeability while it persists (jaraa) is apparent....> The Co. elaborates that of what is conditioned (sankhata), upada (genesis) appears when it arises, jaraa (decay) appears when it persists and vaya when it falls away. N: Co. adds: changeability. . Thus here we see the three submoments of citta. > >> arising or origination (upacaya) >> continuity or development (santati) >> decay or ageing (jaraaa) >> falling away or impermanence (aniccataa) Here are some sources and this is from the article I translated from Thai. It only concerns ruupa. The duration of ruupa compared to the duration of citta: ruupa lasts as long as seventeen moments of citta, or, when counting the three submoments of citta, fiftyone moments of citta. End quote. Thus, you see that also in the Atthasalini (as in the Suttas) there is an explanation in a more general sense or conventional sense. We have to distinguish this from the explanation in the ultimate sense. By the latter we can understand that the moments of change or decay pass extremely quickly. Nina. 42827 From: Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:54am Subject: Two Alternative Perspectives on Dhammas Hi, all - I see the following as two possible understandings of dhammas, each of which seems consistent with the Dhamma. (I omit any strictly materialist perspective from consideration here.) 1) The Mixed View. All dhammas are either namas or rupas, and rupas, in and of themselves, are not objects of consciousness, though they often can be experienced. Namas are operations that in one way or another, know objects. Vi~n~nana knows the mere presence of a dhamma, whether nama or rupa. Sa~n~na recognizes a dhamma. Vedana knows it as pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral in affective feel. The operations called fabrications are varied, and know dhammas in a variety of other ways. Among the sankharas are the very important ones of sense impression, which are events of vi~n~nana contacting a nama or rupa via an appropriate sense door, and are what some call "sensations". An act of contact amounts to the occurrence of sensation - and it is nothing more or less than sense impression/phassa. 2) The Phenomenalist View. All dhammas are either namas or rupas, and rupas never occur except as objects of consciousness. They are, in fact, nothing but objects of consciousness that have no cognitive function of their own, whereas namas are characterized as being cognitive operations. Rupas are, from this perspective, exactly sensations. Vi~n~nana is mere awareness of the presence of a nama or rupa. Sa~n~na and vedana are just as in the mixed view. Sankharas are the same as in the mixed view, except that phassa is the mere co-arising of sense object, sense door, and sense consciousness. (Not sensation, because rupa is already that in this scheme.) Whichever view one adopts, all dhammas are impermanent, unsatisfying, and conditioned and impersonal. What is important is not which view one prefers [and I am currently seeing more to the "mixed view" than I previously did], but the letting go of any and all dhammas and concepts, the relinquishement, the giving up, the move in to freedom from clinging to anything whatsoever. 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) 42828 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:39am Subject: Re: Two Alternative Perspectives on Dhammas Dear Howard, A good presentation. Howard wrote: Hi, all - I see the following as two possible understandings of dhammas, each of which seems consistent with the Dhamma. (I omit any strictly materialist perspective from consideration here.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: After introduction you started to present the first view called 'The Mixed View. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: 1) The Mixed View. All dhammas are either namas or rupas, ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I agree. So am I one who holds the mixed view? Or is it still too early to tell me? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: and rupas, in and of themselves, are not objects of consciousness, though they often can be experienced. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: If I am wrong let me know. Here I understand your message as 'rupas are not the things that can be conscious' and 'but they can be experienced by nama'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Namas are operations that in one way or another, know objects. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Again I agree. So am I the one who holds the mixed view? Or is it too early to tell me at this stage? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Vi~n~nana knows the mere presence of a dhamma, whether nama or rupa. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I think you finished with rupa.kkhandha or material aggregates and now move to vinnana.kkhandha or consciousness aggregates. Again, I agree that vinnana knows the mere presence of a dhamma. This known dhamma maybe a nama or equally rupa. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Sa~n~na recognizes a dhamma. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: You did rupa.kkhandha, vinnana.kkhandha and now move to sanna.kkhandha or perception aggregates. Again I agree sanna cognizes a dhamma. And this dhamma may be a nama, or a rupa or others. Here I add extra things. Do you agree to add to your presented 'The Mixed View' with this third 'others'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Vedana knows it as pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral in affective feel. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Rupa, vinnana, sanna and now you move to vedana.kkhandha or feeling aggregate. Again I agree. Am I the one who holds the mixed view? Or is it too early to say? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: The operations called fabrications are varied, and know dhammas in a variety of other ways. Among the sankharas are the very important ones of sense impression, which are events of vi~n~nana contacting a nama or rupa via an appropriate sense door, and are what some call "sensations". An act of contact amounts to the occurrence of sensation - and it is nothing more or less than sense impression/phassa. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: After 4 khandhas you now move to 5th khandha or aggregate. It is sankhara.kkhandha or formation aggregate or fabrication aggregate. But you just revealed only 'phassa'. Let me know if I miss something. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard presented the 2nd view. 2) The Phenomenalist View. All dhammas are either namas or rupas, ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I agree. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard view 2: and rupas never occur except as objects of consciousness. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Here I do not agree. So am I not a phenomenalist? Or is it too early to say? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard's view 2 or 2nd view: They are, in fact, nothing but objects of consciousness that have no cognitive function of their own, ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Partly true. But they may well not be objetcs of consciousness. As once someone discussed at JourneyToNibbana there are unsmelled smell. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard view 2 continued: whereas namas are characterized as being cognitive operations. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Again I agree. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Rupas are, from this perspective, exactly sensations. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Here I think you are just talking 7 gocara rupas only. Gocara means 'the cause for object' and it serves as object. 7 gocara rupas are 1. colour of different brightness 2. sound 3. smell 4. taste 5. hardness-softness-consistency-solidity 6. warmthness-coldness-temperature 7. supportiveness-compressiveness-repressiveness There are more rupas other than these 7 gocara rupas. If you assume these 7 are only rupas then they are exactly 'sensations'. But when other rupas are inclusive then there are non-sensational rupas as well. But again you may argue with mind-sensation or mind-object or dhamma-arammana. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard continued 2nd view of phenomenalist: Vi~n~nana is mere awareness of the presence of a nama or rupa. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Agree. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Sa~n~na and vedana are just as in the mixed view. Sankharas are the same as in the mixed view, except that phassa is the mere co-arising of sense object, sense door, and sense consciousness. (Not sensation, because rupa is already that in this scheme.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: It is sure that phassa or contact is not kama sansation or physical sensation. But as I told you above if mind-sense is inclusive then phassa may well be a mind-sensation. But this may not make sense. 7 gocara rupas are sensation. Dead right. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Whichever view one adopts, all dhammas are impermanent, unsatisfying, and conditioned and impersonal. What is important is not which view one prefers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I agree. Let us drop any view off. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: [and I am currently seeing more to the "mixed view" than I previously did], ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: So you were a phenomenalist before and now becoming fainting and fainting in the side of phenomenalistic view? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: but the letting go of any and all dhammas and concepts, the relinquishement, the giving up, the move in to freedom from clinging to anything whatsoever. With metta, Howard ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu! I am going to post a report like you did at triplegem. It is a report of meditative experience. There I will include dropping off of clining. With much respect, Htoo Naing 42829 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:54am Subject: Dhamma Thread (273) Dear Dhamma Friends, When in one of 4 woeful planes of existence or 4 apaya bhumi there are limitations in possibilities of arising of different cittas in those four realms. There 89 cittas when lokuttara cittas arise without jhana power and 121 cittas when lokuttara cittas arise with jhana power. For clarity 89 cittas will be based in discussion of 'cittas and bhumis' or 'consciousness and planes of existence'. A being who is born at one of 4 woeful planes of existence starts with arising of rebirth-consciousness or patisandhi citta and he or she will end with dying-consciousness or cuti citta. In between these 2 states of mind there are many many countless states of mind. They may be life-continuing consciousness or bhavanga cittas or alternatively there may be procession of consciousness or vithi cittas. When not in vithi vara or when not in procession of consciousness a being in one of 4 woeful realms may be one of 3 states of mind. First is patisandhi citta or rebirth consciousness, second is bhavanga citta or life-continuing consciousness and the third is cuti citta or life-ending consciousness or dying-consciousness. For all beings in general there are 19 states of consciousness called 19 patisandhi cittas. These 19 cittas can also do the job of life- continuation and the job of life-ending. These 19 states of consciousness or 19 cittas are 1. 1 upekkha saha gatam ahetuka akusala vipaka santirana citta 2. 1 upekkha saha gatam ahetuka kusala vipaka santirana citta 3. 8 sahetuka kama-kusala vipaka cittas 4. 5 sahetuka rupa-kusala vipaka cittas 5. 4 sahetuka arupa-kusala vipaka cittas ------------ 19 vipaka cittas Please note that all these 19 cittas are vipaka cittas and they are not kusala and they are not akusala cittas. As vipaka cittas they can perform the job of linking or rebirth, the job of life-continuing and the job of life-ending. As soon as one is reborn in one of 4 woeful realm, no other cittas can arise except 'upekkha saha gatam ahetuka akusala vipaka santirana citta'. This citta is vipaka citta. This results from akusala cittas that arose when akusala were done in the past lives as kamma-patha dhamma. This citta akusala santirana citta is called apaya patisandhi or woeful rebirth. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts on Dhamma Thread. 42830 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:31am Subject: Report Dear Howard and All, I went into a state. That is I was stilling. Even though it seemed stilling I noticed that it was not at a halt. It is moving. What I noticed is that I was fully consciousness through out. At the end of the session when I looked back I remembered that there was no other thoughts apart from knowledge of what I knew at that particular period through out. I did not dissect anything. I did not compare with mental abhidhamma book. But I know that I was conscious and it was through out. At the end of the session I checked that whether I had liked it or not. But I failed to see anything related to likeness. But what I knew was that I was light. I was quite active. I was flexible and I was quick enough to run through over millions of steps to be left. With Metta, Htoo Naing 42831 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:49am Subject: Dhamma Thread (274) Dear Dhamma Friends, Once one is reborn in one of 4 woeful planes there cannot arise as many cittas as in case of human beings. In 4 woeful planes of existence, beings are reborn with 'akusala vipaka santirana citta' or 'akusala rebirth consciousness'. In these 4 realms other 18 patisandhi cittas from 19 total patisandhi cittas cannot arise. When this happen their life-continuing consciousness or bhavanga cittas will all be 'akusala vipaka santirana cittas' and when they die they will end with arising of life-ceasing consciousness or life-ending consciousness or dying consciousness. This citta is also 'akusala vipaka santirana citta' and it has all the same characters as their patisandhi citta or rebirth consciousness or linking consciousness. There will be mixtures of consciousness to physical sensations and consciousness to thinking on these physical sensations most of which will be definitely bad result of their old deeds of unwholesome origin. This means that they will be suffering physical pains and many other unagreeable other sensations which will lead them to furthering of unwholesome deeds or arising of akusala cittas further. Most cittas there will be dosa mula cittas. They will lack food and absence of food makes them angry, despair etc. Even when they obtain food their food will have bad qualities and will cause further akusala cittas in relation to that new experience of food. Some beings may have food and they may like it and they may develop lobha mula cittas there when they are having food. They will have little abstract thinking because they are always struggling to escape from sufferings of lack of food (so they will be hunting if not in hell realms). When they cannot achieve anything there arise moha mula cittas of upset mind called uddhacca citta. This citta is classified as an akusala citta. But that citta itself do not directly cause any rebirth including apaya sattas or beings of woeful realms. But upset mind add to their furthering of dosa, and lobha both of which proliferate unwholesome deeds and causing killing of other beings for their own food. Beings in these 4 woeful planes of existence will most be in akusala cittas and this will continue till they die. Because near dying they are killed by other beings and they have to end with akusala javana or unwholesome mental impulsion which again leads them to rebirth in 4 woeful planes again and again. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts on Dhamma Thread. 42832 From: Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 5:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] change and decay Hi, Nina - In a message dated 2/28/05 10:42:18 AM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@x... writes: > 5. Sacca-sankhepa, ³Outlines of Truths² (This work is ascribed to > Dhammapåla > of India, author of the Visuddhimagga Tíka, the subcommentary to the > Visuddhimagga. It is classified in Burmese bibliography, together with the > Abhidhammata Sangaha, as a group of nine ³little finger manuals² a group of > classical summaries. ) > 1. Explanation according to the method of the groups of rúpa. > If we take into account that each moment of citta can be subdivided into > three infinitesimal moments, each group, kalåpa, of rúpas lasts as long as > fiftyone sub-moments of citta. If we compare the duration of rúpa with the > duration of the fiftyone sub-moments of citta, the arising moment of rúpa, > upacaya rúpa, is reckoned as equal to the first sub-moment of citta. The > impermanence of rúpa, aniccatå rúpa, is reckoned as equal to the last > sub-moment of citta, the fiftyfirst sub-moment of citta. Continuity, santati > rúpa, and decay, jaratå rúpa, are reckoned to come in between these moments, > thus, from the second sub-moment until the fiftieth sub-moment of citta. > Each group of rúpas must have all four characteristics of rúpa. > As is stated in the ³Dhammasangani²(643), ³What is subsistence of rúpa? That > which is upacaya rúpa (integration or the arising moment of rúpa) is santati > rúpa (subsistence or continuation of rúpa) This is subsistence of rúpa². > When there is upacaya rúpa, the origination of rúpa, there must also be > santati rúpa, the continuation after the origination, because that rúpa has > not fallen away yet. > When we take into consideration the characteristics of realities, rúpa is > sankhata dhamma, conditioned dhamma, and therefore, it arises and falls > away. In between the moment of the arising of rúpa and its falling away, > there must be its continuation and decaying until the moment of its falling > away. Upacaya, the origination of rúpa and santati, its continuation, are > aspects of arising, whereas decay, jaratå, and impermanence, aniccatå, are > aspects of its falling away. > Each kalåpa, group of rúpas arises due to its own origination factor > independently of the other groups of rúpa. Therefore, each group of rúpas > must have its arising moment, upacaya. When we take into account the method > of explanation according to the groups of rúpa, it cannot be said that the > origination moment of rúpa, upacaya, occurs only at the moment of > rebirth-consciousness, and that after the rebirth-consciousness has fallen > away, the arising moment of the groups of rúpa is santati, continuation. > > ======================= Nina, as I see it, this ties rupa to cittas in a lockstep fashion. I specifically am referring to the following: "If we take into account that each moment of citta can be subdivided into three infinitesimal moments, each group, kalåpa, of rúpas lasts as long as fiftyone sub-moments of citta. If we compare the duration of rúpa with the duration of the fiftyone sub-moments of citta, the arising moment of rúpa, upacaya rúpa, is reckoned as equal to the first sub-moment of citta. The impermanence of rúpa, aniccatå rúpa, is reckoned as equal to the last sub-moment of citta, the fiftyfirst sub-moment of citta. Continuity, santati rúpa, and decay, jaratå rúpa, are reckoned to come in between these moments, thus, from the second sub-moment until the fiftieth sub-moment of citta." If I'm not mistaken, this does not allow for unobserved rupa, or at he very least it does not allow for a rupa that is not perfectly synchronized with cittas. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding the foregoing. 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) 42833 From: Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 6:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Two Alternative Perspectives on Dhammas Hi, Htoo - In a message dated 2/28/05 11:42:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, htootintnaing@y... writes: > Dear Howard, > > A good presentation. > > Howard wrote: > > Hi, all - > > I see the following as two possible understandings of > dhammas, each of which seems consistent with the Dhamma. (I omit any > strictly materialist perspective from consideration here.) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: After introduction you started to present the first view > called 'The Mixed View. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > > 1) The Mixed View. > > All dhammas are either namas or rupas, > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: I agree. So am I one who holds the mixed view? Or is it still > too early to tell me? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ Howard: Too early. ;-) ----------------------------------- > Howard: > > and rupas, in and of themselves, are not objects of consciousness, > though they often can be experienced. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > If I am wrong let me know. Here I understand your message as 'rupas > are not the things that can be conscious' and 'but they can be > experienced by nama'. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ Howard: The point here that is important, and which characterizes what I'm calling "the mixed view", is that rupas do not exist only as objects of consciousness. They exist "on their own", with some rupas observed and some unobserved. Rupas are "external" in the sense that they are more than experiential content in this view. ------------------------------------- > Howard: > > Namas are operations that in one way or another, know objects. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: Again I agree. So am I the one who holds the mixed view? Or is > it too early to tell me at this stage? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ Howard: Still too early. What determines whether you are a "mixed view" person is whether you agree with the existence of rupas that are not mere experiential content. -------------------------------------- > Howard: > > Vi~n~nana knows the mere presence of a dhamma, whether nama or rupa. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: I think you finished with rupa.kkhandha or material aggregates > and now move to vinnana.kkhandha or consciousness aggregates. > > Again, I agree that vinnana knows the mere presence of a dhamma. This > known dhamma maybe a nama or equally rupa. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ Howard: Indeed. ------------------------------------ > Howard: > > Sa~n~na recognizes a dhamma. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: You did rupa.kkhandha, vinnana.kkhandha and now move to > sanna.kkhandha or perception aggregates. Again I agree sanna cognizes > a dhamma. And this dhamma may be a nama, or a rupa or others. Here I > add extra things. Do you agree to add to your presented 'The Mixed > View' with this third 'others'. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > > Vedana knows it as pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral in affective > feel. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: Rupa, vinnana, sanna and now you move to vedana.kkhandha or > feeling aggregate. Again I agree. Am I the one who holds the mixed > view? Or is it too early to say? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- Howard: Too early. ;-)) ----------------------------- > Howard: > > The operations called fabrications are varied, and know dhammas in a > variety of other ways. Among the sankharas are the very important > ones of sense impression, which are events of vi~n~nana contacting a > nama or rupa via an appropriate sense door, and are what some > call "sensations". An act of contact amounts to the occurrence of > sensation - and it is nothing more or less than sense > impression/phassa. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: After 4 khandhas you now move to 5th khandha or aggregate. It > is sankhara.kkhandha or formation aggregate or fabrication aggregate. > But you just revealed only 'phassa'. Let me know if I miss something. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- Howard: No, you didn't miss anything. Phassa is emphasized, because in what I mean by the "mixed view" I am identifying instances of contact with or sensings, by which I mean the internal experiential correlates of external objects. So, when there is contact with hardness, that experiential event or sense impression is an "internal" hardness or sensing. The sense impression of hardness is nama, and it is an "internalization" of the rupa that is hardness. ------------------------------------ > Howard presented the 2nd view. > > 2) The Phenomenalist View. > > All dhammas are either namas or rupas, > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: I agree. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard view 2: > > and rupas never occur except as objects of consciousness. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: Here I do not agree. So am I not a phenomenalist? Or is it too > early to say? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------- Howard: Not too early! You are not a phenomenalist. You are an adherent of the mixed view, or of a variant of it. --------------------------------- > Howard's view 2 or 2nd view: > > They are, in fact, nothing but objects of consciousness that have no > cognitive function of their own, > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: Partly true. But they may well not be objetcs of consciousness. > As once someone discussed at JourneyToNibbana there are unsmelled > smell. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard view 2 continued: > > whereas namas are characterized as being cognitive operations. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: Again I agree. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > > Rupas are, from this perspective, exactly sensations. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: Here I think you are just talking 7 gocara rupas only. Gocara > means 'the cause for object' and it serves as object. 7 gocara rupas > are > > 1. colour of different brightness > 2. sound > 3. smell > 4. taste > 5. hardness-softness-consistency-solidity > 6. warmthness-coldness-temperature > 7. supportiveness-compressiveness-repressiveness > > There are more rupas other than these 7 gocara rupas. If you assume > these 7 are only rupas then they are exactly 'sensations'. But when > other rupas are inclusive then there are non-sensational rupas as > well. But again you may argue with mind-sensation or mind-object or > dhamma-arammana. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard continued 2nd view of phenomenalist: > > Vi~n~nana is mere awareness of the presence of a nama or rupa. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: Agree. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > > Sa~n~na and vedana are just as in the mixed view. Sankharas are the > same as in the mixed view, except that phassa is the mere co-arising > of sense object, sense door, and sense consciousness. (Not sensation, > because rupa is already that in this scheme.) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: It is sure that phassa or contact is not kama sansation or > physical sensation. But as I told you above if mind-sense is > inclusive then phassa may well be a mind-sensation. But this may not > make sense. 7 gocara rupas are sensation. Dead right. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > > Whichever view one adopts, all dhammas are impermanent, > unsatisfying, and conditioned and impersonal. What is important is > not which view one prefers > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: I agree. Let us drop any view off. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > > [and I am currently seeing more to the "mixed view" than I previously > did], > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: So you were a phenomenalist before and now becoming fainting > and fainting in the side of phenomenalistic view? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ Howard: I am *questioning* the phenomenalist view. I see advantages and disadvantages to each view. If views can be thought of as "parents", then I am getting dangerously close to parricide, for which "crime" I will beg for mercy on the basis of being an orphan! ;-)) ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > > but the letting go of any and all dhammas and concepts, the > relinquishement, the giving up, the move in to freedom from clinging > to anything whatsoever. > > With metta, > Howard > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu! I am going to post a report like you did at > triplegem. It is a report of meditative experience. There I will > include dropping off of clining. > > With much respect, > > Htoo Naing ====================== Thanks for your reply, Htoo. :-) 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) 42834 From: Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 6:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Report Hi, Htoo - In a message dated 2/28/05 12:45:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, htootintnaing@y... writes: > Dear Howard and All, > > I went into a state. That is I was stilling. Even though it seemed > stilling I noticed that it was not at a halt. It is moving. What I > noticed is that I was fully consciousness through out. At the end of > the session when I looked back I remembered that there was no other > thoughts apart from knowledge of what I knew at that particular > period through out. I did not dissect anything. I did not compare > with mental abhidhamma book. But I know that I was conscious and it > was through out. At the end of the session I checked that whether I > had liked it or not. But I failed to see anything related to > likeness. But what I knew was that I was light. I was quite active. I > was flexible and I was quick enough to run through over millions of > steps to be left. > > With Metta, > > Htoo Naing > ====================== Wonderful. It sounds like there was both calm and significant clarity. Was this a state you "fell into", or was it during meditation? 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) 42835 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 0:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] change and decay Hi Howard, op 28-02-2005 19:53 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > > Nina, as I see it, this ties rupa to cittas in a lockstep fashion. I > specifically am referring to the following: > "If we take into account that each moment of citta can be subdivided > into three infinitesimal moments, each group, kalåpa, of rúpas lasts as long > as fiftyone sub-moments of citta. If we compare the duration of rúpa with the > duration of the fiftyone sub-moments of citta, the arising moment of rúpa, > upacaya rúpa, is reckoned as equal to the first sub-moment of citta. The > impermanence of rúpa, aniccatå rúpa, is reckoned as equal to the last > sub-moment of > citta, the fiftyfirst sub-moment of citta. Continuity, santati rúpa, and > decay, > jaratå rúpa, are reckoned to come in between these moments, thus, from the > second sub-moment until the fiftieth sub-moment of citta." H: If I'm not mistaken, this does not allow for unobserved rupa, or at he > very least it does not allow for a rupa that is not perfectly synchronized > with cittas. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding the foregoing. N: One unit of rupa lasts as long as seventeen (or fiftyone) moments of citta, and this is by way of comparison. Rupa does not fall away as quickly as citta, but it is still extremely fast. Ven. Nyanaponika, Abhidhamma Studies, Planes of Time, p. 111. He does not count the arising moment of rupa, and speaks about sixteen: It helps us to understand a process of cittas that experience a sense object that is rupa. Visible object has arisen before it is experienced in a process of cittas and lasts long enough to be experienced by a series of cittas. Also the eyesense that is impinged on by visible object and serves as the eyedoor lasts long enough to perform its function. Thus I understand your remark about observed rupas. A rupa is cognized by cittas arising in a process. I would not call eyesense an observed rupa (you had some dialogue with Larry about it). There are also many other rupas that are not observed while you are seeing. Rupas perform functions while you digest your food, but while seeing, no motion or pressure is felt. These are unobserved rupas. All these rupas last seventeen times longer than citta. Nina. 42836 From: Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 7:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] change and decay Hi, Nina - In a message dated 2/28/05 3:27:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@x... writes: > It helps us to understand a process of cittas that experience a sense > object > that is rupa. > Visible object has arisen before it is experienced in a process of cittas > and lasts long enough to be experienced by a series of cittas. Also the > eyesense that is impinged on by visible object and serves as the eyedoor > lasts long enough to perform its function. > Thus I understand your remark about observed rupas. A rupa is cognized by > cittas arising in a process. > I would not call eyesense an observed rupa (you had some dialogue with Larry > about it). There are also many other rupas that are not observed while you > are seeing. Rupas perform functions while you digest your food, but while > seeing, no motion or pressure is felt. These are unobserved rupas. All these > rupas last seventeen times longer than citta. > Nina. > ========================= Thank you for the foregoing, Nina. I will have to consider it a bit. 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) 42837 From: Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 7:57am Subject: A Request for Explanation Hi, Nina and all DSG abhidhammikas - There is one particular topic that make the non-phenomenalist view difficult for me. This is the nature of those rupas that are called "visual form". I understand what sights are. They are visual experinces, particular types of physical consciousness content. But I cannot for the life of me build into my ontology "visual forms" that can arise unseen. Somehow this is more critical for me than rupas of other sorts. A visual form that is seen by me is never the same as a visual form seen by someone else, which ruins the notion of an objective realm of visual forms. Something strikes me very wrong about the idea of visual forms that are any different from visual experiences, i.e., sights. Without getting past this point, the phenomenalist view remains preferable to me. 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) 42838 From: Enio César Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:38am Subject: Adinava e Nekkhamma MessageFriends of Dhamma, I have been searching for texts in the Internet that deal with two specific subjects of anupubbi-katha: the drawbacks (adinava) and the renunciation (nekkhamma). Unhapply I did not find anything but the "Access to Insight" texts, with some stretches of the suttas. If someone has some study or commentary about these subjects, I would immensely like to count on the gentility to send them for me by e-mail. I am thankful to you since now! With Metta! Enio Cesar. 42839 From: Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Request for Explanation Hi Howard In a message dated 2/28/2005 12:58:34 PM Pacific Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: Hi, Nina and all DSG abhidhammikas - TG: Do abhiabhidhammist's count? ;-) There is one particular topic that make the non-phenomenalist view difficult for me. This is the nature of those rupas that are called "visual form". I understand what sights are. They are visual experinces, particular types of physical consciousness content. But I cannot for the life of me build into my ontology "visual forms" that can arise unseen. Somehow this is more critical for me than rupas of other sorts. A visual form that is seen by me is never the same as a visual form seen by someone else TG: This runs true for all experiences. Why would the "visual" make any difference? , which ruins the notion of an objective realm of visual forms. TG: What is it that is seen? What is it that really makes contact? Something strikes me very wrong about the idea of visual forms that are any different from visual experiences, i.e., sights. Without getting past this point, the phenomenalist view remains preferable to me. TG: I think that last is the understatement of the century. ;-) With metta, Howard With Contact, TG 42840 From: Charles DaCosta Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Four Great Elements as Foundation / Howard Hi Nina, I had to comment on the statement: "... other contact, other feeling. That last feeling is different from the previous one that has gone completely, together with the citta. If you think: feeling follows after contact, it seems that contact can last. But there is no time. " Present feelings effect future feeling to the extent that the contact appears to last. I like to say that the present birth of a feeling has been colored by past feelings. For this reason your feelings about an object could change. Charles ----- Original Message ----- From: Nina van Gorkom To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, 27 February, 2005 15:54 Subject: Re: [dsg] Four Great Elements as Foundation / Howard op 27-02-2005 04:58 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > I've always understood feeling to follow *after* contact, as you say. > Abhidhamma doesn't accept that, I believe, but that is my understanding of the > suttas. So it seems we agree on this. N: Suppose there is one kind of phassa accompanying citta that contacts (but not in the physical sense) visible object, this must be accompanied by feeling, since each citta is accompanied by contact and feeling. Next moment: other contact, other feeling. That last feeling is different from the previous one that has gone completely, together with the citta. If you think: feeling follows after contact, it seems that contact can last. But there is no time. Nina. 42841 From: Charles DaCosta Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddha said: That's how .......Hugo I forgot uncompounded. I am sure you could think of the rest. Charles ----- Original Message ----- From: Hugo Hello Charles, Charles wrote: Good points, but then it is better not to think of it as an illusion because it is real, a cold slap in the face will prove it. The illusion is permanence and the thought of being in control/ownership. Hugo Replied: I understand it that way, you phrased it better than me. 42842 From: Charles DaCosta Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 0:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Personlessness Teachings Not Against Precepts: (Was: fifth prec... Some like to divided the Precepts up into groups that relate to Thoughts, action, speech. I like to think of each and every precept as applying a rule to Thoughts, action, speech. A Lama asked me once: "How are your dreams." After my second marriage (almost 10 years later) I have found that even in my dreams I try to keep my marriage vows. Now I understand what the Lama meant. I should not even day dream about breaking a precept. When this is achieved the mind must be genuinely pure. Charles In Mind, there is always opportunity. ----- Original Message ----- From: kenhowardau Hi Howard, ------- KH: > "If there is no opportunity, how can you call that keeping the precepts?" > Howard: > This is a matter of speech convention. > ------- Yes, and my question is, "How is the conventional notion of precept keeping relevant to the Dhamma?" ---------------------- H: > The primary sense of "keeping the precepts" is certainly that of abstaining from wrong action when there is the possibility of doing otherwise. ----------------------- Yes, and, because the citta is kusala, there can be no wrong view at those precise moments. I don't think the same could always be said of conventional precept-keeping. ---------------------------------- H: > But there are other, related, but lesser senses. One could be said to be keeping the precepts at any moment that one is not violating them, i.e., not engaging in actions contrary to them. And one can be said to be keeping the precepts during a period of time in case one does not violate the precepts at any time during that period. ----------------------------------- So one is said to be keeping the precepts in both kusala and akusala moments - even in moments of wrong view - provided only that there is no involvement with killing or stealing etc. ---------------------------- <....> 42843 From: Charles DaCosta Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 0:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Personlessness Teachings Not Against Precepts: (Was: fifth precept question: What makes a monk and a nun? Their precepts. Are they no-longer monk and nun if the opportunity to break the precepts does not arise? Charles ----- Original Message ----- ... On the tape, there was the rhetorical question, "If there is no opportunity, how can you call that keeping the precepts?" S: In the literal sense, there cannot be any keeping at such a time as you stress. 42844 From: Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Request for Explanation Hi, TG - In a message dated 2/28/05 5:02:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > Something strikes me very wrong about the idea > of visual forms that are any different from visual experiences, i.e., > sights. > Without getting past this point, the phenomenalist view remains preferable > to > me. > TG: I think that last is the understatement of the century. ;-) > =================== Actually, it is not. In case you haven't noticed, I'm looking at the other perspective almost wishing to be persuaded, because in some respects it solves some problems for me. I always try to see what is true if possible. 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) 42845 From: Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Request for Explanation In a message dated 2/28/2005 2:17:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: Actually, it is not. In case you haven't noticed, I'm looking at the other perspective almost wishing to be persuaded, because in some respects it solves some problems for me. I always try to see what is true if possible. With metta, Howard Hi Howard True enough...just a joke. I do hope you answer the pertinent questions that I asked. They are designed to make the mind aware of the physical actuality. TG 42846 From: Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Request for Explanation Hi, TG - In a message dated 2/28/05 5:02:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > TG: What is it that is seen? What is it that really makes contact? > ------------------------------------- Howard: I presume your answer is that light makes contact with the eye, and seeing results. I, OTOH, really don't have an answer. Also, as regards why visual objects are special to me, I don't really know. Somehow the idea of a hardness arising that is then contacted by consciousness doesn't seem as odd to me as a disembodied visual form arising. I believe in sights but not in visual forms. ==================== 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) 42847 From: Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Request for Explanation In a message dated 2/28/2005 2:58:08 PM Pacific Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: Howard: I presume your answer is that light makes contact with the eye, and seeing results. I, OTOH, really don't have an answer. Also, as regards why visual objects are special to me, I don't really know. Somehow the idea of a hardness arising that is then contacted by consciousness doesn't seem as odd to me as a disembodied visual form arising. I believe in sights but not in visual forms. ==================== With metta, Howard Hi Howard You presumed correctly. I'm not sure why some Buddhist folks want to go out of the way to not accept a scientific explanation even when its as basic and simple as seeing light. After all, the Buddha did not say that -- you should be confined to understanding things as I present them. Rather, he said (within reason) -- whatever teaching helps in detaching the mind, consider that my teaching as well. Regarding Hardness... By hardness are you referring to what the Buddha called -- the Earth Element? If you are, my comment would be that -- hardness is one analysis of the earth element. I don't believe the term is meant to convey an experience of hardness...but rather just a solid formation. The proof in the pudding for seeing hardness as meant to convey experience; would be if the Suttas describe the earth element in those terms. I don't think the Suttas describe the earth element in that way at all. The Suttas describe the body as being composed of the Four Great Elements, etc. TG 42848 From: Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 0:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Request for Explanation Hi, TG - In a message dated 2/28/05 7:57:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > You presumed correctly. I'm not sure why some Buddhist folks want to go > out > of the way to not accept a scientific explanation even when its as basic and > > simple as seeing light. After all, the Buddha did not say that -- you > should > be confined to understanding things as I present them. Rather, he said > (within > reason) -- whatever teaching helps in detaching the mind, consider that my > teaching as well. ----------------------------------- Howard: I think because whenever the Buddha started getting precise, as with the 5 category khandha scheme or the 12-fold sense-door/sense-object scheme, or the 18-fold sense-door/sense-object/snese-consciousness scheme, conventional objects are left out of the discussion. -------------------------------------------- > > Regarding Hardness... By hardness are you referring to what the Buddha > called > -- the Earth Element? > -------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. -------------------------------------------- > > If you are, my comment would be that -- hardness is one analysis of the > earth > element. I don't believe the term is meant to convey an experience of > hardness...but rather just a solid formation. The proof in the pudding for > seeing > hardness as meant to convey experience; would be if the Suttas describe the > earth element in those terms. I don't think the Suttas describe the earth > element in that way at all. The Suttas describe the body as being composed > of the > Four Great Elements, etc. > -------------------------------------- Howard: Many, including Bhikkhu Bodhi I believe, give a phenomenological sense to these terms. For example, in the ATI Glossary there is found "The four physical elements or properties are earth (solidity), water (liquidity), wind (motion), and fire (heat)." Not that earth is given as solidity, not an earth substance. -------------------------------------- > > 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) 42849 From: Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 5:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Request for Explanation Hi Howard, I don't know what the abhidhamma answer is but I suspect 'phenomenalism' is a modern idea. Looking at my experience I would say concept and reality are mixed together. Obviously an unknown rupa can't be directly known, so unknown rupas can only be known conceptually. But what is direct knowledge? There is no panna without sanna and sanna seems to conceptualize. Plus sankhara cetasikas 'form' dhammas together. What is a formation if not a conceptualization? And what is the sabhava of a rupa group (kalapa)? I think 'concept and reality' is a useful idea but I'm not sure they can be separated in experience. Plus a true phenomenalist wouldn't have a question. If there is an unknown answer there may as well be an unknown rupa. Larry 42850 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 5:36pm Subject: Re: Two Alternative Perspectives on Dhammas Hello Howard, --------------- H: > I see the following as two possible understandings of dhammas, each of which seems consistent with the Dhamma. (I omit any strictly materialist perspective from consideration here.) 1) The Mixed View. > ---------------- I don't know what you are setting out to do. By "mixed view" are you referring to a mixture of Abhidhamma and phenomenalism? Are you offering us two possible alternatives to the Abhidhamma? If so, why? ---------------------------- H: > All dhammas are either namas or rupas, ----------------------------- Having read ahead, I think you believe phassa is neither nama nor rupa but an act of contact [between them]. Wouldn't that make phassa a third class of dhamma? ------------------------------------------- H: > and rupas, in and of themselves, are not objects of consciousness, though they often can be experienced. Namas are operations that in one way or another, know objects. Vi~n~nana knows the mere presence of a dhamma, -------------------------------------------- I am familiar with the explanation, "Nama (e.g., vinnana) experiences an object (e.g., a dhamma)." How does your understanding, "Vinnana knows the mere presence of a dhamma," differ from that? -------------------- H: > whether nama or rupa. -------------------- You make no mention of pannatti: I suppose that is because the "mixed view" has it as a nama. -------------------------------------------- H: > Sa~n~na recognizes a dhamma. Vedana knows it as pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral in affective feel. The operations called fabrications are varied, and know dhammas in a variety of other ways. Among the sankharas are the very important ones of sense impression, which are events of vi~n~nana contacting a nama or rupa via an appropriate sense door, and are what some call "sensations". ---------------------------------------------- Do "events of vinnana" belong in a khandha separate from vinnana, or do they replace vinnana? Would you class them with phassa? ---------------- H: > An act of contact amounts to the occurrence of sensation - and it is nothing more or less than sense impression/phassa. ---------------- Why should we reject the Abhidhamma's explanation of phassa (a cetasika)? ----------- H: > 2) The Phenomenalist View. ----------- Howard, why are you offering us these two possible understandings? There is no need for them - we have the Abhidhamma. --------------- H: > Whichever view one adopts, all dhammas are impermanent, unsatisfying, and conditioned and impersonal. What is important is not which view one prefers [and I am currently seeing more to the "mixed view" than I previously did], but the letting go of any and all dhammas and concepts, the relinquishement, the giving up, the move in to freedom from clinging to anything whatsoever. --------------- Relinquishment occurs when conditioned dhammas are directly known to have the characteristics anicca, dukkha and anatta. And, as a precursor to direct knowing, there must be a precise, authoritative explanation of those dhammas. Only one explanation can be right. For that, we need look no further than the Abhidhamma as found in all three baskets of the Pali Canon. Thanks all the same. :-) Ken H 42851 From: Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 0:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Request for Explanation Hi, Larry - In a message dated 2/28/05 8:26:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I don't know what the abhidhamma answer is but I suspect 'phenomenalism' > is a modern idea. ------------------------------------- Howard: The terminology is likely modern, but not the point of view. Vasubandhu wasn't exactly a modern guy. ------------------------------------- > Looking at my experience I would say concept and > reality are mixed together. Obviously an unknown rupa can't be directly > known, so unknown rupas can only be known conceptually. But what is > direct knowledge? There is no panna without sanna and sanna seems to > conceptualize. > --------------------------------- Howard: Well, if Abhidhamma is to be believed, there is no mindstate at all without sa~n~na. But I am not entirely sure that recognition is a matter of concept. Perhaps it always is in a worldling, perhaps not. Conceptualization falls under sankharakkhandha, but sa~n~na constitutes a khandha of its own. -------------------------------- Plus sankhara cetasikas 'form' dhammas together. What is> > a formation if not a conceptualization? And what is the sabhava of a > rupa group (kalapa)? I think 'concept and reality' is a useful idea but > I'm not sure they can be separated in experience. > > Plus a true phenomenalist wouldn't have a question. If there is an > unknown answer there may as well be an unknown rupa. > -------------------------------------- Howard: It sounds like you are saying that a "true phenomenalist" must be enlightened and omniscient! Quite an endorsement for phenomenalism, I'd say. Why it goes even further than I would! ;-)) -------------------------------------- > > 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) 42852 From: Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 0:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Request for Explanation Typo correction, TG: In a message dated 2/28/05 8:28:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: > Not that earth is given as solidity, not an earth > substance. > =================== That first 'not' is supposed to be 'note'. 