43600 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Mar 25, 2005 0:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Rupa Madness: Seeing with the Tongue Hi TG (and Matthew) TGrand458@a... wrote: >Hi Matthew, All > >... > > >TG That is a very impressive statement from the Dalai Lama. This shows his >confidence that a correct investigation of actuality by science, or Buddha, >or any other discipline, will draw the same conclusions. They have to. > > Or it could be taken as showing his confidence that the two can always be distinguished sufficiently for any apparent inconsistencies to be explained away. ;-)) As to 'drawing the same conclusions', Matthew for one would I think disagree on this (for example, as to the 'unchanging' nature of (sense-door) experience). >Surely scientific knowledge is incomplete and addresses many things Buddhism >is not interested in addressing and vice versa. But the things that they >commonly address and their expressions of principles of 'actualities of nature' >are quite capable of overlapping seamlessly. > > At the risk of being labelled a science-basher (or a sutta thumper ;-)), may I ask if you see science as having any value in terms of gaining release from continued existence in samsara. >This is by no means to equate science and Buddhism. Buddhism is infinitely >more valuable IMO. But that's not to say science is wrong or garbage. > Just for the record, I also do not say that science is wrong or garbage. But I distinguish between conventional knowledge/truths and the knowledge/truths spoken of in the dhamma. As I see it, neither has validity in terms of the other's frame of reference. But I also see no contradiction whatsoever between being a scientist and a follower of the teachings. Jon 43601 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Mar 25, 2005 0:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma challenge 2 Hi Matheesha, You have many interesting and important items here. I try to react. op 25-03-2005 01:15 schreef matheesha op dhammachat@h...:> >> N: This extinction, nirodha, is not >> the experience of nibbaana. > > M: Any ideas how they differ? Is nirodha lokuttara? N: When there is nirodha samaapatti, there is no experience of nibbaana, thus, the cittas are not lokuttara. Ven. Nyanatiloka's dictionary is very helpful to look up such terms. He often gives texts quotations. >> N:When that person emerges from it he experiences >> nibbaana with the phalacitta of the anagami or arahat > > M: This is new to me. Does this mean that if a sakadagami, in > training to become an anagami, experiences nirodha for the first > time, when coming out of this nirodha will experience phalacitta and > become an anagami? N: He has to be already an anaagami before nirodha samaapatti. A sakadaagaami cannot enter nirodha. It would be impossible to experience phalacitta without the preceding magga-citta of the stage of the anaagaami. >> N: As to through >> contemplation...>, yes, also that is citta, a conditioned nama, > and it >> should be object of mindfulness, otherwise one takes that changing > of >> thoughts for self. > > M: Yes, very tricky and applies to all practices really...My teacher > uses a series of directed vipassana techniques aimed at identifying > 1) nama-rupa, then 2) their causal connection to each other and then > 3) the arising and passing away of these cause and effect nama-rupa. N: Your late teacher was actually explaining the stages of tender insight, taru.na vipassanaa which arise in order. This is a very important subject to discuss. M: The Self view is usually abandoned between 1 and 3 in the trainees. N: The sotaapanna has completely eradicated the self view. But it is wearing away slowly during the development of insight in stages. M: The last technique 4) is anapanasathi -seeing arising and passing > away of the breath (similar to the fourth tetrad of the anapanasathi > sutta in that impermenence is viewed). I suspect he used the last > one because the joining vipassana with samatha at this point has a > better chance of giving rise to aanantharika samadhi. N: The fourth tetrad pertains to insight alone. I requote from my study about it, with some words of Jon: "The fourth tetrad pertains to the contemplation of dhammas (mental objects) in dhammas. We read in the Commentary to the Anapanasati Sutta (translated by Ven. Nyanatiloka) about the explanations of the words of the sutta: : here covetousness is the hindrance of lust. By grief the hindrance of ill will is pointed out. For this tetrad is stated by way of insight. And contemplation of mental objects is sixfold... Of that contemplation, the section on the hindrances is the beginning... Accordingly, he said, in order to point out the beginning of the contemplation of mental objects. (pahaana.m) means it is the knowledge of abandoning, thus, that is intended... N: The Co refers to higher stages of insight knowledge leading to more detachment from conditioned realities: fading away (viraaga~naa.na), cessation (nirodha ~naa.na), and relinquishment (pa.tinissagga). We read further on: : because one who proceeds by the method, etc., is one who looks on with complete equanimity after successively seeing with understanding not only the mental objects beginning with the hindrances, but also the knowledge of the abandoning of the mental objects stated under the heading of covetousness and grief. Therefore, it should be understood that Nina: In the Way of Mindfulness, Co translated by Ven. Soma, it is stated that just as in the case of body, feeling and citta, the mental objects should be contemplated in seven ways: as impermanent; as being subject to dukkha; as anatta; by way of turning away from it and not by way of delighting in it; by freeing himself of passion for it; with thoughts making for cessation and not making for origination; and not by way of laying hold of it, by by way of giving it up. As we have seen, the hindrances are classified under the mental objects, and they include also the khandhas, the sense-bases (ayatanas), the seven factors of enlightenment and the four Truths. Jon: The mind objects/mental objects section refers to the dhammas (realities) that can be the object of a moment of consciousness, and this in turn means any and all realities (including those covered by the other 3 sections of the sutta). Only dhammas (realties) can be the object of satipatthana, because only something that has its own characteristic that is capable of being experienced is considered to be a dhamma’; anything that does not, is not.> " end quote. > > N:> I cannot see satipatthana as a mechanism, I am not sure what you > mean. It is >> to be developed. > > M: Sati--> develop insight into the tilakkana/udaya-vya nana-- >> nibbida (?), letting go based on that insight ie- erradication of > craving delusion, craving and aversion (based on maggacitta)-- >> vimukthi/release. N: Aversion can only be eradicated by anaagami and all delusion and craving by the arahat. M: This is the mechanism behind the sathipattana if Im not mistaken. However vitakkasanthana sutta seems to be talking about a more active/direct method of identifying lobha,dosa,moha and getting rid of them. N: I just repost a part with my thoughts about this sutta: end quote. M: I'm wondering if there are > other paths to maggacitta rather than through udaya-vya which doesnt > seem to be the style of vitakkasanthana practice which seems to use > more direct and pointed action as and when required rather than > prolonged mindfulness. N: What a person takes for prolonged mindfulness is likely to be full of self. Sati arises and falls away and it can only arise when there are the appropriate conditions. All the stages of insight have to be accomplished in order to attain enlightenment. We should discuss more the first stage of tender insight, but this post is already too long. If the first stage is not correct, the subsequent stages are not right. Nina. 43602 From: lokuttaracitta Date: Fri Mar 25, 2005 1:59am Subject: On Buddha nature from Lokuttaracitta --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joop" wrote: > > Dear all > > Back to the initial question: Is it possible to interprete the > (Mahayana-)concept 'Buddha-Nature' in Theravada-language, so that > this can be used in a fruitful dicsussion between Mahayanists and > Theravadins? > > (It's a normal human habit that when a discussion takes place on an > unknown terrain, to get as quick as possible to the known terrain, > for example by taking a detail of the original discussion and > redefine it in the frame of reference of the known terrain. In this > thread many DSG-participants prefer to discuss about an abhidhammic > concept like 'lokuttaracitta', and not about the concept 'Buddha- > Nature; I do understand that) Hi,Joop Sorry for my belated response. As a Mahayana buddhist, I have interestes in What the orthodox theravadin teachs becuase it has been helping me understand better how profound some(not all) views and practices in mahayana and Vajrayana are. But I do not intend to compare Theravada with Mahayana on those open forums untill I become an adept in Mahayana . I believe that will end in long long tangled discussions if we dig into .That will not get us nowhere unless we are maha-panditas of Maha-yana or followers of a certain Maha-yana sect. There are various views in different Mahayana traditions even on Emptiness alone. There are many debates and arguments on it in Mahayana.It also is deeply connected with Buddha-nature and 3-kayas ,4-kayas or 5-kayas etc. And ,in my view, Mahayana can not be fully understood without sufficient knowldges and actual experiences of Vajrayana which itself consists of various traditions. However, This is just my two cents and I have no intention to discourage you. Metta from LK p,s, Sorry for having disturbed you in my previous reply to you 43603 From: lokuttaracitta Date: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:00am Subject: Re: [dsg]Lokuttara cittas Dear Nina Thank you very much for your kindness. > > " Nibbana arises in us because of conditions such as the arising of > > the change-of-lineage or vodana(cleansing) citta " > N: Nibbana does not arise, it is unconditioned. It does not arise and fall > away, it could never arise in us. Does not Nibbana arise in our citta as Object when paññaa has been developed to the degree of the change-of-lineage citta ,and fall away from our citta when phala citta ceases ? > LK: "It(Nibbana) arises and falls away in us, but is Unconditioned > > Dhamma.In likewise ,Lokuttaracittas are unconditioned " *snip* > Is there a special reason that you ask about this subject? Very Sorry for bothering you! I ,as a Mahayana buddhist with deep faith in Theravada,like to know the orthodox theravadin view on these topics so that I can have better understandings of " Buddhism". But I do not like to mix their views. Now I just want to know What Theravada is within its framework. metta from LK 43604 From: Joop Date: Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Having no opinions --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: ... Dear Jon, Howard You must be right, my remark was a little bit materialistic. But still I have two problems: - I'm not sure if "the consciousness that thinks" (quote Jon) is exact enough; I should say: "opinions (that are pannatti) as the result of flee floating consciousness". The art of not having opinions is than: mindfulness that prevents consciousness to float freely (that was the initial topic of the thread). - If "an opinion is not as being kept in a person's brain" (quote Jon), what is the function of the human brain in Abhidhamma at all? I mean the function of the human brain different from the brain of any animal, thus not the simple process of seeing etc. Even the seat of the mind is not the brain but the heart (hadaya vatthu): an idea not found in the Abhidhamma but later by commentaries ascribed to Abhidhamma. Metta Joop 43605 From: Joop Date: Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:31am Subject: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Hi, Joop > Although I doubt that this will lead to anything, I'm willing to follow along to see ;-)). > I would say that if 'Buddha-Nature' is to fit into the Theravada scheme > of things, it would have to be one of the following: > - a dhamma, apprehendible through one of the doorways (presusmably the mind door) > - an attribute of dhammas, or of a particular dhamma > - a condition describing the relationship between dhammas > - a natural law > > Otherwise it would be a term that is descriptive of some thing or state, > which would make it a concept I suppose. > > Don't know if this is helpful. > > Jon Dear Jon I think you are correct in describing the Theravada schema. To give 'Buddha Nature' a place in it, I think a possibly useful way for discussions with Mahayannist is to say that it's a part of kamma, a part that is permanent positive. (But I'm not sure where 'kamma' belongs in your list) Metta Joop 43606 From: kenhowardau Date: Fri Mar 25, 2005 4:12am Subject: [dsg] Re: Ken--ultimate (Abhidhamma) view part 2 Hi Charles (D), ------------------------- C: > When you make this claim ("as the momentarily existing five khandhas"), you are say that beings don't change, they just cease to exist. Is this what you mean? -------------------------- Yes, there is nothing that carries over from the past to the present (or to the future). Each dhamma arises only once and then disappears forever. However, dhammas condition other dhammas to take their places, and so there is an appearance of continuity. --------------------- <. . .