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) 42853 From: Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 5:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Comments on the Sabba Sutta Hi Sarah, Thanks for the nice analysis of dhamma ayatana. I also would like to see if B. Bodhi would clarify the relevant notes in SN. I think the original discrepancy was found in "Buddhist Dictionary" where Ven. Nyanatiloka equated dhamma ayatana with dhamma arammana. Larry 42854 From: Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 0:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Request for Explanation Hi Howard In a message dated 2/28/2005 5:28:18 PM Pacific Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: Hi, TG - In a message dated 2/28/05 7:57:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > You presumed correctly. I'm not sure why some Buddhist folks want to go > out > of the way to not accept a scientific explanation even when its as basic and > > simple as seeing light. After all, the Buddha did not say that -- you > should > be confined to understanding things as I present them. Rather, he said > (within > reason) -- whatever teaching helps in detaching the mind, consider that my > teaching as well. ----------------------------------- Howard: I think because whenever the Buddha started getting precise, as with the 5 category khandha scheme or the 12-fold sense-door/sense-object scheme, or the 18-fold sense-door/sense-object/snese-consciousness scheme, conventional objects are left out of the discussion. -------------------------------------------- TG: Since I consider light a visual-object, I have no problem with it matching the 18 element scheme. > > Regarding Hardness... By hardness are you referring to what the Buddha > called > -- the Earth Element? > -------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. -------------------------------------------- > > If you are, my comment would be that -- hardness is one analysis of the > earth > element. I don't believe the term is meant to convey an experience of > hardness...but rather just a solid formation. The proof in the pudding for > seeing > hardness as meant to convey experience; would be if the Suttas describe the > earth element in those terms. I don't think the Suttas describe the earth > element in that way at all. The Suttas describe the body as being composed > of the > Four Great Elements, etc. > -------------------------------------- Howard: Many, including Bhikkhu Bodhi I believe, give a phenomenological sense to these terms. For example, in the ATI Glossary there is found "The four physical elements or properties are earth (solidity), water (liquidity), wind (motion), and fire (heat)." Not that earth is given as solidity, not an earth substance. -------------------------------------- TG: Well this is interesting. Especially since Abhidhamma considers the water element "un-feel-able." If we take that aspect of abhidhamma as conclusive in any way, that is basically a "proof" that the Four Great Elements are not meant as phenomenological from an abhidhamma point of view. I'm also not sure how 'motion' is a feeling. > > TG > > ===================== With metta, Howard TG 42855 From: connie Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 6:03pm Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge .../ Robertk's Finding about A. Mun Hi James & Sarah, I was a little reluctant to leave my other can of worms, especially since Sarah didn't say "Simon says", but now that I have, I've found some new worms to take back to the other. Was Aacariya Mun an arahant? What year was he supposed to have attained? "...in the year 1940, Chao Khun Dhammachedi traveled from Udon Thani all the way to the isolated region where Aacariya Mun lived to invite him personally, and thus gave him a chance to answer all the correspondence he had received. He told Chao Khun Dhammachedi that he had read all his letters, but he reckoned they were small and insignificant compared to the ‘big letter’ that had just arrived; so, now he was ready to reply. That said, both monks laughed heartily." Based on that, my guess is 'no', but I get the idea of 'no laughing, laughing implies lobha' from other things I've read and A. Mun seemed to have his doubts, saying "the Dhamma that the Buddha delivered directly from his heart enabled large numbers of those present to attain enlightenment every time he spoke. Now contrast that living Dhamma with the Dhamma teachings transcribed in the Paali scriptures. We can be certain that the Dhamma in the Lord Buddha’s heart was absolutely pure. But, since the Buddha’s teachings were written down only long after he and his Arahant disciples passed into total Nibbaana, who knows, it may well be that some of the transcribers’ own concepts and theories became assimilated into the texts as well, reducing the value and sacredness of those particular aspects accordingly.â€? Do you think where the suttas say Buddha smiled, he actually laughed? Can we trust anything in the Tipitaka? Was there ever really a Buddha? Can we trust A. Mun? I also wonder why A. Mun continued to smoke cigarettes and had a preference for Cock Brand. Was he sexist? "I have learned only the five kamma.t.thaana that my preceptor gave me at my ordination, which I still have with me today. They are all I need to take care of myself. They don’t make me weak like you – you’re as weak as you are educated. In fact, you are weaker than a woman with no education at all! You’re a man and a Mahaa, so why all this weakness? When you get sick, you exhibit no manly characteristics, nor any indication of the Dhamma you learned. You should take all your masculine equipment and exchange it for a woman’s, thus completing your metamorphosis. Maybe then the fever will abate a bit. Seeing that you’re a woman, the fever may be reluctant to torture you so much." Well, wrong can. I read the bio with an idea that I was reading some other article "linked to you before" that would talk about inconsistencies in the Vinaya. Shrug. Most everything else I've read says citta is conditioned. A. Mun's bio says not really. I think the saying is "you can't eat your cake and have it, too" r/t the other way around, btw. This is "the pure, unblemished citta, the true Supreme Happiness, Nibbaana" or "A citta having absolutely no impurites possesses only the cool, peaceful qualities of Dhamma." And "...one would do well to keep in mind that the unconditioned (asankhata) nature of Nibbaana naturally implies that absolutely no conditions or limitations whatsoever can be attributed to Nibbaana. To believe that, having passed away, the Buddhas and the Arahants are completely beyond any possibility of interacting with the world is to place conditions on the Unconditioned." The process A. Mun's citta went through is described as follows: I guess words mean what we want them to. Citta = Nibbaana = Dhamma = "The genuine Tathaagata is simply that purity of heart". My other worms are going around using the same words to mean different things and getting all tangled up in thinking agreement = truth. "When the body finally dies, the purified citta attains yathaadiipo ca nibbuto: just as the flame in a lamp is extinguished when all of the fuel is exhausted, so too goes the citta according to its true nature. Relative, conventional realities like the khandhas are no longer involved with the purified citta beyond that point." That sounds to me like the citta is extinguished, but I must be misreading it. I guess the non-involvement is another cake thing and the unfueled citta can still involve itself with conventional reality if it cares to, but why, after parinibbaana, would pure knowing have any desire to make housecalls and "temporarily assume a mundane form in order to make contact" or appear as a nimitta? "At the moment of passing away, they have no lingering attachments that could bind them to the round of sa.msaara – not even to the body that’s starting to decompose. Absolutely no attachment or concern for anything anywhere exist in their hearts." Why does the concern return? Assuming a form (is that ruupa?) seems to me to be an activity, but "the true citta does not exhibit any activities or manifest any conditions at all. It only knows. Those activities that arise in the citta, such as awareness of good and evil, or happiness and suffering, or praise and blame, are all conditions of the consciousness that flows out from the citta. Since it represents activities and conditions of the citta that are, by their very nature, constantly arising and ceasing, this sort of consciousness is always unstable and unreliable." I think it might be in danger of entanglement. I'm gonna put a lid on it now, connie 42856 From: Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 1:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Two Alternative Perspectives on Dhammas Hi, Ken - In a message dated 2/28/05 8:37:31 PM Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > > > Hello Howard, > > --------------- > H: >I see the following as two possible understandings of dhammas, > each of which seems consistent with the Dhamma. (I omit any strictly > materialist perspective from consideration here.) > > 1) The Mixed View. > > > ---------------- > > I don't know what you are setting out to do. By "mixed view" are > you referring to a mixture of Abhidhamma and phenomenalism? Are you > offering us two possible alternatives to the Abhidhamma? If so, why? > ------------------------------------- Howard: No. Perhaps a better name than "mixed view" is "The Independent Rupa View", which I believe is the Abhidhammic persoective and the perspective of most members of DSG. ------------------------------------ > > ---------------------------- > H: >All dhammas are either namas or rupas, > ----------------------------- > > Having read ahead, I think you believe phassa is neither nama nor > rupa but an act of contact [between them]. Wouldn't that make > phassa a third class of dhamma? > ---------------------------------------- Howard: In either view, I consider phassa to be nama, not rupa., though as a coming together of two rupas and one nama, its being so classified is a matter of majority rule, I suppose. It is, of course, a coming together. That's what the Buddha said!!! -------------------------------------- > > ------------------------------------------- > H: >and rupas, in and of themselves, are not objects of > consciousness, though they often can be experienced. Namas are > operations that in one way or another, know objects. > Vi~n~nana knows the mere presence of a dhamma, > -------------------------------------------- > > I am familiar with the explanation, "Nama (e.g., vinnana) > experiences an object (e.g., a dhamma)." How does your > understanding, "Vinnana knows the mere presence of a dhamma," differ > from that? -------------------------------------- Howard: It doesn't. The primary difference betwen the two views is the status of rupas: mind-independent or not. ------------------------------------ > > -------------------- > H: >whether nama or rupa. > -------------------- > > You make no mention of pannatti: I suppose that is because > the "mixed view" has it as a nama. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: I was only discussing realities. ---------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------------------- > H: >Sa~n~na recognizes a dhamma. Vedana knows it as pleasant, > unpleasant, or neutral in affective feel. The operations called > fabrications are varied, and know dhammas in a variety of other > ways. > > Among the sankharas are the very important ones of sense > impression, which are events of vi~n~nana contacting a nama or rupa > via an appropriate sense door, and are what some call "sensations". > ---------------------------------------------- > > Do "events of vinnana" belong in a khandha separate from vinnana, or > do they replace vinnana? Would you class them with phassa? > --------------------------------------------- Howard: You parsed my sentence wrongly. I didn't speak of "events of vi~n~nana," but of "events of vi~n~nana contacting a nama or rupa via an appropriate sense door." That whole phrase is the subject of the sentence. Vi~n~nana contacting a nama or rupa via a sense door is what phassa is. It is "the coming together of the three". It always accompanires vi~n~nana, and it is a mental concomitant. ---------------------------------------------- > > ---------------- > H: >An act of contact amounts to the occurrence of sensation - and > it is nothing more or less than sense impression/phassa. > ---------------- > > Why should we reject the Abhidhamma's explanation of phassa (a > cetasika)? > ----------------------------------- Howard: I am not rejecting it. In this first scheme, given that sensations are not rupas, it identifies them with sense impressions. You are wecome to substitute "sensings" for "sensations". BTW, this first view is not what has been "my" view. Mine has been the second, phenomenalist, view. ----------------------------------- > > ----------- > H: >2) The Phenomenalist View. > > > ----------- > --------------------------------- Howard: Well, that 2nd view was dismissed summarily! -------------------------------- > > Howard, why are you offering us these two possible understandings? > There is no need for them - we have the Abhidhamma. > -------------------------------------- Howard: I'm glad you understand the Abhidhamma and the Sutta Pitaka so well. I am in the process of attempting to come to understand them. I am not trying to replace anything. So, your beliefs are safe - don't worry. Also, BTW, you know full well that I do not believe the Abhidhamma to be the word of the Buddha, though I increasingly see that more and more of it is compatible with that teaching. -------------------------------------- > > --------------- > H: >Whichever view one adopts, all dhammas are impermanent, > unsatisfying, and conditioned and impersonal. What is important is > not which view one prefers [and I am currently seeing more to > the "mixed view" than I previously did], but the letting go of any > and all dhammas and concepts, the relinquishement, the giving up, > the move in to freedom from clinging to anything whatsoever. > --------------- > > Relinquishment occurs when conditioned dhammas are directly known to > have the characteristics anicca, dukkha and anatta. > -------------------------------------- Howard: Yes indeed! Have I implied differently? In fact. I have said the same again & again & again. --------------------------------------- And, as a > > precursor to direct knowing, there must be a precise, authoritative > explanation of those dhammas. Only one explanation can be right. For > that, we need look no further than the Abhidhamma as found in all > three baskets of the Pali Canon. Thanks all the same. :-) -------------------------------------- Howard: Ken that is not less than a little but smug! ------------------------------------- > > Ken H > > ====================== With metta, Howard P.S. I have been studying, considering, contemplating and trying to get a clearer idea of the way things are and of the Dhamma. I am engaged in a genuine search, and I have been trying to give the Abhidhamma my genuine, open-minded attention. I find responses that are merely opinionated, negatively critical, and argumentative, and clearly not motivated by kindness or a wish to help a fellow Buddhist see his way to be worth far, far less than no responses at all. If I seem to you to be angry, then your attention is good and your vision clear. /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) 42857 From: Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 1:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Request for Explanation Hi, TG - In a message dated 2/28/05 8:52:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > TG: Well this is interesting. Especially since Abhidhamma considers the > water element "un-feel-able." If we take that aspect of abhidhamma as > conclusive > in any way, that is basically a "proof" that the Four Great Elements are not > > meant as phenomenological from an abhidhamma point of view. I'm also not > sure > how 'motion' is a feeling. > =========================== The water element is said to be knowable through the mind door. But that is still knowable. I believe that motion can be felt, and it also can be known conceptually as change of position. These are not the same sense of "motion". The motion that is felt is the 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) 42858 From: Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 1:27pm Subject: Getting Burned Out Hi, all - Perhaps it is a matter of just too much posting, perhaps just too much thinking, perhaps just too much arguing. But I am wearying of these discussions, and I'm going to take a break for a while. I'm not finding any peace in this. I will return to a more regular meditation practice, and a more regular reading of the Buddha's teachings, from both of which I believe I can expect to gain greater peace. Probably I will start posting again in a while, but at a greatly reduced level. Until then, I will continue read your posts and I will continue to wish you all well. 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) 42859 From: Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 1:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Request for Explanation In a message dated 2/28/2005 6:21:31 PM Pacific Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: Hi, TG - In a message dated 2/28/05 8:52:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > TG: Well this is interesting. Especially since Abhidhamma considers the > water element "un-feel-able." If we take that aspect of abhidhamma as > conclusive > in any way, that is basically a "proof" that the Four Great Elements are not > > meant as phenomenological from an abhidhamma point of view. I'm also not > sure > how 'motion' is a feeling. > =========================== The water element is said to be knowable through the mind door. But that is still knowable. I believe that motion can be felt, and it also can be known conceptually as change of position. These are not the same sense of "motion". The motion that is felt is the rupa. With metta, Howard Hi Howard I have to conclude that you are concluding that something that can't be felt is a Nama...i.e., the water element...because it is knowable. Do I have that correct? If so, at this stage, it seems that you are including everything as Nama. Even a rupa that can't be felt/experienced? TG 42860 From: Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 3:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Request for Explanation Hi, TG - In a message dated 2/28/05 9:34:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > Hi Howard > > I have to conclude that you are concluding that something that can't be felt > > is a Nama...i.e., the water element...because it is knowable. Do I have > that > correct? > > If so, at this stage, it seems that you are including everything as Nama. > Even a rupa that can't be felt/experienced? > > TG > > ======================= I didn't wish to be posting, but you wrote to me, so I must reply. I did not say and do not consider that the water element is nama. It is a rupa known through the mind-door, and not by seeing, tasting, touching, or hearing. 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) 42861 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:40pm Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 133 - Applied thinking/Vitakka, Sustained thinking/Vicaara(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.8 Applied thinking(Vitakka),Sustained thinking(Vicaara)contd] *** In order to know more about vitakka, we should learn which cittas are accompanied by vitakka. We may think that vitakka accompanies only cittas arising in a mind-door process, but this is not so. Vitakka arises in sense-door processes as well as in mind-door processes. Vitakka accompanies all kåmåvacara cittas (cittas of the sense-sphere), except the dvi-pañcaviññåùas (the five pairs which are seeing, hearing, etc.). We may wonder why vitakka does not arise with the dvipañcaviññåùas. When seeing arises it performs the function of seeing, it sees visible object and it does not need vitakka in order to see. The other cittas of the eye-door process need vitakka in order to experience visible object, they do not see. The eye-door adverting-consciousness does not see, it adverts to visible object and it needs vitakka which directs it to visible object. It is the same with the other cittas of that process. As regards the other sense-door processes, the dvi-pañcaviññåùas do not need vitakka in order to experience the object, but all the other cittas of these processes have to be accompanied by vitakka. All cittas of the mind-door process are accompanied by vitakka. ***** [Ch.8 Applied thinking(Vitakka),Sustained thinking(Vicaara)to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 42862 From: Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 5:36pm Subject: Howard In a message dated 2/28/2005 8:37:33 PM Pacific Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: I didn't wish to be posting, but you wrote to me, so I must reply. I did not say and do not consider that the water element is nama. It is a rupa known through the mind-door, and not by seeing, tasting, touching, or hearing. With metta, Howard Hi Howard I didn't see your "burned out" post before I sent the last one. Hope I didn't burn you out and apologize if I did. Best wishes, peace and mindfulness be yours. Don't feel any need to respond to this one. Take care. TG 42863 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:43pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Two Alternative Perspectives on Dhammas Hi Howard, ------------------------------------- > Howard: No. Perhaps a better name than "mixed view" is "The Independent Rupa View", which I believe is the Abhidhammic persoective and the perspective of most members of DSG. ------------------------------------ Sorry, my mistake. But it was a misleading name: perhaps 'Abhidhamma view' would have been best. It did seem to me as if the Abhidhamma wasn't getting a mention, and that would have been unfortunate. ---------------------------------------- > Howard: In either view, I consider phassa to be nama, not rupa., though as a coming together of two rupas and one nama, its being so classified is a matter of majority rule, I suppose. It is, of course, a coming together. That's what the Buddha said!!! -------------------------------------- Oops, my mistake again. It was D. Nutcracker who said phassa was not a dhamma, just a coming together of consciousness, object and sense base. I assumed you were taking the same line. --------------------- KH: > > You make no mention of pannatti: I suppose that is because > the "mixed view" has it as a nama. > --------------------- > Howard: I was only discussing realities. ---------------------------------------- Oh, I see. (But I think you do regard thoughts and ideas as namas - or you used to (?).) -------------------------------- > Howard: I'm glad you understand the Abhidhamma and the Sutta Pitaka so well. -------------------------------------- Point taken - I don't understand them very well at all. --------------------------- H: > I am in the process of attempting to come to understand them. I am not trying to replace anything. So, your beliefs are safe - don't worry.Also, BTW, you know full well that I do not believe the Abhidhamma to be the word of the Buddha, though I increasingly see that more and more of it is compatible with that teaching. --------------------------- I should have kept out of it. After many years of attending Dhamma discussions, I have become a little tired of hearing people's personal views when they go against the texts. If I am intolerant, then that is another fault to add to a long list of faults. However, in amongst the akusala motives, there is also the kusala wish to help. You should know what it's like: you are not a complete stranger to immoderate language - having got exasperated with me (and my excessive-personlessness) on several occasions. -------------------------------------- > > --------------- H: > >Whichever view one adopts, all dhammas are impermanent, > unsatisfying, and conditioned and impersonal. What is important is > not which view one prefers [and I am currently seeing more to > the "mixed view" than I previously did], but the letting go of any > and all dhammas and concepts, the relinquishement, the giving up, > the move in to freedom from clinging to anything whatsoever. > --------------- > > KH: > Relinquishment occurs when conditioned dhammas are directly known to > have the characteristics anicca, dukkha and anatta. > -------------------------------------- > Howard: Yes indeed! Have I implied differently? In fact. I have said the same again & again & again. --------------------------------------- I think my comment was valid. You seemed to be saying that the view of Dhammas (mixed or phenomenalist) was immaterial provided we saw dhammas as anicca dukkha and anatta. My point (right or wrong) was that only the correct view of dhammas would do: an incorrect view would not lead to their being directly known in that way. ------------------------- > Howard: Ken that is not less than a little but smug! ------------------------------------- Sorry it sounded that way. Actually, it was my one attempt to lighten things up. I thought my tone had been a little too disapproving and so I wanted to include a bit of a joke and a smiley face. I can see now that I need a lot more practice at lightening up. :-( --------------------- H: > P.S. I have been studying, considering, contemplating and trying to get a clearer idea of the way things are and of the Dhamma. I am engaged in a genuine search, and I have been trying to give the Abhidhamma my genuine, open-minded attention. I find responses that are merely opinionated, negatively critical, and argumentative, and clearly not motivated by kindness or a wish to help a fellow Buddhist see his way to be worth far, far less than no responses at all. If I seem to you to be angry, then your attention is good and your vision clear. ------------- Noted! If I think people are going about their Dhamma studies in a less than ideal way (working on their current understanding at the expense of acquiring new understanding) should I just shut up? (Serious question.) Ken H 42864 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Adinava e Nekkhamma Hi Enio, Welcome to DSG. --- Enio César wrote: > I have been searching for texts in the Internet that deal with two > specific subjects of anupubbi-katha: the drawbacks (adinava) and the > renunciation (nekkhamma). …. I’m posting brief entries for each of them below from Nyantiloka’s dictionary: http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic_idx.html You may also like to look up other related entries in the dict. Also in 'Useful Posts’ in files section, look under Nekkhamma, Stages of insight and Gradual Training for more, I think. Please ask if you have any further questions/comments. ***** I might as well also use this post to mention that Google searches can now be done on the back-up site of the DSG archives where all past messages can be scrolled through/downloaded/searched easily: http://www.dhammastudygroup.org/ I tested it out for ‘spiral+Howard’ (my default test-run search;-)) and it works beautifully. Because the archives are saved in lots of a 1000, you are given extracts from a ‘1000 lot’, so you still need to use ctrl+F for say ‘spiral’ and then keep clicking on ‘next’for high-lighted words. I believe the archives are pretty well up-to-date. ***** Enio, why not tell us a bit more about your interest in these terms and any connections. Do you live in Italy? Hope to hear any more from you. Metta, Sarah ====== 1.ádínavánupassaná-ñána ..... 'knowledge consisting in contemplation of misery', is one of the 8 kinds of insight (vipassaná) that form the 'purification of the knowledge and vision of the path-progress (s. visuddhi, VI. 4). It is further one of the 18 chief kinds of insight (s. vipassaná). *** 2.ánupubbí-kathá ..... 'gradual instruction', progressive sermon; given by the Buddha when it was necessary to prepare first the listener's mind before speaking to him on the advanced teaching of the Four Noble Truths. The stock passage (e.g. D. 3; D 14; M. 56) runs as follows: "Then the Blessed One gave him a gradual instruction - that is to say, he spoke on liberality ('giving', dána), on moral conduct (síla) and on the heaven (sagga); he explained the peril, the vanity and the depravity of sensual pleasures, and the advantage of renunciation. When the Blessed One perceived that the listener's mind was prepared, pliant, free from obstacles, elevated and lucid; then he explained to him that exalted teaching particular to the Buddhas (buddhánam sámukkamsiká desaná), that is: • suffering, • its cause, • its ceasing, • and the path." *** 3.nekkhamma ..... 'freedom from sensual lust', renunciation. Though apparently from nir +  kram, 'to go forth (into the homeless state of a monk)', this term is in the Páli texts nevertheless used as if it were derived from káma, lust, and always as an antonym to káma. It is one of the perfections (s. páramí). N. sankappa, thought free from lust, or thought of renunciation, is one of the 3 kinds of right thought (sammá-sankappa), the 2nd link of the Noble Eightfold Path (s. magga, 2), its antonym being kámasankappa, lustful thought. ====================== 42865 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 0:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Realization: Sitting for My Final Exam Hi Maya, thanks for sharing your article - very well written! --- Illusion wrote: >Every little spate of unhappiness is a > test. And death of course, is the final exam, for this life at least. .... > "I am nothing but the constituents of the clinging aggregates that is > subject to change and unsatisfaction." ... S: Lots of good reminders, thank you. Metta, Sarah ======== 42866 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 0:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Tsunami Experience from a Buddhist Perspective Hi Rob M, --- robmoult wrote: > I will be introducing a twist into my Sunday morning Abhidhamma > class. During the first Sunday of each month, there will not be a > formal Abhidhamma lesson but rather a discussion of various topics > (selected the previous week). Here is one of next week's topics; I > would like to collect feedback / impressions from the group. > > The following article was written by U. Mapa and appeared in the > 31st January issue of "The Island" (A Sri Lankan Newspaper). > > > > "The Tsunami experience from a Buddhist perspective provides that > the law of nature is equal to all and no Divine hand can save anyone > from Samsaric suffering" ... S: I thought it was OK, but not very memorable, to be honest. Actually, I found some of the reminders which Ven Samahita and Htoo gave in these posts at the time (which you may have missed) to contain more depth, somehow. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/40254 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/40597 S: There may be some points or aspects you can pick up on. Let us know how it goes or what your own thoughts are. Metta, Sarah ====== 42867 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 0:52am Subject: [dsg] Re: Personlessness Teachings Not Against Precepts / Charles Hi Charles, -------------- C: > Some like to divide the Precepts up into groups that relate to Thoughts, action, speech. I like to think of each and every precept as applying a rule to Thoughts, action, speech. -------------- So you're a rules man - fair enough. I am certain, however, that we should see the Buddha's rules as being fundamentally different from other people's rules. Remember, he taught satipatthana and the way out of samsara: a conventional understanding of rules and precepts is neither of those things. According to the Buddhadhamma, precepts are kept at specific moments of consciousness when a virati cetasika (abstention from either wrong-speech, wrong-deed or wrong-livelihood) is present. Isn't that the kind of precept keeping we should be aware of? ---------------- C: > A Lama asked me once: "How are your dreams." After my second marriage (almost 10 years later) I have found that even in my dreams I try to keep my marriage vows. Now I understand what the Lama meant. I should not even day dream about breaking a precept. When this is achieved the mind must be genuinely pure. ---------------- Undoubtedly, a conventional training in precept keeping can have good results. However, in my experience (and I still have a long way to go), the five precepts have been kept much more readily since I learned about the transitory, conditioned, non-self nature of reality. ----------------------- C: > What makes a monk and a nun? Their precepts. Are they no-longer monk and nun if the opportunity to break the precepts does not arise? ------------------------ Here, you seem to be insisting on the conventional view of the world when others are talking about the ultimate (Abhidhamma) view of the world. I suggest you try going the other way for a while and see what you think. Regards, Ken H 42868 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 0:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddha said: That's how you should train yourselves Hi Hugo,(& Tep at the end), I’m not sure whether you were wanting anything further from me on this thread – as you say you’ve heard it all before, so I’ll just keep it brief. --- Hugo wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > > > S: No rule that is right for all. > > Good!, so you agree that it is right at least for some. … S: we read in the texts about ‘sappaya sampajanna’ (comprehension of what is suitable), but it always has to come back to this moment. A deep topic. …. > >S: In the end, whether we go forth or not, > > whether we're in the forest or the city, there are only ever the > present > > namas and rupas to be known. The 'problems' or defilements will not be > > eradicated by going forth. > > I agree, it doesn't matter what physical or mental practice we do if > we don't understand why it is being done, and what is going on. … S: Not just ‘why it is being done’ or ‘what is going on’ but being aware of namas and rupas, understanding that the world just consists of namas and rupas as we speak. See the Migajala Sutta in SN35:63 which discusses *living alone* with seeing, visible object and so on, even in a crowd. Learning to live alone without craving as one’s partner. If one lives in the forest with craving, there’s no living alone. But we agree on this. … > If we just do any special activity without understanding why (I mean > the real why), we are just doing rites and rituals. …. S: Yes, we need to know the aim for sure…..but the insight will come not from asking why we do any activity, but by developing an understanding of those dhammas which are apparent at the present moment. … > > Like my wife the other day at the supermarket showed me some > "meditation CDs" then she told me "after you explained to me what you > do at your meditation sessions, I understand you don't need them > right?", I said "right, if I needed them, I would be doing something > but not Buddhist meditation". … S: Sounds like you have an undrerstanding wife. … > This looks a little more "aligned" but there are still some rough > corners. > > How can you train in developing satipatthana without involving a self? … S: You can’t. I wrote about ‘trainging as the development of satipatthana’. Sati and Panna (and associated states)train. Wise reflection now is a training, but no self to do it. … > > Why do you read Dhamma books and interact in this mailing list? … S: Conditions – such as reflecting on the benefit, seeing the value, understanding (however conceptual) that the development of satipatthana is all that really matters in life, sharing what I feel I’ve been fortunate to hear with others and so on. Attachment too, I should say – I enjoy it. … > Do you have a self? Do you cling to it? … S: No ‘me’ to have no anthing. No ‘me’ to cling. Is there clinging? PLENTY!! Metta, Sarah p.s Tep, I liked your answers too. (I tried not to look at them as I replied.). I read the article you posted #42590, but I had trouble with the terminology such as “the citta is Buddha; the citta is Dhamma, a special state of not coming or going with complete purity etc’. Later ‘All senses, which are illusions, and even the citta itself, are all conventional truths’. Hmm- I’m afraid I gave up at a certain point – like Jon mentioned in another thread, I find your own style much clearer;-). Perhaps there are some translation problems. Happy to discuss further if you wish. =========== 42869 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 1:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Eight Conditions for the Arising of Panna/ Vera Sutta Hi Tep, --- Tep Sastri wrote: > Hi Sarah - > > I am glad that you talked about lay-person and Stream-entry. There > are several suttas about Sotapatti, for example you may have done > some research at AccesstoInsight already: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-subject.html#s … S: Please bring any you have in mind to our attention. To be honest, I’ve never browsed on ati as I’m just used to pulling out hard copy texts. All the suttas you've raised so far are good ones for discussion. … > In my opinion, the one sutta that is most specific about what lay- > persons should do in order to become Sotapanna, is AN X.92. > > "When, for a disciple of the noble ones, five forms of fear & animosity > are stilled; when he is endowed with the four factors of stream entry; > and when, through discernment, he has rightly seen & rightly ferreted > out the noble method, then if he wants he may state about himself: 'Hell > > is ended; animal wombs are ended; the state of the hungry shades is > ended; states of deprivation, destitution, the bad bourns are ended! I > am a stream-winner, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, > headed for self-awakening!' " [ AN X.92 : Vera Sutta.] > > What is your thought? …. S: I don’t quite see how you read it as specifically showing ‘what lay- persons should do in order to become Sotapanna’. Surely it is describing the benefits or fruit of being a sotapanna such as the stilling of fear (on account of having no self-view),four factors of stream entry starting with association with the wise (usually sappurisa sa.msevo)- associating or resorting to the right views of the ariyans, hearing true dhamma (saddhammasavana.m), wise attention (yoniso manasikaaro), practice in accordance with Dhamma (dhammaanudhammapa.tipatti). Only the sotapanna is endowed with these factors without breach or wavering. Of course, they have to be developed and perhaps this is your point, but again, I’m not sure this is by ‘doing’ so much as developing understanding so that the factors arise naturally. For example, hearing true dhamma has to refer to wisdom when one hears or reads or considers Dhamma, not just turning on a tape or reading a text without any wise reflection and attention. Then, through discernment he has rightly seen the noble method etc- i.e experienced nibbana, an ariyan, a sekkha (trainer), with no more rebirth in the woeful states. Glad to hear anything I’ve missed and any more of your own comments. Actually each phrase is very deep in meaning, I think. I’ll be glad if you post any more of these suttas. Metta, Sarah p.s You may also like to look at posts under 'sotapanna' and 'sappurisa' in U.P. ===== 42870 From: gazita2002 Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 3:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddha said: That's how .......Hugo Dear Hugo, I apologise if I upset you and spoke/wrote out of turn. Maybe i did run with something Sarah said, however what I wrote came from my understanding of the way things are, not from anyone else. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Hugo wrote: > Hello Azita, > .....snip..... > Here is the key part of the position I am trying to explain. > > The fact that you cling to that non-existent self means that > practically for you that self exists, why? because your actions are > based on its "existence". Azita: ummmmm, I would say my actions are based on the wrong view and the clinging to its existence, and maybe you would say 'tilting windmills' btw I've never heard that expression,but I think I understand what you mean. So, yes in Truth there is no self, but > because you believe that there is one, we can say that "you have a > self". Azita: no, even if I believe it, there is in reality no self, and for me its better to keep reminding myself of that. > So it is important to define if the Buddha said "there is no self", or > if he said "all things are no-self". > > Or, if he said "there is no self", or if he said that "there is no > permanent self". > > It is a subtle difference but depending on your point of view is the > way you will "attack the problem" of the no-self. Azita: right now, I can't answer these, I'll have to think about it. > > Patience, courage and good cheer, - without a self - > > Were you clinging to a self when you encouraged me to do that? Azita: most likely yes, as there are still lots of conditions for the arising of wrong view. > How do you expect me to have patience, courage and good cheer without > a self if I am not a Sottapanna? > > Now if I am a Sottapanna, I think I don't need to explicitely have > patience, courage and good cheer, isn't it? Azita: why not? > > This is what I say that it is contradictory. > > Doesn't it sound better to say that the "Hugo self" is the one that > should be patient, should have courage and good cheer? > > BTW, I think we are just tilting windmills, we both seem to understand > the real issues but we are looking at them from different point of > views, one little difference I perceive (but I am not sure) is that > you think I am wrong and you are right, while I think we both are > right just different point of view. Azita: it wasn't meant to be that way, [me right, you wrong], and maybe I wrote with some conceit :-0 which you sensed. > > Greetings, > -- > Hugo Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. 42871 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 4:40am Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge .../ Robertk's Finding about A. Mun Hi Connie, Thanks for your interesting post. I am truly grateful that at least you have read the biography in order to form your opinions. That makes the conversation much more productive. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, connie wrote: > Hi James & Sarah, > > I was a little reluctant to leave my other can of worms, especially since > Sarah didn't say "Simon says", but now that I have, I've found some new > worms to take back to the other. > > Was Aacariya Mun an arahant? What year was he supposed to have attained? > > "...in the year 1940, Chao Khun Dhammachedi traveled from Udon Thani all > the way to the isolated region where Aacariya Mun lived to invite him > personally, and thus gave him a chance to answer all the correspondence he > had received. He told Chao Khun Dhammachedi that he had read all his > letters, but he reckoned they were small and insignificant compared to the > ‘big letter’ that had just arrived; so, now he was ready to reply. That > said, both monks laughed heartily." > > Based on that, my guess is 'no', but I get the idea of 'no laughing, > laughing implies lobha' from other things I've read Well, A. Mun was just supposed to be enlightened, he wasn't a Buddha; therefore I don't think the same criterias of the Buddha should be applied to him. I don't know about the whole 'laughing equals lobha' business. People laugh for different reasons. The Buddha smiled on occassion, perhaps arahants can laugh on occassion. Also, this is a third person description of the event and it may not have transpired in that fashion. and A. Mun seemed to > have his doubts, saying "the Dhamma that the Buddha delivered directly > from his heart enabled large numbers of those present to attain > enlightenment every time he spoke. Now contrast that living Dhamma with > the Dhamma teachings transcribed in the Paali scriptures. We can be > certain that the Dhamma in the Lord Buddha’s heart was absolutely pure. > But, since the Buddha’s teachings were written down only long after he and > his Arahant disciples passed into total Nibbaana, who knows, it may well > be that some of the transcribers’ own concepts and theories became > assimilated into the texts as well, reducing the value and sacredness of > those particular aspects accordingly.â€? > > Do you think where the suttas say Buddha smiled, he actually laughed? Can > we trust anything in the Tipitaka? Was there ever really a Buddha? Can > we trust A. Mun? I think it is okay to ask all of these questions, but I am not sure if you are being rhetorical or not. > > I also wonder why A. Mun continued to smoke cigarettes and had a > preference for Cock Brand. Honestly, this one was really strange to me also. But then I read that he only smoked four cigarettes a day, and then only if they had been offered to him. I have a personal bias against cigarette smoking so I had a problem with this when I read it (more than the communication with past Buddhas) but then I considered what it was I had a problem with. I had a problem because of my preconceived notions of what is enlightened living and what is not. Really, such notions are useless. > > Was he sexist? > > "I have learned only the five kamma.t.thaana that my preceptor gave me at > my ordination, which I still have with me today. They are all I need to > take care of myself. They don’t make me weak like you â€" you’re as weak as > you are educated. In fact, you are weaker than a woman with no education > at all! You’re a man and a Mahaa, so why all this weakness? When you get > sick, you exhibit no manly characteristics, nor any indication of the > Dhamma you learned. You should take all your masculine equipment and > exchange it for a woman’s, thus completing your metamorphosis. Maybe then > the fever will abate a bit. Seeing that you’re a woman, the fever may be > reluctant to torture you so much." ;-)) He said that to that particular monk in order to shock him out of self-pity. I don't think he was being sexist, he was saying what he knew would have an effect for that particular monk (and this is a paraphrase, third-person description and may not match actual words). The Buddha also used harsh language on occassion to monks when they needed to be shocked (and again, A. Mun was just supposed to be an Arahant, not a Buddha). > > Well, wrong can. I read the bio with an idea that I was reading some > other article "linked to you before" that would talk about inconsistencies > in the Vinaya. Shrug. I did link a different book which had a Chapter 7 "The Dispensation; The Place of Women" or something to that effect. I am in an Internet cafe and I can't open multiple windows to find it for you. Maybe someone else can give the link again?? Otherwise, I will post it again when I get my computer fixed. > > Most everything else I've read says citta is conditioned. A. Mun's bio > says not really. The bio's use of the term 'citta' is different than the Abhidhamma. I think the saying is "you can't eat your cake and have > it, too" r/t the other way around, btw. away; it is never born and never dies. Normally, the “knowing natureâ€? of > the citta is timeless, boundless, and radiant, but this true nature is > obscured by the defilements (kilesa) within it. Through the power of > fundamental ignorance, a focal point of the “knowerâ€? is created from which > that knowing nature views the world outside. The establishment of that > false center creates a “selfâ€? from whose perspective consciousness flows > out to perceive the duality of the “knowerâ€? and the “knownâ€?. Thus the > citta becomes entangled with things that are born, become ill, grow old, > and die, and therefore, deeply involved it in a whole mass of suffering.> > > all relative, conventional realities, are divested of their power to > deceive and no longer appear within the citta. Although they do continue > to play a role, in the form of the 5 khandhas, as long as the Arahant > remains alive, they are no longer incorporated into the citta’s identity > and have no part in conditioning its outlook. This is called vimutti â€" > absolute freedom from all conditions. No conditions whatsoever exist for > this freedom.> > > This is "the pure, unblemished citta, the true Supreme Happiness, > Nibbaana" or "A citta having absolutely no impurites possesses only the > cool, peaceful qualities of Dhamma." > > And "...one would do well to keep in mind that the unconditioned > (asankhata) nature of Nibbaana naturally implies that absolutely no > conditions or limitations whatsoever can be attributed to Nibbaana. To > believe that, having passed away, the Buddhas and the Arahants are > completely beyond any possibility of interacting with the world is to > place conditions on the Unconditioned." > > The process A. Mun's citta went through is described as follows: > > death, it appeared to make three revolutions, circling around the > newly-arisen viva.t.ta-citta. Upon conclusion of the first revolution, the > Paali term lopo â€" cutting off â€" arose together with its essential meaning: > at that moment the citta had completed the function of totally excluding > all vestiges of relative, conventional reality. Upon conclusion of the > second revolution, the Paali term vimutti â€" absolute freedom â€" arose > together with its essential meaning: at that moment the citta had > completed the function of attaining total release. Upon conclusion of the > third revolution, the Paali term anaalayo â€" total detachment â€" arose > together with its essential meaning: at that moment the citta had > completed the function of wholly severing all attachments. Citta and > Dhamma were then one and the same â€" ekacitta ekadhamma. The true nature of > the citta is synonymous with the true nature of Dhamma. Unlike relative, > conventional reality, there is no duality. This is vimuttidhamma pure and > simple. It is absolute in its singularity and devoid of any trace of > relative, conventional reality within. This pure Dhamma is fully realized > only once. It never requires further perfection.> > > I guess words mean what we want them to. Citta = Nibbaana = Dhamma = "The > genuine Tathaagata is simply that purity of heart". My other worms are > going around using the same words to mean different things and getting all > tangled up in thinking agreement = truth. Well, that could be a problem, but it wasn't a problem for me. I guess I understood what was meant (Maybe if you don't study the Abhidhamma a lot it won't cause a problem. Then you won't have preconceived notions). > > "When the body finally dies, the purified citta attains yathaadiipo ca > nibbuto: just as the flame in a lamp is extinguished when all of the fuel > is exhausted, so too goes the citta according to its true nature. > Relative, conventional realities like the khandhas are no longer involved > with the purified citta beyond that point." That sounds to me like the > citta is extinguished, but I must be misreading it. I guess the > non-involvement is another cake thing and the unfueled citta can still > involve itself with conventional reality if it cares to, but why, after > parinibbaana, would pure knowing have any desire to make housecalls and > "temporarily assume a mundane form in order to make contact" or appear as > a nimitta? Why not? "At the moment of passing away, they have no lingering > attachments that could bind them to the round of sa.msaara â€" not even to > the body that’s starting to decompose. Absolutely no attachment or concern > for anything anywhere exist in their hearts." Why does the concern > return? Assuming a form (is that ruupa?) No,it doesn't assume a form in a conventional sense. My understanding is that the citta would communicate with a form when it was needed. In the case of A. Mun, it appears that it was needed. Perhaps his mind needed form in order to process the communication. I don't know, but it is interesting to consider. I only ask that people keep an open mind and investigate for themselves. I am really happy that you have taken the effort Connie. t seems to me to be an activity, > but "the true citta does not exhibit any activities or manifest any > conditions at all. It only knows. Those activities that arise in the > citta, such as awareness of good and evil, or happiness and suffering, or > praise and blame, are all conditions of the consciousness that flows out > from the citta. Since it represents activities and conditions of the citta > that are, by their very nature, constantly arising and ceasing, this sort > of consciousness is always unstable and unreliable." I think it might be > in danger of entanglement. > > I'm gonna put a lid on it now, > connie Metta, James 42872 From: Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 0:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 3/1/05 1:38:28 AM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > Hi Howard > > I didn't see your "burned out" post before I sent the last one. Hope I > didn't burn you out and apologize if I did. > ------------------------------------ Howard: No. I burned myself out, and there is no need for you or anyone to apologize to me. BTW, I went "over the top" in my reply to Ken, and for that I apologize - to Ken and to everyone. ----------------------------------- Best wishes, peace and mindfulness be > > yours. > > Don't feel any need to respond to this one. Take care. > ------------------------------------ Howard: Thanks, TG. ----------------------------------- > > 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) 42873 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 5:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions (II) Hi, Howard Having read ahead I see that you are not going to be responding to posts for a while. That of course is fine (although your contribution will be missed), but I will still reply to your outstanding posts to me. I'll try not to say anything too provocative ;-)) > There is said to be a mutual dependence between vi~n~nana and namarupa >(in the Sheaves of Reeds Sutta). > I believe you are referring here to the teaching on dependent origination. That is a whole different context to the one we are now discussing. But I would be happy to look at any specific reference you think might be useful. >Also, as a specific example, I do not see >how a bodily sensation exists apart from the awareness of it. There is no >unexperienced itch. > > Yes, there is no unexperienced itch, just as there is no unexperienced sight. But 'itch' and 'sight' are conventional terms that embrace both a particular sense-door object and its experience by consciousness (that is to say, the dhammas of temperature and hardness plus body-door consciousness accompanied by unpleasant feeling, in the case of the itch, and of visible object and seeing consciousness, in the case of a sight), so this does not help in answering the question of whether a sense-door object is by its nature something that comes into existence only in so far as it is the object of experience. It's true of course that the sense-door objects referred to in the suttas should be taken as being the presently-experienced ones, and not as rupas that are not the object of a present sense-door experience, but the question we are now considering is whether it is also said that their *actual moment of arising* is tied to the fact of their being such an object of consciousness. As far as I know, it is not (and the references rather point to the opposite). >>If by 'content' you mean 'that which can be object of consciousness', >>then that would be a nama, or a rupa, or a concept. However, of these, >>only concept is *necessarily* object of consciousness. >> >> >------------------------------------ >Howard: > We disagree. I do not assume the existence of what is not experienced, >precisely because it cannot be experientially verified or falsified. But you >know that, Jon. So why should you be puzzled? > > No, I am not referring to 'the existence of what is not experienced' (for some reason you seem to find this issue arising in my every post ;-)). My comments are limited, as they have been all along, to the presently experienced sense-door object and the consciousness by which it is being experienced. Let me explain further. We are discussing your statement, "There is no awareness that is not awareness of some content, and there is no content that is not the content of a state of awareness", which you have said sums up your perspective. I am interested in the second part of that statement, "There is no content that is not the content of a consciousness". In brief my point is that while namas *can be* object of consciousness, they do also arise other than as object of consciousness, for example, when they are present-moment sense-door consciousness. ( Concepts, on the other hand, can only be talked of in the context of being object of consciousness.) Thus as I see it your statement "There is no content that is not the content of a consciousness" would not hold as regards namas, if by 'content' you mean 'things capable of being object of consciousness'. If on the other hand by content you mean 'presently the object of consciousness' (which I think you have confirmed as being the case), then the statement is technically correct but seems to be of no substance whatsoever, since it merely states that 'All object of consciousness is the object of some consciousness'. > ... Sorry. I'm afraid I cannot. The metaphors were my best shot. > I can see the analogy you are making between the person and his reflection, as representing your view on sense-door consciousness and its object. But you have still given no basis for preferring this model over the model that says the co-arisings are not exactly simultaneous, except that you you see the other as being incapable of verification and therefore to be dismissed. Now as regards your view that the other model is unverifiable, this seems to be based on the fact as you see it that is involving *alleged unexperienced rupas*. But here I think you are mistaken, because the question of prior arising is being considered in respect of the rupa that is the *presently experienced* sense-door object. I hope I have stated the matter clearly. No need to rush to reply. Take some time to read and consider ;-)) Jon 42874 From: Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 0:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Two Alternative Perspectives on Dhammas Dear Ken - Thank you for this very kind post. I will reply in context below, but up-front I want to apologize for replying harshly to you and for permitting my own lack of ease to influence my understanding of your intentions. I am replying fully to this post, as you deserve a full reply. But I was serious about my needing to "take a break" and ease off my participation for a while. In a message dated 3/1/05 1:47:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > ------------------------------------- > >Howard: > No. Perhaps a better name than "mixed view" is "The Independent Rupa > View", which I believe is the Abhidhammic persoective and the > perspective of most members of DSG. > ------------------------------------ > > Sorry, my mistake. But it was a misleading name: perhaps > 'Abhidhamma view' would have been best. It did seem to me as if the > Abhidhamma wasn't getting a mention, and that would have been > unfortunate. > > ---------------------------------------- > >Howard: > In either view, I consider phassa to be nama, not rupa., though as a > coming together of two rupas and one nama, its being so classified > is a matter of majority rule, I suppose. It is, of course, a coming > together. That's what the Buddha said!!! > -------------------------------------- > > Oops, my mistake again. It was D. Nutcracker who said phassa was not > a dhamma, just a coming together of consciousness, object and sense > base. I assumed you were taking the same line. > -------------------------------------- Howard: I see phassa as very much of a reality. It is defined as "the coming together of the three", but I see that as a real, fundamental mental event - a nama. -------------------------------------- > > --------------------- > > KH: >>You make no mention of pannatti: I suppose that is because > >the "mixed view" has it as a nama. > > > --------------------- > >Howard: > I was only discussing realities. > ---------------------------------------- > > Oh, I see. (But I think you do regard thoughts and ideas as namas - > or you used to (?).) > ------------------------------------------- Howard: My postion on concepts has evolved (or devolved according to some, I suppose). ------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------- > > >Howard: > I'm glad you understand the Abhidhamma and the Sutta Pitaka so well. > -------------------------------------- > > Point taken - I don't understand them very well at all. > > --------------------------- > H: >I am in the process of attempting to come to understand them. I > am not trying to replace anything. So, your beliefs are safe - don't > worry.Also, BTW, you know full well that I do not believe the > Abhidhamma to be the word of the Buddha, though I increasingly see > that more and more of it is compatible with that teaching. > --------------------------- > > I should have kept out of it. After many years of attending Dhamma > discussions, I have become a little tired of hearing people's > personal views when they go against the texts. > ----------------------------------- Howard: My presenting of "positions" was not a putting forward of views with the purpose of persuading people of them or as a substitute for anything. It was an attempt to think out loud about the Dhamma (and Abhidhamma) to search for better understanding on my part, and, in the process, to possibly be of some help to others also striving to understand better. I wasn't staking out a "belief territory". ---------------------------------- If I am intolerant, > > then that is another fault to add to a long list of faults. ---------------------------------- Howard: We all have faults. Anger is one of the most harmful, and clearly I am far from immune to it. -------------------------------- However, > > in amongst the akusala motives, there is also the kusala wish to > help. You should know what it's like: you are not a complete > stranger to immoderate language - having got exasperated with me > (and my excessive-personlessness) on several occasions. ------------------------------- Howard: You are correct, and I apologize for my immoderation. -------------------------------- > > -------------------------------------- > >>--------------- > H: >>Whichever view one adopts, all dhammas are impermanent, > >unsatisfying, and conditioned and impersonal. What is important is > >not which view one prefers [and I am currently seeing more to > >the "mixed view" than I previously did], but the letting go of any > >and all dhammas and concepts, the relinquishement, the giving up, > >the move in to freedom from clinging to anything whatsoever. > >--------------- > >> > KH: >Relinquishment occurs when conditioned dhammas are directly > known to > >have the characteristics anicca, dukkha and anatta. > > > -------------------------------------- > >Howard: > Yes indeed! Have I implied differently? In fact. I have said the > same again &again &again. > --------------------------------------- > > I think my comment was valid. You seemed to be saying that the view > of Dhammas (mixed or phenomenalist) was immaterial provided we saw > dhammas as anicca dukkha and anatta. My point (right or wrong) was > that only the correct view of dhammas would do: an incorrect view > would not lead to their being directly known in that way. > -------------------------------------- Howard: My only point was that complete and direct knowledge of the tilakkhana constitutes the core of correct view. I, of course, agree that right understanding is paramount. It is the primary basis for liberation. ------------------------------------ > > ------------------------- > > >Howard: > Ken that is not less than a little but smug! > ------------------------------------- > > Sorry it sounded that way. Actually, it was my one attempt to > lighten things up. I thought my tone had been a little too > disapproving and so I wanted to include a bit of a joke and a smiley > face. I can see now that I need a lot more practice at lightening > up. :-( ---------------------------------------- Howard: And I need to be more objective in my assessment and not jump so easily to wrong conclusions. --------------------------------------- > > --------------------- > H: >P.S. I have been studying, considering, contemplating and > trying to get a clearer idea of the way things are and of the > Dhamma. I am engaged in a genuine search, and I have been trying to > give the Abhidhamma my genuine, open-minded attention. I find > responses that are merely opinionated, negatively critical, > and argumentative, and clearly not motivated by kindness or a wish > to help a fellow Buddhist see his way to be worth far, far less than > no responses at all. > If I seem to you to be angry, then your attention is good and your > vision clear. > ------------- > > Noted! > > If I think people are going about their Dhamma studies in a less > than ideal way (working on their current understanding at the > expense of acquiring new understanding) should I just shut up? > (Serious question.) > ---------------------------------------- Howard: No. I apologize for misinterpreting you and for responding unkindly. ---------------------------------------- > > Ken H > ===================== With metta, Howard P.S. Ken, and all - I do intend to take a break now. I will post occasionally, no doubt, but for a while I want to seriously reduce my participation. /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) 42875 From: Ken O Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 7:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Could this be dukkha? Hi Christine if it is you, there will be no afflictions, because it is not you that is why there is affliction ;-) Being crytic again Yes they are all dukkha. Ken O 42876 From: Ken O Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 7:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions HI Larry this is something that I have long overdue with you < rather than sanna vipallasa because thinking is involved. The immediate recognition of "Larry" as me is sanna vipallasa. These are very similar, only a slight difference. >> Sanna vipallasa is the result of latency of the three roots. Wrong thinking or wrong perception that there is a self are the result of lobha mula cittas. As I said earlier to you, perception are just functions of marking but not the cause of the "wrong" part, it always the latency of the roots that cause it. Ken O 42877 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 7:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Request for Explanation Hi Larry, I just would like to add something about saññaa. op 01-03-2005 02:26 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: But what is > direct knowledge? There is no panna without sanna and sanna seems to > conceptualize. N: Saññaa marks and remembers whatever object citta experiences: dhammas and concepts. And thus can we say that saññaa conceptualizes? It arises also with paññaa that sees realities as they are. Nina. 42878 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 7:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Four Great Elements as Foundation /feelings change Hi Charles, op 28-02-2005 20:42 schreef Charles DaCosta op dacostas@P...: > > Present feelings effect future feeling to the extent that the contact appears > to last. N: Sure, the citta that arises now and that is accompanied by feeling, contact and other cetasikas conditions the subsequent citta and cetasikas arising in one process by contiguity condition. There are different conditions at work for different realities, that makes it complex. Ch: I like to say that the present birth of a feeling has been colored > by past feelings. N: Saññaa also plays its part, doesn't it? Ch: For this reason your feelings about an object could change. N: Right. Also contact changes all the time. Nina. 42879 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 7:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Request for Explanation Hi Howard, op 01-03-2005 02:26 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > Many, including Bhikkhu Bodhi I believe, give a phenomenological sense > to these terms. For example, in the ATI Glossary there is found "The four > physical elements or properties are earth (solidity), water (liquidity), wind > (motion), and fire (heat)." Not that earth is given as solidity, not an earth > substance. N: These four are like symbols used in olden times, in different cultures. In the Buddhist sense (also in the suttas) they acquired a new meaning: rupa elements with specific characteristics and devoid of self. NIna. 42880 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 7:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Request for Explanation Hi, Howard, op 28-02-2005 21:57 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > There is one particular topic that make the non-phenomenalist view > difficult for me. This is the nature of those rupas that are called "visual > form". I understand what sights are. They are visual experinces, particular > types > of physical consciousness content. But I cannot for the life of me build into > my ontology "visual forms" that can arise unseen. N: Words can be confusing. I avoid "visual form" or sight. I prefer colour or just visible object. I can understand your view. You wonder, when it is visible object it must be seen so that it is visible. Perhaps the word colour could be helpful. It is one of those rupas always arising in a group, no matter what group. It belongs to the eight inseparable rupas, the others being the four great Elements, odour, flavour and nutrition. Sound arises in a group and this also consists of colour and the other seven inseparables, however strange you may find this. So does hardness, it arises together with colour. You may experience hardness, not colour, but colour is present in that group. But all this is not easy to understand, I know. H: Somehow this is more critical for me than rupas of other sorts. A visual form that is seen by me is never the same as a visual form seen by someone else N: Again the word colour may help, but we should not think of specific colours which we define. It is just what appears through eyesense. No shape and form, no defining. A dog also experiences what is visible. The thinking afterwards is different, but seeing is the same: just experiencing what appears through the eyes. H: Without getting past this point, the phenomenalist view remains preferable to > me. N: I understand. H: Somehow the idea of a hardness arising that is then contacted by consciousness doesn't seem as odd to me as a disembodied visual form arising. I believe in sights but not in visual forms. Perhaps it helps to remember that colour does not arise in isolation, but in a group, hardness as a great Element also supporting it. Nina. 42881 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 7:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Getting Burned Out. Don't! Hi Howard, Yes, we have too many posts, I cannot read all. On the Pali list I have my daily sutta reading, and I find this very useful. I spend more time on suttas now. But if you have some question I always like to correspond with you, Nina. op 01-03-2005 03:27 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > Perhaps it is a matter of just too much posting, perhaps just too much > thinking, perhaps just too much arguing. But I am wearying of these > discussions, and I'm going to take a break for a while. I'm not finding any > peace in > this. I will return to a more regular meditation practice, and a more regular > reading of the Buddha's teachings, from both of which I believe I can expect > to > gain greater peace. 42882 From: nina Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 7:39am Subject: Visuddhimagga XIV, 141 and Tiika Visuddhimagga XIV, 141 and Tiika Intro: Sati, mindfulness, is a sobhana cetasika, arising with each sobhana citta. It remembers, is non-forgetful of what is wholesome. The Text uses the word sara.na, remembering, but this cetasika is different from saññaa, recognition or remembrance, which arises with each citta. Text Vis.: 141. (x) By its means they remember (saranti), or it itself remembers, or it is just remembering (sara.na), thus it is 'mindfulness' (sati). N: As to the words, they remember (saranti), this refers to the accompanying dhammas that are conditioned by sati. Just as the Vis. states in the case of saddhaa: by means of it they have faith. The Tiika explains that the accompanying dhammas are conditioned by the predominant influence of sati. When there is such condition it is said in conventional language (vohaaro) that a person Œremembers¹. N: He remembers, is non-forgetful of what is wholesome. Text Vis. : It has the characteristic of not wobbling. [64] Note 64 (from the Tiika). 'Apilaapana' ("not wobbling") is the steadying of an object, the remembering and not forgetting it, keeping it as immovable as a stone instead of letting it go bobbing about like a pumpkin in water'. Text Vis. : Its function is not to forget. N: Sati is steadfast with regard to an object, it is non-forgetful. Whenever there is an opportunity for daana, siila or bhaavanaa, sati is non-forgetful, it does not let such an opportunity pass. Sati prevents us from committing evil deeds. Siila is not only abstention from akusala but it also includes helping others by action or speech. When sati arises we do not neglect the opportunity to help others. There is sati with bhaavanaa. Bhaavanaa includes samatha and vipassanaa. Sati is non-forgetful of the meditation subject of samatha and non-forgetful of the object of vipassanaa: a naama or ruupa appearing at the present moment. Text Vis. : It is manifested as guarding, N: The Tiika refers to Gradual Sayings, Book of the Tens, X, 20: ³By guarding mindfulness he is composed of mind² (³Sataarakkhena cetasaa²ti). The Co to this sutta refers to the sati of the arahat who accomplishes the function of guarding the three doors all the time. These are the doors of action, speech and mind. The Co explains that he guards those, no matter he walks, stands, sleeps or is awake. Text Vis.: or it is manifested as the state of confronting an objective field. N: The Tiika explains that sati does not go elsewhere and that by it the object of citta is confronted. When there is sati there is no agitation or distraction from the object that is experienced at that moment. When the object is experienced by kusala citta with sati the citta is intent on daana, siila or bhaavanaa. Text Vis.: Its proximate cause is strong perception (thirasaññaa). N: Firm remembrance is the proximate cause of sati. When one listens to the Dhamma and considers it again and again there can be firm remembrance of what one has heard, and thus, there are conditions for the arising of sati which is mindful of the naama or ruupa appearing at the present moment. Text Vis. : or its proximate cause is the foundations of mindfulness concerned with the body, and so on (see M. Sutta 10). N: The four Applications of Mindfulness include all naamas and ruupas that can be the objects of mindfulness. When they have become the objects or bases for sati they are the proximate cause of mindfulness. The four Applications of Mindfulness remind us that naama and ruupa occurring in daily life are the objects of mindfulness. We are reminded to be aware of naama and ruupa no matter whether we are walking, standing, sitting of lying down. Also when akusala citta arises it can be object of mindfulness, it is classified under the Application of Mindfulness of citta. One should learn to see citta in citta and not take akusala citta for self. Text Vis.: It should be regarded, however, as like a pillar because it is firmly founded, or as like a door-keeper because it guards the eye-door, and so on. N: Mindfulness guards the doors of the senses and the mind-door. Whenever there is mindfulness of visible object that appears and this is realized as only a ruupa appearing through the eyedoor, we are not infatuated by this object, there are no lobha, dosa or moha on account of it. Mindfulness is an indriya, a " controlling faculty", a "leader' of the citta and accompanying cetasikas in its function of heedfulness, of non-forgetfulness of what is wholesome. We read in the Expositor ((I, Part IV, Ch II< 147): <... It exercises government (over associated states) in the characteristic of presenting or illuminating the object- this is the faculty of mindfulness.> As the Tiika explains, sati does not go elsewhere but confronts the object that presents itself. Sati does not move away from the present object, it is steadfast like a pillar. Mindfulness is non-forgetful of the object, and understanding (paññaa) has the function of knowing it as it is. Right Mindfulness is one of the Path-factors and it is among the factors leading to enlightenment. **** Nina. 42883 From: connie Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 7:56am Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge .../ Robertk's Finding about A. Mun Hi, James, I found the other link, thanks. http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/mission-accomplished.pdf I'll look at it later. > said, both monks laughed heartily." >Based on that, my guess is 'no', but I get the idea of 'no laughing, > laughing implies lobha' from other things I've read James: Well, A. Mun was just supposed to be enlightened, he wasn't a Buddha; therefore I don't think the same criterias of the Buddha should be applied to him. I don't know about the whole 'laughing equals lobha' business. People laugh for different reasons. The Buddha smiled on occassion, perhaps arahants can laugh on occassion. Also, this is a third person description of the event and it may not have transpired in that fashion. Connie: Yes, people have reasons/thinking for pretty much anything, but what momentary characteristics in the cittas make the rupas emit those sounds or perform any series of movements? Some days I think most of my laughter, like sarcasm, must be based on dosa. But, 'before that?', would there be dosa if there wasn't a preference for something else? I don't know that anything's really funny on it's own. Crying is supposed to be a dosa thing. No tears of joy. I used to wonder about that when I was a kid and mom would cry when we hadn't seen each other for a long time... why are you crying, aren't you happy? Different moments making up a situation so fast. Happy, sad, happy, sad. Happy to see you, sorry I've missed you all bawled up. Tears of relief?... still crying for the sadness behind it. The arahants didn't cry when Buddha died - just the worst thing I can think of - why would they laugh about anything? If those things are from dosa and lobha, they wouldn't. Just old habit? The smoking thing just seemed odd, yes, and I could rationalize it... what do I know from outward appearance and as you say "my preconceived notions of what is enlightened living and what is not"? You can even leave off the last part of the phrase in my case. The story I really found strange was the one about the aunt and her pregnant niece. James: The bio's use of the term 'citta' is different than the Abhidhamma. [snip] (Maybe if you don't study the Abhidhamma a lot it won't cause a problem. Then you won't have preconceived notions). Connie: :) Won't I always have some kind of preconceived ideas about things? Gotta keep my tidy little universe all structured. No unsolved mystery just accepted on it's own terms. It's got to belong somewhere in my understanding. why, after > parinibbaana, would pure knowing have any desire to make housecalls and > "temporarily assume a mundane form in order to make contact" or appear as > a nimitta? Doing anything other than just knowing means it's not pure knowing... in my pigeonholes. I dunno, James. The whole thing of changing definitions to fit whatever was bugging me yesterday... talking with Lotus Sutra folks and trying to figure out what they're thinking without sounding all offensive and 'right' insisting they use my terms my way. What is this buddhanature they think we all have and such. Why is there an idea that the arahant is not really finished but still has to become a buddha? I don't really have a good grasp on the whole nimitta thing. When I think I see a chair, is that whole 'chair' idea a nimitta? Gotta go. Work day. peace, connie 42884 From: Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 3:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Request for Explanation Hi, Nina - Thank you for the following (and for your other kind post, to which I replied offlist). What you say in the following about color and about groups of dhammas is indeed very helpful to me in my appreciation of the Abhidhammic perspective. Very good! With metta, Howard In a message dated 3/1/05 10:52:52 AM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@x... writes: > > Hi, Howard, > op 28-02-2005 21:57 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > >There is one particular topic that make the non-phenomenalist view > >difficult for me. This is the nature of those rupas that are called "visual > >form". I understand what sights are. They are visual experinces, particular > >types > >of physical consciousness content. But I cannot for the life of me build > into > >my ontology "visual forms" that can arise unseen. > N: Words can be confusing. I avoid "visual form" or sight. I prefer colour > or just visible object. > I can understand your view. You wonder, when it is visible object it must be > seen so that it is visible. Perhaps the word colour could be helpful. It is > one of those rupas always arising in a group, no matter what group. It > belongs to the eight inseparable rupas, the others being the four great > Elements, odour, flavour and nutrition. Sound arises in a group and this > also consists of colour and the other seven inseparables, however strange > you may find this. So does hardness, it arises together with colour. You may > experience hardness, not colour, but colour is present in that group. But > all this is not easy to understand, I know. > > H: Somehow this is more critical for me than rupas of other sorts. A visual > form that is seen by me is never the same as a visual form seen by someone > else > N: Again the word colour may help, but we should not think of specific > colours which we define. > It is just what appears through eyesense. No shape and form, no defining. A > dog also experiences what is visible. The thinking afterwards is different, > but seeing is the same: just experiencing what appears through the eyes. > > H: Without getting past this point, the phenomenalist view remains > preferable to > >me. > N: I understand. > H: Somehow the idea of a hardness arising that is then contacted by > consciousness doesn't seem as odd to me as a disembodied visual form > arising. I > believe in sights but not in visual forms. > Perhaps it helps to remember that colour does not arise in isolation, but in > a group, hardness as a great Element also supporting it. > > Nina. > /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) 42885 From: Hugo Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 9:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddha said: That's how you should train yourselves Hello Tep, Thanks for your contribution, I didn't reply before because I was waiting for Sarah to reply, I know that you and I share some views (BTW, we need to get rid of all views) On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:11:27 -0000, Tep Sastri wrote: > May I be permitted to answer your questions, Hugo ? I am assuming > that your answer is 'yes', and am going ahead answering them. > > No, I don't think anyone can develop satipatthana and right > understanding without a self to begin with. This self consists of rupa > and nama; both of them are real at this very moment. Sure, they are not > permanent. Sure, the existed rupa and nama in the past are no longer > existing. But without the present-moment self, there cannot be > development of citta. The fact that this clinging aggregates of ours > exist, that we can use them for learning the Dhamma (reading the > suttas and discussing the Dahmma at DSG, etc.) and as the laboratory > for practicing the Dhamma, is very important. But we don't have to cling > (upadana) to them; that's why we keep on contemplating each > khandha that 'This is not mine, not I, not my self ', so that we can let go > of cravings and attain the total release (some day). I agree with all of this, Sarah, said she liked it, but I am not sure if that means she agrees or not with it. -- Hugo 42886 From: Hugo Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 9:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Personlessness Teachings Not Against Precepts: (Was: fifth prec... Hello Charles, On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:05:53 +0100, Charles DaCosta wrote: > Some like to divided the Precepts up into groups that relate to Thoughts, action, speech. I like to think of each and every precept as applying a rule to Thoughts, action, speech. > > A Lama asked me once: "How are your dreams." After my second marriage (almost 10 years later) I have found that even in my dreams I try to keep my marriage vows. Now I understand what the Lama meant. I should not even day dream about breaking a precept. When this is achieved the mind must be genuinely pure. I liked this, it is so easy to say, "hey I am just thinking about it, not doing it" and then indulge in unwholesome thoughts. BTW, my mind is more ingenious, whenever there is some dreams that could mean breaking marriage vows, it makes it so I am not married in the dream!, so I get the fun but not the guilt! :-) -- Hugo 42887 From: Hugo Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 9:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Getting Burned Out Hello Howard, On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:27:25 EST, upasaka@a... wrote: > Perhaps it is a matter of just too much posting, perhaps just too much > thinking, perhaps just too much arguing. But I am wearying of these > discussions, and I'm going to take a break for a while. I'm not finding any peace in > this. I will return to a more regular meditation practice, and a more regular > reading of the Buddha's teachings, from both of which I believe I can expect to > gain greater peace. > Probably I will start posting again in a while, but at a greatly > reduced level. Until then, I will continue read your posts and I will continue to > wish you all well. I understand you very, very well, I will taking a break too, maybe in a couple of days. -- Hugo 42888 From: Hugo Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 9:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Personlessness Teachings Not Against Precepts / Charles Hello KenH, I understand the point of view of Charles, and I understand your point of view. I just want to applaud the way you replied, I liked it very much. On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:52:03 -0000, kenhowardau wrote: > > > Hi Charles, > > -------------- > C: > Some like to divide the Precepts up into groups that relate to > Thoughts, action, speech. I like to think of each and every precept > as applying a rule to Thoughts, action, speech. > -------------- > > So you're a rules man - fair enough. I am certain, however, that we > should see the Buddha's rules as being fundamentally different from > other people's rules. Remember, he taught satipatthana and the way > out of samsara: a conventional understanding of rules and precepts > is neither of those things. > > According to the Buddhadhamma, precepts are kept at specific moments > of consciousness when a virati cetasika (abstention from either > wrong-speech, wrong-deed or wrong-livelihood) is present. Isn't > that the kind of precept keeping we should be aware of? > > ---------------- > C: > A Lama asked me once: "How are your dreams." After my second > marriage (almost 10 years later) I have found that even in my dreams > I try to keep my marriage vows. Now I understand what the Lama > meant. I should not even day dream about breaking a precept. When > this is achieved the mind must be genuinely pure. > ---------------- > > Undoubtedly, a conventional training in precept keeping can have > good results. However, in my experience (and I still have a long way > to go), the five precepts have been kept much more readily since I > learned about the transitory, conditioned, non-self nature of > reality. > > ----------------------- > C: > What makes a monk and a nun? Their precepts. Are they no-longer > monk and nun if the opportunity to break the precepts does not arise? > ------------------------ > > Here, you seem to be insisting on the conventional view of the world > when others are talking about the ultimate (Abhidhamma) view of the > world. I suggest you try going the other way for a while and see > what you think. > > Regards, > Ken H -- Hugo 42889 From: Hugo Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 7:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddha said: That's how .......Hugo Hello Azita, On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 11:22:58 -0000, gazita2002 wrote: > I apologise if I upset you and spoke/wrote out of turn. No, I was not upset or anything, if I post in a public forum I expect people to just jump in, if I didn't want that I would write privately to the person. I appreciate your participation in "my" threads. > Maybe i did run with something Sarah said, however what I wrote > came from my understanding of the way things are, not from anyone > else. Ok, if what I said was not what happened, then it is me who needs to apologize if you felt offended. > > Here is the key part of the position I am trying to explain. > > > > The fact that you cling to that non-existent self means that > > practically for you that self exists, why? because your actions are > > based on its "existence". > > Azita: ummmmm, I would say my actions are based on the wrong view > and the clinging to its existence, and maybe you would say 'tilting > windmills' btw I've never heard that expression,but I think I > understand what you mean. "tilting windmills" means that we are just fighting imaginary enemies, making a discussion of something not worth it, unnecessary wasting time and energy, etc. > So, yes in Truth there is no self, but > > because you believe that there is one, we can say that "you have a > > self". > > Azita: no, even if I believe it, there is in reality no self, and > for me its better to keep reminding myself of