> C: > I would have to disagree with you, when you say, "An image in the mirror is a concept and, as such, it has no actual existence at all." and I don't understand what you mean by: "The only ultimately real thing that meets the eye is visible object, and it lasts for one moment of rupa. Seeing consciousness, which experiences visible object, lasts for one moment of nama." Do you believe that there are things that you can sense that are not real, even in the mind? and do you believe that thoughts and ideas (things in the mind) are not real? Maybe you should list/define what you think is real. > ----------------------- The Abhidhamma lists and defines all the different moments of consciousness and all the other realities that can exist with them. Sometimes, a reality known as visible object becomes the object of consciousness. It becomes the object of eye-door consciousness and of mind-door consciousness. In some other [mind-door] moments, concepts are created. Concepts are illusory and they cannot be listed in the Abhidhamma because there is an infinite number of them. Concepts of what has been seen can include 'a face in the mirror.' Because our understanding of the Dhamma is weak, we think the face in the mirror is real, and we have no recall of the actual visible objects that have been experienced. ----------------------------- C: > Do you see the Abidharma as a detailed scholastic endeavor only, a method for removing ... from the mind, or both? ----------------------------- It is a description of absolute reality which, when understood and verified, leads to dispassion, relinquishment and enlightenment. ---------------------- C: I am not sure what you mean by " lobar." ---------------------- Lobar is a word that your spell-checker puts in place of my word, lobha. Lobha is one of the absolute realities that can arise in some moments of consciousness. It is the mental factor (cetasika) that clings (desires, attaches) to the object it experiences. The object of lobha can be another absolute reality (e.g., visible object) or it can be a concept (e.g., a face in the mirror). -------------------------------------------- C: > And instead of "fallen away," I would say, "will, if not has already, change/transformed." -------------------------------------------- Lobha has the characteristic of changing (anicca) but, after its [less than a billionth of a second] duration, it falls away forever. --------------------------------------------- KH: > > I have noticed lately that your spell-checker changes my spellings - and not always for the better. :-) .................................... C: > Thanks a lot for the warning, please help me to catch the changes. -------------------------------------------- There are minor changes where your computer reprints my sentences in American English when they were originally printed in Australian English. So, for example, I write "cognising" and your computer reprints it as "cognizing." There is no problem with that, but then we see "lobha" changed into "lobar" and "supramundane" changed into "superabundance." That is a problem. :-) -------------------------- C: > So you have accept these specific teaching by faith? > -------------------------- Rather than think about 'accepting' and 'not accepting,' I simply study the teaching and understand it as best I can. --------------- C: > You said: "as moments of seeing or hearing etc." This answers the question, but then, are those moments for a billionth of a second or do they vary (in terms of how long they last); and is that based on experience or teaching? ---------------- Namas (consciousness and mental factors) last an incredibly short time. So do rupas, but some rupas (e.g., sense objects) can last for seventeen moments of nama. I know these figures only from my Dhamma study: there is no way I could single out one of those fleeting dhammas, let alone measure its duration. ---------------------------- C: > And the relevance will be explained in the next post if you remind me of the question ("Where did the Buddha say we should divide the Dhamma into two sections - the parts we have personally verified and the parts we have not?"). We have a good flow going and I don't want you to get caught by a small off the track detail. ----------------------------- I think it's a good question, and I am ready to discuss it when you are. Ken H 43607 From: Matthew Miller Date: Fri Mar 25, 2005 5:19am Subject: [dsg] Re: Rupa Madness: Seeing with the Tongue Hello Jon & All, DG: > > a correct investigation of actuality by science, or Buddha, > > or any other discipline, will draw the same conclusions. They > > have to. I agree, though this statement is something of a tautology: "Correct" investigation will always draw the same (correct) conclusions. Dalai Lama: >> "If the words of the Buddha and >> the findings of modern science >> contradict each other, then the former >> have to go." Jon: > it could be taken as showing his confidence > that the two can always > be distinguished sufficiently for any > apparent inconsistencies to be > explained away. ;-)) The Dalai Lama did not talk about "explaining away" inconsistencies. He directly says that any words of the Buddha that contradict scientific findings have to be rejected. If the Dalai Lama, as Jon suggests, actually feels confident that scientific findings will never contradict dhamma nor cause us to reject any of the Buddha's teachings, then his statement was disingenuous. > As to 'drawing the same conclusions', Matthew for > one would I think disagree on this (for example, as to the > 'unchanging' nature of (sense-door) experience). Yes. Also, the question occurs to me, if the nature of sense-door experience is unchanging (and not a product of evolution, as I would argue), doesn't that contradict impermanence? Matthew 43608 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Mar 25, 2005 5:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature Hi Joop Joop wrote: >>I would say that if 'Buddha-Nature' is to fit into the Theravada scheme >>of things, it would have to be one of the following: >>- a dhamma, apprehendible through one of the doorways (presusmably the mind door) >>- an attribute of dhammas, or of a particular dhamma >>- a condition describing the relationship between dhammas >>- a natural law >> >>Otherwise it would be a term that is descriptive of some thing or state, which would make it a concept I suppose. >> >> >Dear Jon > >I think you are correct in describing the Theravada schema. To >give 'Buddha Nature' a place in it, I think a possibly useful way for >discussions with Mahayannist is to say that it's a part of kamma, a >part that is permanent positive. (But I'm not sure where 'kamma' >belongs in your list) > > Kamma is one of those terms that is used in different contexts to mean slightly different things. It falls under at least 3 of the 4 categories I gave ;-)): (a) As good and bad deeds/action done, kamma is the mental factor 'intention' ('cetana' cetasika), i.e., it is a dhamma (b) Kamma is one of the conditions that pertains between dhammas. The five sense-organs and every moment of sense-door consciousness in this life are conditioned by kamma from a previous life. (c) Kamma is one of the 5 'laws of nature' (niyaama). (There may be other meanings too.) If you have in mind kamma that has been performed but has yet to bring a result, then you are really talking about previous moments of cetana; all previous moments of consciousness are accumulated. I know this description does not match a lot of people's understanding of what kamma is, but that is in fact how it is described in the texts (including the suttas). Jon 43609 From: Date: Fri Mar 25, 2005 1:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature Hi, Jon (and Joop) - In a message dated 3/25/05 2:49:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, jsabbott@n... writes: > > Although I doubt that this will lead to anything, I'm willing to follow > along to see ;-)). > > I would say that if 'Buddha-Nature' is to fit into the Theravada scheme > of things, it would have to be one of the following: > - a dhamma, apprehendible through one of the doorways (presusmably the > mind door) > - an attribute of dhammas, or of a particular dhamma > - a condition describing the relationship between dhammas > - a natural law > > Otherwise it would be a term that is descriptive of some thing or state, > which would make it a concept I suppose. > > Don't know if this is helpful. > > Jon > ======================= The only sense of "Buddha nature" that seems to me to have any reality to it is that of the possibility of realizing nibbana - that is, the potentiality for liberation. As to what that possibility/potentiality *is*, I would say it consists of the characteristic of the defilements (our deep-seated propensities to reify, crave, and grasp) to not be fixed, permanent, independent, or irremovable. In short, Buddha nature is the lack of inherent existence of the defilements, it is their adventitious nature. Complementarily, it is the the inherent luminosity of mind, as in the Pabhassara Sutta: "Luminous, monks, is the mind.