that. See, you accept you believe it, but you need to keep reminding yourself that it is not real. That's one approach to getting rid of that belief (keep denying it and reminding that it is not real), but it is not the only one approach and as any other approach it has its dangers, like saying "hey, I am not addicted to coffe, I have drinking only one cup of coffe a day for the last 20 years and I haven't fall addicted to it". My approach is like this, Ok, I say that I am not addicted to coffe, let's try to not drink coffee today and see what happens......."ouch, a headache, mmmm...it seems that I am really addicted to it!!, now, what can I do about it?....,one way is to cut it off completely, another way is to instead of one cup drink just one half, then one quarter and so on, but there is still the other way which is keep denying that I am addicted, keep drinking that same coffee cup daily and wait until the conditions are right for me to stop drinking it". > > So it is important to define if the Buddha said "there is no self", > or > > if he said "all things are no-self". > > > > Or, if he said "there is no self", or if he said that "there is no > > permanent self". > > > > It is a subtle difference but depending on your point of view is the > > way you will "attack the problem" of the no-self. > > Azita: right now, I can't answer these, I'll have to think about it. Cool, this will be a good topic to talk next time I return to DSG. > > > Patience, courage and good cheer, - without a self - > > > > Were you clinging to a self when you encouraged me to do that? > > Azita: most likely yes, as there are still lots of conditions for the > arising of wrong view. > > > How do you expect me to have patience, courage and good cheer > without > > a self if I am not a Sottapanna? You didn't answer this question. The question is designed not to attack you, or to win some points or to win the discussion or anything like that, it is designed to point out one of the problems I see with the approach of "denying the self", and that is that one keeps running against contradictions and for some people those contradictions could be dangerous. Again, I am not saying that the approach is bad or good, for some people it might be great but it is definitely not great for everybody. > > This is what I say that it is contradictory. > > > > Doesn't it sound better to say that the "Hugo self" is the one that > > should be patient, should have courage and good cheer? You didn't reply to this either, now re-reading it I think that maybe it should say "Hugo (the self)" instead of "Hugo self". > > > > BTW, I think we are just tilting windmills, we both seem to > understand > > the real issues but we are looking at them from different point of > > views, one little difference I perceive (but I am not sure) is that > > you think I am wrong and you are right, while I think we both are > > right just different point of view. > > Azita: it wasn't meant to be that way, [me right, you wrong], and > maybe I wrote with some conceit :-0 which you sensed. Ok, I stand corrected, but I didn't sense anything, I don't have any special powers, I just noticed a pattern, that's all. Greetings, -- Hugo 42890 From: Hugo Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 9:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddha said: That's how you should train yourselves Hello Sarah, On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 08:56:23 +0000 (GMT), sarah abbott > I'm not sure whether you were wanting anything further from me on this > thread – as you say you've heard it all before, so I'll just keep it > brief. Yes, I read Tep's reply, but I know Tep is more "aligned" with the way I think, that's why I asked you specifically. > > I agree, it doesn't matter what physical or mental practice we do if > > we don't understand why it is being done, and what is going on. > … > S: Not just 'why it is being done' or 'what is going on' but being aware > of namas and rupas, mmmmmm....when I say "what is going on", I mean "what is going on", if namas and rupas is what it is going on, then that's what is going on and that's what needs to be understood. You seem to imply that when I say "what is going on" is something different than namas and rupas. Sarah, in order to talk Dhamma you don't NEED to use Dhamma words. If you are unable to explain Dhamma without using Dhamma words, maybe it is an indicator that you don't understand it. I said the above not because I know about Dhamma, but because in the past I was a teacher, and I could tell when I myself didn't really know a topic because when the student asked I was only able to explain to them by repeating what was in the book or what my teachers or colleagues told me. Ah, but when they asked me about something I really understood, I could draw examples out of everything and I could explain to them to their satisfaction. > > If we just do any special activity without understanding why (I mean > > the real why), we are just doing rites and rituals. > …. > S: Yes, we need to know the aim for sure…..but the insight will come not > from asking why we do any activity, but by developing an understanding of > those dhammas which are apparent at the present moment. Sarah, you need to see farther, when I say "why", the real why, I am covering what you say. I need to know why I sit to meditate, it is not to relax or anything is to learn how my mind works, then why do I want to learn how my mind works, because the mind is what makes me suffer or not suffer, but why does the mind makes me suffer or not suffer, etc......eventually I will get to the point where I find out that everything is anicca, dukkha and anatta including myself!. Do I need to use Dhamma words for that? Do I need to keep telling me "all is nama and rupa, all is nama and rupa"? It seems that you are stuck on using Dhamma words, you are afraid of talking without using them, if you are afraid, you will have aversion and you will not be free. > S: Sounds like you have an undrerstanding wife. You can't even imagine, she is great, I have great respect and regards for her, she is very wise, and I have learned from her a lot. She is not a Buddhist, but she could teach at least a couple of things about life to many Buddhists. > > Why do you read Dhamma books and interact in this mailing list? > … > S: Conditions – such as reflecting on the benefit, seeing the value, > understanding (however conceptual) that the development of satipatthana is > all that really matters in life, sharing what I feel I've been fortunate > to hear with others and so on. Attachment too, I should say – I enjoy it. :-) Sarah, again your fear of talking about a self. Just re-read your paragraph, you say "conditions" (your favorite mantra), then you say "I feel I've been fortunate"....mmmm there is the self!!!, who is fortunate? if you are fortunate do you believe in luck?, isn't it against the very first word you used (conditions)? One question, when you go to a restaurant and order a specific dish, why do you order it? is it because of conditions or because you cling for that specific taste? Or when you choose what wardrobe to wear to this or that occasion, is that conditions too? Or what about why you decided to go to the Chinese New Year celebration? I hope that your approach works for you, I know it doesn't work for me, but I have learned from you and from that approach, so I can't say that I haven't benefited from it, I have indeed. Thanks. > > Do you have a self? Do you cling to it? > … > S: No 'me' to have no anthing. No 'me' to cling. Is there clinging? > PLENTY!! :-) Should I read from the above that you have gotten rid of the concept of self completely? Or, who clings? Greetings, -- Hugo 42891 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 11:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] ‘Cetasikas' Questions to - Vitality/jivitindriya and Attention/manasikaara (n) Hi Sarah and all, I am missing Phil's input but I shall now answer these questions. op 23-02-2005 07:19 schreef sarah abbott op sarahprocterabbott@y...: > [Ch.7 Vitality(jivitindriya)and Attention(manasikaara) > ***** > Questions > Q. i Does manasikåra, attention, arise when we are sound > asleep? N: Yes, it accompanies each citta and thus also the bhavangacitta which arises when we are sound asleep and not dreaming. Q. ii Can manasikåra be lokuttara? N: Yes, for the same reason. It drives citta and cetasikas to nibbaana, joins them to nibbaana. Q. iii Do nåma-jívitindriya and rúpa-jívitindriya have different > functions? N: Both of them maintain the life of the accompanying dhammas. The cetasika jívitindriya maintains the life of the accompanying dhammas, it vitalizes them. Rúpa-jívitindriya maintains the life of the other rupas it arises together with in a group. It arises only in a group of rupas produced by kamma. Q. iv Which types of citta are accompanied only by the seven universals’ and not by other cetasikas? N: The five pairs of sense-cognitions which are ahetuka vipaakacittas and which are either kusala vipaakacitta or akusala vipaakacitta. These cittas just see, hear, etc. and they do not need other cetasikas besides the universals to assist them in cognizing the object. Q v Each of the universals’ has its specific characteristic, > function, manifestation and proximate cause. Why can each > one of them still have different qualities at different > moments? N: They are different as they are of the jaatis of kusala, akusala, vipaaka or kiriya. When they are kusala they are accompanied by sobhana cetasikas and when they are akusala they are accompanied by akusala cetasikas. Mental phenomena which arise together condition one another and thus the universals have different qualities according as they arise together with different cetasikas. The universals can be of different planes (bhumis) of citta and this also causes them to be different. They can be of the sense-sphere, ruupaavacara (ruupa-jhaana), aruupaavacara (aruupa-jhaana) and lokuttara. Q> vi Through how many doors can the universals’ experience an > object? N: Through all the six doors. And they can be door-freed, when they accompany rebirth-consciousness, bhavanga-citta and dying-consciousness. Q vii Can the universals’ experience a concept? N: Yes, when they accompany citta which thinks of a concept. Q. viii When the citta is akusala citta, it is accompanied by akusala > cetasikas. Are the accompanying universals’ akusala as > well? N: Yes, the universals are of the same jaati as the citta they accompany. ***** Nina. 42892 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 11:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Getting Burned Out Hi Hugo, Howard, you guys make me laugh. Keep talking of taking a break, and staying on. I have the same. When I was back after my trip just now the amount of mails was too much for me. But we should never say never. Somehow we manage, and there are all kind people around. Nina. op 01-03-2005 18:07 schreef Hugo op eklektik@g...: > I understand you very, very well, I will taking a break too, maybe in > a couple of days. 42893 From: Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 7:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Getting Burned Out Hi, Nina - In a message dated 3/1/05 3:08:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@x... writes: > > Hi Hugo, Howard, > you guys make me laugh. Keep talking of taking a break, and staying on. I > have the same. When I was back after my trip just now the amount of mails > was too much for me. But we should never say never. Somehow we manage, and > there are all kind people around. > Nina. > ===================== One can't ignore messages from good friends, 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) 42894 From: Hugo Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 0:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Getting Burned Out Hello Nina, On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 20:58:42 +0100, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi Hugo, Howard, > you guys make me laugh. Keep talking of taking a break, and staying on. :-) I know, I know........ :-) Greetings, -- Hugo 42895 From: Charles DaCosta Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 11:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Personlessness Teachings Not Against Precepts: (Was: fifth prec... "BTW, my mind is more ingenious, whenever there is some dreams that could mean breaking marriage vows, it makes it so I am not married in the dream!, so I get the fun but not the guilt! :-)" Now Hugo, is that the path you have chosen? Charles ----- Original Message ----- From: Hugo Charles DaCosta wrote: "Some like to divided the Precepts up into groups that relate to Thoughts, action, speech. I like to think of each and every precept as applying a rule to Thoughts, action, speech. A Lama asked me once: 'How are your dreams.' ... I have found that even in my dreams I try to keep my marriage vows. Now I understand what the Lama meant. I should not even day dream about breaking a precept. When this is achieved the mind must be genuinely pure." Hugo Wrote: "I liked this, it is so easy to say, 'hey I am just thinking about it, not doing it' and then indulge in unwholesome thoughts. BTW, my mind is more ingenious, whenever there is some dreams that could mean breaking marriage vows, it makes it so I am not married in the dream!, so I get the fun but not the guilt! :-)" 42896 From: Charles DaCosta Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 10:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Four Great Elements as Foundation / Howard Maybe the Buddha foresaw the coming of Neurology. Charles ----- Original Message ----- From: gazita2002 > ... What I find strange is the assertion that mind is derived from the 4 great elements! > Howard Azita: I also find this strange, the 4 great elements are rupa and the mind is nama. so why is mind included in this? 42897 From: Charles DaCosta Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 11:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Could this be dukkha? Hi Chris, you asked: "Could this be dukkha?" That depends on your View. AND: "Why me??" You were born, that why. I hope you have better days. Peace, Charles ----- Original Message ----- From: Christine Forsyth .... Have a nice day. 42898 From: Enio César Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 8:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Adinava e Nekkhamma Hello, Sarah! Thank you very very much for your help! I am interested to learn about the teachings of the Buddha. As I am still a beginner, I've been using the anupubbi-katha to guide my studies, like it is exposed in the "Access to Insight". I don't live in Italy, I am brazilian. But just as Italy, Brazil is a christian country. Here, Dhamma materials are obviously difficult to find. The few titles published are very superficial, basically about Dalai Lama. Because of it, I've been studying with some books donated by the "The Corporate Body of the Buddha Educational Foundation" and with texts found in the web. However, some topics of the anupubbi-katha aren't very explored, as adinava and nekkhamma, for instance. With Metta, Enio Cesar. -----Mensagem Original----- De: sarah abbott Para: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Enviada em: terça-feira, 1 de março de 2005 04:35 Assunto: Re: [dsg] Adinava e Nekkhamma Hi Enio, Welcome to DSG. --- Enio César wrote: > I have been searching for texts in the Internet that deal with two > specific subjects of anupubbi-katha: the drawbacks (adinava) and the > renunciation (nekkhamma). .. I'm posting brief entries for each of them below from Nyantiloka's dictionary: http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic_idx.html You may also like to look up other related entries in the dict. <....> 42899 From: Charles DaCosta Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 11:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Seven years or just one week ..... ? Good point TG ----- Original Message ----- From: TGrand458@a... cforsyth1@b... writes: {I has never seemed to me that the Buddha was speaking 'literally' about periods of time in this verse. It seems to me that he is trying to get across a message about 'time' - that in itself it isn't important - there isn't any 'time' stretching out in front and way back behind ... all there is, is NOW. Doesn't matter whether you 'practise' diligently for seven years, seven months, seven weeks or seven days ... One can only become enlightened NOW ... in this present moment ... which rises and falls away, and does not stay. The Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, the quintessence of the teaching of the Buddha, contains all that is necessary for understanding Dhamma and for enlightenment. There is suffering; there is a cause or origin of suffering; there is an end of suffering; and there is a path out of suffering. It is the penetration of the Four Noble Truths that leads to enlightenment.} TG Wrote: {My take is that the Buddha was indeed speaking about these time periods. The Buddha was very straightforward and plain spoken in virtually all respects IMO. In my view, the Buddha is speaking about folks who have the ability to become enlightened in these time periods. They already have the knowledge, training, and potential insight "at their fingertips." What they need to do then is to make a strong push to "cross the finish line." Most of us are still trying to gather the tools to setup this ability. For those who have the tools "at hand," they can do it faster. I believe there are a couple of Suttas that mention it can be done in half a day as well.} 42900 From: Charles DaCosta Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 0:32pm Subject: Ken--ultimate (Abhidhamma) view part 2 Hi Ken, This will be part 2 -------------------- Ken wrote: Undoubtedly, a conventional training in precept keeping can have good results. However, in my experience (and I still have a long way to go), the five precepts have been kept much more readily since I learned about the transitory, conditioned, non-self nature of reality. ----------------------- Charles Response: Do you mean that the body steals not me? for example. OR do you mean that you better understand how to control desire? ----- Original Message ----- From: kenhowardau Hi Charles, -------------- C: > Some like to divide the Precepts up into groups that relate to Thoughts, action, speech. I like to think of each and every precept as applying a rule to Thoughts, action, speech. -------------- So you're a rules man - fair enough. I am certain, however, that we should see the Buddha's rules as being fundamentally different from other people's rules. Remember, he taught satipatthana and the way out of samsara: a conventional understanding of rules and precepts is neither of those things. According to the Buddhadhamma, precepts are kept at specific moments of consciousness when a virati cetasika (abstention from either wrong-speech, wrong-deed or wrong-livelihood) is present. Isn't that the kind of precept keeping we should be aware of? ---------------- C: > A Lama asked me once: "How are your dreams." After my second marriage (almost 10 years later) I have found that even in my dreams I try to keep my marriage vows. Now I understand what the Lama meant. I should not even day dream about breaking a precept. When this is achieved the mind must be genuinely pure. ---------------- ... Ken H 42901 From: Charles DaCosta Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 0:28pm Subject: ultimate (Abhidhamma) view / Ken Hi Ken, This will have to be part 1. ------------------------ Charles wrote: {What makes a monk and a nun? Their precepts. Are they no-longer monk and nun if the opportunity to break the precepts does not arise?} ------------------------ Ken responded with: {Here, you seem to be insisting on the conventional view of the world when others are talking about the ultimate (Abhidhamma) view of the world. I suggest you try going the other way for a while and see what you think.} ------------------------ My Response: I have tried and do sometimes; however, I am probably too much of vajrayanaist fist (so I live in samsara -- 'it' is my medicine). I found the view, based on Ultimate Truth alone, to be impractical because: 1) I have not been in a hurry to go beyond; 2) if you were not living the life of a recluse, "you" are a central part of the life around you whether you like or not; and 3) it confuses people new to Buddhism. Also, when I take the view of - - the thoughts and words are like the sound of one-hand-clapping and the wordless sermon. "We" would have nothing to say, nothing to do. And if I spoke from an Abhidhamic view, well you would not be happy either because to me that is evolving with science -- approaching, the point of UT. So it is quite relative too, and may change as new discoveries are made. So in reality I am in the middle almost always. The moment you sign "Ken" - you exist - and karma is created (regardless of what you think). At least in this mind. It is very difficult to hide behind a philosophy, suffering always finds a place to sting "you" even when you don't exist in your own mind. with Love CharlesD PS: if it will be more helpful, I could post more from ultimate (Abhidhamma) view. <....> 42902 From: Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 3:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Request for Explanation Nina: "Saññaa marks and remembers whatever object citta experiences: dhammas and concepts. And thus can we say that saññaa conceptualizes? It arises also with paññaa that sees realities as they are." Hi Nina, I would say the mark is a concept. I am understanding it as a sign (nimitta). What do you think? Larry 42903 From: Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 4:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Ken O: "Sanna vipallasa is the result of latency of the three roots. Wrong thinking or wrong perception that there is a self are the result of lobha mula cittas. As I said earlier to you, perception are just functions of marking but not the cause of the "wrong" part, it always the latency of the roots that cause it." Hi Ken, Nice to see you again. I'm not too fond of the term 'sanna vipallasa' because it suggests there is a right perception. The way I understand sanna is that it is a very limited way of understanding. If a superior understanding like panna does not add to it then it is seriously misleading. But even with panna it is still limited and therefore ultimately wrong. See Vism.XIV,3-6 for further elaboration. Message# 23932, 24080, 24082, 24083 and Nina's comments 24135, 24406, 24484 But I agree that lobha mula cittas are the ultimate guilty party. Larry 42904 From: Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 4:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga XIV, 141 and Tiika Hi Nina, The text says sati manifests as guarding or by confronting an objective field. Is guarding simply remembering wholesome dhamma? Also, is 'objective field' different from object? It seems to me that sati and samadhi in particular, and maybe dhammas in general, are self conditioning. That is, once they arise they tend to keep arising, at least for a while. Is there a condition that describes this effect? Larry 42905 From: connie Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 5:55pm Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge .../ Robertk's Finding about A. Mun Hi again, James, Remembered at work what I wanted to ask you about. In one of these posts to Sarah you said "Nibanna isn't anicca, dukkha, or anatta." I thought all conditioned dhammas were anicca and dukkha and ALL dhammas, including nibbaana, were anatta? Dhammapada v. 279. peace, connie 42906 From: Ken O Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 8:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi Larry There is definitely preception that are kusala because of kusala roots. In the same way, perception kusala or akusala be it vipallasa or not, depends foundamentally on the roots and not on preception itself. Just like cetana kusala or akusala depends on the roots and not on cetana itself. Panna is limited for wordlings because of our moha but that does not mean that panna cannot be develop into enlightement. Our panna may be limited now, however, this panna serve as a basis for further develpment because it is also root ;-). Without panna, there would no salvation at all. Ken O 42907 From: suryarao Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 6:41pm Subject: Hello everybody Hello everybody This is Sanjay. I stumbled upon this website through some adhidhamma website. I liked it so joined. Intro.. I'm Hindu practising vipassana for past 10 years. very irregularly though. I have read some books on vipassana. I immensely respect the technique. I follow nothing but vipassana so far. Presently in US. I pressume my being hindu wont be a problem on this group. Would like to know, what is general discussion here ? Are moderators really well learned, ripen in dhamma ? do they advice ? I really liked some of the files kept here, esp adhidhamma.pdf one. Immensely informative. Thanks. I hope to get ispiration to work diligently on the path of dhamma. metta, Sanjay 42908 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 9:01pm Subject: Re: Ken--ultimate (Abhidhamma) view part 2 Hi Charles, I was saying: > in my experience (and I still have a long way to go), the five precepts have been kept much more readily since I learned about the transitory, conditioned, non-self nature of reality. ----------------------- > Charles Response: Do you mean that the body steals not me? for example. --------------------- No, in absolute reality there is no thief who steals, there is no property that is stolen and there is no victim that is stolen from. Instead, there are fleeting conditioned namas and rupas. Sometimes they include namas that think in terms of 'thief' 'property' and 'victim,' and sometimes they include the nama that wills the action known as stealing. --------------------------------- C: > OR do you mean that you better understand how to control desire? ---------------------------------- I probably expressed it wrongly. There is no control over dhammas: stealing, for example, arises when the conditions for its arising are present. So I should not have suggested that a Dhamma student learns about nama and rupa in order to become a good precept keeper. If there is stealing now, then that is a reality that can be directly understood. The same goes for thinking, hearing, seeing and visible object etc., - any reality that exists now is to be understood as a fleeting, conditioned, empty-of-self nama or rupa. Understanding the world in this way involves mental factors that know the difference between kusala and akusala, the benefits of the one and dangers of the other. So it puts conditions in place for less akusala and more kusala (including more precept keeping) in the future. When that will be, who knows? Who cares? Getting back to my own experience, I find that an intellectual understanding of nama and rupa means there is less self- recrimination, guilt and regret over what I should do and what I should not do. Knowing about conditionality at least helps me to have a clearer, calmer outlook on life - but there is no control. Ken H 42909 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 10:01pm Subject: Re: ultimate (Abhidhamma) view / Ken Hi Charles, We were talking about discussing the world in absolute terms (nama and rupa). You wrote: ------------------------ > I have tried and do sometimes; however, I am probably too much of vajrayanaist fist (so I live in samsara -- 'it' is my medicine). I found the view, based on Ultimate Truth alone, to be impractical because: 1) I have not been in a hurry to go beyond; 2) if you were not living the life of a recluse, "you" are a central part of the life around you whether you like or not; and 3) it confuses people new to Buddhism. Also, when I take the view of - - the thoughts and words are like the sound of one-hand-clapping and the wordless sermon. "We" would have nothing to say, nothing to do. ------------------------ We are not talking about the same thing here. I was simply saying we should understand the world to be the presently arising five khandhas (nama and rupa). I was not expecting us to directly know any of them. And besides, even if we did directly know them, I don't believe there would be any of the extraordinary circumstances you describe. I think daily life would continue as normal. --------------------------- C: > And if I spoke from an Abhidhamic view, well you would not be happy either because to me that is evolving with science -- approaching, the point of UT. So it is quite relative too, and may change as new discoveries are made. --------------------------- For our purposes, can we define Abhidhamma as the Buddha's explanation of the world? There is eye consciousness, eye base, eye object, contact and feeling, or there is ear consciousness, ear base, . . . and so on. Science does not deal in these profound terms: it is a much narrower, much simpler field of endeavour. ------------------------------ C: > So in reality I am in the middle almost always. The moment you sign "Ken" - you exist - and karma is created (regardless of what you think). At least in this mind. It is very difficult to hide behind a philosophy, suffering always finds a place to sting "you" even when you don't exist in your own mind. ------------------------------ There is no need for us to try to have higher knowledge. Let's just be humble students opening an Abhidhamma book and discussing what we read. -------------------------- C: > PS: if it will be more helpful, I could post more from ultimate (Abhidhamma) view. --------------------------- Yes, I would like that. But let's take the down-to-earth academic approach - no going into a trance or anything like that. :-) Ken H 42910 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 10:34pm Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 134 - Applied thinking/Vitakka, Sustained thinking/Vicaara(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.8 Applied thinking(Vitakka),Sustained thinking(Vicaara)contd] *** Vitakka accompanies not only cittas arising in processes, it also accompanies cittas which do not arise in processes: the paìisandhicitta (rebirth-consciousness), the bhavanga-citta (life-continuum) and the cuti-citta (dying-consciousness). When vitakka accompanies kusala citta, vitakka is also kusala, and when it accompanies akusala citta it is also akusala. When we are not applying ourselves to kusala, we act, speak or think with akusala citta and thus the accompanying vitakka is also akusala. It is not often that we are performing acts of generosity, that we apply ourselves to síla (good moral conduct) or to bhåvanå (mental development). There are many more akusala cittas in our life than kusala cittas and thus akusala vitakka is bound to arise very often. When we are attached to a pleasant object there is akusala vitakka which “touches” that object. Or when there is even a slight feeling of annoyance when things are not the way we want them to be, there is sure to be dosa-múla-citta and this is accompanied by akusala vitakka which performs its function. There are three kinds of akusala vitakka which are mentioned in particular in the suttas. They are: *thought of sense-pleasures (kåma-vitakka) *thought of malevolence (vyåpåda-vitakka) *thought of harming (vihióså-vitakka) ***** [Ch.8 Applied thinking(Vitakka),Sustained thinking(Vicaara)to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 42911 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 10:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Adinava e Nekkhamma Hi Enio, --- Enio César wrote: > > > Hello, Sarah! > > Thank you very very much for your help! ... S: Oh, you're welcome. Pls ask for any help anytime. .... > I am interested to learn about the teachings of the Buddha. As I am > still a beginner, I've been using the anupubbi-katha to guide my > studies, like it is exposed in the "Access to Insight". ... S: I'd be glad if you'd elaborate further on this 'gradual instruction' as exposed in ati or as you understand it now. I'd like to understand more about what you mean when you say you use it to guide your studies. ... > I don't live in Italy, I am brazilian. ... S: Apologies. Enio Cesar sounded very Italian to me in my ignorance! We have Brazilian members that come and go here - if you bump into any of them, pls tell them they're missed! ... >But just as Italy, Brazil is a > christian country. Here, Dhamma materials are obviously difficult to > find. The few titles published are very superficial, basically about > Dalai Lama. Because of it, I've been studying with some books donated by > the "The Corporate Body of the Buddha Educational Foundation" and with > texts found in the web. However, some topics of the anupubbi-katha > aren't very explored, as adinava and nekkhamma, for instance. ... S: I understand, another Brazilian said the same. I'd also like to hear more about why you have a particular interest in these topics and which aspects of the Dhamma you're exploring. Metta, Sarah ====== 42912 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 11:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello everybody Hi Sanjay, --- suryarao wrote: > This is Sanjay. > I stumbled upon this website through some adhidhamma website. I > liked it so joined. ... S: Well, I'm glad you found us and welcome. It's good to know you may have an interest in abhidhamma too. ... > Intro.. I'm Hindu practising vipassana for past 10 years. very > irregularly though. I have read some books on vipassana. I immensely > respect the technique. I follow nothing but vipassana so far. > Presently in US. I pressume my being hindu wont be a problem on this > group. ... S: No problem at all - we're a pretty diverse lot here - all kinds of backgrounds in terms of religions and nationalities here. Thank you for introducing yourself. .... > Would like to know, what is general discussion here ? Are moderators > really well learned, ripen in dhamma ? do they advice ? .... S: We discuss anything of interest to those posting (like yourself) and relevant to the homepage description. Vipassana - the meaning in the texts and the technique you refer to are hot topics for a start;-). The moderators are not 'really well learned, ripen in dhamma'. They are jsut ordinary folk who like to discuss these hot topics or any others with friends here. Sometimes they advise, sometimes they are advised, sometimes neither;-). .... > I really liked some of the files kept here, esp adhidhamma.pdf one. > Immensely informative. Thanks. > > I hope to get ispiration to work diligently on the path of dhamma. ... S: Please post any extract you find particularly helpful. I’m not sure exactly what you’re referring to. With your keen interest in Abhidhamma, I'd also suggest: 'Abhidhamma in Daily Life' by Nina Van Gorkom, one of our active members: http://www.abhidhamma.org/ (Also any other materials at this site). Also, in the files section, take a look at “Useful Posts’, a selection by the moderators from the archives. See if any topics are of special interest such as ‘Abhidhamma-beginners’ etc. (You may not be a beginner, I don’t know!!). Oh, try ‘Vipassana’ too. Anyway, I’d be glad if you’d let us know if you have any questions or topics you’d like to discuss further. This is the best way to learn. Thanks again for introducing yourself, Metta, Sarah ====== 42913 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Mar 1, 2005 11:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Jatis Hi Carl, --- Carl wrote: > S: ...(snip snip)...........I think in the passages you quoted, you > are confusing: > > a) panca-dvara-vajjana cittas ("five-sense-door adverting- > consciousness") > which are kiriya (inoperative- i.e neither cause nor result- cittas) > and > b) cakkhu-vinnana (seeing-consciousness) etc which are the vipaka > (result > of kamma) cittas which immediately follow the panca-dvara-vajjana > citta > above. This is why panca-dvaravajjana citta is also given as a > condition > for seeing, hearing etc. > ================================ > Carl: Yep! I wasn't stuck in the mud after all! Just not paying > attention. > > Sarah, are you saying that Kiriya cittas are not a result of cause > and effect? > ============================== S: Kiriya (inoperative) cittas are not cause (i.e. javana cittas or kamma cittas) or result (i.e vipaka cittas resulting from previous kamma), but still they are ‘caused’ by other conditioning factors. For example, if it is the panca-dvara-vajjana citta preceding seeing consciousness, it is conditioned by the previous bhavanga cittas, it is conditioned by the visible object impacting on the eye-base. It is also conditioned by its associated mental factors such as contact, by heart-base which is its base (vatthu) for arising and so on and so on. Indirectly it’s also conditioned by kamma, because if there had been no kamma to bring about rebirth in this life, then there’d be no cittas at all. I think you’d find ch9 in ‘Abhidhamma in Daily Life’ helpful. … > ===== > Carl: Thank you for this Sarah. There is a wealth of info in the UP > section. > ===== S: Thank you. It is just a personal selection of course, but I’m glad you find it helpful. It’s most encouraging to see your keen interest in topics here, Carl. On desirable/undesirable, you wrote to Larry about these attributes depending on kamma. I’d like to slightly ‘tweak’ that to say it depends on kamma what is experienced at any moment. For example, hearing may hear pleasant or unpleasant sounds, depending on kamma. With regard to rupas themselves, they may of course be conditioned by kamma (or citta, nutrition or temperature). But only those in the body may be conditioned by kamma. The sound of the waterfall doesn’t depend on kamma, but it depends on kamma whether it is experienced by our hearing. You mentioned (#41942) that the ‘smell of rotting flesh can not be said to be undesirable or desirable until a consensus is reached. To a buzzard, the smell of rotting flesh would seem to be not undesirable’. Again, I’d ‘tweak’ this a little and say again it depends on kamma what is experienced. For most people, in the vicinity of that rotting flesh, there will be conditions for akusala vipaka to experience the undesirable object and for the vipaka to be followed by aversion. But it does depend on kamma whether there will be that vipaka. For the buzzard, attachment is likely to follow the experience of the undesirable rupa, due to perverted sanna, as we read and as RobM and others have stressed. You’re getting into all sorts of interesting topics. Let me know if you disagree or have further comments. Like you, I appreciated Larry’s and Howard’d discussion. I didn’t wish to butt in earlier. Metta, Sarah ====== 42914 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Mar 2, 2005 1:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa and Vedana: the Perspective of S.N. Goenka Hi TG (& Howard), [sorry, this became rather long and unwieldy - Tep, I need to follow your example more] --- TGrand458@a... wrote: > > Hi Howard, All > > I'm not aware of the Buddha ever talking about feeling "hardness." Did > he? … S: We read a lot in the suttas about pathavi dhatu (earth element). For example, in the Mulapariyaya Sutta, it is the first dhamma mentioned. The commentary clarifies that various meanings of earth are included here in the mis-perceptions by the worldlings, starting with the characteristic earth (lakkha.napathavii) which it defines as: “In the passage: ‘What, friends, is the internal element? That which is internal, belonging to oneself, hard, solid (M28/I, 185) – this is characteristic earth.” The Atthasalini 11, ch3 defines earth element: “..the earth element has the characteristic of hardness. Its function is to act as a foundation.” So earth or solidity has hardness/softness as characteristic which can be directly experienced right now as we touch the keyboard, just as Howard said, I think. It is a foundation for the other rupas which depend on it for their arising. …. TG:> At any rate, Goenka's position, as described by Howard below, seems most > > reasonable to me and in accordance to the way the Suttas present the > matter. … S: I hope you don’t mind if I had some comments now. Like Howard, I think that to refer to various rupas experienced through the body-sense as vedana is confusing and not in accordance with the suttas. I agree with most of Howard's comments here. …. <….> > upasaka@a... writes: > Hi, all - > > The five-khandha analysis is an analysis of the empirical person > into > a collection of five heaps of phenomena, the heaps of rupa, vedana, > sa~n~na, > sankhara, and vi~n~nana. … S: I would say, not just ‘the empirical person’, but all that is experienced and thereby temporarily *exists* are none other than the 5 khandhas. … H:> If hardness is a rupa, is the hardness of, say, a table part of > the > rupakkhandha of a person? Or is it a rupa not part of that rupakkhandha? …. S: When hardness is experienced, there is no thought of table or person at that instant. It is just hardness, rupa khandha, regardless of whether we’re in conventional language touching the table or an arm. … H:> Also, > what is the sensation of hardness? Is that another rupa that *is* part > of the > rupakkhandha, and which arises when there is contact with "external" > hardness. … S: Yes … H:> Also, as to the "external" hardness, since it is not permanent, there > must be > a repeated arising and ceasing of such hardnesses in a realm of rupas. > What > occasions the coming together the "external" rupas with the "internal" vi~n~nana? …. S: When there is the touching of the table, there is no thought of external or internal.Due to kamma and other conditions there is the experiencing of hardness. At that instant, there is no other ‘world’, but the world through the body-sense experience. Regardless of whether there is or isn’t any experience of hardness, the pathavi dhatu and other elements which make up the table will continue to rise and fall in kalapas or groups of rupas. Even when hardness is esperienced, there are other rupas arising with it, but as Howard always stresses, what is important is what is being directly experienced, what is readily apparent and what cah be the object of awareness and insight. …. H:>These are typically unaddressed questions, it seems to me. > S.N. Goenka takes the point of view that rupas are "out there on > there > own," that from time to time vi~n~nana contacts a rupa via a sense door, > and > the result of that contact is vedana, where by "vedana" he does not mean > > pleasantness, unpleasantness, or affective neutrality, but, instead, > means > sensations, each of which is either pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral. … S: Yes, it’s confused, I think too, like Howard. Vedana (feelings)arise with every moment of experiencing of an object. They are mental factors and not the hardness and other rupas experienced or ‘bodily sensations’. … H:> Thus, > from his > perspective, rupas are non-experiential, fleeting phenomena each of > which > may > or may not be experienced. When they are experienced, i.e., when contact > with > a rupa occurs, a corresponding sense-door sensation arises, and that > internal > sensation is what vedana is. …. S: Yes, it’s confusing and often as Jon said, we may talk of an ‘itch’ or ‘pain’, call it a sensation, but really be mixing many things up. If it’s further referred to as vedana, it is very confusing and I’m surprised that after all these years that the same terminology is being used. …. H:>It seems to me that once one takes rupas to > be > external phenomena different from internal sensations, then unless one > identifies vedanas with sensations, as Goenka does, there is nowhere > that > sensations > fit in. So, I see Goenka's approach as coherent and plausible, but in > principle > unverifiable and unfalsifiable, as the existence of rupas "on there own" > is > unknowable. … S: I’d say, no need to think about internal and external here or to use ‘sensations’ which is confusing. When hardness is experienced it can be directly known as Howard stresses. That’s all. If there is no experience of hardness or the characteristic doesn’t ‘appear’, it doesn’t mean there is no pathavi rupa, but as there is no world of hardness, it’s not a concern. So just be aware of what does appear, rather than what is imagined or thought about only. Again, if the concern is with ‘sensations’ or vedana and we focus on these, then there won’t be any awareness of what is actually appearing at that instant. … H:>Now, one might say that pa~n~na could know them. But pa~n~na > does > not exist apart from vi~n~nana, and thus when pa~n~na would know those > rupas, > so > would vi~n~nana. … S: Yes, panna arises with vinnana (citta), but it is only panna which has the characteristic of ‘knowing’. The citta merely experiences the object. … H:> Another perspective, the one which I take, is that rupas are the > sensations known through body door, eye door, ear door, and nose door, > plus a > couple physical sensations known only through mind door instead of body > door. …. S: Let’s say experienced (because seldom known) though the mind door only, i.e the 21 not experienced through the 5 sense doors. …. H:> That > is, rupas are what Goenka calls "vedanas". And vedanas are the > operations of > "tasting" rupas according to their inherent affective flavor: pleasant, > unpleasant, or neutral. … S: Yes, good. Vedanas are the mental ‘tasting’ of rupas (and namas) which arise with each and every citta or vinnana, even when we’re fast asleep and no rupas are being experienced;-). TG, I understand what Howard is saying and I think he makes many good points here. I also appreciate that he stresses what is being directly experienced and what can be directly known. Yes, the phenomenalist approach can be taken too far, but he makes good points about when we take a detailed abhidhamma approach too far as well, I think. I’ll look forward to any of your comments. I’ve really enjoyed the tri-pod of posts between you, Howard and Jon. (Howard, take a good rest, enjoy the 'show' and only chip in anytime if you wish to.) Metta, Sarah ======= 42915 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Mar 2, 2005 1:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] ‘Cetasikas' Questions to - Vitality/jivitindriya and Attention/manasikaara (n) Dear Nina, --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi Sarah and all, > I am missing Phil's input but I shall now answer these questions. ... Thank you for giving the helpful answers and always needed 'reinforcement'. Yes, I tried to finish the chapter before Phil left but didn't quite make it. Still, I'm sure the series will still be continuing when he returns;-). I hope you had a good break and the funeral went well. It must be quite an adjustment now, not needing (or having the opportunity) to care for your father anymore after all these years. Please do share any comments you have (or the commentaries have) on any of Tep's suttas or the others you mentioned. The Vism and Tika passages on the cetasikas are full of excellent reminders, like the one on sati: 'By guarding mindfulness he is composed of mind' (santaarakkhena cetasaa ti) <...