[1] And it is defiled by incoming defilements." {I,v,9} "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements." {I,v,10} "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that -- for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person -- there is no development of the mind." {I,vi,1} "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that -- for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones -- there is development of the mind." {I,vi,2} With metta, Howard P.S. There is another notion that one might identify with "Buddha nature" causally related to the potential-for-liberation sense, I believe. And that is that (in my opinion) nibbana, in the sense of freedom, is an already existent, but unrealized, fact. In reality, there is nothing anywhere, of any sort, whether "internal" or "external" that is independent, with core of self, or graspable in any way - there is no ground beneath our feet and never has been. Were it otherwise, there would be no possibility/potential for liberating realization. /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) 43610 From: Matthew Miller Date: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:39am Subject: Re: The Brain on Dhamma Here's an article about recent studies on the neurological bases of religious experience ("Religion and the Brain"). I assume that many of the list members are familiar with this material (I know RobM is). If not, definitely check it out. *** Religion and the Brain In the new field of "Neurotheology," scientists seek the biological basis of sprituality. Is God all in our heads? by Sharon Begley ( With Anne Underwood) | May 07 2001 One Sunday morning in March, 19 years ago, as Dr. James Austin waited for a train in London, he glanced away from the tracks toward the river Thames. The neurologist -- who was spending a sabbatical year in England -- saw nothing out of the ordinary: the grimy Underground station, a few dingy buildings, some pale gray sky. He was thinking, a bit absent-mindedly, about the Zen Buddhist retreat he was headed toward. And then Austin suddenly felt a sense of enlightenment unlike anything he had ever experienced. His sense of individual existence, of separateness from the physical world around him, evaporated like morning mist in a bright dawn. He saw things "as they really are," he recalls. The sense of "I, me, mine" disappeared. "Time was not present," he says. "I had a sense of eternity. My old yearnings, loathings, fear of death and insinuations of selfhood vanished. I had been graced by a comprehension of the ultimate nature of things." Call it a mystical experience, a spiritual moment, even a religious epiphany, if you like -- but Austin will not. Rather than interpret his instant of grace as proof of a reality beyond the comprehension of our senses, much less as proof of a deity, Austin took it as "proof of the existence of the brain." He isn't being smart-alecky. As a neurologist, he accepts that all we see, hear, feel and think is mediated or created by the brain. Austin's moment in the Underground therefore inspired him to explore the neurological underpinnings of spiritual and mystical experience. In order to feel that time, fear and self-consciousness have dissolved, he reasoned, certain brain circuits must be interrupted. Which ones? Activity in the amygdala, which monitors the environment for threats and registers fear, must be damped. Parietal-lobe circuits, which orient you in space and mark the sharp distinction between self and world, must go quiet. Frontal- and temporal-lobe circuits, which mark time and generate self-awareness, must disengage. When that happens, Austin concludes in a recent paper, "what we think of as our 'higher' functions of selfhood appear briefly to 'drop out,' 'dissolve,' or be 'deleted from consciousness'." When he spun out his theories in 1998, in the 844-page "Zen and the Brain," it was published not by some flaky New Age outfit but by MIT Press. Since then, more and more scientists have flocked to "neurotheology," the study of the neurobiology of religion and spirituality. Last year the American Psychological Association published "Varieties of Anomalous Experience," covering enigmas from near-death experiences to mystical ones. At Columbia University's new Center for the Study of Science and Religion, one program investigates how spiritual experiences reflect "peculiarly recurrent events in human brains." In December, the scholarly Journal of Consciousness Studies devoted its issue to religious moments ranging from "Christic visions" to "shamanic states of consciousness." In May the book "Religion in Mind," tackling subjects such as how religious practices act back on the brain's frontal lobes to inspire optimism and even creativity, reaches stores. And in "Why God Won't Go Away," published in April, Dr. Andrew Newberg of the University of Pennsylvania and his late collaborator, Eugene d'Aquili, use brain-imaging data they collected from Tibetan Buddhists lost in meditation and from Franciscan nuns deep in prayer to... well, what they do involves a lot of neuro-jargon about lobes and fissures. In a nutshell, though, they use the data to identify what seems to be the brain's spirituality circuit, and to explain how it is that religious rituals have the power to move believers and nonbelievers alike. What all the new research shares is a passion for uncovering the neurological underpinnings of spiritual and mystical experiences —- for discovering, in short, what happens in our brains when we sense that we "have encountered a reality different from -- and, in some crucial sense, higher than -- the reality of everyday experience," as psychologist David Wulff of Wheaton College in Massachusetts puts it. In neurotheology, psychologists and neurologists try to pinpoint which regions turn on, and which turn off, during experiences that seem to exist outside time and space. In this way it differs from the rudimentary research of the 1950s and 1960s that found, yeah, brain waves change when you meditate. But that research was silent on why brain waves change, or which specific regions in the brain lie behind the change. Neuro-imaging of a living, working brain simply didn't exist back then. In contrast, today's studies try to identify the brain circuits that surge with activity when we think we have encountered the divine, and when we feel transported by intense prayer, an uplifting ritual or sacred music. Although the field is brand new and the answers only tentative, one thing is clear. Spiritual experiences are so consistent across cultures, across time and across faiths, says Wulff, that it "suggest[s] a common core that is likely a reflection of structures and processes in the human brain." "There was a feeling of energy centered within me... going out to infinite space and returning... There was a relaxing of the dualistic mind, and an intense feeling of love. I felt a profound letting go of the boundaries around me, and a connection with some kind of energy and state of being that had a quality of clarity, transparency and joy. I felt a deep and profound sense of connection to everything, recognizing that there never was a true separation at all." That is how Dr. Michael J. Baime, a colleague of Andrew Newberg's at Penn, describes what he feels at the moment of peak transcendence when he practices Tibetan Buddhist meditation, as he has since he was 14 in 1969. Baime offered his brain to Newberg, who, since childhood, had wondered about the mystery of God's existence. At Penn, Newberg's specialty is radiology, so he teamed with Eugene d'Aquili to use imaging techniques to detect which regions of the brain are active during spiritual experiences. The scientists recruited Baime and seven other Tibetan Buddhists, all skilled meditators. In a typical run, Baime settled onto the floor of a small darkened room, lit only by a few candles and filled with jasmine incense. A string of twine lay beside him. Concentrating on a mental image, he focused and focused, quieting his conscious mind (he told the scientists afterward) until something he identifies as his true inner self emerged. It felt "timeless and infinite," Baime said afterward, "a part of everyone and everything in existence." When he reached the "peak" of spiritual intensity, he tugged on the twine. Newberg, huddled outside the room and holding the other end, felt the pull and quickly injected a radioactive tracer into an IV line that ran into Baime's left arm. After a few moments, he whisked Baime off to a SPECT (single photon emission computed tomography) machine. By detecting the tracer, it tracks blood flow in the brain. Blood flow correlates with neuronal activity. The SPECT images are as close as scientists have come to snapping a photo of a transcendent experience. As expected, the prefrontal cortex, seat of attention, lit up: Baime, after all, was focusing deeply. But it was a quieting of activity that stood out. A bundle of neurons in the superior parietal lobe, toward the top and back of the brain, had gone dark. This region, nicknamed the "orientation association area," processes information about space and time, and the orientation of the body in space. It determines where the body ends and the rest of the world begins. Specifically, the left orientation area creates the sensation of a physically delimited body; the right orientation area creates the sense of the physical space in which the body exists. (An injury to this area can so cripple your ability to maneuver in physical space that you cannot figure the distance and angles needed to navigate the route to a chair across the room.) The orientation area requires sensory input to do its calculus. "If you block sensory inputs to this region, as you do during the intense concentration of meditation, you prevent the brain from forming the distinction between self and not-self," says Newberg. With no information from the senses arriving, the left orientation area cannot find any boundary between the self and the world. As a result, the brain seems to have no choice but "to perceive the self as endless and intimately interwoven with everyone and everything," Newberg and d'Aquili write in "Why God Won't Go Away." The right orientation area, equally bereft of sensory data, defaults to a feeling of infinite space. The meditators feel that they have touched infinity. "I felt communion, peace, openness to experience... [There was] an awareness and responsiveness to God's presence around me, and a feeling of centering, quieting, nothingness, [as well as] moments of fullness of the presence of God. [God was] permeating my being." This is how her 45-minute prayer made Sister Celeste, a Franciscan nun, feel, just before Newberg SPECT-scanned her. During her most intensely religious moments, when she felt a palpable sense of God's presence and an absorption of her self into his being, her brain displayed changes like those in the Tibetan Buddhist meditators: her orientation area went dark. What Sister Celeste and the other nuns in the study felt, and what the meditators experienced, Newberg emphasizes, "were neither mistakes nor wishful thinking. They reflect real, biologically based events in the brain." The fact that spiritual contemplation affects brain activity gives the experience a reality that psychologists and neuroscientists had long denied it, and explains why people experience ineffable, transcendent events as equally real as seeing a wondrous sunset or stubbing their toes. That a religious experience is reflected in brain activity is not too surprising, actually. Everything we experience -— from the sound of thunder to the sight of a poodle, the feeling of fear and the thought of a polka-dot castle -— leaves a trace on the brain. Neurotheology is stalking bigger game than simply affirming that spiritual feelings leave neural footprints, too. By pinpointing the brain areas involved in spiritual experiences and tracing how such experiences arise, the scientists hope to learn whether anyone can have such experiences, and why spiritual experiences have the qualities they do. "I could hear the singing of the planets, and wave after wave of light washed over me. But... I was the light as well... I no longer existed as a separate 'I'... I saw into the structure of the universe. I had the impression of knowing beyond knowledge and being given glimpses into ALL." That was how author Sophy Burnham described her experience at Machu Picchu, in her 1997 book "The Ecstatic Journey." Although there was no scientist around to whisk her into a SPECT machine and confirm that her orientation area was AWOL, it was almost certainly quiescent. That said, just because an experience has a neural correlate does not mean that the experience exists "only" in the brain, or that it is a figment of brain activity with no independent reality. Think of what happens when you dig into an apple pie. The brain's olfactory region registers the aroma of the cinnamon and fruit. The somatosensory cortex processes the feel of the flaky crust on the tongue and lips. The visual cortex registers the sight of the pie. Remembrances of pies past (Grandma's kitchen, the corner bake shop...) activate association cortices. A neuroscientist with too much time on his hands could undoubtedly produce a PET scan of "your brain on apple pie." But that does not negate the reality of the pie. "The fact that spiritual experiences can be associated with distinct neural activity does not necessarily mean that such experiences are mere neurological illusions," Newberg insists. "It's no safer to say that spiritual urges and sensations are caused by brain activity than it is to say that the neurological changes through which we experience the pleasure of eating an apple cause the apple to exist." The bottom line, he says, is that "there is no way to determine whether the neurological changes associated with spiritual experience mean that the brain is causing those experiences... or is instead perceiving a spiritual reality." In fact, some of the same brain regions involved in the pie experience create religious experiences, too. When the image of a cross, or a Torah crowned in silver, triggers a sense of religious awe, it is because the brain's visual-association area, which interprets what the eyes see and connects images to emotions and memories, has learned to link those images to that feeling. Visions that arise during prayer or ritual are also generated in the association area: electrical stimulation of the temporal lobes (which nestle along the sides of the head and house the circuits responsible for language, conceptual thinking and associations) produces visions. Temporal-lobe epilepsy -— abnormal bursts of electrical activity in these regions—takes this to extremes. Although some studies have cast doubt on the connection between temporal-lobe epilepsy and religiosity, others find that the condition seems to trigger vivid, Joan of Arc-type religious visions and voices. In his recent book "Lying Awake," novelist Mark Salzman conjures up the story of a cloistered nun who, after years of being unable to truly feel the presence of God, begins having visions. The cause is temporal-lobe epilepsy. Sister John of the Cross must wrestle with whether to have surgery, which would probably cure her -- but would also end her visions. Dostoevsky, Saint Paul, Saint Teresa of Avila, Proust and others are thought to have had temporal-lobe epilepsy, leaving them obsessed with matters of the spirit. Although temporal-lobe epilepsy is rare, researchers suspect that focused bursts of electrical activity called "temporal-lobe transients" may yield mystical experiences. To test this idea, Michael Persinger of Laurentian University in Canada fits a helmet jury-rigged with electromagnets onto a volunteer's head. The helmet creates a weak magnetic field, no stronger than that produced by a computer monitor. The field triggers bursts of electrical activity in the temporal lobes, Persinger finds, producing sensations that volunteers describe as supernatural or spiritual: an out-of-body experience, a sense of the divine. He suspects that religious experiences are evoked by mini electrical storms in the temporal lobes, and that such storms can be triggered by anxiety, personal crisis, lack of oxygen, low blood sugar and simple fatigue -- suggesting a reason that some people "find God" in such moments. Why the temporal lobes? Persinger speculates that our left temporal lobe maintains our sense of self. When that region is stimulated but the right stays quiescent, the left interprets this as a sensed presence, as the self departing the body, or of God. "I was alone upon the seashore... I felt that I... return[ed] from the solitude of individuation into the consciousness of unity with all that is... Earth, heaven, and sea resounded as in one vast world encircling harmony... I felt myself one with them." Is an experience like this one, described by the German philosopher Malwida von Meysenburg in 1900, within the reach of anyone? "Not everyone who meditates encounters these sorts of unitive experiences," says Robert K.C. Forman, a scholar of comparative religion at Hunter College in New York City. "This suggests that some people may be genetically or temperamentally predisposed to mystical ability." Those most open to mystical experience tend also to be open to new experiences generally. They are usually creative and innovative, with a breadth of interests and a tolerance for ambiguity (as determined by questionnaire). They also tend toward fantasy, notes David Wulff, "suggesting a capacity to suspend the judging process that distinguishes imaginings and real events." Since "we all have the brain circuits that mediate spiritual experiences, probably most people have the capacity for having such experiences," says Wulff. "But it's possible to foreclose that possibility. If you are rational, controlled, not prone to fantasy, you will probably resist the experience." In survey after survey since the 1960s, between 30 and 40 percent or so of those asked say they have, at least once or twice, felt "very close to a powerful, spiritual force that seemed to lift you out of yourself." Gallup polls in the 1990s found that 53 percent of American adults said they had had "a moment of sudden religious awakening or insight." Reports of mystical experience increase with education, income and age (people in their 40s and 50s are most likely to have them). Yet many people seem no more able to have such an experience than to fly to Venus. One explanation came in 1999, when Australian researchers found that people who report mystical and spiritual experiences tend to have unusually easy access to subliminal consciousness. "In people whose unconscious thoughts tend to break through into consciousness more readily, we find some correlation with spiritual experiences," says psychologist Michael Thalbourne of the University of Adelaide. Unfortunately, scientists are pretty clueless about what allows subconscious thoughts to pop into the consciousness of some people and not others. The single strongest predictor of such experiences, however, is something called "dissociation." In this state, different regions of the brain disengage from others. "This theory, which explains hypnotizability so well, might explain mystical states, too," says Michael Shermer, director of the Skeptics Society, which debunks paranormal phenomena. "Something really seems to be going on in the brain, with some module dissociating from the rest of the cortex." That dissociation may reflect unusual electrical crackling in one or more brain regions. In 1997, neurologist Vilayanur Ramachandran told the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience that there is "a neural basis for religious experience." His preliminary results suggested that depth of religious feeling, or religiosity, might depend on natural -- not helmet-induced -- enhancements in the electrical activity of the temporal lobes. Interestingly, this region of the brain also seems important for speech perception. One experience common to many spiritual states is hearing the voice of God. It seems to arise when you misattribute inner speech (the "little voice" in your head that you know you generate yourself) to something outside yourself. During such experiences, the brain's Broca's area (responsible for speech production) switches on. Most of us can tell this is our inner voice speaking. But when sensory information is restricted, as happens during meditation or prayer, people are "more likely to misattribute internally generated thoughts to an external source," suggests psychologist Richard Bentall of the University of Manchester in England in the book "Varieties of Anomalous Experience." Stress and emotional arousal can also interfere with the brain's ability to find the source of a voice, Bentall adds. In a 1998 study, researchers found that one particular brain region, called the right anterior cingulate, turned on when people heard something in the environment—a voice or a sound—and also when they hallucinated hearing something. But it stayed quiet when they imagined hearing something and thus were sure it came from their own brain. This region, says Bentall, "may contain the neural circuits responsible for tagging events as originating from the external world." When it is inappropriately switched on, we are fooled into thinking the voice we hear comes from outside us. Even people who describe themselves as nonspiritual can be moved by religious ceremonies and liturgy. Hence the power of ritual. Drumming, dancing, incantations -- all rivet attention on a single, intense source of sensory stimulation, including the body's own movements. They also evoke powerful emotional responses. That combination -- focused attention that excludes other sensory stimuli, plus heightened emotion -- is key. Together, they seem to send the brain's arousal system into hyperdrive, much as intense fear does. When this happens, explains Newberg, one of the brain structures responsible for maintaining equilibrium -- the hippocampus -- puts on the brakes. It inhibits the flow of signals between neurons, like a traffic cop preventing any more cars from entering the on-ramp to a tied-up highway. The result is that certain regions of the brain are deprived of neuronal input. One such deprived region seems to be the orientation area, the same spot that goes quiet during meditation and prayer. As in those states, without sensory input the orientation area cannot do its job of maintaining a sense of where the self leaves off and the world begins. That's why ritual and liturgy can bring on what Newberg calls a "softening of the boundaries of the self" -- and the sense of oneness and spiritual unity. Slow chanting, elegiac liturgical melodies and whispered ritualistic prayer all seem to work their magic in much the same way: they turn on the hippocampus directly and block neuronal traffic to some brain regions. The result again is "blurring the edges of the brain's sense of self, opening the door to the unitary states that are the primary goal of religious ritual," says Newberg. Researchers' newfound interest in neurotheology reflects more than the availability of cool new toys to peer inside the working brain. Psychology and neuroscience have long neglected religion. Despite its centrality to the mental lives of so many people, religion has been met by what David Wulff calls "indifference or even apathy" on the part of science. When one psychologist, a practicing Christian, tried to discuss in his introductory psych book the role of faith in people's lives, his publisher edited out most of it -- for fear of offending readers. The rise of neurotheology represents a radical shift in that attitude. And whatever light science is shedding on spirituality, spirituality is returning the favor: mystical experiences, says Forman, may tell us something about consciousness, arguably the greatest mystery in neuroscience. "In mystical experiences, the content of the mind fades, sensory awareness drops out, so you are left only with pure consciousness," says Forman. "This tells you that consciousness does not need an object, and is not a mere byproduct of sensory action." For all the tentative successes that scientists are scoring in their search for the biological bases of religious, spiritual and mystical experience, one mystery will surely lie forever beyond their grasp. They may trace a sense of transcendence to this bulge in our gray matter. And they may trace a feeling of the divine to that one. But it is likely that they will never resolve the greatest question of all -- namely, whether our brain wiring creates God, or whether God created our brain wiring. Which you believe is, in the end, a matter of faith. Newsweek U.S. Edition 43611 From: Andrew Levin Date: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:59am Subject: Re: New view on satipatthana 2 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, connie wrote: > Hi, Andrew, > Connie: [link?] BE HERE NOW - Bhikkhu Dhammadharo: > all our ideas that we are going to do it right this time, we are going to > do it straight, we are going to have it now, we are going to be aware of > this or that. At those moments there is no awareness. **One moment of real > awareness in one lifetime- very rich man because it is right and it will > condition more of the same. Countless moments of wrong awareness and you > are not only not wealthy, you are getting poorer every moment, because you > are accumulating more and more wrong understanding.