> "Text Vis:or it (sati) is manifested as the state of confronting an objective field. N: The Tiika explains that sati does not go elsewhere and that by it the object of citta is confronted." ... S: Sati doesn't need to look for any particular object such as vedana. Whatever appears as the 'objective field' is confronted then and there. So when we read about the arahant guarding all three doors 'no matter he walks, stands, sleeps or is awake' it is a reference to the confronting whatever appears without any selection like a sentry guard. "<...it exercises government (over associated states) in the characteristic of presenting or illuminating the object - this is the faculty of mindfulness>" "As the Tiika explains, sati does not go elsewhere but confronts the object that presents itself. Sati does not move away from the present object, it is steadfast like a pillar". It reminds me of the well-trained guards, like pillars, outside Buckingham Palace who are never 'agitated' or 'distracted' from their duty of guarding 'the object that is experienced at that moment', no matter how pleasant, unpleasant, expected or unexpected. Metta, Sarah ======= 42916 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Mar 2, 2005 1:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Test Your Knowledge .../ Robertk's Finding about A. Mun HI Connie (& James), --- connie wrote: > I found the other link, thanks. > http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/mission-accomplished.pdf > I'll look at it later. ... S: Many thanks for joining the discussion and doing the homework so much more diligently (I never got past the whirring at the links, I must confess). I appreciated your comments and further discussion with James on the bio. What was the aunt and pregnant niece detail you mentioned? (Just if it's appropriate to add). I laughed when I read that you only found out well into the bio that you thought you were following the other link about the inconsistencies in the Vinaya. I'll look f/w to your discussion with James on that too. Oh, Simon says!! James, thanks for telling me more about wee kitty - I understand that you don't wish to consider another one for now. My mother feels the same. I don't think there was anything left for me to respond to on my part of the thread, but I hope you'll continue to discuss these details with Connie. From my perspective, our recent discussions have concluded quite 'fruitfully', which of course doesn't need to mean agreement on all or any points;-). Metta, Sarah ===== 42917 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Mar 2, 2005 2:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Comments on the Sabba Sutta Hi Larry, --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > Thanks for the nice analysis of dhamma ayatana. I also would like to see > if B. Bodhi would clarify the relevant notes in SN. I think the original > discrepancy was found in "Buddhist Dictionary" where Ven. Nyanatiloka > equated dhamma ayatana with dhamma arammana. ... S: You're right on top of this issue. With regard to the dictionary, it's difficult (impossible ) to make changes once the author is no longer alive. (I mentioned it with a couple of others to BB before).I'll raise the SN ones when I next have a chance. It helped me to spend a little time on it the other day, thx to your prompt. More on the ayatanas when we start ch XV in Vism. **** Kel & Htoo - I hope to get back on our threads tomorrow. Thanks for all your helpful feedback. Metta, Sarah ======= 42918 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Mar 2, 2005 5:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking about Dhamma ( was Re: An Interesting Meditation Hi, Hugo >>Insight is direct >>understanding of the true nature of a presently arising dhamma. Whether >>we are doing X or Y, the dhammas are the same, so the choice to be made >>is not a crucial as you suggest. >> >> > >I agree, little correction, I don't suggest that it is crucial all the time. > >It all depends on your level of "development", for people just >"starting" it is crucial, once they understand all this, it is less >crucial or even not necessary. > >I "raised all this fuss" because of the categorical statement that it >is NEVER necessary for ANYBODY. > > Yes, I do understand what you are saying here. I will discuss it in the context of your closing comments below. >>Besides, if we have the idea that 'doing Y' is likely to involve less >>kusala, >> >> > >It doesn't depend on the specific activity you are doing, it depends >on your mindfulness at the time of performing the activity and of >course your tendencies and conditions. > > Yes, exactly so. The kusala or akusala nature of an act, and the level of that kusala or akusala, is determined by the mind-state accompanying the act and not by the nature of the act as it is generally perceived. That accompanying mind-state can only be know as it truly is by panna; our innate 'sense' of kusala and akusala is just not a reliable guide. >The difference is just to categorically say or imply that some >specific practices are NOT helpful at all for ANYBODY, NEVER. > >And at least for me, I still need my meditation sessions and my little >experiments. > >So, if you promise with your right hand over the Tipitaka that you >will never make such a categorical statement I will put my sword in >its scabbard. :-P > > You are referring I think to my statement that the development of kusala is not a matter of doing more of X and less of Y. You feel that for some people, especially those just starting out, certain specific 'practices' are beneficial or even necessary initially. Your view is I'm sure a fairly generally held one, but I believe it's not one you'll find it stated by the Buddha or anywhere in the ancient texts, so we should be cautious about adopting something so directly related to the practice. What can be found in the texts, however, is the teaching that: (a) kusala (including panna) that has been developed in previous lives is not lost, it is carried forward as accumulated tendencies, but in the case of panna it needs fresh exposure to the teachings in each new life in order to be 'revived', and (b) stronger kusala can arise without prompting while weaker aksuala is more likely to arise when prompted. For both these reasons, the best conditions for those just starting out (this time around) is a lot of exposure to the things explained in detail by the Buddha, so that interest in the essence of the teachings (Satipatthana/vipassana, Four Noble Truths, sila, samadhi and panna, etc.) is rekindled and, once rekindled, remains focussed on that essence. As I see it, it is not a lack of specific 'practices' that is the problem for most, but a lack of a proper intellectual foundation for those practices. So I'd like to suggest that, as a compromise, we agree for our 'closing statement' on the assertion that 'It is the development of kusala that is important rather than the following of a particular kind of practice' (as you'll notice, this statement is neutral on the question of particular kinds of practice ;-)). Jon PS Thanks for the 'excellent' comments on my earlier post. I'm glad we were able to find so much common ground in the end. I think it was just a matter of realising that we were coming from somewhat different angles; this can take some time. And I have enjoyed and benefited from many of your posts. 42919 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Mar 2, 2005 5:14am Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge .../ Robertk's Finding about A. Mun Hi Connie, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, connie wrote: > Hi again, James, > > Remembered at work what I wanted to ask you about. In one of these posts > to Sarah you said "Nibanna isn't anicca, dukkha, or anatta." > > I thought all conditioned dhammas were anicca and dukkha and ALL dhammas, > including nibbaana, were anatta? Dhammapada v. 279. > > peace, > connie Actually, after I posted that I realized my mistake and thought about correcting it but just thought I wouldn't bother. Yeah, Nibbana is anatta from my understanding. Writing posts in an Internet cafe is not the best place to be careful and accurate ;-). Metta, James 42920 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Mar 2, 2005 5:24am Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge .../ Robertk's Finding about A. Mun hi Connie, Thanks for the replies. I don't know if we are going to go very far because it is difficult to explian those things which are, by nature, mysterious. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, connie wrote: > Hi, James, > > I found the other link, thanks. > http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/mission-accomplished.pdf > I'll look at it later. > I don't really have a good grasp on the whole nimitta thing. When I think > I see a chair, is that whole 'chair' idea a nimitta? No, a nimitta is supposed to be an image which arises spontaneously during meditation (samadhi). > > Gotta go. Work day. > > peace, > connie Metta, James 42921 From: Hugo Date: Wed Mar 2, 2005 10:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking about Dhamma ( was Re: An Interesting Meditation Hello Jon, Hugo: > >It doesn't depend on the specific activity you are doing, it depends > >on your mindfulness at the time of performing the activity and of > >course your tendencies and conditions. Jon: > Yes, exactly so. The kusala or akusala nature of an act, and the level > of that kusala or akusala, is determined by the mind-state accompanying > the act and not by the nature of the act as it is generally perceived. > That accompanying mind-state can only be know as it truly is by panna; > our innate 'sense' of kusala and akusala is just not a reliable guide. Jon: > You are referring I think to my statement that the development of kusala > is not a matter of doing more of X and less of Y. You feel that for > some people, especially those just starting out, certain specific > 'practices' are beneficial or even necessary initially. Hugo: Yes. Jon: > Your view is I'm sure a fairly generally held one, Hugo: I think so. Jon: >but I believe it's > not one you'll find it stated by the Buddha or anywhere in the ancient > texts Hugo: Let's keep this for my next time around. Jon: >, so we should be cautious about adopting something so directly > related to the practice. Hugo: I agree. Jon: > What can be found in the texts, however, is > the teaching that: > (a) kusala (including panna) that has been developed in previous lives > is not lost, it is carried forward as accumulated tendencies, but in the > case of panna it needs fresh exposure to the teachings in each new life > in order to be 'revived', and > (b) stronger kusala can arise without prompting while weaker aksuala is > more likely to arise when prompted. Hugo: I agree, and that's why I say that we should purposedly do some things and purposedly not do others as to lower the possibility that the conditions for akusala come around. But of course that is NOT a guarantee, just gambling with probabilities. Also, it gives you some time to really understand the situation. So, if you want to stop drinking acohol, it would be wise to stop hanging out with alcohol-happy friends while you work on getting rid of the addiction. But as I said, let's keep this for the next time. > For both these reasons, the best conditions for those just starting out > (this time around) is a lot of exposure to the things explained in > detail by the Buddha, so that interest in the essence of the teachings > (Satipatthana/vipassana, Four Noble Truths, sila, samadhi and panna, > etc.) is rekindled and, once rekindled, remains focussed on that > essence. As I see it, it is not a lack of specific 'practices' that is > the problem for most, but a lack of a proper intellectual foundation for > those practices. I definitely agree! We just need to qualify what we mean with "exposure", I think "exposure" should mean all: reading, discussing, thinking and trying. All of course in a balanced way. > So I'd like to suggest that, as a compromise, we agree for our 'closing > statement' on the assertion that 'It is the development of kusala that > is important rather than the following of a particular kind of practice' > (as you'll notice, this statement is neutral on the question of > particular kinds of practice ;-)). I agree and I like it. Now, if somebody asks "how do I develop kusala?", then the can of worms will be opened again. ;-) But we can agree that there are different ways and approaches that depend of course on what is the current "situation" of the person. > PS Thanks for the 'excellent' comments on my earlier post. They were sincere. > I'm glad we > were able to find so much common ground in the end. Me too. > I think it was just > a matter of realising that we were coming from somewhat different > angles; Yes, yes, and yes! I hope this thread makes it to the Useful Posts, because I have seen a lot of heads-on discussions about this topic where everybody only sees the grass on their side of the fence. Sometimes they are even looking at different fences!! > this can take some time. And I have enjoyed and benefited from > many of your posts. I certainly did too, thanks. Greetings, -- Hugo 42922 From: Hugo Date: Wed Mar 2, 2005 10:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Personlessness Teachings Not Against Precepts: (Was: fifth prec... Hello Charles, Hugo: > "BTW, my mind is more ingenious, whenever there is some dreams that > could mean breaking marriage vows, it makes it so I am not married in > the dream!, so I get the fun but not the guilt! :-)" Charles: > Now Hugo, is that the path you have chosen? I had nothing to do with it, it was all conditions..... :-) -- Hugo 42923 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Mar 2, 2005 10:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] saññaa marks Hi Larry, op 02-03-2005 00:57 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > Nina: "Saññaa marks and remembers whatever object citta experiences: > dhammas and concepts. And thus can we say that saññaa > conceptualizes? It arises also with paññaa that sees realities as > they are." >Larry: I would say the mark is a concept. I am understanding it as a sign > (nimitta). What do you think? N: It marks, this is an action. The simile is used of making a sign so that it is recognized as woodcutters do on trees. This is figurative. What does saññaa mark or remember? Nama, rupa or concept. Just the object citta experiences, be it visible object, sound or a concept such as a person. Nina. 42924 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Mar 2, 2005 10:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Visuddhimagga XIV, 141. Hi Larry, op 02-03-2005 01:59 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > The text says sati manifests as guarding or by confronting an objective > field. Is guarding simply remembering wholesome dhamma? N: By being non-forgetful of daana, siila or bhaavanaa the doors of body, speech and mind are guarded from akusala. Remember the Co to the sutta the Tiika referred to: < Gradual Sayings, Book of the Tens, X, 20: ³By guarding mindfulness he is composed of mind² (³Sataarakkhena cetasaa²ti). The Co to this sutta refers to the sati of the arahat who accomplishes the function of guarding the three doors all the time. These are the doors of action, speech and mind. The Co explains that he guards those, no matter he walks, stands, sleeps or is awake.> For worldlings this guarding is still imperfect. When there is guarding there is non-forgetfulness of what is wholesome. One does not waste the opportunity for whatever kusala there is at that moment. There is no indolence, one does not think of one's own comfort or pleasure. Sati is also compared to a doorkeeper. When there is mindfulness of visible object, sound or whatever other object appears, there is no opportunity for akusala citta to arise on account of the object that is experienced. In many suttas the difference is explained between the person who has seen visible object with the eyes and is then overcome by akusala, and the person who "conquers objects and is not conquered by objects". Text Vis.: or it is manifested as the state of confronting an objective field. Larry: > Also, is 'objective field' different from object? N: The Pali has: cittavisaye abhimukho. Facing the object of citta. Visaya is: region, sphere, object. Sometimes gocara, field, is used. Here it is the same as object. The object experienced by citta and cetasikas. Reviewing: < The Tiika explains that sati does not go elsewhere and that by it the object of citta is confronted. When there is sati there is no agitation or distraction from the object that is experienced at that moment. When the object is experienced by kusala citta with sati the citta is intent on daana, siila or bhaavanaa.> L: It seems to me that sati and samadhi in particular, and maybe dhammas in > general, are self conditioning. That is, once they arise they tend to > keep arising, at least for a while. Is there a condition that describes > this effect? N: sobhana cetasikas fall away together with the citta but they are accumulated and thus similar ones can arise again. This happens by natural strong dependence-condition, pakatupanissaya paccaya. We have to be careful not to delude ourselves, lobha can mislead us. Paññaa that is developed can know whether there is sati or whether there is only thinking of sati with desire to have it. When kusala citta arises there is also saddhaa with the kusala citta. Saddhaa is compared to a purifying gem. When there is purity of citta there is no disturbance by lobha, dosa and moha. Considering the different sobhana cetasikas helps to distinguish between kusala and akusala. Nina. 42925 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Mar 2, 2005 10:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello everybody Dear Sanjay, welcome here. Of course, as far as I am concerned, it does not matter that you are Hindu. I appreciate your interest in Abhidhamma. Yes, the moderators help giving information, but as to advice, advice is not the right word. You have to develop the Path yourself. They do not say: you have to do this or that. You will see for yourself that they have a good understanding of the Dhamma. Do you have questions re Abhidhamma? You could start with one or two right now. The general discussion here: all sorts of topics, on the Tipitaka and its application, problems of daily life that arise, etc. Success with your study, Nina. op 02-03-2005 03:41 schreef suryarao op suryarao@y...: > Intro.. I'm Hindu practising vipassana for past 10 years. very > irregularly though. I have read some books on vipassana. I immensely > respect the technique. I follow nothing but vipassana so far. > Presently in US. I pressume my being hindu wont be a problem on this > group. > Would like to know, what is general discussion here ? Are moderators > really well learned, ripen in dhamma ? do they advice ? > > I really liked some of the files kept here, esp adhidhamma.pdf one. > Immensely informative. Thanks. 42926 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Mar 2, 2005 10:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:saññaa vipallasa. Hi Larry, op 02-03-2005 01:45 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > I'm not too fond of the term 'sanna vipallasa' > because it suggests there is a right perception. The way I understand > sanna is that it is a very limited way of understanding. If a superior > understanding like panna does not add to it then it is seriously > misleading. But even with panna it is still limited and therefore > ultimately wrong. N: Now you are thinking of the simile in the Vis. of the coin that is perceived by child (saññaa) villager (citta) and money changer (paññaa). This is only a simile to show that saññaa is different from citta and paññaa. It does not state that saññaa is always wrong, it entirely depends on which citta it accompanies. When it accompanies kusala citta it is kusala. When it accompanies akusala it is akusala and then there is saññaa vipallasa and citta vipallasa. Not always ditthi vipallasa. Nina. 42927 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Mar 2, 2005 0:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ‘Cetasikas' Questions. my father. Dear Sarah, op 02-03-2005 10:31 schreef sarah abbott op sarahprocterabbott@y... > > I hope you had a good break and the funeral went well. It must be quite an > adjustment now, not needing (or having the opportunity) to care for your > father anymore after all these years. N: Thank you for your interest. The funeral went very well. Also grandchildren were present. It is good to go to a grave and stand there silently, no speakers. It was very solemn and afterwards a luncheon with all. It was not so sad because we had seen my father's body in the funeral home, just a body, no life faculty anymore. That was really helpful. There was a very nice memorial in parlement for him. He had been a pioneer in many ways in the socialist party and also in the fiield of nature preservation, and he had at an advanced age been teaching basic principles of law and international law in Ruanda. Now we start to miss him more and think and speak of him daily. Lodewijk was burned out and that is why we went to the South of Holland a few days. The hotel and Dhamma talks during dinner, sitting there so quietly was very good. I tried to speak a lot on Dhamma to Lodewijk as a medicine, I kept on talking about Dhamma. It was very necessary, I felt. Early morning and in between walks I worked on Visuddhimagga Tiika texts and Lodewijk would ask me what I had done, to finish texts for Larry. I spoke about saddha as the precursor of kusala and he asked about confidence in kamma and vipaaka. He asked about the connection. I explained: when there is more understanding you have more confidence in the truth of kamma and vipaka in life. I explained that we can talk in a convenmtional way about the worldly conditions and this is very helpful. But when we are more precise it is difficult to know a moment of seeing as vipaka. We spoke in general about the education I had received and that that also had influence in my taking up the Dhamma. How my parents had encouraged language study so much, starting with Latin, Greek and Hebrew at school. This also pushed me to all the languages in different countries and finally to Pali. We talked about patience, detachment, the black curtain and wondered why James disliked this idea so much. We talked about sati, hiri and ottappa, I read about in the Tiika (we come to that soon with Larry). Lodewijk finds hiri and ottappa very important. There are hiri and ottappa for the coarse akusala, but also they can become more and more refined, shame of moments of unawareness. The bhikkhu has fear for the slightest faults. We talked about patience: we should not expect an immediate result. This also concerns study, I think. We should not expect to understand everything immediately. It has to sink in, it takes time. Lodewijk said that he used to become irritated when the present moment was stressed so much, but now, he said: 'Her insistence on the present moment is absolutely essential. Our life is the present moment. It is of no use to speculate about the future, possibilities in the future, these are things which are non-existent.' Being back there are still too many things with the house, papers, etc. , but my brother and his wife are still here this week before they go back to France. **** S: Please do share any comments you have (or the commentaries have) on any of > Tep's suttas or the others you mentioned. N: I will not forget the suttas. S: "As the Tiika explains, sati does not go elsewhere but confronts the > object that presents itself. Sati does not move away from the present > object, it is steadfast like a pillar". > > It reminds me of the well-trained guards, like pillars, outside Buckingham > Palace who are never 'agitated' or 'distracted' from their duty of > guarding 'the object that is experienced at that moment', no matter how > pleasant, unpleasant, expected or unexpected. N: That is lovely, I see this before my eyes. Nina. 42928 From: Charles DaCosta Date: Wed Mar 2, 2005 11:04am Subject: Ken - part 3 - ultimate (Abhidhamma) view Hi Ken, How are the Buddha's rules fundamentally different from other people's rules? What is satipatthana? How is it that a conventional understanding of rules and precepts is not a way out of samsara? I do not understand what you mean by "... precepts are kept at specific moments of consciousness when a virati cetasika (abstention from either wrong-speech, wrong-deed or wrong-livelihood) is present." Monks from two totally different traditions said to me that the keeping precepts is essential all the time, and without this practice, one would run the risk of being dishonored or worst-- disrobed. Phra Ajahn Yantra Amaro of the Forest monk tradition is an example of what can happen. Even though he claimed, "So you say ... Not I ... Not me ... Not mine," he has been dishonored, disrobed, and has even disappeared (at least non of the forest monks I know can tell me where he is or what else happened to him). When you reduce the precepts to wrong-speech, wrong-deed or wrong-livelihood, are you trying to say the Theravadas, the Zen sangas, and the Tibetan orders are wrong? and The Vinya is wrong? I have learned to see precepts the way they (the orders of monks and nuns) do and there is no great mystery in it. Sometimes while seeking mystery we overlook the obvious, sometimes. I try not to do that; that is the kind of man I am. CharlesD ----- Original Message ----- From: kenhowardau -------------- Charles wrote: Some like to divide the Precepts up into groups that relate to Thoughts, action, speech. I like to think of each and every precept as applying a rule to Thoughts, action, speech. -------------- Ken responded: So you're a rules man - fair enough. I am certain, however, that we should see the Buddha's rules as being fundamentally different from other people's rules. Remember, he taught satipatthana and the way out of samsara: a conventional understanding of rules and precepts is neither of those things. According to the Buddhadhamma, precepts are kept at specific moments of consciousness when a virati cetasika (abstention from either wrong-speech, wrong-deed or wrong-livelihood) is present. Isn't that the kind of precept keeping we should be aware of? 42929 From: Charles DaCosta Date: Wed Mar 2, 2005 11:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Personlessness Teachings Not Against Precepts: (Was: fifth prec... How would you feel if that string of conditions was about to be imprisoned in a cage for ten years, even if it meant beyond the grave? Charles PS: is it hard to have no-feelings, or are the feelings really you (just having fun)? ----- Original Message ----- From: Hugo To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, 02 March, 2005 19:25 Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Personlessness Teachings Not Against Precepts: (Was: fifth prec... Hello Charles, Hugo: > "BTW, my mind is more ingenious, whenever there is some dreams that > could mean breaking marriage vows, it makes it so I am not married in > the dream!, so I get the fun but not the guilt! :-)" Charles: > Now Hugo, is that the path you have chosen? I had nothing to do with it, it was all conditions..... :-) -- Hugo <...> 42930 From: Charles DaCosta Date: Wed Mar 2, 2005 0:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ultimate (Abhidhamma) view / Ken To me, when you use the words "Ultimate" or "Absolute" then ... I realized that this is not what you meant but it was what you said. What are khandhas (nama and rupa)? If you mean, by them, the arising of the 5 aggregates (of the ego and/or of the personality) then (I am confused) this is what I am always talking about. I am not sure what you mean by: {I was not expecting us to directly know any of them. And besides, even if we did directly know them, I don't believe there would be any of the extraordinary circumstances you describe. I think daily life would continue as normal.} Those statements make me think we are misunderstanding each other again. To me the issue then was-not knowing any thing. The issue was realization beyond/through the Great Illusion. So if you were not talking about that then you are right, life continues as normal. Any way, to be clear, you are not talking about Ultimate Truth and understanding from that perspective? Now when you say lets talk from an Abhidhamic view, I assume you mean the science of reality. This does imply looking at the components or aggregates of things, as well as the compounded-ness. Under this view the self exist, as/(and as-not) you already know. That is the Self I speak of all the time. I always try to stand in the middle. You are wrong about science, it also looks into the nature (components and their interactions) of things in a profound/philosophical way. So when you say: "There is eye consciousness, eye base, eye object, contact and feeling, or there is ear consciousness, ear base, . . . and so on." You can learn about this in Cognitive Science. And Yes, Science is also much narrower when you look at the specialties, but that is so that it can go much, much, deeper, even to the point of Emptiness/nothing-ness (read the Tao of Physics). Again, this confuses me {"Yes, I would like that. But let's take the down-to-earth academic approach - no going into a trance or anything like that. :-)"} Only because I always thought my post were very down-to-earth and academic. Even to the extent that when seeing, I see, the aggregates see, ... And when asked, I explained how I see. Charles PS: You need to understand that I have been studying Buddhism since 1973, and now the book I try to understand is life, my life in particular. So when a claim is made that does not jive with my life's experiences I usually post a rebuttal. And Please do-not think that I am too old to learn something new, you just better have a good argument, or become right in my eyes. Keep this in mind: In Buddhism, Absolute terms transcends thought, this is beyond mind and body. Scientific (called Abhidhamic during ancient times) terms describes things interms of their makeup and what they are a part of. The two can be mixed. ----- Original Message ----- From: kenhowardau Hi Charles, We were talking about discussing the world in absolute terms (nama and rupa). You wrote: ------------------------ > I have tried and do sometimes; however, I am probably too much of vajrayanaist fist (so I live in samsara -- 'it' is my medicine). I found the view, based on Ultimate Truth alone, to be impractical because: 1) I have not been in a hurry to go beyond; 2) if you were not living the life of a recluse, "you" are a central part of the life around you whether you like or not; and 3) it confuses people new to Buddhism. Also, when I take the view of - - the thoughts and words are like the sound of one-hand-clapping and the wordless sermon. "We" would have nothing to say, nothing to do. ------------------------ We are not talking about the same thing here. I was simply saying we should understand the world to be the presently arising five khandhas (nama and rupa). I was not expecting us to directly know any of them. And besides, even if we did directly know them, I don't believe there would be any of the extraordinary circumstances you describe. I think daily life would continue as normal. --------------------------- <....> 42931 From: Charles DaCosta Date: Wed Mar 2, 2005 1:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ken--ultimate (Abhidhamma) view part 2 I will finish this later (way passed my bed time - you should take that as a complement), but for now, the last paragraph I will not have to comment on; but keep this in mind (ok I lied): Fear and Shame are Dharma Protectors. Some times clarity and calm precedes a storm. Charles ----- Original Message ----- From: kenhowardau To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, 02 March, 2005 06:01 Subject: [dsg] Re: Ken--ultimate (Abhidhamma) view part 2 Hi Charles, I was saying: > in my experience (and I still have a long way to go), the five precepts have been kept much more readily since I learned about the transitory, conditioned, non-self nature of reality. ----------------------- > Charles Response: Do you mean that the body steals not me? for example. --------------------- No, in absolute reality there is no thief who steals, there is no property that is stolen and there is no victim that is stolen from. Instead, there are fleeting conditioned namas and rupas. Sometimes they include namas that think in terms of 'thief' 'property' and 'victim,' and sometimes they include the nama that wills the action known as stealing. --------------------------------- C: > OR do you mean that you better understand how to control desire? ---------------------------------- I probably expressed it wrongly. There is no control over dhammas: stealing, for example, arises when the conditions for its arising are present. So I should not have suggested that a Dhamma student learns about nama and rupa in order to become a good precept keeper. If there is stealing now, then that is a reality that can be directly understood. The same goes for thinking, hearing, seeing and visible object etc., - any reality that exists now is to be understood as a fleeting, conditioned, empty-of-self nama or rupa. Understanding the world in this way involves mental factors that know the difference between kusala and akusala, the benefits of the one and dangers of the other. So it puts conditions in place for less akusala and more kusala (including more precept keeping) in the future. When that will be, who knows? Who cares? Getting back to my own experience, I find that an intellectual understanding of nama and rupa means there is less self- recrimination, guilt and regret over what I should do and what I should not do. Knowing about conditionality at least helps me to have a clearer, calmer outlook on life - but there is no control. Ken H <...> 42932 From: Date: Wed Mar 2, 2005 4:57pm Subject: Vism.XIV,142 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV 142. (xi)-(xii) It has conscientious scruples (hiriyati) about bodily misconduct, etc., thus it is conscience (hiri). This is a term for modesty. It is ashamed (ottappati) of those same things, thus it is 'shame' (ottappa). This is a term for anxiety about evil. Herein, 'conscience' has the characteristic of disgust at evil, while 'shame' has the characteristic of dread of it. 'Conscience' has the function of not doing evil and that in the mode of modesty, while 'shame' has the function of not doing it and that in the mode of dread. They are manifested as shrinking from evil in the way already stated. Their proximate causes are self-respect and respect of others [respectively]. A man rejects evil through 'conscience' out of respect for himself, as the daughter of a good family does; he rejects evil through 'shame' out of respect for another, as a courtesan does. But these two states should be regarded as the guardians of the world (see A.i,51). 42933 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Mar 2, 2005 6:19pm Subject: Re: Ken - part 3 - ultimate (Abhidhamma) view Hi Charles, Thanks for these questions; it's always good to talk about Dhamma. --------------- C: > How are the Buddha's rules fundamentally different from other people's rules? --------------- As I like to repeat at every opportunity (quoting K Sujin, I think), 'the Buddha taught satipatthana, and every word of his teaching should be understood in terms of satipatthana.' That leads nicely to your next question: -------------------- C: > What is satipatthana? -------------------- I agree this has to be defined because various Dhamma students use the word in various ways. Satipatthana is the four bases of mindfulness. A moment of right mindfulness is often given the name, 'a moment of satipatthana,' or just, 'satipatthana.' It is a moment when a conditioned dhamma that has appeared at one of the six doors becomes the object of right understanding, right thought, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration. So satipatthana is a moment of insight into the nature of conditioned reality. It is not to be confused with a moment of insight into the nature of unconditioned reality (Nibbana). They are both vipassana, but the former tends to be called satipatthana, or mundane path consciousness, and the latter tends to be called enlightenment or supramundane Path-consciousness (Magga-citta). ---------------------------- C: > How is it that a conventional understanding of rules and precepts is not a way out of samsara? ---------------------------- A conventional understanding of the precepts can lead to the performance of kusala kamma. In fact, most types of kusala kamma can be performed without any knowledge of the Buddha's teaching, and they nevertheless lead to rebirth in happy realms of existence. Ultimately, however, all existence (happy or unhappy) is nothing more than the presently arising five aggregates of clinging (the five khandhas), and it is these five aggregates that the Buddha described as samsara. Only satipatthana leads to Path-consciousness (enlightenment), and only Path-consciousness leads to final release from samsara (final extinction of the aggregates). ----------------------------------- C: > I do not understand what you mean by "... precepts are kept at specific moments of consciousness when a virati cetasika (abstention from either wrong-speech, wrong-deed or wrong-livelihood) is present." ----------------------------------- If we are to see every word of the Buddha's teaching in terms of satipatthana, then precept keeping is certainly to be seen that way. So, which conditioned dhammas arise (either in sense-door or mind- door processes) when there is precept keeping? How do they differ from dhammas that arise at other kusala moments? The presence of virati cetasika is one difference that stands out. Virati is the mental factor that abstains from an opportunity to perform seriously wrong action (akusala kamma-patha). I am not saying this kind of knowledge equals the practice of satipatthana: it is only an intellectual understanding of the dhammas that arise. When panna (right understanding), sati (right mindfulness) and the other right factors arise to take any one of those dhammas as their object, then there is a moment of satipatthana. ----------------------------------- C: > Monks from two totally different traditions said to me that the keeping precepts is essential all the time, and without this practice, one would run the risk of being dishonored or worst-- disrobed. ------------------------------------- A monk's way of life involves abiding by the rules of training, and there are specific reasons for this that do not apply to the lay- follower's way of life. However, a monk must understand the difference between accepting the rules of training and practising the Buddha's teaching - satipatthana. Only satipatthana leads to enlightenment. Rule keeping has other benefits. (Several DSG members have explained the mechanics of rule keeping, but I haven't really understood them as yet.) -------------------- C: > I have learned to see precepts the way they (the orders of monks and nuns) do and there is no great mystery in it. -------------------- No, there is no great mystery in conventional reality - even a child can understand most of it. But the reality described by the Buddha is totally composed of paramattha dhammas. That, ultimate, reality is truly profound and incredibly hard to see. --------------------------- C: > Sometimes while seeking mystery we overlook the obvious, sometimes. I try not to do that; that is the kind of man I am. ----------------------------- Then you are in good company here at DSG. By studying Dhamma, we can have a sane, well-balanced understanding of the world. There is no need to seek 'mysterious' 'out of this world' experiences. Ken H 42934 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Mar 2, 2005 6:31pm Subject: [dsg] Re: ultimate (Abhidhamma) view / Ken Hi again Charles, ---------------- C: > To me, when you use the words "Ultimate" or "Absolute" then ... I realized that this is not what you meant but it was what you said. ----------------- Then what? I leave the realm of sanity? :-) All I am referring to is the world as the Buddha described it. So instead of people, chariots, places and stories there are only the presently arising five khandhas. -------------------- C: > What are khandhas (nama and rupa)? If you mean, by them, the arising of the 5 aggregates (of the ego and/or of the personality) then (I am confused) this is what I am always talking about. --------------------- Good, that's what I mean too, but I don't think we are using the same definition. There is no necessary connection between the five aggregates and the illusion of ego or of personality-existence. For example, the Buddha could be described as the five aggregates, and he had no illusions of any kind. ---------------------------- C: > I am not sure what you mean by: {I was not expecting us to directly know any of them. And besides, even if we did directly know them, I don't believe there would be any of the extraordinary circumstances you describe. I think daily life would continue as normal.} Those statements make me think we are misunderstanding each other again. To me the issue then was-not knowing any thing. The issue was realization beyond/through the Great Illusion. So if you were not talking about that then you are right, life continues as normal. ---------------------------- Realization is another word for knowing, is it not? And I *was* talking about that, and I still think life would continue as normal. Satipatthana is realisation beyond the illusion of permanence, satisfactoriness and self. And, if you look in the Satipatthana Sutta, you will see that it can occur while people are eating, walking, talking, toileting, or any other everyday activity. Life continues as normal - we don't fall off the toilet. :-) ------------------ C: > Any way, to be clear, you are not talking about Ultimate Truth and understanding from that perspective? ------------------ I agree we should be clear on this. Earlier, you were talking about the sound of one hand clapping and an inability to say anything. I don't see why such conundrums should arise when we discuss Abhidhamma. ------------------------- C: > Now when you say lets talk from an Abhidhamic view, I assume you mean the science of reality. This does imply looking at the components or aggregates of things, as well as the compounded-ness. Under this view the self exist, as/(and as-not) you already know. That is the Self I speak of all the time. I always try to stand in the middle. -------------------------- I might get you to explain this point again some time. --------------------------------- C: > You are wrong about science, it also looks into the nature (components and their interactions) of things in a profound/philosophical way. So when you say: "There is eye consciousness, eye base, eye object, contact and feeling, or there is ear consciousness, ear base, . . . and so on." You can learn about this in Cognitive Science. --------------------------------- No, you are very mistaken: The reality taught by the Buddha is not known to science and it never will be. It is known only to, and taught only by, a Buddha. Rupa cannot be explained by concepts of matter, and nama cannot be explained by concepts of conscious matter (not that science has any concepts of consciousness as yet). ------------------- C: > And Yes, Science is also much narrower when you look at the specialties, but that is so that it can go much, much, deeper, even to the point of Emptiness/nothing-ness (read the Tao of Physics). ------------------ I did try to read it when I was that way inclined. I am sure it is a sidetrack leading away from the Buddha's teaching. ---------------------------- C: > Again, this confuses me {"Yes, I would like that. But let's take the down-to-earth academic approach - no going into a trance or anything like that. :-)"} Only because I always thought my post were very down-to-earth and academic. Even to the extent that when seeing, I see, the aggregates see, ... And when asked, I explained how I see. ---------------------------- Yes, sorry about that. I was harping on, unnecessarily, about the need to discuss Abhidhamma in a normal manner rather than in terms of "one hand clapping" or by "silence" or any other "mysterious" means. Ken H 42935 From: connie Date: Wed Mar 2, 2005 6:45pm Subject: Re: Test your knowledge..... Hi, Sarah, James, Thanks for explaining about the typo, James. I wondered why Sarah ignored it, but I guess she knew that. I'm going to have to think about the nimitta thing a bit. Just too lazy to try chasing down a dim recollection tonight. Maybe you're right about it only concerning meditation, but I don't think so. Sorry to disappoint you, Sarah but I don't think James and I have much left to say on the bio right now. I can't work up much enthusiasm for the Vinaya conversation, either. To me, it's just back to 'who ya gonna believe?' and I think this is the 3rd time I've tried to read the article and it doesn't even seem to get as far as in one eye and out the other. As far as the aunt and pregnant niece story goes, if you'd only done your homework...! Maybe some other time - if and when I ever go back to the 'bardo' thread? peace, connie 42936 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Mar 2, 2005 9:58pm Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 135 - Applied thinking/Vitakka, Sustained thinking/Vicaara(e) Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== [Ch.8 Applied thinking(Vitakka),Sustained thinking(Vicaara)contd] *** We read in the “Discourse on the Twofold Thought” (Middle Length Sayings I, no. 19) that the Buddha, while he was still a Bodhisatta, considered both akusala vitakka and kusala vitakka. We read that when the thought of sense-pleasures arose, he comprehended thus: * … “This thought of sense-pleasures has arisen in me, but it conduces to self-hurt and it conduces to the hurt of others and it conduces to the hurt of both, it is destructive of intuitive wisdom, associated with distress, not conducive to nibbåna.” But while I was reflecting, “It conduces to self-hurt”, it subsided; and while I was reflecting, “It conduces to the hurt of others”, it subsided; and while I was reflecting, “It is destructive of intuitive wisdom, it is associated with distress, it is not conducive to nibbåna”, it subsided. So I, monks, kept on getting rid of the thought of sense-pleasures as it constantly arose, I kept on driving it out, I kept on making an end of it…" * The same is said about the thought of malevolence and the thought of harming. We then read: * "…Monks, according to whatever a monk ponders and reflects on much, his mind in consequence gets a bias that way. Monks, if a monk ponder and reflect much on thought of sense-pleasures he ejects thought of renunciation; if he makes much of the thought of sensepleasures, his mind inclines to the thought of sense-pleasures. Monks, if a monk ponder and reflect much on the thought of malevolence… he ejects the thought of non-malevolence… his mind inclines to the thought of malevolence. Monks, if a monk ponder and reflect much on the thought of harming, he ejects the thought of non-harming; if he makes much of the thought of harming, his mind inclines to the thought of harming…" * ***** [Ch.8 Applied thinking(Vitakka),Sustained thinking(Vicaara)to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 42937 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Mar 2, 2005 11:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddha said: That's how you should train yourselves Hi Hugo, It’s difficult for me to tell whether you want any response to comments and questions you raised in your post to me or whether the questions are just rhetorical ones and you know the answers;-). Perhaps I’ll just add a few comments rather than reply to everything in context. 1. ‘What is going on?’. I think we need to be more and more specific. We’re so used to having a conceptual idea and being aware of this –- eating, sitting, breathing and so on—- so, unless I know someone well, in the context of a dhamma discussion, I’ll ask what is meant. If you don’t want to use terms such as ‘namas and rupas’, no problem. But you still haven’t told me what your specific understanding is of ‘what is going on’ at this very moment, so I don't know if we have a similar understanding on this or not. 2. You say you sit to meditate in order to learn how your mind works and that eventually you will get to the point that you find our that everything is anicca, dukkha and anatta. (note, we all use Dhamma words when it suits us:-). So what is the mind and what is everything? Does this mind only work when you’re sitting or is is clearer at such a time? Is this what you believe the Buddha taught? 