** This will make it > more likely to have more wrong understanding in the future. So, right > understanding, not intention, is the condition for awareness to arise. > Right understanding is not only one of the factors of the eightfold Path, > it is the first factor.> > > peace, > connie Isn't [mundane] right view view of suffering, reflecting on the four noble truths, believing in the law of moral causality, in rebirth, and in the priests and ascetics who practise dhamma well? Awareness is not what it's all about, as I understand it. Awareness sounds more like right mindfulness. 43612 From: Date: Fri Mar 25, 2005 4:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Rupa Madness: Seeing with the Tongue Hi Jon In a message dated 3/25/2005 12:10:40 AM Pacific Standard Time, jsabbott@n... writes: Hi TG (and Matthew) TGrand458@a... wrote: >Hi Matthew, All > >... > > >TG That is a very impressive statement from the Dalai Lama. This shows his >confidence that a correct investigation of actuality by science, or Buddha, >or any other discipline, will draw the same conclusions. They have to. > > Or it could be taken as showing his confidence that the two can always be distinguished sufficiently for any apparent inconsistencies to be explained away. ;-)) As to 'drawing the same conclusions', Matthew for one would I think disagree on this (for example, as to the 'unchanging' nature of (sense-door) experience). TG On the first point... no, I don't think that was his intention. As to your "'unchanging' nature of (sense-door) experience)" comment... I'm totally baffled by such a statement from a Buddhist. Maybe a little science is in order? ;-) >Surely scientific knowledge is incomplete and addresses many things Buddhism >is not interested in addressing and vice versa. But the things that they >commonly address and their expressions of principles of 'actualities of nature' >are quite capable of overlapping seamlessly. > > At the risk of being labelled a science-basher (or a sutta thumper ;-)), may I ask if you see science as having any value in terms of gaining release from continued existence in samsara. TG Sure. In terms of aiding the mind to see the principle of dependent arising working in all conditions, science can help boost insight in its current state; and if it makes more progress and becomes more accurate, it can do even better. Science is an attempt to understand the nature of things. "The nature of things" = Dhamma. Surely science has not approached the comprehensive competence that the Buddha had at his command. It probably never will come close until it starts looking to the Buddha's teaching as guide. Then it pretty much just turns into Buddhism. And the scienctists become Buddhists. Science is an evolving discipline with many facets. Buddhism is every bit as much science as it is a religion or psychology. I would not characterize Buddhism as any single one of these things, but it has aspects of all of them. >This is by no means to equate science and Buddhism. Buddhism is infinitely >more valuable IMO. But that's not to say science is wrong or garbage. > Just for the record, I also do not say that science is wrong or garbage. But I distinguish between conventional knowledge/truths and the knowledge/truths spoken of in the dhamma. As I see it, neither has validity in terms of the other's frame of reference. But I also see no contradiction whatsoever between being a scientist and a follower of the teachings. Jon TG When you contemplate dependent origination, do you honestly never use scientific knowledge you've gathered from past experience/learning to apply DO principles so as to see the nature of impermanence and conditionality in operational action? Because if the answer is "no," its a crying shame. And if the answer is yes, a little teeny-weeny respect for the scientific aspects of dhamma please. :-) TG 43613 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Mar 25, 2005 10:58am Subject: Re: [dsg]Lokuttara cittas Dear LK, op 25-03-2005 11:00 schreef lokuttaracitta op lokuttaracitta@y...: > > Does not Nibbana arise in our citta as Object when paññaa has been > developed to the degree of the change-of-lineage citta ,and fall away > from our citta when phala citta ceases ? N: Let us first talk about ordinary objects we can experience now, apart from nibbaana. It helps to understand more about citta experiencing an object through one of the six doors at this moment. True, we read about citta and objects, but it is good to consider more what the meaning is of experiencing an object. Seeing is a citta and it experiences colour or visible object through the eyesense. Seeing falls away, eyesense and colour also fall away. They are conditioned dhammas that arise and fall away. We cannot say that colour falls away from the citta that is seeing, or that it falls away in us or within us. All that is visible impinges on the eyesense and then there are conditions for seeing. Nibbaana is the unconditioned element, it does not arise and fall away. But the citta that experiences nibbana is a conditioned reality, many conditions have to be fulfilled to reach the stage of paññaa so that lokuttara citta can arise and experience nibbaana. Nibbaana is not dependent on any other dhamma since it is unconditioned. It is not dependent on lokuttara cittas which experience it. Or on the change of lineage, the citta arising in the process during which nibbaana is experienced and which also experiences nibbaana. LK: quotes: Is there a special reason that you ask about this subject? > > Very Sorry for bothering you! N: Not at all, I just asked because of interest and I was wondering what you found difficult to understand. LK: I ,as a Mahayana buddhist with deep faith in Theravada,like to know > the orthodox theravadin view on these topics so that I can have > better understandings of " Buddhism". But I do not like to mix > their views. Now I just want to know What Theravada is within its > framework. N: We do not have to label anything Theravada or Mahayana. We can just talk about dhammas in daily life, dhammas we can verify at this moment. Nina. 43614 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: New view on satipatthana 2 Hi AndrewL (and Kel) Sarah has signed off for the time being, so I hope you don;t mind me butting in here ;-)) A passage in your recent post caught my eye, as it relates to something I have discussed recently with others on the list (including Kel), namely, the view that the development of sati requires directed attention to a chosen object or objects, and the related idea that awareness/insight developed in relation to a single chosen object only is all that is called for in the teachings (I know the latter is not your view, Andrew). Andrew Levin wrote: >It seems to me that if wise reflection can condition sati, or reflecting on the nature of a nama or rupa >after discussion about it or reading the dhamma, it is not such a long jump to say that sati can be >conditioned intentionally, through sitting meditation. At the least, wholesome deeds conditioning sati >can get a good portion of it going. What other methods are there for the arising of sati, that you >acknowledge, and do I get you right, that it is your position that sati can be mindful of nama and rupa >by discussing the nature of that particular nama or rupa? This would seem to contradict your position >that we have to wait for whichever nama and rupa comes to the fore on any given occasion to be >mindful of it. > > There is an interesting passage in SN 54:10 (Sutta to Ven Kimbila, CDB translation at p.1777) where the Buddha says to Ven Ananda, in reference to the four foundations/establishments of mindfulness: "Suppose, Ananda, at a crossroads there is a great mound of soil. If a cart or chariot comes from the east, west, north, or south, it would flatten that mound of soil. So too, Ananda, when a bhikkhu dwells contemplating the body in the body, feelings in feelings, mind in mind, phenomena in phenomena, he flattens evil unwholesome states." A footnote to the text (note 311 at p. 1953) gives a translation of the commentary: "Spk: The six sense bases are like the crossroads; the defilements arising in the six sense bases are like the mound of soil there. The four establishments of mindfulness, occurring with respect to their four objects, are like the four carts or chariots. The "flattening" of the evil unwholesome states is like the flattening of the mound of soil by the cart or chariot." To me, the reference to traffic arriving at the crossroads from the four directions causing the eventual flattening of the mound of soil strongly suggests the situation where awareness is not 'directed' to a chosen object but occurs in relation to whatever object it may. So in answer to your question to Sarah, I would say that it is not a question of there being a method, but of having the confidence that awareness will develop if the appropriate conditions are in place, and these include of course a better understanding at the intellectual level of the details taught by the Buddha. Jon PS regarding Kel's point of a single object being sufficient. I would see the interpretation discussed above in relation to the simile of the crossroads as being consistent with the Satipatthana Sutta itself, which begins and ends with reference to the 'Four Foundations of Mindfulness', that is to say, the four collectively and not any lesser number than that. The vast majority of references elsewhere in the suttas to the satipatthana also refer to the four bases collectively. I know there are some instances where this is not so, but in my (for example, to mindfulness of the body alone), but in my view these need to be read in the context of the Satipatthana Sutta and those other references. (In the texts on mindfulness of breathing, I think it is clear that mindfulness of all 4 Foundations is involved). 43615 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Having no opinions jonoabb Hi Joop Joop wrote: >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott > wrote: >... > > >Dear Jon, Howard > >You must be right, my remark was a little bit materialistic. >But still I have two problems: >- I'm not sure if "the consciousness that thinks" (quote Jon) is >exact enough; I should say: "opinions (that are pannatti) as the >result of flee floating consciousness". The art of not having >opinions is than: mindfulness that prevents consciousness to float >freely (that was the initial topic of the thread). > > But what is an opinion if it is not a moment of 'consciousness that thinks'? Do you have a more precise description than that? >- If "an opinion is not as being kept in a person's brain" (quote >Jon), what is the function of the human brain in Abhidhamma at all? I >mean the function of the human brain different from the brain of any >animal, thus not the simple process of seeing etc. Even the seat of >the mind is not the brain but the heart (hadaya vatthu): an idea not >found in the Abhidhamma but later by commentaries ascribed to >Abhidhamma. > > In the human realm, as in most other realms, mentality is to a degree dependent on materiality also. These relationships are complicated, which is why we are urged to study about all the different kinds of conditions; otherwise it is easy to mistake a merely supporting factor (like the brain) as being a more substantive causative factor. Jon 43615 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Having no opinions jonoabb Hi Joop Joop wrote: >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott > wrote: >... > > >Dear Jon, Howard > >You must be right, my remark was a little bit materialistic. >But still I have two problems: >- I'm not sure if "the consciousness that thinks" (quote Jon) is >exact enough; I should say: "opinions (that are pannatti) as the >result of flee floating consciousness". The art of not having >opinions is than: mindfulness that prevents consciousness to float >freely (that was the initial topic of the thread). > > But what is an opinion if it is not a moment of 'consciousness that thinks'? Do you have a more precise description than that? >- If "an opinion is not as being kept in a person's brain" (quote >Jon), what is the function of the human brain in Abhidhamma at all? I >mean the function of the human brain different from the brain of any >animal, thus not the simple process of seeing etc. Even the seat of >the mind is not the brain but the heart (hadaya vatthu): an idea not >found in the Abhidhamma but later by commentaries ascribed to >Abhidhamma. > > In the human realm, as in most other realms, mentality is to a degree dependent on materiality also. These relationships are complicated, which is why we are urged to study about all the different kinds of conditions; otherwise it is easy to mistake a merely supporting factor (like the brain) as being a more substantive causative factor. Jon 43616 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Fri Mar 25, 2005 9:03am Subject: Re: A Question Re: [dsg] Re: Ken--ultimate (Abhidhamma) view part 2 dacostacharles If I understand most of what is being said (even in other post), most of you have accepted, by faith, the Abidharma as the infallible truth; and therefore, are trying to understand its teaching with out changing it, and maybe even apply it also. Does this sound true? CharlesD ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonothan Abbott To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, 25 March, 2005 00:34 Subject: Re: A Question Re: [dsg] Re: Ken--ultimate (Abhidhamma) view part 2 Hi, Howard Although we disagree on the issue of being/not being object of consciousness, we do agree on the distinction to be made, as you do here, between (a) moments when there is a dhamma as object of consciousness and (b) moments of thinking, remembering etc. when there is not. ... 43617 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Fri Mar 25, 2005 0:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ken--ultimate (Abhidhamma) view part 2 dacostacharles Hi Ken, ------------------------- C: > When you make this claim ("as the momentarily existing five khandhas"), you are say that beings don't change, they just cease to exist. Is this what you mean? -------------------------- K: Yes, there is nothing that carries over from the past to the present (or to the future). Each dhamma arises only once and then disappears forever. However, dhammas condition other dhammas to take their places, and so there is an appearance of continuity. .............................................. And this is impossible to prove or experience? ******************************** C: > Do you believe that there are things that you can sense that are not real, even in the mind? and do you believe that thoughts and ideas (things in the mind) are not real? Maybe you should list/define what you think is real. --------------------------- K: The Abhidhamma lists and defines all the different moments of consciousness and all the other realities that can exist with them. Sometimes, a reality known as visible object becomes the object of consciousness. It becomes the object of eye-door consciousness and of mind-door consciousness. In some other [mind-door] moments, concepts are created. Concepts are illusory and they cannot be listed in the Abhidhamma because there is an infinite number of them. Concepts of what has been seen can include 'a face in the mirror.' Because our understanding of the Dhamma is weak, we think the face in the mirror is real, and we have no recall of the actual visible objects that have been experienced. ................................................... The question was about what "you think is real." And if Abhidhamma reflects your thoughts then your answer is ok. ************************** C: > Do you see the Abidharma as a detailed scholastic endeavor only, a method for removing ... from the mind, or both? ----------------------------- K: It is a description of absolute reality which, when understood and verified, leads to dispassion, relinquishment and enlightenment. ..................................................... Do you see the Abidharma as an unquestionable authority on these matters. What it puts forth is the complete truth/pure facts? ********************************** K: Lobha is one of the absolute realities that can arise in some moments of consciousness. It is the mental factor (cetasika) that clings (desires, attaches) to the object it experiences. The object of lobha can be another absolute reality (e.g., visible object) or it can be a concept (e.g., a face in the mirror). -------------------------------------------- C: > And instead of "fallen away," I would say, "will, if not has already, change/transformed." -------------------------------------------- K: Lobha has the characteristic of changing (anicca) but, after its [less than a billionth of a second] duration, it falls away forever. ................................................ This, of course, is something that can-not be proved, or is impossible to experience? ****************************** KH: > > I have noticed lately that your spell-checker changes my spellings - and not always for the better. :-) .................................... C: > Thanks a lot for the warning, please help me to catch the changes. -------------------------------------------- K: There are minor changes where your computer reprints my sentences in American English when they were originally printed in Australian English. So, for example, I write "cognising" and your computer reprints it as "cognizing." There is no problem with that, but then we see "lobha" changed into "lobar" and "supramundane" changed into "superabundance." That is a problem. :-) .............................................................. Is Australian English a better way to spell (words spell more like they sound)? ********************************* C: > So you have accept these specific teaching by faith? -------------------------- K: Rather than think about 'accepting' and 'not accepting,' I simply study the teaching and understand it as best I can. ....................................... But do you believe it to be true, even when you don't perfectly understand it or it conflicts with other teaching (science, other religions, sutra, etc...)? ************************************** C: > You said: "as moments of seeing or hearing etc." This answers the question, but then, are those moments for a billionth of a second or do they vary (in terms of how long they last); and is that based on experience or teaching? ---------------- K: Namas (consciousness and mental factors) last an incredibly short time. So do rupas, but some rupas (e.g., sense objects) can last for seventeen moments of nama. I know these figures only from my Dhamma study: there is no way I could single out one of those fleeting dhammas, let alone measure its duration. ...................................................... This is good, but do you even try to? ******************************* C: > And the relevance will be explained in the next post if you remind me of the question ("Where did the Buddha say we should divide the Dhamma into two sections - the parts we have personally verified and the parts we have not?"). We have a good flow going and I don't want you to get caught by a small off the track detail. ----------------------------- K: I think it's a good question, and I am ready to discuss it when you are. ............................................................... OK ken, I did not want to go down this road until I more fully understand the degree of your attachment to the Abidharma, and your level of self-awareness. You show a good scholastic grasp of it, like, at level a Bachelors degree. That is impressive. But the problem comes when you are closed to other views, especially when you do not clearly understand the one you "accept" as your own. This is one of the reasons why the Buddha dictated the Kalama sutra and a few other suttras that deal with attachments to views or knowledge. Now, I think you would agree that this is not really an issue now. CharlesD 43618 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Fri Mar 25, 2005 0:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] re: Seeing with the Tongue dacostacharles Matthew, very Good post. To answer the question: {Doesn't anyone find it curious that nowhere in Buddhism is the question asked -- "Why do we have a sense of 'self' (illusory or not) in the first place?" What purpose does it serve? The sense of self, like the human brain, the human eye or the human foot, is an adaptation to help the organism survive and to reproduce.} The early Indians, before the Buddha, believed that the sense of 'self' was the connection to the Gods, samsara, and karma. That was its purpose. This view was part of the Indian psyche, so the question did not have to be asked because every one knew the answer. The desire to serve and reproduce were a divine trick to keep mankind bound in samsara. This desire was fort against by the path of the ascetics (Buddha's first students). CharlesD PS: I hope this answered your question ----- Original Message ----- From: Matthew Miller To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, 20 March, 2005 14:27 Subject: [dsg] re: Seeing with the Tongue RobK wrote: > Dear matthew, Not sure what you are describing is seeing, could you > explain why it is? Well, if we define "seeing" as sensitivity to light signals, then this is seeing. Ultimately, all of the input from the sense organs are converted into nerve impulses with which the brain assembles a "world." ... 43619 From: Matthew Miller Date: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:46pm Subject: Unchanging, For All Times bupleurum Jon: > the 'unchanging' > nature of (sense-door) experience TG: > As to your "'unchanging' nature of (sense-door) > experience)" comment... I'm totally baffled by > such a statement from a Buddhist. For sure. As I was baffled by an earlier statement from Nina. In response to my description of the "great elements" as being an obsolete Hindu cosmological scheme, Nina wrote: >N: I find [the elements] as real as anything. This is for all times. (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/40877) What does that mean... "for all times"? Doesn't this contradict impermanence? Do the categories of the abhidhamma represent some kind of fixed, eternal structure of the universe? Or do they evolve like everything else? Matthew 43620 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Rupa Madness: Seeing with the Tongue jonoabb Hi Matthew Matthew Miller wrote: >Hello Jon & All, >... > > >The Dalai Lama did not talk about "explaining away" inconsistencies. >He directly says that any words of the Buddha that contradict >scientific findings have to be rejected. If the Dalai Lama, as Jon >suggests, actually feels confident that scientific findings will never >contradict dhamma nor cause us to reject any of the Buddha's >teachings, then his statement was disingenuous. > > I do not think he was being disingenuous (that is not the nature of the person). But I do wonder about the accuracy of what he is reported to have said, or its context. >>As to 'drawing the same conclusions', Matthew for >>one would I think disagree on this (for example, as to the >>'unchanging' nature of (sense-door) experience). >> >> > >Yes. Also, the question occurs to me, if the nature of sense-door >experience is unchanging (and not a product of evolution, as I would >argue), doesn't that contradict impermanence? > > No contradiction. We need to understand impermanence as taught by the Buddha, because he also said that the truths he taught were eternal and unchanging. 