3. Conditions and the Self word. We can use any words or terms but we need to be very clear about what is meant. If I say ‘I’ve been fortunate…’, it’s just short-hand or conventional speech referring to results of kusala kamma and wholesome accumulations. Yes, I’m very happy to be told ‘conditions’ is my mantra – a good one to have. When I go to a restaurant and order a specific dish, as you say it is because of clinging to a specific taste, but even that clinging is ‘accumulated’ and recalled by a particular condition. The same answer applies to all the other questions about how we decide what to wear or why we celebrate in a particular way. Nothing is left to chance or a Self. The conditions involved are very intricate and I think that in your 3rd life on DSG you’d find it very useful to study them in a little more depth. I’d be delighted to discuss this area further with you. 4. You say ‘my approach’ doesn’t work for you. Hugo. Seeing the value in understanding present dhammas is not an approach, as I see it, and certainly doesn’t belong to me, but I understand what you mean. When there is clinging, which of course there is most of the day, it really is just attachment or lobha which clings. Regardless of whether there is or is not a concept of self at any moment, it’s still only attachment and wrong view which clings or has such a view. I could give you ‘Sarah-study’ answers, but honestly, as I said to another friend, I’m convinced ‘Dhamma-study’ is more useful and a lot more interesting:-). Hugo, believe me I'd be glad to reach a happy agreement on any of these points, but when it comes to Dhamma-study, I don't believe in compromises just for the sake of finishing threads tidily:-). Metta, Sarah ======== --- Hugo wrote: > mmmmmm....when I say "what is going on", I mean "what is going on", if > namas and rupas is what it is going on, then that's what is going on > and that's what needs to be understood. You seem to imply that when I > say "what is going on" is something different than namas and rupas. > 42938 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Mar 2, 2005 11:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Predominant roots? Sarah Hi Kel, --- kelvin_lwin wrote: > > > Hi Sarah, > > I was hoping Ashin Dhammanando will reply first but I'll combine > the points you raised into this reply. … S: You did an excellent job and raised a number of very interesting points for me to consider further. I’m grateful for your research. I won’t requite it all, but just give the first paragraph again here as a reminder to others of what we were discussing: … > Kel: I think you'll recall the different level of aspirations > a "fledgling" bhodisatta makes. First it's a just a thought, then > it's a mental aspiration then it moves to verbal aspiration. Before > Buddha Dipankara, why weren't the Buddhas able to give a niyata > despite aspirations made in front of them? I think it's simply at > that time he hasn't accumulated enough to have a sure destiny. So > technically shouldn't be called a Bodhisatta until after a niyata. > Before then he's just like any puthujjana, so the same rules will > apply with no guarantee to stay on the path. … S: Yes, sounds good. I believe a niyata is a fixed or ‘sure’ destiny. As you say, he cannot really be referrd to as a Bodhisatta until the aspiration has been made in front of a Buddha and the niyata has been given. …. > The monks offered this up this way to think about it. > Sankarupekkha is like upacara panna for magga (they also confirmed > dvihetuka can reach this) like upacara samadhi before appana > samadhi. Upacara would be yaava with implication of not having > obtained the next step: magga or appana. Vithi for sankarupekkha > would just be upekkha maha-kusala with panna. So it has the same > relations and function as all the other javanas or accumulations. … S: I follow the reasoning. I’m surprised they said dvihetuka could reach that stage, but it’s a small detail. Any textual references for this? … <….> > Kel: I mention it only as a function of how one arrives at magga > via anuloma. Repeated attainment of sankarupekkha nana only > increases one's chance of succeeding, it doesn't guarantee in any > way. I don't see a self as it's just the probability of success > that I was referring to. I was mostly trying to convey the fluid > model of nanas instead of the fixed one you seem to have. … S: I’m still having some difficulty in seeing the relevance of these details about higher nanas (levels of insight) to our main discussion about the development of satipatthana in daily life. Are you suggesting there can be ‘Repeated attainment of sankarupekkha nana’ or that there can be a ‘fluid model of nanas’ with the development of insight in one life? When you refer to ‘one’ arriving at magga, please clarify what you mean. Thank you again for all your assistance. I’ve certainly learnt some new detail in this thread and there are some details I intend to consider and discuss further after a little more digestion. Metta, Sarah ========= 42939 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Mar 3, 2005 0:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Predominant roots? Hi Kel, Our main thread is more contentious:-)Thank you for your patience in responding. I think I’ll just summarise some of the outstanding points as I see them as the posts are already very long: 1. We both agree that the grosser defilements are eradicated by the sotapanna, but I’m not talking about advanced stages of insight or eradication, but about lobha and dosa and other mental states which can be known in daily life without needing to specify any order or particular focus. I quoted from the Satipatthana Sutta, but you repeat that the intended meaning is that the gross defilements, which before you stressed was dosa, should be known first. 2. You’ve repeated a few times that if vedana in particular is clearly understood, especially as it’s a universal cetasika, then the tilakkhana can be realized and as the same characteristics pertain to all dhammas, this is sufficient. 'One or many objects makes no difference as long as it’s the same level of panna’. I think this is an erroneous view for many reasons. a)Vedana arises at each moment, but it doesn’t ‘appear’ as an object of javana cittas which can be known at each moment. It’s an important distinction. b) Whenever there’s the selection of a particular object, it’s bound to be with attachment. c) As we just read in Nina’s post #42882, the proximate cause of satipatthana is ‘the foundations of mindfulness…’(see M10). As Nina pointed out, this refers to ‘all namas and rupas that can be the objects of mindfulness’. d) In order to reach the first stage of insight, namas and rupas need to be clearly understood and differentiated. For other stages such as the understanding of khandhas, insight cannot be attained by just understanding vedana. In fact, I’d say, without clearly understanding rupas and other namas such as seeing and hearing, it’s impossible to understand vedana. 4. We still have some difference in our understanding of dhammanupassana, I believe. You say ‘dhammanupassana of the associated emotions, conventionally speaking, with those stories.’ I think we should be clear that while we both agree that concepts in themselves ‘aren’t a problem’, they can never be objects of satipatthana because they are not paramattha dhammas. 5. You mention ‘one’s accumulation of observing vedana’ and how it’s ‘useful and necessary up to a degree to be able to focus on an object. Once the mind is able to focus, it can do pannatti as well as paramattha..’ We were talking about the understanding of dhammas as anatta. I don’t understand any observing or focusing to be of value or relevance in this regard. You also mention that it’s ‘samadhi’ which ‘let’s you see it’, but I read the texts as saying it’s panna which does the ‘seeing’, whether we’re talking about samatha or vipassana development. 6. You say that you ‘read many times one satipatthana is sufficient since it covers all four anyway…’. Please show me in a text what it is you’re referring to (with translation!!).I hope you’re not just referring to sankharupekkha nana:-) Again you said at the end of your post ‘We’re in kamma realm where vedana cannot be experienced without both nama and rupa. So if you understand vedana completely then the insight is accomplished.’ I would change this round and say that without understanding namas and rupas – many, many different ones when they appear, it’s impossible to understand vedana or for insight to develop and eventually be accomplished. ***** I look forward to any of your further comments, but appreciate you may be tired of this discussion. Perhaps you could post a short extract or two from the article you mentioned if it helps too. Metta, Sarah ====== 42940 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Mar 3, 2005 2:37am Subject: [dsg] Re: Ken--ultimate (Abhidhamma) view part 2 Hello Charles, I hope you slept well. You made one quick comment on my last paragraph: ------------- C: > Fear and Shame are Dharma Protectors. Some times clarity and calm precedes a storm. ------------------------ Yes, that's true, although it could also be false, depending on how you look at it. That's the problem with conventional reality: everything is relative, nothing entirely true and nothing entirely false. Fear, shame, clarity and calm can each be seen at different times, and by different people, sometimes as good qualities and sometimes as bad. The Abhidhamma, however, explains that volitional consciousness can only be kusala or akusala - personal opinion has no effect on it. We might think we have wholesome mental factors (e.g, hiri (moral shame), otappa (moral dread), citta-pasaddhi (tranquillity of consciousness)) but, in reality, have unwholesome mental factors (e.g., dosa (aversion), kukkucca (worry) and akusala-somanassa (pleasant feeling accompanied by attachment)). In the case in point, I'm sure you are right: the calmer, clearer mind I claimed to have more often these days is almost always akusala, rooted in attachment. And, as you say, that kind of calm precedes a storm. But such is the worldlings' lot. :-) Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Charles DaCosta" wrote: > > I will finish this later (way passed my bed time - you should take that as a complement), but for now, the last paragraph I will not have to comment on; but keep this in mind (ok I lied): > > Fear and Shame are Dharma Protectors. Some times clarity and calm precedes a storm. > > Charles > 42941 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Mar 3, 2005 5:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Proliferations of Perceptions and Memories Hi, TG >J: Actually, I have said all along that thinking (the mental act) is real >but the things thought of (i.e., the object of thinking, thoughts) are not. > >TG: I don't think anything that can be experienced isn't real. > > I think I would agree with this, on the basis that 'what can be experienced' is a subset of the wider 'what can be object of consciousness'. To me, the former implies some 'thing' that is taken as object, while the latter carries no such implication. An example of the latter would be what we mean by thinking and remembering: moments when consciousness has concept as its object. At such moments there is no 'thing' being experienced (since concepts/memories have no subsistence outside the precise moment of consciousness of which they are the object). The thinking is conditioned by past sense- and mind-door moments. Does this make any sense to you? >TG: Nyanatiloka has vitakka-vicara as "thought-conception and Discursive >thinking." > > Yes, but vitakka and vicara are both particular mental factors (cetasikas) that accompany a moment of consciousness, so they have a specific meaning and function. The problem we are grappling with here is that (conventional) thoughts and memories do not have an exactly corresponding term in the teachings. >I belive B. Bodhi, Nanamoli, and the PTS translation all talk about thought >regarding the first and second jhana. Does this make thought or thinking or >conception seem any more real? > > I believe the reference you have seen would be to the same cetasikas vitakka and vicara. These 2 are among the cetasikas that perform the function of allowing the mind to take the same object repeatedly (i.e., to concentrate on the contemplation subject). The CMA gives 7 cetasikas that together perform this function (BB: 'enable the mind to closely contemplate its object' -- CMA VII, Guide to #16). Jon 42942 From: Hugo Date: Thu Mar 3, 2005 6:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddha said: That's how you should train yourselves Dear Sarah, On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 07:09:17 +0000 (GMT), sarah abbott wrote: > It's difficult for me to tell whether you want any response to comments > and questions you raised in your post to me or whether the questions are > just rhetorical ones and you know the answers;-). Point noted, I will make it clear in future posts. > Perhaps I'll just add a few comments rather than reply to everything in > context. > > 1. 'What is going on?'. I think we need to be more and more specific. > We're so used to having a conceptual idea and being aware of this –- > eating, sitting, breathing and so on—- so, unless I know someone well, in > the context of a dhamma discussion, I'll ask what is meant. If you don't > want to use terms such as 'namas and rupas', no problem. But you still > haven't told me what your specific understanding is of 'what is going on' > at this very moment, so I don't know if we have a similar understanding on > this or not. Well, my specific understanding of "what is going on" keeps changing as I become aware of "more things" or aware that the "things" I noticed before "behave" differently to what I perceived originally. Now, can I say that I have "seen" nama and rupa?, I don't know, at least it seems that I have perceived namas coming and going (e.g. thoughts, feelings, etc.). > 2. You say you sit to meditate in order to learn how your mind works and > that eventually you will get to the point that you find our that > everything is anicca, dukkha and anatta. (note, we all use Dhamma words > when it suits us:-). The use of Dhamma words is not what I was criticizing, the "abuse" of the use of Dhamma words was. >So what is the mind and what is everything? I know, at the end all is nama and rupa, but now I can "feel" a mind, well, actually I can "feel" several minds, probably you don't remember but months ago I posted something about feeling various "selves" popping when I was driving, one listened to the music, one drove, one was doing discursive thinking and one was watching the whole show. I started reading a book about cittanupassana, and now I know that those are not "selves" but "minds", well that's the way they call it. So, I can feel a "mind", that's what I work with. In the past I could only feel one, and I thought that mind was "me", now I know it is not "me", but not because I read it, because I started feeling those other minds, and why I started feeling those other minds, because I read and discussed Dhamma and sit to meditate and watch "the mind". > Does this > mind only work when you're sitting or is is clearer at such a time? The mind works all the time, it is just that it is easier to "watch it" (at least for me) when I am in a quiet place with my eyes closed, after a few months of doing that I was able to "watch it" in other places and under other situations, still I can't do it 100% of the time, but it gets easier and easier. Also, now I am able to "detect" when those different minds "become one", I think is when "my self gets stronger" or "the sense of a self is stronger" (which is not good), when I have a "multiple minds" feeling I feel pretty detached from everything, weird and funny, but interesting and peaceful. > Is > this what you believe the Buddha taught? Yes. But let's keep this topic about if the Buddha described or prescribed for my "next life in DSG" (I liked that phrase). :-) > The > conditions involved are very intricate I know, but we can't forget in what situation we are now and that we need to work from where we are, so we need to take provisions to make the current situation good enough so we can work on the final result. > and I think that in your 3rd life > on DSG you'd find it very useful to study them in a little more depth. I'd > be delighted to discuss this area further with you. Thanks, I will definitely take on that offer. > Hugo, believe me I'd be glad to reach a happy agreement on any of these > points, but when it comes to Dhamma-study, I don't believe in compromises > just for the sake of finishing threads tidily:-). That's fine, as I said to Jon, I am not looking for an agreement per se, I am looking to learn from you, this post of you provided me with much more "material" than previous ones where only "your mantra" was repeated, thanks for taking the time and effort to explain. P.S. I think I didn't ask any question in this post, I will say goodbye tomorrow, so I don't interrupt Nina's study by making her laugh......on the other hand, if I don't really say goodbye tomorrow she will have a laugh attack. :-) Greetings, -- Hugo 42943 From: Hugo Date: Thu Mar 3, 2005 7:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Personlessness Teachings Not Against Precepts: (Was: fifth prec... Hello Charles, On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 20:41:13 +0100, Charles DaCosta wrote: > How would you feel if that string of conditions was about to be imprisoned in a cage for ten years, even if it meant beyond the grave? > > PS: is it hard to have no-feelings, or are the feelings really you (just having fun)? I barely can restrain "myself" from following some of my desires when I am awake, I think it is beyond my possibilities to try to restrain "myself" when I am sleeping, what I can do is to not indulge on those feelings when I wake up remembering what I dreamed of. And you know the answer, the feelings are not me. -- Hugo 42944 From: hasituppada Date: Thu Mar 3, 2005 6:36am Subject: Nina Van Gorkom I had been away for some time and I was not connected to Internet. On my return I found my Yahoo account submerged with over 30000 messages. I had no time to read them all ,but I did read some of Nina's. As always they are blossoms of fragrant Dhamma. There is n't the slightest note of impatience, anger, irritation or fatigue. She answers all however they pose the questions. Her answers are a beam of light to illuminate that which is clouded with darkness. Even the Buddha maintained silence when he was asked the same question over and over again. During the period I was away, her several pages of Abhidhamma in Daily life, kept Company with The Manual of Abhdhamma of Venerable Narada Maha Thera on my work table. I like those Chapters from her book The Abhidhamma in Daily life ( which I had copied from her website) that elucidates in very readable simple language the deepest of the Lord Buddha's Dhamma. Thank you Nina. May you always be well and happy, and be there to make clear the subtle difficulties with the deep Dhamma. metta, Hasituppada 42945 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Mar 3, 2005 8:06pm Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 136 - Applied thinking/Vitakka, Sustained thinking/Vicaara(f) Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== [Ch.8 Applied thinking(Vitakka),Sustained thinking(Vicaara)contd] *** It is useful to know on what we reflect most of the time. We have a bias towards akusala, since we have accumulated so much akusala. We are more inclined to unwholesome thoughts and therefore it is difficult to have wholesome thoughts. When there is a pleasant object the thought of sense-pleasures arises almost immediately. When there is an unpleasant object there is bound to be a thought of annoyance or malice, or there can even be a thought of harming. When someone else receives praise and honour, we may be inclined to jealousy and then there is akusala vitakka accompanying the dosa-múla-citta with jealousy. It is difficult to cultivate kusala vitakka but the Buddha showed that it can be done. Further on in the sutta we read about three kinds of kusala vitakka which are the opposites of the three kinds of akusala vitakka. They are: *the thought of renunciation (nekkhamma) *the thought of non-malevolence (avyåpåda) *the thought of non-harming (avihiósa) The bodhisatta realized that these lead neither to self-hurt, nor to the hurt of others, nor to the hurt of both, but that they are for “growth in intuitive wisdom”, that they are “not associated with distress”, “conducive to nibbåna”. ***** [Ch.8 Applied thinking(Vitakka),Sustained thinking(Vicaara)to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 42946 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Thu Mar 3, 2005 8:46pm Subject: Re: Predominant roots? Sarah Hi Sarah, > S: I follow the reasoning. I'm surprised they said dvihetuka could reach > that stage, but it's a small detail. Any textual references for this? I'll ask but might be a bit. > S: I'm still having some difficulty in seeing the relevance of these > details about higher nanas (levels of insight) to our main discussion > about the development of satipatthana in daily life. Kel: I guess I'm just talking about the model and it was sorta continuation of my convo with Jon. We can drop it. > S: there can be `Repeated attainment of sankarupekkha nana' or that there can > be a `fluid model of nanas' with the development of insight in one life? Kel: Sure because there isn't really an "attainment" unlike jhana or magga as they're separate vithis. Sankarupekkha nana is kusala vithi of high quality panna. So the panna isn't lasting until it reaches magga quality. > When you refer to `one' arriving at magga, please clarify what you mean. Kel: How to get from kusala vithi to magga vithi since they start out the same. - kel 42947 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Thu Mar 3, 2005 9:00pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Predominant roots? Hi Sarah, Tell you what, I'm just going to quote Ledi sayadaw with excerpts from his Dipani. You can find the full link below: http://www.ubakhin.com/ledi/manual6b.htm Of the four [satipatthana], if mindfulness or attention is firmly established on a part of the body, such as on out-breath and in- breath, it is tantamount to attention being firmly established **on all things**. This is because the ability to place one's attention on any object at one's will has been acquired. 'Firmly established' means, if one desires to place the attention on out-breath and in-breath for an hour, one's attention remains firmly fixed on it for that period. If one wishes to do so for two hours, one's attention remains firmly fixed on it for two hours. There is no occasion when the attention becomes released from its object on account of the instability of thought-conception (vitakkha). Why is it incumbent on us to firmly establish the mind without fail on any object such as the out-breath and the in-breath? It is because it is necessary for us to gather and control the six vinnana, [44] which have been drifting tempestuously and untrained throughout the past inconceivably long and beginningless samsara (round of rebirths). I shall make it clear. The mind is wont to flit about from one to another of the six objects of the senses which live at the approaches of the six sense-doors.[45] In this world, persons who are not insane, but who are normal and have control over their minds, resemble such a mad person having no control over his mind when it comes to the matter of samatha and vipassana. Just as the man upsets the food dish and walks away after five or six morsels of food athough he attempts to eat his meal, these normally sane persons find their attention wandering because they have no control over their minds. Whenever they pay respects to the Buddha and contemplate his noble qualities, they do not succeed in keeping their minds fixed on those noble qualities, but find their attention being diverted many times on to other objects of thought, and thus they fail to reach the end of even the 'itipiso' verse.[46] Papasmim ramate mano. The mind takes delight in evil.[49] Just as water naturally flows down from high places to low places, the minds of beings, if left uncontrolled, naturally approach evils. This is the tendency of the mind. In the infinite samsara, those beings who have obtained release from worldly ills within the Sasanas of the Buddhas who have appeared, whose numbers exceed the grains of sand on the banks of the river Ganges, are beings who had control over their minds and who possessed the ability of retaining their attention on any desired object at will through the practice of the satipatthana. A person who performs the practice of samatha and vipassana (calm and insight) without first attempting kayagata-satipatthana (mindfulness as regards the body), resembles the owner who yokes the still untamed bullock to the cart or plough without the nose-rope. Such an owner would find himself unable to drive the bullock at his desire. Because the bullock is wild, and because it has no nose- rope, it will either try to run off the road, or try to break loose by breaking the yoke. On the other hand, a person who first tranquillises and trains his mind with kayagata-satipatthana-bhavana (contemplation of the body) before turning his mind to the practice of samatha and vipassana (calm and insight), his attention will remain steady and his work will be successful. There are many kinds and many grades of mastery over the mind. The successful practice of kayagata-sati is, in the Buddha Sasana, the first stage of mastery over one's mind. Those who do not wish to follow the way of samatha (calm), but desire to pursue the path of pure vipassana, which is the way of the sukkha-vipassaka[52] individual, should proceed straight to vipassana after the successful establishment of kayagata-sati. If they do not want to practise kayagata-sati separately and if they mean to practise vipassana with such industry that it may carry kayagata-sati with it, they will succeed, provided that they really have the necessary wisdom and industry. The kayagata-sati that is associated with udayabbaya-nana (knowledge arising from contemplation of the arisings and vanishings of mental and physical phenomena), which clearly sees their coming into existence and passing away, is very valuable indeed. It is only when, through kayagata-sati, the unsettlement of their minds disappear, do they become aware of the heat of unsettled minds. Having attained the state of the disappearance of that, they develop a fear of a relapse to that heat. The case of those who have attained the first jhana, or udayabbaya-nana, through kayagata- satipatthana needs no elaboration. For catu-dhatu-vavatthana (analysis of the four great primaries), rupa-vipassana (contemplation of physical phenomena), and nama- vipassana (contemplation of mental phenomena), see my Lakkhana Dipani, Vijja-Magga Dipani, Ahara Dipani, and Anatta Dipani. Here ends a concise explanation of kayagtasati-bhavana, which is one of the four satipatthana, and which has to be established first in the work of bhavana (mental contemplation) by neyya and padaparama individuals for the purpose of attaining the Paths and the Fruits within a Buddha Sasana. - kel 42948 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Mar 3, 2005 10:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: NEW dialogue with Htoo Hi Htoo, I've been meaning to continue a few of our threads-sorry for the delay -it's been very busy. The points left here are mostly on samadhi and kamma.Everything else has been completely cleared up. --- htootintnaing wrote: >>S: #40844 DT (226) > You write: `Magga vithi vara is output of vipassana bhavana. It > derivesfrom kamavacara mahakusala cittas. Sometime at early stages > upacara samadhi or appana Samadhi help nivarana dhamma clear off the > mind.' <...> >>S: In other words, it is a stage of purification (visuddhi) and cannot > be attained by the mere development of upacara and appana Samadhi > without the very high degree of insight of the anagami (regardless of > whether he has attained jhanas prior to this realization or not). > Comments most welcome. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: I wrote on the basis of the fact written in > abhidhammatthasangaha by venerable anuruddha. If you want I may show > you the Pali and its translation. ... S: I'd be happy to look at and discuss any references you have in mind. ... > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sarah: > > You went on to say about cittavisuddhi above;: `Because the > cittas at > that time is totally free of nivarana dhammas which definitely hinder > magga nana not to arise'. Again, I'd turn it all around and > say that > there is citta visuddhi or calm from all sensuous attachment at this > level of purification as a result of the highly developed insight and > eradication (not just temporary suppression) of all attachment. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: I know what you are referring. Mere jhanas are not citta- > visuddhi even though it is the exact cittas that are happening. > Because the tendency are not the same. Citta-visuddhi is about the > Path leading to magga nana while mere jhanas are all not leading to > any magga nana. ... S: Yes, we completely agree here - I think it may have just been a language point. also on the 'shock', 'danger', 'fear' etc. ... >>S: Talking of which (dangers and so on), briefly (because this is getting > long), I love your posts on the various realms. In some, such as > #41342, > > I'm not sure, however, if all the details you give can be found > in the > texts, such as about the hell stations, the hell-dogs, the razor > trees,whips and hell-handlers & their methods. I'd be glad for > any > sources. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: Example is in Rob M's ebook. But I took the ideas from > Sanvegavatthudiipanii by kyee-the-lay-htat-sayadaw long time ago and > not at hand. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: I'm not familiar with this text -can you tell me anything about it? do you think the examples are all taken from the original texts and early commentaries or have 'developed'? .... <...> > Sarah: > > If it is not killing etc, the kamma cannot produce an unhappy birth, > but it can produce results during life if it is strong enough as I > understand. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: You are right. Ordinary akusala will not appear near dying :-). > But the javana that arises near dying are all kamma patha things. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- .... S: Yes, but we are not talking about the last javana cittas, but ordinary akusala in a day which may not be kamma patha with all or any kamma patha factors and therefore may just bring results during life (as you said) or not at all. I think we more or less agree here. ... > Htoo: I agree. Small things will not qualify for rebirth even when > there is no garuka, asanna, acinna kamma. ... S: Right... I'd go further and say small things, like everyday ordianary attachments and annoyances will not qualify on their own to bring any results but will accumulated and support other kamma patha capable of bringing results. Metta, Sarah ==== 42949 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Mar 3, 2005 10:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dialogue with Htoo 2 Dear Htoo, Just a little left here on Tiger Woods:-) --- htootintnaing wrote: <....> > Htoo: It is hard. Let us see 'golfer Tiger Wood's mind when he was > patting'. > > Just before he striked there arose a mind to strike. That mind was a > mixture if we explore into abhidhamma terms. So let us concentrate on > javana cittas. > > Again there are different javanas. Different golfers would have > different javanas. Tiger may have lobha javanas. Or he may also have > mahakusala javanas. > > Why? It is not bhavana, it is not siila, and it is not daana. This > just means that Tiger was not doing 'punnakiriya' or wholesome > actions of kamma-patha things. But it may well be mahakusala javanas > when he was patting. .... S: I don't follow this. If it's not dana, sila or bhavana, what other makhakusala javanas can there be? Perhaps I define these in a wider sense than you to include all kusala (not just punnakiriya). .... > One recent commentary explained that when it is not moha, dosa, and > lobha, then it must be mahakusala javanas anyway. ... S: Yes. I think another way of saying this is that when it isn't dana, sila or bhavana, then there's definitely moha and possibly either lobha or dosa. As we know, akusala is far more common than kusala. Perhaps we can explore this a little. .... > > Ordinary people like us may have > > 1. akusala javana of 12 cittas. > 2. kusala javana of 8 cittas. > > We do not have hasituppada citta. > > Miccha-samadhi is another thing. .... S: Right. Well, miccha-samadhi is included in the akusala javana of course. Whenever it's akusala, there must be miccha-samadhi, surely? ... <...> > Sarah: > > In fact, I think Tiger's variety is less likely to be with the > wrong > view of it being anything wise or noble or related to jhana. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: I know. But ditthi is only cleared in sotapanna. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- .... S: That's true, but shouldn't it be understood more and more clearly when it arises in a day? .... <....> > p.s I liked your post on Devadatta and the Vinaya #41637. Also > #41780 is a very good summary of your series to date with lots of > helpful detail. .... > Htoo: > > This depends on individual accumulation or tendency. I am still busy. .... S: Yes, it does depend on accumulations what we find interesting or beneficial:-). Metta, Sarah ======= 42950 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Mar 3, 2005 11:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddha as object Dialogue with Htoo 2 Hi Htoo (& Robert K), On seeing the Buddha .... --- htootintnaing wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > > Thanks for pointing this old post. The whole message is, I think, > exactly the same what I read in my past <¡K> > 25.'Sabbatthaapi panettha anitthe aarammane akusala vipakaa neva > pancavinnaana sampaticchana santirana tadaarammanaani'. > > 26. says 'itthe kusala vipaakaani.' > > 27. says 'ati-itthe pana somanassa sahagataa neva santirana > tadaarammanaani'. > > You have already wrote 25 in simple English, good. > > 26 says 'desirable object causes arising of 'wholesome resultants' > or 'kusala vipaaka'. > > 27 says 'highly desirable object [I refered it as 'golden image of > The Buddha] on the other hand [pana] causes 'investigating mind' > and 'retaining mind' of happy-feeling. ¡K S: Yes, but what I was stressing was the commentary note to #26 because we had been discussing the javana cittas which follow the experience of seeing a ¡¥very desirable object¡¦: ¡§For it is thus that the unfaithful have impulsions accompanied by equanimity with very desirable objects, such as the Buddha, and the followers of other religions impulsions accompanied by unhappiness; and [thus that] those of profound sensibilities have impulsions accompanied by equanimity with an unpleasant object, and dogs, etc, take pleasure in the sight of filth. The reason why eye-consciousnes, etc, occurring with a very desirable object are accompanied by equanimity has already been discussed above.*¡¨ ¡K. S: Anyway, now there is no disagreement, I rhink, on this as you say. You wrote to Robert K, --- htootintnaing wrote: >R: When we are talking about material object and when it is taken as a > highly regarded object: i.e. as arammana-purejatadhipatti (object > predominance condition).Then the conditioned consciousness is in fact > always rooted in lobha. It will not be kusala. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > I agree and Sarah will also agree, I hope. But what we were > discussing was 'the law of retention consciousness' or 'tadaarammana > niyama'. It is in abhidhammatthasangaha by Venerable Anuddha in vithi > portion in number 25, 26, and 27 while 28 is about 'aagantuka > bhavanga' or 'visiting life-continuing consciousness'. ¡K S: Well, I think you were talking about retention consciousness, I was talking about javana cittas following the experience of very desirable objects and RobK is writing about highly regarded material objects. So we were all on slightly different wave-lengths but they are all intersting;-). In any case, Rob introduced many good points and I¡¦m always happy to follow threads in any directionƒº ¡K. >H to Rob: But your post is very nice and I like it. Yes, when it is aarammana- > purejatadhipati paccaya or 'object-prenascence-predominence > condition' it will condition to lobha mula cittas. ¡K. S: I think just when we¡¦re talking about highly regarded *material* (rupa) objects as Rob said, will it definitely condition lobha. ¡K. > In paccaya portion 27. it says > > 'Tattha garukata maarammanam aarammanaadhipati vasena naamaanam, > sahajaataadhipati catubbidhopi sahajaata vasena sahajaataanam naama > ruupaananti ca duvidho hoti adhipati paccayo'. > > There are 18 ittha nipphanna rupas. When they serve as aarammana- > purejaata-adhipati paccaya or 'object-prenascence-predominence > condition they [18 ittha nipphanna ruupas] may condition > > 1. 8 lobha muula cittas > 2. 8 mahakusala cittas > 3. 4 mahakiriya nana sampayutta cittas > 4. 45 cetasikas after excluding 7 cetasikas > [dosa,issa,macchariya,kukkucca,vicikicchaa,karunaa,muditaa]. ¡K. S: Are you sure this is referring to aarammana *purejaata* adhipati paccaya with regard to just the rupas, pls double-check your translation above as it doesn¡¦t seem to follow. ¡K. > There are 3 options. One is akusala, another is kusala and the third > is kiriya. But generally most of the time lobha muula cittas will > arise in such object like 'the glory of The Buddha'. That is why I > agreed with you in 'object-prenascence-predominence condition'. ¡K S: Well, it¡¦s my understanding that: a) highly desirable rupas can be esperienced by any kind of following javanas (see my quote above)according to accumulations (natural decisive support condition), though usually they¡¦d be followed by lobha for worldlings. b) if the rupas are highly esteemed, they will definitely be followed by lobha according to object prenascence predominance condition I¡¦ll be glad for any comments. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Robert K continued: > "Here desire which is greed arises when the glory of the Buddha > which is visble object is taken as estimable object. Thus only greed > (lobha) consciousness arises when matter is taken as estimable > object."endquote Narada p98-99 Guide to Conditional Relations. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: A good book of course. But arahatta disciples would not develop > any lobha muula cittas when they saw the glory of The Buddha. As you > said at that time other condition may take the position. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- S: There is no conflict. U Narada is correct, I believe. For arahants, the rupas experienced through the senses would not be ¡¥highly esteemed¡¦ objects as I understand (and as Rob pointed out in his other comments). Of course, other objects such as the wisdom of the Buddha may be highly esteemed, but this (not a rupa) is not necessarily followed by lobha by prenascence predominance condition ¡V it can be followed by sobhana cittas. Both you and Rob made many more good points, but I¡¦m snipping as this is already long. Please re-check the translation of the quote for me, Htoo. Metta, Sarah ======== 42951 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Mar 4, 2005 0:20am Subject: Htoo- deva vehicles, rotating razors, busy demons & ariyan maths Dear Htoo, 1. #41413 You were talking about dying and the ‘racing competition of kamma’. You told a story about a rich man dying who kept asking the monks to stop chanting. ‘Actually the father is seeing ‘a deva vehicle driven by devas…’’ the father was reborn in the deva realm. It’s an interesting story. Does it come from a sutta or where? I’d be interested to read it. If it’s a modern story, how would anyone know?? 2. #41780 and #41920 – excellent summaries of your D.T. series – it would be helpful for any new-comers to the list to read these posts to understand Htoo’s threads a little better. 3. #41478 More on petas (ghosts) ‘who have rotating razors on their heads which is constantly cutting their scalp…’…’When the old kamma is used up the turn is finished and that particular peta gives the razor-rollers to others…’. I’m still trying to track down this references. I haven’t seen them in the texts I have on the Peta realms and commentary. Also #41481 on asurakaaya bhumi (demon realm)- I’d like to check the details, but haven’t been able to find the parts about being eaten by huge dogs, the day-time jobs and gathering at night to step into the fire…. Does it ring any bells with others, like either Rob? 4. On the maths in #4271. You say that the sotapanna ‘who attains all 5 rupa jhanas and all 4 arupa jhanas may have maximum of 55 cittas’. You have already in the post deducted various cittas that cannot arise such as rupa and arupa vipaka cittas, hasituppada, 8 mahakiriya cittas, 7 lokuttara cittas…. Actually I haven’t added up, but you haven’t indicated that you’ve deducted akusala cittas which have been eradicated such as lobha with wrong view and doubt. Also when you mention 55 up to arahant, I’m not sure you deducted the dosa cittas for the anagami… At the end, you also write : Simple puthujana can have 45 total cittas Jhanalabhi puthujanas can have 46 to 54…. Non-arahat ariyas can have 46 cittas Non-arahat ariyas with jhanas can have 47 to 55 cittas… Now it may all be correct and of course I could check easily in CMA I’m sure, but maybe I can ask you to kind clarify or spell it out a little more clearly for me. The 45 for the puthujana was very clear, but not the 46 for the non-arahat ariyas. How can it be the same for sotapannas and anagamis? Thanks again for your help. I think I’m up to date for about the first time ever! Metta, Sarah ====== 42952 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Mar 4, 2005 1:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] ‘Cetasikas' Questions. my father. Dear Nina (Lodewijk & Howard), Thank you for your detailed report. I’m not surprised that Lodewijk was ‘burned out’ – he’s been so active for so long working hard to care for your father I know and I’m sure it was a good break. Yes, you certainly were encouraged and have the accumulations to learn languages. Lodewijk once told us that your father had told him that even as a child, when the car broke down as it often did, you’d sit quietly by the wayside studying Latin!. Like Lodewijk, I like to be reminded about hiri and otappa – seeing the shame in akusala states of all kinds. We see the shame when we speak out with dosa or strong lobha, but what about when we keep quiet with dosa, for example? Yes, they have to become more and more refined as awareness and understanding develop in order to eventually see the shame in the smallest of faults.. You wrote about patience and acceptance and this reminded me of what you wrote before, which Phil found so helpful: …. >B.B. footnote to co to Perfections, khanti (The All-Embracing Net of Views, p. 258);: dhammanijjhaanakkhanti: <...used to signify the intellectual acceptance of doctrines which are not yet completely clear to the understanding...It is a suspension of disbelief born of trust...> It is a kind of patience. You have confidence in the Dhamma, but, say, you do not understand all that is said about rupas, such as life faculty or nutrition. Still, you do not reject what you do not quite understand. on p. 283, anulomiyam khantiyam .thito: acquiescence in conformity. This is in the development of insight. …. S: When I raised it with K.Sujin once, she also stressed that this ‘refelctive acceptance’ was seeing the usefulness of khanti (patience) and developing as much kusala as possible. She stressed it was ‘not just following without any understanding’ as I think BB’s phrase ‘suspension of disbelief born of trust’ could suggest, perhaps. I was also thinking of Howard and how she always stresses that everyone has to develop their own understanding (and of course, in their own way), not just following or reciting blindly. There is more on this expression ‘dhammanijjhaanakkhanti’ in Dispeller 2074 under ‘Classification of Knowledge’. “Anulomika.m khanti.m (‘conformable acceptance’) and so on are all synonyms for understanding……………..it conforms to the Truth of the Path and it conforms owing to conforming to the highest meaning, nibbaana. And it accepts (khamati), bears, is able to see all these reasons, thus it is acceptance (khanti). ‘It sees’ is di.t.thi (‘view’)……….and in particular, the things (dhamma) called the five aggregates on being studied (nijjjhaayamaanaa) again and again in accordance with impermanence, suffering and no self, accept (khamanti) that study (nijjhaana); thus it is hammanijjhaanakkhanti (‘acceptance of study things’).” I’m a bit rushed, so please excuse any typos. Thank you again for sharing your discussions and I was glad to hear about the memorial in Parliament. Metta, Sarah ======= 42953 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Mar 4, 2005 5:02am Subject: [dsg] Re: NEW dialogue with Htoo Sarah: Hi Htoo, I've been meaning to continue a few of our threads-sorry for the delay -it's been very busy. The points left here are mostly on samadhi and kamma.Everything else has been completely cleared up. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I am also busy the whole week. Now that I have certain time, I come to the forum. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- htootintnaing wrote: > > >>S: #40844 DT (226) > > You write: `Magga vithi vara is output of vipassana bhavana. It > > derivesfrom kamavacara mahakusala cittas. Sometime at early stages > > upacara samadhi or appana Samadhi help nivarana dhamma clear off the > > mind.' > <...> > >>S: In other words, it is a stage of purification (visuddhi) and cannot > > be attained by the mere development of upacara and appana Samadhi > > without the very high degree of insight of the anagami (regardless of > > whether he has attained jhanas prior to this realization or not). > > Comments most welcome. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- > > Htoo: I wrote on the basis of the fact written in > > abhidhammatthasangaha by venerable anuruddha. If you want I may show > > you the Pali and its translation. ... S: I'd be happy to look at and discuss any references you have in mind. ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Here is the reference: In the chapter nine of abhidhammatthasangaha called kammatthana it is written 50. 'Upacaara samaadhi, appanaa samaadhi ceti duvidhopi samaadhi citta visuddhi naama.' 51. 'Lakkhana rasa paccappatthaana padatthaana vasena naamaruupa pariggaho ditthi visuddhi naama.' ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Sarah: > > > > You went on to say about cittavisuddhi above;: `Because the > > cittas at > > that time is totally free of nivarana dhammas which definitely hinder > > magga nana not to arise'. Again, I'd turn it all around and > > say that > > there is citta visuddhi or calm from all sensuous attachment at this > > level of purification as a result of the highly developed insight and > > eradication (not just temporary suppression) of all attachment. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- > > Htoo: I know what you are referring. Mere jhanas are not citta- > > visuddhi even though it is the exact cittas that are happening. > > Because the tendency are not the same. Citta-visuddhi is about the > > Path leading to magga nana while mere jhanas are all not leading to > > any magga nana. ... S: Yes, we completely agree here - I think it may have just been a language point. also on the 'shock', 'danger', 'fear' etc. ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I think I have addressed regarding 'shock' 'fear' etc. These are laguage related. 'shock in vipassana' 'fear in vipassana' while higher knowledge is developing is not like ordinary word 'shock' 'fear'. That was why you felt I might have been wrong. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>S: Talking of which (dangers and so on), briefly (because this is > getting > > long), I love your posts on the various realms. In some, such as > > #41342, > > > > I'm not sure, however, if all the details you give can be found > > in the > > texts, such as about the hell stations, the hell-dogs, the razor > > trees,whips and hell-handlers & their methods. I'd be glad for > > any > > sources. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- > > Htoo: Example is in Rob M's ebook. But I took the ideas from > > Sanvegavatthudiipanii by kyee-the-lay-htat-sayadaw long time ago and > > not at hand. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: I'm not familiar with this text -can you tell me anything about it? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I am utterly sorry. Now I do not have that reference at hand. If someone can send to me I may tell you. In that book niriya stations are well described. I think there will be original description in suttas. One thing that I should not have done regarding 'writing on niraya' is that I was not totally sure the last 2 couples of hell realms. Actually I should have checked at some site or with some books. But I do not have any book except abhidhammatthasangaha. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: do you think the examples are all taken from the original texts and early commentaries or have 'developed'? .... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I dare say the original text will say the same. But the book I read long time ago was decorated with Myanmar or Burmese flavour. Even though it was tagged with Myanmar cultural taste I could sense that they are representation of what is described in suttas. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Htoo: You are right. Ordinary akusala will not appear near dying:-). > > But the javana that arises near dying are all kamma patha things. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- .... S: Yes, but we are not talking about the last javana cittas, but ordinary akusala in a day which may not be kamma patha with all or any kamma patha factors and therefore may just bring results during life (as you said) or not at all. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: :)) A big smile. We are talking the same thing with different angle. What is in my mind is that 'if javana cittas are not kiriya cittas, they do have kamma effect'. But your thoughts are that if there is no kamma patha there is no rebirth related to that akusala. I sense both are talking on the same subject. When I approach 'kamma' while writing Dhamma Thread I will discuss it. There are 3 akusalas. There are 8 akusalas. There are 12 akusala cittupada or 12 states of akusala mind. Akusala always have akusala vipaka. If not just stay away from akusala kamma patha. I do not think this will work. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: I think we more or less agree here. ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Of course. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Htoo: I agree. Small things will not qualify for rebirth even when > > there is no garuka, asanna, acinna kamma. ... S: Right... I'd go further and say small things, like everyday ordianary attachments and annoyances will not qualify on their own to bring any results but will accumulated and support other kamma patha capable of bringing results. Metta, Sarah ==== ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I agree. Kamma is complicated. I think more about kamma is in the forest rather than in the hand of The Buddha that The Buddha told his disciples regarding what he preached. With much respect, Htoo Naing 42954 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Mar 4, 2005 5:30am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddha as object Dialogue with Htoo 2 Dear Sarah, I reply here simply because all points are agreed. I will check the translation that you pointed out. Thanks Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > Hi Htoo (& Robert K), > > On seeing the Buddha .... ..snip.. .. Please re-check the translation of the quote for me, Htoo. Metta, Sarah ======== 42955 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Mar 4, 2005 5:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Descriptive training from The Buddha, support for my "experiments" Hi, Hugo >>Well actually, the prescriptive vs. descriptive issue is another issue >>again, but I wouldn't advise getting into that one now if you're trying >>to wind up the thread ;-)). >> >> > >Good idea. > >I will bring it back later, in my next "comeback", now I am really >looking for a break. > > :-) > > Well I think you've earned it ;-)) >J: So, as far as this particular sutta is concerned, I'd have to say it >doesn't really support the idea of specific 'actions to be' done as part >of the development of insight. I think you can see why I say that, but >I'd be happy to elaborate further if you'd like. > > > >H: Yes, I understand why you say that, and I agree with you as long as we >talk strictly about "development of insight", I still think that the >prescriptions are suggesting or encouraging methods, techniques or >ways to support the conditions that will make the development of >insight eaiser. > >But, let's put this in a pause and talk about later, ok? > > OK. This thread is now officially on hold! Jon 42956 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Mar 4, 2005 5:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking about Dhamma ( was Re: An Interesting Meditation Hi, Hugo Lots of agreement here, so I'll snip liberally. >Jon: > > >> What can be found in the texts, however, is >>the teaching that: >>(a) kusala (including panna) that has been developed in previous lives >>is not lost, it is carried forward as accumulated tendencies, but in the >>case of panna it needs fresh exposure to the teachings in each new life >>in order to be 'revived', and >>(b) stronger kusala can arise without prompting while weaker aksuala is >>more likely to arise when prompted. >> >> > >Hugo: >I agree, and that's why I say that we should purposedly do some things >and purposedly not do others as to lower the possibility that the >conditions for akusala come around. But of course that is NOT a >guarantee, just gambling with probabilities. > >Also, it gives you some time to really understand the situation. So, >if you want to stop drinking acohol, it would be wise to stop hanging >out with alcohol-happy friends while you work on getting rid of the >addiction. > >But as I said, let's keep this for the next time. > > By all means. (BTW, I of course agree it would probably be wise to do as you suggest here; it's just that I would not see it as something that would necessarily be appropriate or correct for all instances.) >>For both these reasons, the best conditions for those just starting out >>(this time around) is a lot of exposure to the things explained in >>detail by the Buddha, so that interest in the essence of the teachings >>(Satipatthana/vipassana, Four Noble Truths, sila, samadhi and panna, >>etc.) is rekindled and, once rekindled, remains focussed on that >>essence. As I see it, it is not a lack of specific 'practices' that is >>the problem for most, but a lack of a proper intellectual foundation for >>those practices. >> >> > >I definitely agree! > >We just need to qualify what we mean with "exposure", I think >"exposure" should mean all: reading, discussing, thinking and trying. > All of course in a balanced way. > > I would rather say, "reading, discussing, thinking and applying" ;-)) >>So I'd like to suggest that, as a compromise, we agree for our 'closing >>statement' on the assertion that 'It is the development of kusala that >>is important rather than the following of a particular kind of practice' >>(as you'll notice, this statement is neutral on the question of >>particular kinds of practice ;-)). >> >> > >I agree and I like it. > >Now, if somebody asks "how do I develop kusala?", then the can of >worms will be opened again. ;-) > >But we can agree that there are different ways and approaches that >depend of course on what is the current "situation" of the person. > > Yes, and it depends most of all on the person's understanding about kusala. I'd better stop here before I get into controversial territory again! Jon 42957 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Mar 4, 2005 5:58am Subject: Re: Htoo- deva vehicles, rotating razors, busy demons & ariyan maths Dear Sara, You are now up to date to Dhamma Thread. This is because I had to stop this week. Otherwise further 5 or 6 messages would be there on the forum. You wrote: Dear Htoo, 1. #41413 You were talking about dying and the `racing competition of kamma'. You told a story about a rich man dying who kept asking the monks to stop chanting. `Actually the father is seeing `a deva vehicle driven by devas…'' the father was reborn in the deva realm. It's an interesting story. Does it come from a sutta or where? I'd be interested to read it. If it's a modern story, how would anyone know?? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I do not think it is a modern story or created story. The problem is that I do not remember the source. What I remember is I also saw a pictorial description that deva-vehicle was there. I think it might be in Dhammapada. I am not sure. But what I am sure is that one venerable sayadaw preached. And I myself had read it with full story and illustration with pictures. I am sure it is not a modern story. I think there are many untranslated things. In such case search engine will not work. :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: 2. #41780 and #41920 – excellent summaries of your D.T. series – it would be helpful for any new-comers to the list to read these posts to understand Htoo's threads a little better. 3. #41478 More on petas (ghosts) `who have rotating razors on their heads which is constantly cutting their scalp…'…'When the old kamma is used up the turn is finished and that particular peta gives the razor-rollers to others…'. I'm still trying to track down this references. I haven't seen them in the texts I have on the Peta realms and commentary. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I am sorry again. This is one which I had heard 32 years ago. Hmmm it may will be hell beings rather than peta. I am not sure because I read niraya and peta close at that time and I just recalled it 2 years back when I saw a rotating fan on the head of a young child who was innocently smiling. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: Also #41481 on asurakaaya bhumi (demon realm)- I'd like to check the details, but haven't been able to find the parts about being eaten by huge dogs, the day-time jobs and gathering at night to step into the fire…. Does it ring any bells with others, like either Rob? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I hope. Even there are extra stories who break their own flesh and eat themselves. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: 4. On the maths in #4271. You say that the sotapanna `who attains all 5 rupa jhanas and all 4 arupa jhanas may have maximum of 55 cittas'. You have already in the post deducted various cittas that cannot arise such as rupa and arupa vipaka cittas, hasituppada, 8 mahakiriya cittas, 7 lokuttara cittas…. Actually I haven't added up, but you haven't indicated that you've deducted akusala cittas which have been eradicated such as lobha with wrong view and doubt. Also when you mention 55 up to arahant, I'm not sure you deducted the dosa cittas for the anagami… At the end, you also write : Simple puthujana can have 45 total cittas Jhanalabhi puthujanas can have 46 to 54…. Non-arahat ariyas can have 46 cittas Non-arahat ariyas with jhanas can have 47 to 55 cittas… Now it may all be correct and of course I could check easily in CMA I'm sure, but maybe I can ask you to kind clarify or spell it out a little more clearly for me. The 45 for the puthujana was very clear, but not the 46 for the non-arahat ariyas. How can it be the same for sotapannas and anagamis? Thanks again for your help. I think I'm up to date for about the first time ever! Metta, Sarah ====== ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Actually these are for stimulation of recalling learned facts. So it is a matter of mathematics. I wrote wrong calculation when I wrote on Patthana Dhamma in a web site and it is linked in the 'Links' section on the left hand side of this group page. I just re-phrase the writing. It is in 4th chapter called vithi: 48. ''Asikkhaanam catucattaalisa sikkhaana muddise. Chappannaasaa' vasesaanam, catupannaasa sambhavaa. Ayamettha puggala bhedo.'' a) asikkha or arahats have catucattaalisa [44 cittas] b) sikkha or sotapatti-maggatthana to anagami-phalatthana chapannaasa [56 cittas] c) avasesaanam [4 puthujanas-tihetu,dvihetu,ahetu-ku,ahetu-aku] catupannaasa [54 cittas]. This is what the small text says. But I recalculat them and posted. It is good of you that you respond in this matter. That is why I thank you on behalf of other who are silent here. I think some active memebers never read Dhamma Threads. Now that you see my generalisation I can reply the specific point. I think it is better to start another thread for discussion. Sotapams and anagams are not the same in terms of possibility of arising of cittas. Because 2 dosa cittas do not arise in anagams [there are 2 anagams. One is maggatthana and another is phalatthana]. With Metta, Htoo Naing 42958 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Mar 4, 2005 6:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Predominant roots? Hi Kel, thanks for quoting the article. Ledi Sayadaw is right in a way, but when we read about kayagatasati, or we read the sutta on kayagatasati (M. 119), it actually implies awareness not only of rupa but also of nama. We have to know first the difference between nama and rupa, the first stage of tender insight. It is thus that I understand all the sections arranged under: mindfulness of the body and the other three sections of the Applications of Mindfulness. It is very inspiring, it reminds me: we attend to the body the whole day, but we should be mindfull of hardness, but also of feeling, and the citta that experiences only hardness, and also cetasikas such as like and dislike. When hardness appears it is evident that there is also citta that experiences it. If there were no cittas hardness and other rupas could not be experienced. However, it is difficult to distinguish very precisely between the experience, the nama, and the rupa that is experienced. It can be learnt by being aware of whatever dhamma presents itself. At one moment it may be rupa, at another moment it may be nama, nobody can direct sati to such or such object. Nama is not excluded, even though mindfulness of the body has a separate section. It is all for the sake of reminding us that the objects of satipatthana pertain to daily life at this very moment. In the sutta on kayagatasati (M. 119) I read: 'He is one who overcomes dislike and liking, and dislike (and liking) do not overcome him.' If he would never be aware of like and dislike which are namas, how would he know their characterstics when they appear, and how could he overcome them? We also read in a sutta that when feelings are understood, this leads to liberation. That is the same idea: in order to understand feeling as pure nama, not mixed with rupa, also rupa has to be understood. All five khandhas have to be understood. The sutta reminds us that we should not neglect feelings. As I see it, Kel, the Buddha never set a limit to the dhammas that we should develop understanding of. Both nama and rupa have to be known as they are. Nina. op 04-03-2005 06:00 schreef kelvin_lwin op kelvin_lwin@y...: > Here ends a concise explanation of kayagatasati-bhavana, which is one > of the four satipatthana, and which has to be established first in > the work of bhavana (mental contemplation) by neyya and padaparama > individuals for the purpose of attaining the Paths and the Fruits > within a Buddha Sasana. 42959 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Mar 4, 2005 6:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] thanks Dear Hasituppada, Thank you for your kind and encouraging words. Sarah and I often talk about Khun Sujin's endless patience and this inspires and reminds us to be patient. It is also inspiring that in this forum there are kind people all around who sincerely want to seek the truth. Lodewijk finds especially Kh. Sujin's book on the Perfections, Ch 7 on Patience most helpful. He just read it aloud on the minidisc, that was on her request. He liked the words of the ovada patimokkha about khanti. Khun Sujin said: 'Adhivaasana khanti is endurance with regard to all situations in daily life, to our environment, and this is the highest ascetism.' Now, I do not find this always so easy. My father just died and I start to miss him, this makes me sad. I am glad about your kind words in this difficult time. I need patience in all circumstances, adhivaasana khanti. I find that considering the Dhamma and writing is like a medicine. Kindest regards, Nina. op 03-03-2005 15:36 schreef hasituppada op hasituppada@y...: > I had been away for some time and I was not connected to Internet. > On my return I found my Yahoo account submerged with over 30000 > messages. I had no time to read them all ,but I did read some of > Nina's. 42960 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Mar 4, 2005 5:24am Subject: [dsg] Re: Dialogue with Htoo 2 Sarah contiuned regarding Tiger Wood: Dear Htoo, Just a little left here on Tiger Woods:-) --- htootintnaing wrote: <....> > > Htoo: It is hard. Let us see 'golfer Tiger Wood's mind when he was patting'. > > Just before he striked there arose a mind to strike. That mind was a mixture if we explore into abhidhamma terms. So let us concentrate on javana cittas. > > Again there are different javanas. Different golfers would have > > different javanas. Tiger may have lobha javanas. Or he may also have mahakusala javanas. > > Why? It is not bhavana, it is not siila, and it is not daana. This just means that Tiger was not doing 'punnakiriya' or wholesome > > actions of kamma-patha things. But it may well be mahakusala javanas when he was patting. .... S: I don't follow this. If it's not dana, sila or bhavana, what other makhakusala javanas can there be? Perhaps I define these in a wider sense than you to include all kusala (not just punnakiriya). .... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Hmmm. I might have been wrong. But I see it as universal. I came out of Buddhism and just see with natural eyes and neutral eyes. You may deny this. But may I present here. In a book written by Professor Mehn Tin Mon learning literature is simless and I think he wrote something about learing and those 8 mahakusala cittas. You may argue those cittas which arise while learning are lobha muula cittas. Do you think that all cittas that arise while learning is akusala cittas [lobha here]. Reading or learning invlove javana cittas. Regarding javana cittas, if they are not kiriya javana they have to be akusala or kusala. So they at each moment or at each vithi vara will have only one alternative of akusala and kusala. Did Newton have akusala cittas when he discovered the gravity because of deep thought? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > One recent commentary explained that when it is not moha, dosa, and > > lobha, then it must be mahakusala javanas anyway. ... S: Yes. I think another way of saying this is that when it isn't dana, sila or bhavana, then there's definitely moha and possibly either lobha or dosa. As we know, akusala is far more common than kusala. Perhaps we can explore this a little. .... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Should explore. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Ordinary people like us may have > > 1. akusala javana of 12 cittas. > > 2. kusala javana of 8 cittas. > > We do not have hasituppada citta. > > Miccha-samadhi is another thing. .... S: Right. Well, miccha-samadhi is included in the akusala javana of course. Whenever it's akusala, there must be miccha-samadhi, surely? ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Here is another language problem. Once I came across with miccha-sati. I argued that there is no sati in akusala. So there is no miccha-sati. But one venerable told me that in a sutta it is said that such is miccha-sati. I shut up my mouth. This is actually language. I think sati not related to magganga and meditation is classified as miccha sati in sutta. But in abhidhammatthasangaha there is written that there are 12 maggangas. 8 are Noble Eightfold Path and other 4 maggangas are wrong magganga. Among them miccha sati is not included. There are 1.miccha-ditthi 2.miccha-sankappa 3.miccha-vayama 4.miccha-samadhi There is no miccha sati. It is very clear that sati is sobhana cetasika and sati never ever arise in akusala citta. So I argued that there is no miccha-sati. But sutta says such is miccha-sati and such is samma-sati. This is language matter. According to your argumentation, Tiger has to have akusala whenever he patts on the green [striking to hole in on golf course]. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- <...> > > Sarah: > > > > In fact, I think Tiger's variety is less likely to be with the > > wrong > > view of it being anything wise or noble or related to jhana. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- > > Htoo: I know. But ditthi is only cleared in sotapanna. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- .... S: That's true, but shouldn't it be understood more and more clearly when it arises in a day? .... Htoo: Indeed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > <....> > > p.s I liked your post on Devadatta and the Vinaya #41637. Also > > #41780 is a very good summary of your series to date with lots of > > helpful detail. > .... > > Htoo: > > > > This depends on individual accumulation or tendency. I am still busy. .... S: Yes, it does depend on accumulations what we find interesting or beneficial:-). Metta, Sarah ======= ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Thanks for your all response on behalf of all members. I said this because there are many intellectual people here who may think that Htoo has a big ego. And some even said off-line that I was selling in the name of The Buddha. But as a very active moderator you will know that there are less than 100 active members. Some passive members remind me off-line to keep continuing and not to take care of any attacks. With much respect, Htoo Naing 42961 From: connie Date: Fri Mar 4, 2005 6:43am Subject: The Aunt, part 1 Hi, A.Mun bio fans, This story is kinda long, but it has a lot of interesting/puzzling things in it so I'm going to post it in two sections and then ask for help with it. thanks, connie IN OUR PRESENT TIME, the sort of unusual phenomena that was perceptible to Aacariya Mun ceased to be mysterious to a few of his contemporaries who possessed an ability similar to his. This is evident in the case of another mysterious affair that, though quite intriguing, is likely to raise doubts among those of us who are selfconfessed skeptics. While Aacariya Mun lived at Ban Nong Pheu monastery, an elderly, white-robed lay woman from the local community, who had great respect for him, came to the monastery and told him about an experience she had in meditation. As she sat in meditation late one night, her citta ‘converged’, dropping deeply into samaadhi. Remaining absolutely still in that state for a time, she began to notice a very fine threadlike tentacle flowing out of her citta and away from her body. Her curiosity aroused, she followed the flow of her citta to find out where it had slipped away to, what it was doing, and why. In doing so she discovered that this subtle flow of consciousness was preparing to reserve a new birthplace in the womb of her own niece who lived in the same village – this despite the fact that she herself was still very much alive. This discovery shocked her, so she quickly brought her citta back to its base and withdrew from samaadhi. She was greatly troubled for she knew that her niece was already one month pregnant. The next morning she hurried off to the monastery and related the whole affair to Aacariya Mun. Listening quietly, many of the monks overheard what she said. Having never heard anything like it before, we were all puzzled by such a strange tale. I was especially interested in this affair and how Aacariya Mun would respond to the elderly lady. We sat perfectly still in breathless anticipation, all eyes on Aacariya Mun, waiting to hear his reply. He sat with eyes closed for about two minutes and then spoke to the elderly lady, telling her precisely what she should do. “The next time your citta ‘converges’ into calm like that carefully examine the flow of your citta. Should you notice that the flow of your citta has again gone outward, then you must concentrate on severing that outward flow with intuitive wisdom. If you succeed in completely cutting it off with wisdom, it will not reappear in the future. But it’s imperative that you carefully examine it and then fully concentrate on severing it with wisdom. Don’t just do it half-heartedly, or else, I warn you, when you die you’ll be reborn in your niece’s womb. Remember well what I’m telling you. If you don’t succeed in cutting off this outward flow of your citta, when you die you will surely be reborn in your niece’s womb. I have no doubt about this.â€? Having received this advice, the elderly lady returned home. Two days later she came to the monastery looking bright and cheerful. It didn’t require any special insight to tell from her expression that she had been successful. Aacariya Mun began questioning her the moment she sat down. “What happened? Did you manage to prevent yourself from being reborn within your niece’s womb despite being very much alive?â€? “Yes, I severed that connection the very first night. As soon as my citta ‘converged’ into a state of complete calm, focusing my attention there, I saw exactly what I had seen before. So I concentrated on severing it with intuitive wisdom, just as you said, until it finally snapped apart. Again last night I examined it thoroughly and couldn’t find anything – it had simply disappeared. Today I could not wait any longer. I just had to come and tell you about it.â€? “Well, that is a good example of how very subtle the citta can be. Only someone who practices meditation can become aware of such things – there is no other way. You nearly fell prey to the kilesas, which were preparing to shove you into your niece’s womb without you being aware of it. It’s a good thing you uncovered it in your meditation and managed to correct it in time.â€? Shortly after the flow of her aunt’s citta to her womb had been severed, the woman’s niece had a miscarriage, thus cutting that connection for good. 42962 From: Hugo Date: Fri Mar 4, 2005 6:58am Subject: Thanks everyone, I am taking a break. I learned a lot, thanks for all of those who answered my questions, challenged my statements, etc. I am really thankful. I hope next time we can exchange some more ideas and understanding. -- Hugo 42963 From: Hugo Date: Fri Mar 4, 2005 6:56am Subject: Can't find your way out?......look.... I regularly drive in front of a church (some kind of Christian church), they have a big banner with a motivational message that they change frequenly. Today it says: "If you can't find your way out, look up" I think the Buddhist version would be: "If you can't find your way out, look INSIDE". Then I reflected some more about it, and found that when we have a problem (i.e. experience suffering) if we look up we will just keep asking "what's wrong?, what's wrong?" and then wait for an answer, but if we look inside we will ask "what's wrong?", then we will say "ah!, it is 'me' who is wrong". P.S. Of course all this is conventional speaking, no need to reply saying that there is no 'me', or that it is just conditions, :-) Greetings, -- Hugo 42964 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Mar 4, 2005 10:55am Subject: Re: [dsg]Cetasikas' Questions. my father. Dear Sarah, thank you for your kind post. My studying Latin was not so special. When I was at school it was normal for a Dutch child to learn at least three foreign languages and also Latin and Greek, you just had to do it. Today it is quite different, there is a decline. I find this text of Dispeller very good. We need khanti in studying realities from the lowest level to the highest level. This is a good reminder: the things (dhamma) called the five aggregates on being studied > (nijjjhaayamaanaa) again and again in accordance with impermanence, > suffering and no self, accept (khamanti) that study (nijjhaana)>. Nina. op 04-03-2005 10:49 schreef sarah abbott op sarahprocterabbott@y...: > There is more on this expression dhammanijjhaanakkhanti’ in Dispeller > 2074 under Classification of Knowledge’. > > “Anulomika.m khanti.m (conformable acceptance’) and so on are all > synonyms for understanding..it conforms to the Truth of the Path and > it conforms owing to conforming to the highest meaning, nibbaana. And it > accepts (khamati), bears, is able to see all these reasons, thus it is > acceptance (khanti). 42965 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Mar 4, 2005 11:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dialogue with Htoo 2 Dear Htoo, wrong mindfulness: this refers to cittas with forgetfulness, with lack of sati. It may imply lobha. This was discussed here before some time ago. There is no specific cetasika, but the term is used to match the other wrong Path factors as opposites of the right ones. U Narada Guide to Conditional Relations, p. 66: wrong speech, action, livelihood, wrong mindfulness are not conditioning dhammas. They are immoral volitions or aggregates 'which do not come under any of the ultimate realities of path condition.' In the sutta it is used as a reminder for us. We are reminded of the danger of lack of mindfulness. Nina. op 04-03-2005 14:24 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: > There is no miccha sati. It is very clear that sati is sobhana > cetasika and sati never ever arise in akusala citta. So I argued that > there is no miccha-sati. > > But sutta says such is miccha-sati and such is samma-sati. This is > language matter. 42966 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Fri Mar 4, 2005 1:27pm Subject: Re: Htoo- deva vehicles, rotating razors, busy demons & ariyan maths Hi Sarah and Htoo, > 1. #41413 You were talking about dying and the `racing > competition of kamma'. You told a story about a rich man dying > who > kept asking the monks to stop chanting. `Actually the father is > seeing `a deva vehicle driven by devas…'' the father was > reborn in > the deva realm. It's an interesting story. Does it come from a > sutta > or where? I'd be interested to read it. > > If it's a modern story, how would anyone know?? > ------------------------------------------------------------------- --- > Htoo: I do not think it is a modern story or created story. The > problem is that I do not remember the source. What I remember is I > also saw a pictorial description that deva-vehicle was there. I think > it might be in Dhammapada. I am not sure. But what I am sure is that > one venerable sayadaw preached. And I myself had read it with full > story and illustration with pictures. I am sure it is not a modern > story. I think there are many untranslated things. In such case > search engine will not work. :-) Kel: If I'm not mistaken it's the story of Anathapindika. I think it's included in the Greatest Disciples book under "Death of Anathapinkdika". I also heard a similar story in a lecture but that person became an anagami so wasnt reborn into Deva realm. Or the one where Buddha chided Ashin Sariputtra for not giving appropriate sermon for the person to achieve anagami-magga right before death though they had the potential. I think a few of the chief lay disciples death bed stories were given somewhere. - kel 42967 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Fri Mar 4, 2005 2:00pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Predominant roots? Hi Nina, > Ledi Sayadaw is right in a way, Kel: Are you saying Ledi Sayadaw only understood it partially? > N: only of rupa but also of nama. We have to know first the difference between > nama and rupa, the first stage of tender insight. Kel: Again you think Ledi Sayadaw don't know the vipassana nanas? He sees kayagati-sati as merely a first step in being able to do proper "vipassana" bhavana. Separation of nama/rupa is from kaya perspective and Mahasi sayadaw says the same. Reread the lines "The kayagata-sati that is associated with udayabbaya-nana (knowledge arising from contemplation of the arisings and vanishings of mental and physical phenomena)", which clearly states the two are known if kayagati-sati is established correctly. Ever gotten to the point of seeing the intention that precedes any bodily action? > N: It is thus that I > understand all the sections arranged under: mindfulness of the body and the > other three sections of the Applications of Mindfulness. Kel: If it's the same to you, I have more confidence in Ledi Sayadaw's words and his interpretation. > It is very inspiring, it reminds me: we attend to the body the whole day, > but we should be mindfull of hardness, but also of feeling, and the citta > that experiences only hardness, and also cetasikas such as like and dislike. Kel: I think you misunderstand his position and too concern about the objects themselves. He's talking about the mastery of the mind to be able to penetrate through pannatti to arrive at paramattha. > At one moment > it may be rupa, at another moment it may be nama, nobody can direct sati to such or such object. Kel: Then you advocate being a mad man from Ledi Sayadaw's perspective. His position is clear on this that such sati can be cultivated and actually necessary before any real progress can be made. > That is the same idea: in order to understand feeling as pure > nama, not mixed with rupa, also rupa has to be understood. All five khandhas > have to be understood. The sutta reminds us that we should not > neglect feelings. Kel: We as humans can't have nama without rupa or vedana. So I don't get your point, nobody is saying to ignore anything. > As I see it, Kel, the Buddha never set a limit to the dhammas that we should > develop understanding of. Both nama and rupa have to be known as they are. Kel: Or just the 4 noble truths, doesn't matter what device/dhamma you use to develop understanding. The object themselves are inconsequential. Why does he need to set a limit when they all have the same characteristics? It's one and the same. In fact, if you can still identify or describe something it's not free of pannatti. - kel 42968 From: connie Date: Fri Mar 4, 2005 2:28pm Subject: The Aunt, part 2 Hi, A.Mun bio readers, Here's the rest of the aunt story. peace, connie Soon the monks in the monastery began pondering two questions related to that incident: one to do with the rebirth of a person who has yet to die, the other to do with miscarriages. The old woman never told anyone in the village about what happened, so no one else knew about it. But having heard the whole affair as it was related to Aacariya Mun, the monks were well informed about the incident. This prompted several questions, so the monks asked Aacariya Mun for an explanation. To the question: “How could a person who has not yet died begin to take birth in a womb?â€?, he answered as follows: “She was merely preparing to take birth, the process had not been completed yet. It’s quite common for preparations to be made before the work takes place. In this case, she was making the preparations but she had yet to finalize them. So it would be incorrect to say that a person can be reborn while she is still alive. But had she not been so perceptive, she would certainly have established a new home in her niece’s womb.â€? To the second question: “Isn’t severing the flow of the citta, connecting the elderly lady to her niece, tantamount to destroying a human life?â€?, he answered as follows: “What was there to destroy? She merely severed the flow of her citta. She didn’t cut off the head of a living being. The true citta remained with that woman the whole time; it simply sent a tentacle out to latch on to her niece. As soon as she realized it and cut the outward flow of her citta to break that connection, that was the end of the matter.â€? The important point here was, Aacariya Mun did not contradict the old woman when she described how the flow of her citta had stolen out to reserve a place in her niece’s womb. He did not dispute the truth of her experience, telling her that she was mistaken or that she should reconsider the nature of her assumptions. Instead, he responded by addressing her experience directly. This story is very intriguing because there was in fact a good reason why her citta flowed out to her niece. The woman said she had always been very fond of her niece, keeping in constant touch and always doting on her. But she never suspected that anything mysterious lurked in their relationship, waiting to sneak out and cause her to be reborn as her niece’s child. If Aacariya Mun had not helped to solve this problem, she would have ended up in that young woman’s womb for sure. Aacariya Mun stated that it is far beyond the average person’s capabilities to fathom the citta’s extraordinary complexity, making it very difficult for them to properly look after the citta and avoid jeopardizing their own well-being. Had that woman possessed no basis in samaadhi meditation, she would have had no means of understanding the way the citta functions in relation to living and dying. Consequently, samaadhi meditation is an effective means of dealing correctly with the citta. This is especially true at critical junctures in life when mindfulness and wisdom are extremely important aids to understanding and caring for the citta. When these faculties are well developed, they are able to effectively intervene and neutralize severe pain so that it does not overwhelm the heart at the time of death. Death is an absolutely crucial time when defeat means, at the very least, a missed opportunity for the next life. For instance, someone who misses out at death may be reborn as an animal and be forced to waste time, stuck for the duration of that animal’s life and suffering the agony of that lowly existence as well. If, however, the citta is skillful, having enough mindfulness to properly support it, then a human birth is the least one can expect. Over and above that, one may be reborn in a heavenly realm and enjoy a variety of celestial pleasures for a long time before being reborn eventually as a human being again. When reborn as a human being, the virtuous tendencies, that were developed in previous lives, are not forgotten. In this way, the power of an individual’s inherent virtue increases gradually with each successive birth until the citta gains the strength and ability to look after itself. Dying then becomes merely a process by which an individual exchanges one bodily form for another, progressing from lower to higher, from grosser to ever more refined forms of existence – and eventually from the cycle of sa.msaara to the freedom of Nibbaana. This is similar to the way that the Lord Buddha and his Arahant disciples raised the quality of successive existences over many lifetimes, while altering their spiritual makeup steadily until there were no more changes to be made. Thus it is that a citta trained in virtue through each successive rebirth, is eventually transformed into the treasure of Nibbaana. All of which stems directly from the citta being trained gradually, step by step, in the way of virtue. For this reason, wise, intelligent men and women of all ages never tire of doing good deeds that redound to their spiritual credit, always enhancing their well-being now and in the future. 42969 From: Charles DaCosta Date: Fri Mar 4, 2005 9:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Personlessness Teachings Not Against Precepts: (Was: fifth prec... It is good to hear that you know where "you" are. Practice makes perfect! ----- Original Message ----- From: Hugo Charles DaCosta wrote: > How would you feel if that string of conditions was about to be imprisoned in a cage for ten years, even if it meant beyond the grave? > PS: is it hard to have no-feelings, or are the feelings really you (just having fun)? I barely can restrain "myself" from following some of my desires when I am awake, I think it is beyond my possibilities to try to restrain "myself" when I am sleeping, what I can do is to not indulge on those feelings when I wake up remembering what I dreamed of. And you know the answer, the feelings are not me. -- Hugo 42970 From: Charles DaCosta Date: Fri Mar 4, 2005 9:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ken--ultimate (Abhidhamma) view part 2 Hi ken, Before I proceed, at some point I meant to tell you that you seem to have a fairly good understand of the processes (leading to "emptiness") of the mind at work. Assuming this is what you mean by the Abhidhammic view, this is really good, quite redressing, but soon you will have to move up to the level of a Masters (being more ackedemic/scientific) -- What are the flaws, weaknesses, and mistakes of this view? and how can it be improve upon ) --- later, you don't have to now. Now for the current post: You Wrote: {"Yes, that's true, although it could also be false, depending on how you look at it. That's the problem with conventional reality: everything is relative, nothing entirely true and nothing entirely false. Fear, shame, clarity and calm can each be seen at different times, and by different people, sometimes as good qualities and sometimes as bad."} Perfect!!! This shows a good grasp of the relative-ness of reality. We can call this a conventional view, a view (awareness) from the 6 senses and samsara. You Wrote: {The Abhidhamma, however, explains that volitional consciousness can only be kusala or akusala - personal opinion has no effect on it. We might think we have wholesome mental factors (e.g, hiri (moral shame), otappa (moral dread), citta-pasaddhi (tranquility of consciousness)) but, in reality, have unwholesome mental factors (e.g., dosa (aversion), kukkucca (worry) and akusala-somanassa (pleasant feeling accompanied by attachment)).} To think one thing (e.g., wholesomeness), but in reality, think another (e.g., unwholesomeness) means what? People deceive themselves, or are unaware of the menial activities that give rise to thoughts and thereby are made unaware of most thoughts. What do you think? You Wrote: {In the case in point, I'm sure you are right: the calmer, clearer mind I claimed to have more often these days is almost always akusala, rooted in attachment. And, as you say, that kind of calm precedes a storm. But such is the worldlings' lot. :-)} So, what are you going to do about it? or Are you just going to accept it as your lot? CharlesD ----- Original Message ----- From: kenhowardau I hope you slept well. You made one quick comment on my last paragraph: ------------- C: > Fear and Shame are Dharma Protectors. Some times clarity and calm precedes a storm. ------------------------ {above} {above} In the case in point, I'm sure you are right: the calmer, clearer mind I claimed to have more often these days is almost always akusala, rooted in attachment. And, as you say, that kind of calm precedes a storm. But such is the worldlings' lot. :-) Ken H 42971 From: Enio César Date: Fri Mar 4, 2005 9:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Adinava e Nekkhamma Hi, Sarah, You're so kind! It's not necessary to apologise... you didn't make any mistake. Both names "Enio" and "Cesar" exists in Italian and in Portuguese. I think the only difference is that, in italian, is "Ennio". The Buddhist teachings are very vast. It doesn't seem to be possible to study them without a route. So, to initiate my studies, I chose the route given by the Buddha Himself. The site "Access to Insight" has a Brazilian version "Acesso ao Insight", where the original site in English has been translating into Portuguese. From there I copied the Portuguese version of the anupubbi-katha and now I am searching material about each topic of it. It's not an easy task, because my English is really very bad and sometimes it's not easy to distinguish the different views of the various vehicles and schools. I have been working first with the concepts of each topic of the anupubbi-katha, complementing them with clarifying texts found on the web. These two topics I left last, because it's not easy to find material about them. With Metta! Enio César -----Mensagem Original----- De: sarah abbott Para: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Enviada em: quarta-feira, 2 de março de 2005 03:57 Assunto: Re: [dsg] Adinava e Nekkhamma 42972 From: Charles DaCosta Date: Fri Mar 4, 2005 1:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ultimate (Abhidhamma) view / Ken Hi Ken, ---------------- When I wrote: To me, when you use the words "Ultimate" or "Absolute" then ... I realized that this is not what you meant but it was what you said. - - - - - - - - - - You replied: Then what? I leave the realm of sanity? :-) All I am referring to is the world as the Buddha described it. So instead of people, chariots, places and stories there are only the presently arising five khandhas. - - - - - - - - I have to ask, do you understand the meaning/symbolism of the term Ultimate Truth as it is in Buddhism? It is the state of reality that is devoid of all temporal and transitional things. This would even include the 5 aggregates, etc... Some say it transcends thought. So you should be very careful when using it, the term Ultimate or Absolute, especially to old Buddhists. ********** You Wrote: ... about the need to discuss Abhidhamma in a normal manner rather than in terms of "one hand clapping" or by "silence" or any other "mysterious" means. - - - - - - - - - I understand this, however when you start to discuss the non-existence of self or ego, etc. this borders on Absolute truth and not the Abhidhamic view. The Abhidhamic view relates more to presenting what the thing we call "Self" really is, a linking of both, independent and dependent processes that gives the illusion of "one process," and need. ******** When I wrote: ... read the Tao of Physics. - - - - - - - - - You replied: I did try to read it when I was that way inclined. I am sure it is a sidetrack leading away from the Buddha's teaching. - - - - - - - - - This tells me that you are more of a student of Buddhism (well, abhidarma really) than a seeker of truth. This is ok except when you become blind, deaf, dumb to Truth. ******** You wrote: The reality taught by the Buddha is not known to science and it never will be. It is known only to, and taught only by, a Buddha. Rupa cannot be explained by concepts of matter, and nama cannot be explained by concepts of conscious matter (not that science has any concepts of consciousness as yet). - - - - - - - - Read "Gentle Bridges" by the Dahli Lama. This a group of books (the might use other names too) that Cognitive psychologists sit down with Buddhist (i.e., Tibetan Buddhist) to compare notes. There are a lot of Cognitive psychologists that are also Buddhist. This is just one example. ******** You Wrote: There is no necessary connection between the five aggregates and the illusion of ego or of personality-existence. For example, the Buddha could be described as the five aggregates, and he had no illusions of any kind. - - - - - - - What are the aggregates of the personality and the aggregates of the ego? What are the classic 5 aggregates? When you can answer these three, you will find they have a lot in common. ******** When you talk about realization beyond the illusion of permanence, satisfactoriness and self, you are confusing self with Atman or the eternal soul/essence. This has been one of the points I have been trying to get a lot of you all to see. ----- Original Message ----- From: kenhowardau Hi again Charles, -------------------- C: > I am not sure what you mean by: {I was not expecting us to directly know any of them. And besides, even if we did directly know them, I don't believe there would be any of the extraordinary circumstances you describe. I think daily life would continue as normal.