'Impermanence' in the teachings is a characteristic of all dhammas. 'Dhammas' here has a specific meaning. The Buddha described and classified dhammas in a number of ways, including as the khandhas, ayatanas, elements, four foundations of mindfulness, etc. It is these dhammas that are to be the object of insight, to be seen as they truly are (as anicca, dukkha and anatta). Jon 43621 From: LBIDD@... Date: Fri Mar 25, 2005 4:26pm Subject: Vism.XIV,148 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV 148. (xxiv)-(xxv) The proficient state of the [mental] body is 'proficiency of body'. The proficient state of consciousness is 'proficiency of consciousness'. They have the characteristic of healthiness of the [mental] body and of consciousness. Their function is to crush unhealthiness of the [mental] body and of consciousness. They are manifested as absence of disability. Their proximate cause is the [mental] body and consciousness. They should be regarded as opposed to faithlessness, etc., which cause unhealthiness in the [mental] body and in consciousness. 43622 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Mar 25, 2005 4:53pm Subject: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature jonoabb Hi Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: ... > The only sense of "Buddha nature" that seems to me to have any reality > to it is that of the possibility of realizing nibbana - that is, the > potentiality for liberation. The possibility of liberation is something the Buddha spoke about from time to time and specifically affirmed. However, to describe that in terms of a potentiality that is inherent in everyone seems to be taking that further than the Buddha himself did. As soon as we try to give 'reality' to this concept, there is the risk of wrong view being involved. Jon As to what that possibility/potentiality *is*, I would > say it consists of the characteristic of the defilements (our deep- seated > propensities to reify, crave, and grasp) to not be fixed, permanent, independent, or > irremovable. In short, Buddha nature is the lack of inherent existence of the > defilements, it is their adventitious nature. Complementarily, it is the the > inherent luminosity of mind, as in the Pabhassara Sutta ... 43623 From: "sunnaloka" Date: Fri Mar 25, 2005 5:40pm Subject: Re: The Brain on Dhamma sunnaloka Hi Matthew, Thanks for the newsweek article. I'm wondering of what you think of Ken Wilber's 'all quadrant, all level' integral model for resolving the *apparent* one-sided approaches of both the subjective sciences (like Buddhism) and the objective hard sciences? For those not familliar with Wilber's AQAL model, it's basiclly an integral appreciation of all subjective, objective, intersubjective, and interobjective disciplines, which is represented graphically as four quadrants, and which together comprise all relative experience. The upper left quadrant represents/includes all individual subjective experience, or the "I" domain; the upper right quadrant represents all individual objective experience, or the "it" domain; the lower left quadrant represents all collective intersubjective experience, or the "we" domain; and the lower right represents all collective interobjective experience, or the "its" domain. (Of course this graphic representation is only a conceptual map.) Wilber lists some of the disciplines that specialize in each quadrant as follows: "[H]uman beings, over the decades and sometimes centuries, have developed time-honored methods of inquiry that enact, bring forth, and illumine these basic dimensions of being-in-the-world. For example, phenomenology and introspection enact, bring forth, and illumine the first-person singular dimensions of being-in-the-world ("I" or subjectivity, the UL quadrant); hermeneutics and collaborative inquiry enact, bring forth, and illumine the first- and second-person plural dimensions of being-in-the-world ("thou/we" or intersubjectivity, the LL quadrant); empiricism and behaviorism enact, bring forth, and illumine the third-person singular dimensions of being-in-the-world ("it" or objectivity, the UR quadrant); and ecology, functionalism, and systems theory enact, bring forth, and illumine the third-person plural dimensions of being-in-the-world ("its" or interobjectivity, the LR quadrant). Of course, there are many other important modes of inquiry, but those are a few of the historically most significant, and certainly ones that any integral methodological pluralism would want to address."[from 'The Way We Are in This Together,' Ken Wilber Online, http://wilber.shambhala.com] But this integral model doesn't just categorize and correlate all the various 'relative' conventional disciplines (relative truth). It is a nondual map which also incudes the experiential realization of the Unconditioned (ultimate truth), where the graphic representation of the four quadrants represent all relative experience, and the 'paper' on which the 'graph' appears represents the ultimately unitive nature of these various and seemingly separate (dualistic) phenomena. Of course this prior unity-in-diversity is usually only disclosed by employing sustained contemplative practices of the nondual wisdom traditions (which I personally believe includes the full understanding of what the Buddha is disclosing in the Nikaya Sutta Pitaka.) In 'Appendix B: The Hard Problem' of the same article Wilber explains how nonduality is essential for understanding the full correlation between the subjective and objective components of 'reality'(which he calls the 'Kosmos'): "The "all-quadrant, all-level" model [...], because it includes the transpersonal and nondual waves also has--or claims to have--an answer to the "hard problem" of consciousness (the problem of how we can get subjective experience out of an allegedly objective, material, nonexperiential world). The wisdom traditions generally make a distinction between relative truth and absolute truth (the former referring to relative truths in the conventional, dualistic world, and the latter referring to the realization of the absolute or nondual world, a realization known as satori, moksha, metanoia, liberation, etc.) An integral model would include both truths. It would suggest that, from the relative perspective, all existing entities have four quadrants, including an interior and an exterior, and thus "subjective experience" and "objective matter/energy" arise correlatively from the very start. From the absolute perspective, an integral model suggests that the final answer to this problem is actually discovered only with satori, or the personal awakening to the nondual itself. The reason that the hard problem remains hard is the same reason that absolute truth cannot be stated in relative words: the nondual can only be known by a change of consciousness, not a change of words or maps or theories. The hard problem ultimately revolves around the actual relation of subject and object, and that relation is said to yield its final truth only with satori (as maintained by philosophers of the nondual traditions, from Plotinus to Lady Tsogyal to Meister Eckhart). We could say that what is "seen" in satori is that subject and object are nondual, but those are only words, and when stated thus, the absolute or nondual generates only paradoxes, antinomies, contradictions. According to this view, the nondual "answer" to the hard problem can only be seen from the nondual state or level of consciousness itself, which generally takes years of contemplative discipline, and therefore is not an "answer" that can be found in a textbook or journal--and thus it will remain the hard problem for those who do not transform their own consciousness. In short, the ultimate, absolute, or nondual solution to the hard problem is found only with satori. On the relative plane--which involves the types of truths that can be stated in words and checked with conventional logic and facts--the relative solution to the relation of subject and object is best captured, I believe, by a specific type of panpsychism, which can be found in various forms in Leibniz, Whitehead, Russell, Charles Hartshorne, David Ray Griffin, David Chalmers, etc., although I believe it must be clearly modified from a monological and dialogical to a quadratic formulation, as suggested in detail in Integral Psychology (especially note 15 for chap. 14). With regard to such a (relatively true) panpsychism, David Chalmers, in a particularly illuminating discussion ("Moving Forward on the Problem of Consciousness," Journal of Consciousness Studies, 4, 1, 1997), reaches several important conclusions: (1) 'One is forced to the conclusion that no reductive explanation of consciousness can be given". That is, consciousness (or experience or proto-experience--or as I technically prefer it, interiority) is an intrinsic, given component of the Kosmos, and it cannot be completely derived from, or reduced to, something else. In my view, this is because every holon has an interior and exterior (in both singular and plural). Thus, only an integral model that includes consciousness as fundamental will likely succeed. (2) 'Perhaps the best path to such an integrated view is offered by the Russellian picture on which (proto)experiential properties constitute the intrinsic nature of physical reality. Such a picture is most naturally associated with some form of panpsychism. The resulting integration may be panpsychism's greatest theoretical benefit". As I would put it, the general idea is simply that physics (and natural science) discloses only the objective, exterior, or extrinsic features of holons, whose interior or intrinsic features are subjective and experiential (or proto-experiential). In other words, all holons have a Left- and Right-Hand dimension.'" Wilber then goes on to explain the AQAL sollution to the 'combination problem' (see full article at above mentioned website), and concludes by restating that nondual realization involves more that merely understanding the conceptual maps--it almost always requires sustained and thoroughly integrated (i.e. the integration of ethical conduct, meditation, and discernment) contemplative practice. Matthew, what Wilber's saying (as I understand it), is that when we see the correlation between brain and consciousness, we should also recognize that the interior subjectivity and exterior brain are *experientially* and *qualitatively* unique and distinct phenomena (not dualistically but interdependently), and as such represent the interior and exterior richness of 'reality.' This leads to the recognition that it's just as great a cognitive error for the materialist philosopher to collapse the richness of consciousness into the brain as it is for the idealist philosopher to collapse the richness of the material brain into consciousness. The integral approach recognizes and appreciates (values) the full richness of both interior and exterior domains, and therefore doesn't attempt to make one more valuable, more important, more inherently 'real,' i.e. the 'first cause' of, or prior to the other. Of course this is predicated upon the experiential realization of the prior nondual unity of all apparently relative duality, but this nondual discernment is in no way based upon any fuzzy-minded mystical/magical/wishful thinking, nor any abstruse dialectics. Rather it is assertained through what the Tibetan traditions term 'direct valid cognition,' which isn't inferential (dialectical) nor faith-based (??fuzzy-minded??), but immediate and uncompromising. More to the point, it is unconditioned, and therefore can occur (although rarely) to anyone with a healthy functioning brain at any time, and is in fact what we all (most of us unconsciously) slip into every night as deep dreamless sleep. (I believe this state of pure consciousness is also experienced in the meditative state of 'cessation of feeling and perception,' if anyone can shed light on how this meditative