} Those statements make me think we are misunderstanding each other again. To me the issue then was-not knowing any thing. The issue was realization beyond/through the Great Illusion. So if you were not talking about that then you are right, life continues as normal. ---------------------------- Realization is another word for knowing, is it not? And I *was* talking about that, and I still think life would continue as normal. Satipatthana is realisation beyond the illusion of permanence, satisfactoriness and self. And, if you look in the Satipatthana Sutta, you will see that it can occur while people are eating, walking, talking, toileting, or any other everyday activity. Life continues as normal - we don't fall off the toilet. :-) ------------------ C: > Any way, to be clear, you are not talking about Ultimate Truth and understanding from that perspective? ------------------ I agree we should be clear on this. Earlier, you were talking about the sound of one hand clapping and an inability to say anything. I don't see why such conundrums should arise when we discuss Abhidhamma. ------------------------- C: > Now when you say lets talk from an Abhidhamic view, I assume you mean the science of reality. This does imply looking at the components or aggregates of things, as well as the compounded-ness. Under this view the self exist, as/(and as-not) you already know. That is the Self I speak of all the time. I always try to stand in the middle. -------------------------- I might get you to explain this point again some time. Ken H 42973 From: connie Date: Fri Mar 4, 2005 4:57pm Subject: Re: The Aunt A.Mun Bio Supporters, I don't know if you can convince me of anything or not, but I'm willing to read anything you might have to say. These were my excuses for not bothering to follow up on this Aunt thing earlier: I don't experience citta "'converging' into samaadhi", so already, nothing I say is of any consequence. The 'tentacle of citta' is going to turn out to be just 'a form of conventional speech' (not to mention that citta doesn't even mean citta or that these are all 3rd person accounts that may not be altogether reliable unless I happen to agree with them). These things only puzzle sour graped skeptics afraid to take their noses out of their books and smell the roses for themselves. And then there's the big built in loophole people who talk in circles tend to be so good at: AMun "did not dispute the truth of her experience, telling her that she was mistaken or that she should reconsider the nature of her assumptions. Instead, he responded by addressing her experience directly." I probably would've left it at that, a bit curious but convincing myself it was just entertaining and not important, but then Sarah said to Nina: "We see the shame when we speak out with dosa or strong lobha, but what about when we keep quiet with dosa, for example?" So, yeah, this is with dosa. But maybe some of you who believe this biography can explain things to me. I don't know just how rhetorical my questions to James were about who or what we can believe. We're supposed to be able to verify the truth for ourselves but we're all perverted, so how's that going to work? How do you decide which parts of this bio are true for you? Does anyone else experience this tentacle coming out of their citta? Is is some kind of extension of the hadaya rupa? Is it some hybrid nama-rupa blend? Is it the same as the silver thread the astral projection people warn against having severed while the astral body is away from the physical one? Doesn't that make it a tangible, physical thing? If it's seen, isn't it visible object? What IS nimittta? I know, it depends on the context: a sign, an object, characteristic, hint, cause, appearance. What exactly does the bio mean when it talks about "citta" since it's different from what is usually meant on this list? What is this thing that transforms into Nibbaana? I wonder what the aunt was mistaken about and what her assumptions were that A.Mun didn't address. It might make the following questions irrelevant: If the niece was already pregnant (and her mind/body wasn't just making some kind of preparations for it), was the aunt's citta just going to hang out until the fetus that was already there was born and the niece got pregnant again or can two cittas or mind-streams or whatever's - patisandhi cittas I would've thought - blend together and become one "person"? How does this advance planning for rebirth even happen? How many "cittas" can there be at one time? Or is it all just one really elastic and eternal thing? Or is it true, as some say, that the fetus is not really a human and maybe it doesn't even get a "soul" until it's 7 or so years old? Jumping to the end of the story: How is the skillful "citta" able to ensure a human rebirth? Can it decide what old kamma will arise? If Devadatta had been really mindful when he died, could he have avoided hell or is that different because of the gravity of what he'd done? In the progression "from lower to higher, from grosser to ever more refined forms of existence – and eventually from the cycle of sa.msaara to the freedom of Nibbaana", how do you explain the falling from higher realms back to lower as in ..."one may be reborn in a heavenly realm and enjoy a variety of celestial pleasures for a long time before being reborn eventually as a human being again"? Does this progression only start to happen after a certain level of development? Is this development mainly to do with virtue or both virtue and mindfulness or do they develop in tandem? Does this development only happen when the "citta" is based in the human form? Is it "in each succesive rebirth" or only after a certain amount has accumulated? How does the "citta" get sa.msaara'd anyway? Why isn't it Nibbaana right from the beginning? with doubt and preconceived views, connie 42974 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Mar 4, 2005 8:26pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Predominant roots? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kelvin_lwin" wrote: > > Hi > Kel: Then you advocate being a mad man from Ledi Sayadaw's > perspective. His position is clear on this that such sati can be > cultivated and actually necessary before any real progress can be > made. > > >===== Dear Kel I am wondering why you so often quote Ledi Sayadaw? I like some of his writings but you do know how controversial he was, with some of his beliefs I assume? Robertk 42975 From: Christine Forsyth Date: Fri Mar 4, 2005 8:37pm Subject: killing a sentient being Hello all, Can anyone direct me to a link or posts on the definition of 'sentient being' and what conditions have to exist for there to be 'intentional killing'? I know we have discussed this before, but can't track it down. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- 42976 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Fri Mar 4, 2005 8:47pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Predominant roots? Hi RobK, > Dear Kel > I am wondering why you so often quote Ledi Sayadaw? > I like some of his writings but you do know how controversial he > was, with some of his beliefs I assume? He's not a controversial figure in Burma so I'm not aware of any such things. The way I'm taught prolly has close ties to his teaching so maybe that's why I identify with his teachings. For better or worst my background is wholly Burmese. - kel 42977 From: Christine Forsyth Date: Fri Mar 4, 2005 9:32pm Subject: Re: killing a sentient being Dear all, I found it! :-) Sarah's nephew Tom asked a question and began a thread called "Should the garden be left to grow?" back in October, 2002. Thank goodness for the Useful Posts and the great work of those who maintain them. :-) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/16407 metta and peace, Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christine Forsyth" wrote: > > Hello all, > > Can anyone direct me to a link or posts on the definition > of 'sentient being' and what conditions have to exist for there to > be 'intentional killing'? I know we have discussed this before, but > can't track it down. > > metta and peace, > Christine > ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- 42978 From: kenhowardau Date: Fri Mar 4, 2005 10:07pm Subject: Re: Can't find your way out?......look.... Hi all, I'll post a reply to Hugo's latest message even though he won't be here to read it. ---------------------- H: > I regularly drive in front of a church (some kind of Christian church), they have a big banner with a motivational message that they change frequenly. Today it says: "If you can't find your way out, look up" I think the Buddhist version would be: "If you can't find your way out, look INSIDE". ---------------- That is a helpful motivational message, but it is not uniquely Buddhist. I can think of a lot of people (New Age and the like) who would endorse it. So, I've been trying to think of a better one. I would have to disqualify the best slogan of all time: "What are the dhammas that are arising now?" because it isn't necessarily preceded by, "If you can't find your way out." If you can't find your way out, it is because you are not looking for a way out. The dhammas that are arising now arise because the conditions for their arising have been put in place. If different conditions had been put in place, then different dhammas would be arising now. So don't think of yourself as a wise person trapped inside a fool's head and struggling to get out. Remember the words of a truly wise person: I yam what I yam, And that's all that I yam, I'm Popeye the Sailor Man. Ken H 42979 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Mar 4, 2005 10:13pm Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 137 - Applied thinking/Vitakka, Sustained thinking/Vicaara(g) Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== [Ch.8 Applied thinking(Vitakka),Sustained thinking(Vicaara)contd] *** We read about kusala vitakka: * "… Monks, if a monk ponder and reflect much on the thought of renunciation he ejects the thought of sense-pleasures; if he makes much of the thought of renunciation, his mind inclines to the thought of renunciation. Monks, if a monk ponder and reflect much on the thought of non-malevolence he ejects the thought of malevolence… Monks, if a monk ponder and reflect much on the thought of non-harming, he ejects the thought of harming; if he makes much of the thought of non-harming his mind inclines to the thought of non-harming…" * One may wonder whether nekkhamma, renunciation, is the same as retirement from worldly life and whether it therefore pertains in particular to monks. Although a monk’s life should be a life of contentment with little, he may not be cultivating nekkhamma. Whoever has not eradicated attachment to sense objects has still conditions for “thought of sense-pleasures”, no matter whether he is a monk or a layman. When a monk receives delicious almsfood, is attachment not likely to arise? ***** [Ch.8 Applied thinking(Vitakka),Sustained thinking(Vicaara)to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 42980 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Mar 4, 2005 10:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: killing a sentient being Hi, Chris Would you like to share with us how the question arises? Jon Christine Forsyth wrote: >Dear all, > >I found it! :-) Sarah's nephew Tom asked a question and began a >thread called "Should the garden be left to grow?" back in October, >2002. Thank goodness for the Useful Posts and the great work of >those who maintain them. :-) >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/16407 > >metta and peace, >Chris >---The trouble is that you think you have time--- > > 42981 From: Christine Forsyth Date: Fri Mar 4, 2005 11:16pm Subject: [dsg] Re: killing a sentient being Hello Jon, and all, Well Jon, just remember ... you did ask. :-) I came to this question again in a very roundabout way. I was having a discussion with a couple of friends who had very different views about suicide-bombers. One saw them as monsters who cared about no-one, another spoke of the reasons behind such despair etc. etc. This led to a rather drastic discussion on whether one should kill a suicide-bomber to save others. Somehow I found myself quoting the Vissudhimagga "breaking down the barriers" about the bhikkhu and the three others and the bandits wanting him to choose a bhikkhu to kill. This led on to the fact that "intentional killing" was what was seen as wrong in Buddhism. Next ... it seemed rational at the time ... the friend asked how I was with eating hamburgers and did I sterilise things to kill bacteria. He didn't consider a cow any less valuable than a bacteria, and further, he felt it was possible to kill another human without hate. To top the whole discussion off he asked me what did I think about the abortion of the human being who lives inside a rape victim - knowing I work in the Emergency Department and the Maternity Ward at the hospital. So ... I thought I'd better get some intelligent back-up. :-) metta, Chris --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Hi, Chris > > Would you like to share with us how the question arises? > > Jon > > Christine Forsyth wrote: > > >Dear all, > > > >I found it! :-) Sarah's nephew Tom asked a question and began a > >thread called "Should the garden be left to grow?" back in October, > >2002. Thank goodness for the Useful Posts and the great work of > >those who maintain them. :-) > >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/16407 > > > >metta and peace, > >Chris > >---The trouble is that you think you have time--- > > > > 42982 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat Mar 5, 2005 0:59am Subject: [dsg] Re: Ken--ultimate (Abhidhamma) view part 2 Hi Charles, You wrote: --------------- > Before I proceed, at some point I meant to tell you that you seem to have a fairly good understand of the processes (leading to "emptiness") of the mind at work. Assuming this is what you mean by the Abhidhammic view, this is really good, quite redressing, but soon you will have to move up to the level of a Masters (being more ackedemic/scientific) -- What are the flaws, weaknesses, and mistakes of this view? and how can it be improve upon ) --- later, you don't have to now. ---------------- I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that an academic understanding of the Buddha's teaching is not enough and there needs to be an actual practice of the teaching? I would agree with that, but you seem to be saying something different. I'm sure your meaning will be made clear to me eventually. No hurry. :-) ------------------------ C: > Now for the current post: You Wrote: {"Yes, that's true, although it could also be false, depending on how you look at it. That's the problem with conventional reality: everything is relative, nothing entirely true and nothing entirely false. Fear, shame, clarity and calm can each be seen at different times, and by different people, sometimes as good qualities and sometimes as bad."} Perfect!!! This shows a good grasp of the relative-ness of reality. We can call this a conventional view, a view (awareness) from the 6 senses and samsara. > --------------- I'm glad we seem to agree, but I am wary of your term, "the relativeness of reality." Reality is not relative - only our conventional understanding (so called) can make it seem that way. Although I know next to nothing about Tibetan Buddhism, I think some traditions believe that Nibbana is real and that conditioned reality is unreal. If that is your point of view then you are going to find discussions on DSG very difficult. But not impossible! :-) ---------------- C: > You Wrote: {The Abhidhamma, however, explains that volitional consciousness can only be kusala or akusala - personal opinion has no effect on it. We might think we have wholesome mental factors (e.g, hiri (moral shame), otappa (moral dread), citta-pasaddhi (tranquility of consciousness)) but, in reality, have unwholesome mental factors (e.g., dosa (aversion), kukkucca (worry) and akusala- somanassa (pleasant feeling accompanied by attachment)).} To think one thing (e.g., wholesomeness), but in reality, think another (e.g., unwholesomeness) means what? People deceive themselves, or are unaware of the menial activities that give rise to thoughts and thereby are made unaware of most thoughts. What do you think? ------------- I think of it in terms of "near enemies." Ignorant worldlings commonly mistake certain unwholesome states for certain wholesome ones. So the former are called the "near enemies" of the latter. ------------- C: > You Wrote: {In the case in point, I'm sure you are right: the calmer, clearer mind I claimed to have more often these days is almost always akusala, rooted in attachment. And, as you say, that kind of calm precedes a storm. But such is the worldlings' lot. :-)} So, what are you going to do about it? or Are you just going to accept it as your lot? ------------- It is too late to do anything about it - it has already gone. Conditioned realities last less than a billionth of a second and so the idea of doing something about them can only be rooted in ignorance (if I may put it that way). To put it another way: I am glad to know that my lot (dukkha) has a cause and a cessation and that there is a path leading to its cessation, but any desire to do something about it would be a part of the cause, not a part of the path. Ken H 42983 From: cosmique Date: Sat Mar 5, 2005 1:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Can't find your way out?......look.... Hi all, kenhowardau wrote: I'll post a reply to Hugo's latest message even though he won't be here to read it. ---------------------- H: > I regularly drive in front of a church (some kind of Christian church), they have a big banner with a motivational message that they change frequenly. Today it says: "If you can't find your way out, look up" I think the Buddhist version would be: "If you can't find your way out, look INSIDE". ---------------- I think a Buddhist paraphrase might sound like “If you can’t find your way out, look more closely at yourself and you will see none! That‘s the way out”. Metta, Cosmique The heaviness of one's burden is due to one's grasping. 42984 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Mar 5, 2005 2:32am Subject: [dsg] Re: Dialogue with Htoo 2 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Htoo, > wrong mindfulness: this refers to cittas with forgetfulness, with lack of > sati. It may imply lobha. This was discussed here before some time ago. > There is no specific cetasika, but the term is used to match the other wrong > Path factors as opposites of the right ones. > U Narada Guide to Conditional Relations, p. 66: > wrong speech, action, livelihood, wrong mindfulness are not conditioning > dhammas. They are immoral volitions or aggregates 'which do not come under > any of the ultimate realities of path condition.' > In the sutta it is used as a reminder for us. We are reminded of the danger > of lack of mindfulness. > Nina. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Nina, Thanks for your explanation. I appreciate it. With respect, Htoo Naing >. 42985 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 5, 2005 2:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: killing a sentient being Hi, Chris Christine Forsyth wrote: >Hello Jon, and all, > >Well Jon, just remember ... you did ask. :-) > > Thanks. Just as well you warned me ;-)) ... Actually, these 'situational' issues need not be as complicated as they seem at first sight seem. I think once one understands about the momentary nature of consciousness, and hence the possibility of 'mixed' kusala and akusala, there is no longer the intense search for a 'yes or no', 'right or wrong' kind of answer. So if your friends are interested in the dhamma, or even if they aren't, that might be a good way to approach it. Do let us know how your comments are received, or if any issues for discussion come up. Jon >I came to this question again in a very roundabout way. I was >having a discussion with a couple of friends who had very different >views about suicide-bombers. ... > 42986 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat Mar 5, 2005 3:13am Subject: [dsg] Re: ultimate (Abhidhamma) view / Ken Hi Charles, We seem to understand each other's points of view a little better now. ------- C: > I have to ask, do you understand the meaning/symbolism of the term Ultimate Truth as it is in Buddhism? It is the state of reality that is devoid of all temporal and transitional things. This would even include the 5 aggregates, etc... Some say it transcends thought. > -------- Unfortunately, "Buddhism" means different things to different people. Leaving aside the word 'truth' I understand 'ultimate reality' to refer to the conditioned mental and physical realities (nama and rupa) and to the one unconditioned reality, Nibbana. ------------- C: > So you should be very careful when using it, the term Ultimate or Absolute, especially to old Buddhists. -------------- Please explain "old Buddhists." ------------------------ C: > You Wrote: ... about the need to discuss Abhidhamma in a normal manner rather than in terms of "one hand clapping" or by "silence" or any other "mysterious" means. - - - - - - - - - I understand this, however when you start to discuss the non- existence of self or ego, etc. this borders on Absolute truth and not the Abhidhamic view. The Abhidhamic view relates more to presenting what the thing we call "Self" really is, a linking of both, independent and dependent processes that gives the illusion of "one process," and need. > ------------------------- That is not the way I understand it. The Abhidhamma is the teaching of absolute reality. So is the rest of the Dhamma, but the Abhidhamma avoids references to people and places. It is the Dhamma expressed in terms of cittas, cetasikas, rupas and Nibbana. -------------------- C: > When I wrote: ... read the Tao of Physics. You replied: I did try to read it when I was that way inclined. I am sure it is a sidetrack leading away from the Buddha's teaching. - - - - - - - - - This tells me that you are more of a student of Buddhism (well, abhidarma really) than a seeker of truth. This is ok except when you become blind, deaf, dumb to Truth. --------------------- If time would stand still for a few decades, then I might look at modern, creative interpretations of the Dhamma. As it is, however, there is more in the original, ancient texts than I am ever likely to get around to. And those texts must come first, surely. ------------------ <. . .> C: > Read "Gentle Bridges" by the Dahli Lama. This a group of books (the might use other names too) that Cognitive psychologists sit down with Buddhist (i.e., Tibetan Buddhist) to compare notes. There are a lot of Cognitive psychologists that are also Buddhist. This is just one example. -------------------- Thanks, but I only have time for the Theravada teaching. -------------------- <. . .> C: > When you talk about realization beyond the illusion of permanence, satisfactoriness and self, you are confusing self with Atman or the eternal soul/essence. This has been one of the points I have been trying to get a lot of you all to see. -------------------- Whether it is an eternal soul or just something that persists from one fleeting moment of consciousness to another, it is the same thing - illusion. Ken H 42987 From: gazita2002 Date: Sat Mar 5, 2005 3:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] ‘Cetasikas' Questions. my father. dear Nina, Thank you for sharing the story of your father's funeral. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Sarah, > N: Thank you for your interest. The funeral went very well. Also > grandchildren were present. It is good to go to a grave and stand there > silently, no speakers. It was very solemn and afterwards a luncheon with > all. It was not so sad because we had seen my father's body in the funeral > home, just a body, no life faculty anymore. That was really helpful. Azita: I attended a funeral yesterday, for a young woman who was killed in a horse accident, just 7 weeks after her baby was born. It was very interesting as the ceremony was performed by a buddhist nun; and the mother[my friend] of the young woman and her other 2 daughters wore white and looked angelic, while the father and his family all wore black and had tatoos and lips, noses, eyebrows pierced with studs. The funeral was in a country town so there were a few country people there also, so altogether we made a strange mob. I noticed the mother did not cry and she told me as we sat together, that her daughter was happy and it was just us that were left behing that were sad. I told her that when I see the newborns at the hospital, I sometimes think that the most certain thing about their lives is that they will die one day and I felt quite comfortable saying that to her cos I sensed that she understood that - and she acknowledged that fact. We nurses have a superstition that deaths come in threes - meaning if there is one death then there will be two more close together. For what it's worth and I do believe that it is just superstition, there have been 3 deaths for me and altho I did not know your father, Nina, I felt I knew him thro you talking about him. The third death was a young friend who chose to take his own life, due I think, to feeling life was too painful. Enuff, May all beings be happy - wherever they are Azita. 42988 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 5, 2005 3:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Can't find your way out?......look.... Hi, Cosmique, KenH, Hugo and All Good one, Cosmique. OK, here's my shot: If you can't find your way out, it means you're seeing it as 'my problem'. ;-)) Jon cosmique wrote: >Hi all, > >kenhowardau wrote: >I'll post a reply to Hugo's latest message even though he won't be >here to read it. > >---------------------- >H: > I regularly drive in front of a church (some kind of Christian >church), they have a big banner with a motivational message that they >change frequenly. > >Today it says: > >"If you can't find your way out, look up" > >I think the Buddhist version would be: > >"If you can't find your way out, look INSIDE". >---------------- > > >I think a Buddhist paraphrase might sound like “If you can’t find your way out, look more closely at yourself and you will see none! That‘s the way out”. > > 42989 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Mar 5, 2005 5:54am Subject: [dsg] Re: Predominant roots? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kelvin_lwin" wrote: > > Hi RobK, > > > Dear Kel > > I am wondering why you so often quote Ledi Sayadaw? > > He's not a controversial figure in Burma so I'm not aware of any > such things. The way I'm taught prolly has close ties to his > teaching so maybe that's why I identify with his teachings. For > better or worst my background is wholly Burmese. > ========== Dear Kel, The great strength of Burmese Dhamma is that they are very orthodox- However, a potential problem(IMHO) is that some Burmese buddhists decide some teacher is orthodox and then tend to accept anything he says rather uncritically. When Ledi sayadaw as alive he was greatly respected but also noted as having mildly unconventional views in some areas. Bhikku Bodhi (page 17-18 Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma) "Ledi Sayadaw's ....Paramattha-dipani created a sensation in the field of Abhidhamma studies because he pointed out 325 places in the esteemed Vibhavani-tika where he alleged errors and misinterpretations... His criticisms also set off a reaction in defense of the [much] older work ..[for example] the Ankura-Tika by Vimala sayadaw.. was written 15 years after the paramattha-dipani and supports the commonly accepted opionions of the Vibhavani against Ledi sayadaws criticisms.."endquote Bodhi Robertk 42990 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Mar 5, 2005 6:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Predominant roots? Hi Kelvin, op 04-03-2005 23:00 schreef kelvin_lwin op kelvin_lwin@y...: > >> Ledi Sayadaw is right in a way, > Kel: Are you saying Ledi Sayadaw only understood it partially? N: I like many of his writings, I have a hard copy here of his essays given to us by our friend U Nyun when we were in Myanmar, 1984. I do not agree with all he wrote. Personally, I am disinclined to proclaiming a certain order of practice: first this, than that. K: (to Rob K): He's not a controversial figure in Burma so I'm not aware of any such things. The way I'm taught prolly has close ties to his teaching so maybe that's why I identify with his teachings. For better or worst my background is wholly Burmese. N: I lived in several Asiatic countries and could learn about different ways of outlook and attitude of East and West. I noticed that my Thai friends had a high respect for their teachers and were inclined to follow closely what the teacher said. In Europe our background is different. We are very critical, question everything and are inclined to have doubts. Generally, we are also disinclined to rules, the idea that you have to do this or that first. Both ways have advantages and disadvantages. Disadvantages, especially when one goes too far one way or the other. It helps to realize to what extent one is conditioned by one's education and cultural back ground. It has a great influence on our way of thinking. We call it accumulations, and it is actually pakatupanissaya paccaya, natural strong dependence condition. Knowing about this also helps us to understand someone else's outlook. Being from Myanmar you are well versed in the texts and I appreciate this. > Kel: If it's the same to you, I have more confidence in Ledi > Sayadaw's words and his interpretation. N: I understand your view. You owe a lot to him. You often say: I have to check with my teacher. Who is he? Do you follow a private course in Buddhism or is this at school? How many languages are taught? Are you going soon to University? Pardon me I have so many questions, but I am interested at education and I would like to know more how this is in Myanmar. Kel: Or just the 4 noble truths, doesn't matter what > device/dhamma you use to develop understanding. The object > themselves are inconsequential. Why does he need to set a limit > when they all have the same characteristics? It's one and the > same. In fact, if you can still identify or describe something it's > not free of pannatti. N: I do not deny this. The paññatti is useful, it is a means to understand paramattha dhammas. In this way I see the four Applications of Mindfulness. All these descriptions by way of conventional language (vohara) are means to understand and remind us of nama and rupa at this moment. Nina. 42991 From: nina Date: Sat Mar 5, 2005 6:20am Subject: Visuddhimagga XIV, 142 and Tiika. Visuddhimagga XIV, 142 and Tiika. Intro: Visuddhimagga XIV, 142, Hiri and Ottappa. Hiri, moral shame, and ottappa, fear of blame, are two sobhana cetasikas that accompany each sobhana citta. Kusala citta cannot arise without hiri and ottappa which see the danger and disadvantage of akusala. Hiri is translated in the Vis. as conscience, whereas in other texts it is translated as shame. The Vis. uses the term conscientious scruples (hiriyati) with reference to hiri, but hiri is not worry that is associated with aversion. Ottappa is translated in the Vis. as shame, whereas in other texts it is translated as fear of blame. Ottappa is not fear or anxiety which is the akusala cetasika dosa. It is a sobhana cetasika which sees the danger of akusala. **** Text Vis.: 142. (xi)-(xii) It has conscientious scruples (hiriyati) about bodily misconduct, etc., thus it is conscience (hiri). This is a term for modesty. N: Hiri is ashamed about bodily misconduct, misconduct through speech and mind. As to modesty or shame (lajjaa), the Tiika adds that it has disgust (of evil). Text Vis.: It is ashamed (ottappati) of those same things, thus it is 'shame' (ottappa). This is a term for anxiety about evil. Herein, 'conscience' has the characteristic of disgust at evil, while 'shame' has the characteristic of dread of it. N: Hiri has disgust at evil, and the Tiika adds that it sees evil as dung. According to the Tiika (Vis. XIV, XXXVII), ahirika, shamelessness, is like a pig that does not abhor dung. Ottappa has dread, and the Tiika adds that it sees evil as heat. It sees the danger of burning oneself. According to the Tiika (Vis. XIV, XXXVIII), anottappa, disregard of blame, is like a moth that is attracted to fire. Text Vis. : 'Conscience' has the function of not doing evil and that in the mode of modesty, while 'shame' has the function of not doing it and that in the mode of dread. They are manifested as shrinking from evil in the way already stated. Their proximate causes are self-respect and respect of others [respectively]. N: The Tiika explains that the proximate cause of hiri is selfrespect, because it has a subjective origin, and oneself is the predominant influence. The proximate cause of ottappa is respect for others, because it has an external origin and the world is the predominant influence. This is said for the sake of explanation of these two different cetasikas. But the Tiika emphasizes that they are not dissociated from each other. Also hiri sees the danger of evil. The Tiika emphasizes that both hiri and ottappa are the guardians of the world. It refers to the ³Gradual Sayings² Book of the Threes, Ch IV, § 40, Dominance (III, 4, §40). This sutta explains that there are three kinds of dominant influence (adhipati): of oneself, of the world and of Dhamma. Text Vis.: A man rejects evil through 'conscience' out of respect for himself, as the daughter of a good family does... N: The Expositor (I, Part IV, Ch I, 125) explains that one may be ashamed of evil when one considers one¹s birth, age, courage and moral strength, and wide experience. One does not want to act in a childish way or like a fool. Text Vis.: he rejects evil through 'shame' out of respect for another, as a courtesan does. N: One rejects evil because one respects one¹s teacher, one does not want to be blamed by wise people or one¹s fellowmen. Or one sees the danger of the undesirable result of evil, an unhappy rebirth or unpleasant experiences through the senses. Text Vis.: But these two states should be regarded as the guardians of the world (see A.i,51). N: The Vis. refers to the Gradual Sayings (I, Book of the Twos, Chapter I, 9). We read that if moral shame and fear of blame would not protect the world there would be promiscuity between people, even between relatives, as exists "among goats and sheep, fowls and swine, dogs and jackals". That is why moral shame and fear of blame are called the "guardians of the world". When there are no shame and fear of blame even as to gross defilements, one lives like an animal. ***** There are hiri and ottappa which makes someone shrink from gross akusala, but one may also see the danger and disadvantages of akusala that is less gross, such as useless speech or unkind thoughts. We see the Buddha¹s great compassion when he laid down rules for the monk to help him to see danger even in the slightest faults. As understanding develops we can see the disadvantages of all degrees of akusala cittas. Hiri and ottappa can become more refined. We learn to see the danger of ignorance of dhammas. When there is forgetfulness of the namas and rupas that appear, hiri and ottappa may arise that see the danger of accumulating ever more ignorance, one sees the danger of the continuation in the cycle of birth and death. When kusala citta with right understanding arises of the dhamma that appears now, it is accompanied by confidence, saddhaa, sati, hiri and ottappa, and many other sobhana cetasikas. These are all needed to support the citta with right understanding. *** Nina. 42992 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Mar 5, 2005 6:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Aunt Dear Connie, Suppose the aunt would be reborn in the niece's womb, what is so bad about that? It is human birth and this is a happy rebirth. One has the chance to learn Dhamma. Nina. op 05-03-2005 01:57 schreef connie op connieparker@i...: > > These were my excuses for not bothering to follow up on this Aunt thing > earlier: 42993 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Sat Mar 5, 2005 8:02am Subject: [dsg] Re: Predominant roots? Hi RobK, > However, a potential problem(IMHO) is that some Burmese buddhists > decide some teacher is orthodox and then tend to accept anything he > says rather uncritically. Kel: Sure that can be a problem after all sasana has to decline through some mechanism and I read your old post just yesterday. I tend to use him in defense of some of the positions when it's purely academic. Usually i match up my experiences with book knowledge to form my own. Most of the points we debate about are not so critical for practice anyway imho. > "Ledi Sayadaw's ....Paramattha-dipani created a sensation in the > field of Abhidhamma studies because he pointed out 325 places in Kel: The version I read is he overheard Sri Lanka monks saying Burmese Abhidhamma studies were based on commentaries with some errors. So he took it upon himself and corrected those since he was uniquely qualified due to intimitate knowledge of the whole tipitaka. So I guess it's in the eye of the beholder really. - kel 42994 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Sat Mar 5, 2005 8:34am Subject: [dsg] Re: Predominant roots? > N: Personally, I am disinclined to proclaiming a certain order of > practice: first this, than that. Kel: Actually Ledi sayadaw also wrote that insisting on a strict order is also detrimental to people's progress. For example sila, samadhi and panna in strict order. He said it's so rare to encounter a Buddha Sasana that we must get at least the seed of panna. > N: It helps to realize to what extent one is conditioned by one's education and > cultural back ground. It has a great influence on our way of thinking. Kel: sure there's no denying the influence of environment on our mental development. > N: How many languages are > taught? Are you going soon to University? Pardon me I have so many > questions, but I am interested at education and I would like to know more > how this is in Myanmar. Kel: In Burma, English and Burmese are taught starting in first grade. Being a former British colony, my mom's generation for example are a product of missionary schools so quality of education was quite high before. I only finished 5th grade since schools were closed after events in '88. I came to America in '90 when I was 12 and avoided the sham of an education that they have right now. I did my undergrad at UC Berkeley and went to work. Now I'm back there for grad school in EECS. I'm probably older than you thought I was. > N: You often say: I have to check with my teacher. Who is he? Do you follow a > private course in Buddhism or is this at school? Kel: Buddhism as subject is not taught in schools but most of us probably did time as a novice and learned some rudimentary stuff. I took a few Religious studies courses during my undergrad. My teacher is a Burmese monk who teaches intro Abhidhamma course at a monastery around here. There's also numerous monks around that I can approach with questions. Being a buddhist household, we do have a few texts lying about in Burmese. I read Dhammapada when I was 8 so forgot much of it but occasionally something would pop up. I'm retaining Burmese by reading and talking at home. I can't write anymore since my spelling is horrid. - kel 42995 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Mar 5, 2005 8:39am Subject: The Citta (was Re: The Aunt) Hi Connie, Thankfully, my computer is now fixed. You ask a lot of questions here but I will try to tackle the central question you ask: Connie: What exactly does the bio mean when it talks about "citta" since it's different from what is usually meant on this list? What is this thing that transforms into Nibbaana? James: From my experience with Thai monks, I have found that they often use words in a way which meets their purposes and experiences rather than matches the texts. I believe that the way the citta is described in this bio more closely matches the reality of the mind than the Abhidhamma does. Though, in theory, I accept the model of the citta (for argument's sake and discussion), I don't believe it really matches the actual mind. There are some inherent difficulties with the model of the citta as presented in the Abhidhamma, especially the idea that one mind state ends before another begins (I have posted about this on DSG before). Since some believe I just like to be contrary just for the sake of being contrary (especially Sarah ;-) allow me to quote a bhikkhu in support, from `Clearing the Path' by Nanavira Thera: "Cittavithi, `mental process, cognitive series'. Visuddhimagga, Ch. XIV etc. It is, perhaps, not superfluous to remark that this doctrine, of which so much use is made in the Visuddhimagga (and see also the Abhidhammatthasangaha), is a pure scholastic invention and has nothing at all to do with the Buddha's Teaching (or, indeed, with anything else). It is, moreover, a vicious doctrine, totally at variance with paticcasamuppada, setting forth the arising of experience as a succession of items each coming to an end before the next appears…The decay first seems to set in with the Vibhanga and Patthana of the Abhidhamma Pitaka. Connected with this doctrine is the erroneous notion of anuloma- gotrabhu-magga-phala, supposed to be the successive moments in the attainment of sotapatti. It is sometimes thought that the word akalika as applied to Dhamma means that attainment of magga is followed `without interval of time' by attainment of phala; but this is quite mistaken. Akalika dhamma has an entirely different meaning. Then, in the Okkantika Samyutta it is stated only that the dhammanusari and the saddhanusari (who have reached the magga leading to sotapatti) are bound to attain sotapattiphala before their death; and other Suttas- e.g. Majjhima vii, 5&10- show clearly that one is dhammanusari or saddhunasuri for more than `one moment'." http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/ctp_screen-view_v1.pdf So, Connie, it is quite possible that if you have a mistaken view of the citta you are not going to understand how the citta is described in this bio. Metta, James 42996 From: Tep Sastri Date: Sat Mar 5, 2005 9:01am Subject: Re: Eight Conditions for the Arising of Panna/ Vera Sutta Dear Sarah - There are some significant variations in what you call the "four factors of stream-entry". The variations are seen in SN LV.30, SN LV.31, SN LV.32, SN LV.33 and AN X.92. Your version is as follows: S: S: I don't quite see how you read it as specifically showing `what lay-persons should do in order to become Sotapanna'. Surely it is describing the benefits or fruit of being a sotapanna such as the stilling of fear (on account of having no self- view),four factors of stream entry starting with association with the wise (usually sappurisa sa.msevo)- associating or resorting to the right views of the ariyans, hearing true dhamma (saddhammasavana.m), wise attention (yoniso manasikaaro), practice in accordance with Dhamma (dhammaanudhammapa.tipatti). T: The four factors of stream-entry(Sotapatti) as stated in AN X.92 (Vera Sutta) are more precise with respect to `what lay-persons should do in order to become Sotapanna'. Please review the following excerpt and kindly respond at your convenient time. Thank you much. "And which are the four factors of stream-entry with which he is endowed? "There is the case where the disciple of the noble ones is endowed with unwavering faith in the Awakened One: 'Indeed, the Blessed One is worthy & rightly self-awakened, consummate in knowledge & conduct, well-gone, an expert with regard to the world, unexcelled as a trainer for those people fit to be tamed, the Teacher of divine & human beings, awakened, blessed.' "He is endowed with unwavering faith in the Dhamma: 'The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One, to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for themselves.' "He is endowed with unwavering faith in the Sangha: 'The Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples who have practiced well... who have practiced straight-forwardly... who have practiced methodically... who have practiced masterfully -- in other words, the four pairs, the eight individuals [1] -- they are the Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples: worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of respect, the incomparable field of merit for the world.' "He is endowed with virtues that are appealing to the noble ones: untorn, unbroken, unspotted, unsplattered, liberating, praised by the wise, untarnished, leading to concentration. "These are the four factors of stream-entry with which he is endowed. [Excerpt from AN X.92, Vera Sutta]. Kindest regards, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > (snipped) > Glad to hear anything I've missed and any more of your own comments. > Actually each phrase is very deep in meaning, I think. I'll be glad if you > post any more of these suttas. > > Metta, > > Sarah > p.s You may also like to look at posts under 'sotapanna' and 'sappurisa' > in U.P. > ===== 42997 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Mar 5, 2005 11:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Predominant roots? Hi Kel, thank you for sharing your experiences and background. You said before that school had started, and I was not sure whether you are a pupil or teaching. op 05-03-2005 17:34 schreef kelvin_lwin op kelvin_lwin@y...: >> N: Personally, I am disinclined to proclaiming a certain order of >> practice: first this, than that. > Kel: Actually Ledi sayadaw also wrote that insisting on a strict > order is also detrimental to people's progress. For example sila, > samadhi and panna in strict order. He said it's so rare to > encounter a Buddha Sasana that we must get at least the seed of > panna. N: I am glad he said this. It is different from what many teachers say. K: My teacher is a Burmese monk who teaches intro Abhidhamma course at a > monastery around here. There's also numerous monks around that I > can approach with questions. N: This is a wonderful opportunity. Nina. 42998 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Mar 5, 2005 11:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Eight Conditions for the Arising of Panna/ Vera Sutta Dear Tep and Sarah, Two versions were dealt with in the Visuddhimagga, under saddhaa. I just quote. I think they are complementary. <,Text Vis: or its proximate cause is the things beginning with hearing the Good Dhamma (saddhamma) that constitute the factors of stream-entry.[63] Note 63 taken from the Tiika: The four factors of stream entry (see S.v,347) are waiting on good men, hearing the Good Dhamma, wise attention, and practice in accordance with the Dhamma. Again they are: absolute confidence in the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha, and possession of noble virtue (S.v,343). N: The sotaapanna has unshakable confidence in the Triple Gem, and he is endowed with ariyan virtue. He cannot transgress the five precepts and he cannot commit akusala kamma that produces an unhappy rebirth. > op 05-03-2005 18:01 schreef Tep Sastri op tepyawa@m...: > There are some significant variations in what you call the "four > factors of stream-entry". The variations are seen in SN LV.30, SN > LV.31, SN LV.32, SN LV.33 and AN X.92. > T: The four factors of stream-entry(Sotapatti) as stated in AN X.92 > (Vera Sutta) are more precise with respect to `what lay-persons > should do in order to become Sotapanna'. > > "And which are the four factors of stream-entry with which he is > endowed? > > "There is the case where the disciple of the noble ones is endowed > with unwavering faith in the Awakened One... 42999 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Mar 5, 2005 11:42am Subject: [dsg] Re: Can't find your way out?......look.... Hi Jon, Let me add one: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Hi, Cosmique, KenH, Hugo and All > > Good one, Cosmique. > > OK, here's my shot: > If you can't find your way out, it means you're seeing it as 'my problem'. > > ;-)) > > Jon If you can't find your way out, it means YOU'RE asking the wrong questions. Metta, James