state is defined in the commentarial lit..) But while deep dreamless sleep and deep absorptive meditation are conditional (i.e. temporary) experiences of the unconditioned, this unconditioned essential nature is actually the ultimate truth of what we normally consider to be temporal phenomenal experience, and can be experientially maintained as such, through proper contemplative development, but of course can only ever be described by way of temporal/non-temporal paradox. Matthew (or anyone else), what do you think? Geoff 43624 From: "Matthew Miller" Date: Fri Mar 25, 2005 5:52pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Rupa Madness: Seeing with the Tongue bupleurum Hi Jon & All, Jon: > But I do wonder about the accuracy of what he is reported to > have said, or its context. Here is some context for his remarks. The Dalai Lama has been a great admirer of science most of his life. This is from his website: "His Holiness has said that if he were not a monk, he would have liked to have been an engineer. As a youth in Lhasa it was he who was called on to fix broken machinery in the Potala Palace, be it a clock or a car. A highlight of his first trip to the west in 1973 was a visit to the astronomy observatory at Cambridge University. "Over the years he has enjoyed connections with many scientists, including long friendships with Sir Karl Raimund Popper, the renowned philosopher of science, and physicists Von Weisacker and David Bohm. He has accepted invitations to participate in many conferences on science and spirituality. It was at one such conference, the Alpbach Symposia on Consciousness in 1983, that His Holiness met Dr. Francisco Varela. Their discussions on brain science and Buddhism continued informally for a few years, and eventually, with the facilitation of Adam Engle, led to more extensive, planned meetings with a formal agenda for a dialogue between Buddhism and science, and the formation of the Mind and Life Institute. Since the first Mind and Life Conference in 1987, His Holiness has regularly dedicated a full week of his busy schedule to the biennial meetings." And here's a a quote from HH himself: "Today, science means a valid method of explaining the observed reality. The well-founded disciplines of modern science are in a way related to Buddhism since Buddhist philosophy also searches and establishes truth through rational analysis, similar to that of science." -- Dalai Lama, January 5, 2002 So if we open our minds and use rational analysis to discuss the relationship of brain science and Buddhism, we are in good company! > 'Impermanence' in the teachings is a characteristic of all dhammas. > 'Dhammas' here has a specific meaning. The Buddha described and > classified dhammas in a number of ways, including as the khandhas, > ayatanas, elements, four foundations of mindfulness, etc. > It is these dhammas that are to be the object of insight, to > be seen as they truly > are (as anicca, dukkha and anatta). > So, the sense-doors *are* subject to evolutionary change? Matthew 43625 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Mar 25, 2005 1:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 3/25/05 7:54:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@... writes: > > The possibility of liberation is something the Buddha spoke about > from time to time and specifically affirmed. However, to describe > that in terms of a potentiality that is inherent in everyone seems to > be taking that further than the Buddha himself did. As soon as we > try to give 'reality' to this concept, there is the risk of wrong > view being involved. > > ======================== It is certainly true that enlightenment is possible for all beings. The Buddha said that the state of nonreturning, if not arahantship, is achievable even within a week, did he not? Obviously, enlightenment will not occur except as conditions allow. But the fact that such conditions can be satisfied and enlightenment achieved is all that is meant by the potential for enlightenment. BTW, I didn't speak of inherent potentiality for liberation. I spoke of inherent luminosity of mind, and I spoke of that as what makes liberation a possibility. And that luminosity *is* inherent, for as the Buddha said, whether mind is free of defilements or defiled yet, it is luminous. 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) 43626 From: connie Date: Fri Mar 25, 2005 7:23pm Subject: Re:Buddha Nature nichiconn Hi, Howard, Thanks for the reify word. I had to look it up first time I saw you use it. Deifying, making i-cons. Just a quote from THE POWER OF MINDFULNESS An Inquiry into the Scope of Bare Attention and the Principal Sources of its Strength -Nyanaponika There - The Wheel Publication No. 121/122: In the profound and terse stanzas called "The Cave," included in the Sutta Nipata, the Buddha says that the "full penetration of sense impression (phassa) will make one free from greed" and that "by understanding perception (sanna), one will be able to cross the flood of samsara" (stanza 778 f.). By placing mindfulness as a guard at the very first gate through which thoughts enter the mind, we shall be able to control the incomers much more easily, and shut out unwanted intruders. Thus the purity of "luminous consciousness" can be maintained against "adventitious defilements" (Anguttara, 1:51). Thought of you when I read this: THE PROGRESS OF INSIGHT (Visuddhinana-katha) -A Modern Treatise on Buddhist Satipatthana Meditation - The Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw Translated from the Pali with Notes by Nyanaponika Thera >> Also in the Commentary to the Majjhima Nikaya[25] it is said: "Because in the case of the realm of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, the insight into the sequence of mental factors belongs to the Buddhas alone and not to the disciples, he (the Buddha) said thus thereby indicating the insight by groups." (This passage is the authority for the usage of the term "comprehension by groups.") and this: "Having discarded fear and delight, he is impartial and neutral towards all formations" (Visuddhimagga, xxi,62). peace, connie 43627 From: connie Date: Fri Mar 25, 2005 7:30pm Subject: Re: New view on satipatthana 2 nichiconn Hi, Mischief, AL: Isn't [mundane] right view view of suffering, reflecting on the four noble truths, believing in the law of moral causality, in rebirth, and in the priests and ascetics who practise dhamma well? Awareness is not what it's all about, as I understand it. Awareness sounds more like right mindfulness. C: Not just awareness, agreed, but with right understanding & all those clear comprehensions (of purpose, suitability, domain & reality). Awareness / citta is going on all the time, I think, usually without proper attention or acknowledgement... there's ignorance most of the time, dreaming, however lucid we take it to be. Phra Dhammadharo: "Only at a moment of right understanding is there any interest, right interest in the object which appears, to see it as it really is. ... There is no self who has understanding. Understanding today is not the understanding of yesterday, which fell away as soon as it arose. Also understanding today falls away." Can one sit contemplating on the wind grounded in self? Why not call what you said mundane right view? Dukkha, ariya-sacca, kamma-vipaka only?, patisandhi-citta... what's the difference between a priest and an ascetic and how do we know who practices well? Buddha said to Magandiya, "Whatever priests or contemplatives who have dwelt or will dwell or are dwelling free from thirst, their minds inwardly at peace, all have done so having realized - as it actually is present - the origination & disappearance, the allure, the danger, & the escape from sensual pleasures, having abandoned sensual craving and removed sensual fever". How do we know another's 'inwardly at peace', or their 'method'? Also to Magandiya: "[A]ssociate with men of integrity. When you associate with men of integrity, you will hear the true Dhamma. When you hear the true Dhamma, you will practice the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma. When you practice the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma, you will know & see for yourself: 'These things are diseases, cancers, arrows. And here is where diseases, cancers, & arrows cease without trace." peace, connie ps: "Those who have gone to the Buddha for refuge will not go the lower worlds. Leaving human bodies, they will fill deva bodies." (D.ii,204; S.i,25) 43628 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Rupa Madness: Seeing with the Tongue TGrand458@... In a message dated 3/25/2005 5:52:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, bupleurum@... writes: > 'Impermanence' in the teachings is a characteristic of all dhammas. > 'Dhammas' here has a specific meaning. The Buddha described and > classified dhammas in a number of ways, including as the khandhas, > ayatanas, elements, four foundations of mindfulness, etc. > It is these dhammas that are to be the object of insight, to > be seen as they truly > are (as anicca, dukkha and anatta). > So, the sense-doors *are* subject to evolutionary change? Matthew Matthew Matthew Matthew ... its not nature that's impermanent or evolving ... its 'dhammas.' You need to think, outside the box, as it were, and realize that using English expressions to describe things in English to English speaking people is nonsense when we have at our disposal Pali words that can be conveniently injected to conceal what the hell we're talking about, and sound nifty while we do it! C'mon Matthew, get with the program! TG 43629 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature upasaka_howard Hi, Connie - In a message dated 3/25/05 10:23:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, connieparker@... writes: > Hi, Howard, > > Thanks for the reify word. > ======================== And thank you for the good quotations and for thinking of 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) 43630 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Rupa Madness: Seeing with the Tongue jonoabb Hi TG TGrand458@... wrote: >(J:) At the risk of being labelled a science-basher (or a sutta thumper ;-)), >may I ask if you see science as having any value in terms of gaining >release from continued existence in samsara. > >TG Sure. In terms of aiding the mind to see the principle of dependent >arising working in all conditions, science can help boost insight in its current >state; and if it makes more progress and becomes more accurate, it can do even >better. > > You may be right, but I'm afraid I just don't see it at the moment. Perhaps that's why I find DO so difficult to understand; not a scientific enough mind ;-)) >TG When you contemplate dependent origination, do you honestly never use >scientific knowledge you've gathered from past experience/learning to apply DO >principles so as to see the nature of impermanence and conditionality in >operational action? Because if the answer is "no," its a crying shame. And if the >answer is yes, a little teeny-weeny respect for the scientific aspects of >dhamma please. :-) > > Well, since you ask so nicely, I'll do my best to see it your way. So let me ponder longer before giving a definite answer (and it might be a lot longer ;-)). Jon 43631 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Mar 25, 2005 9:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Rupa Madness: Seeing with the Tongue jonoabb Hi TG (and Matthew) TGrand458@... wrote: >As to your "'unchanging' nature of (sense-door) experience)" comment... I'm >totally baffled by such a statement from a Buddhist. Maybe a little science is >in order? ;-) > > The context of this remark was Matthew's earlier post suggesting that the evolutionary nature of things makes it likely that different kinds of sense-door consciousness exist at different evolutionary periods ( see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/43424). I'm not sure what the scientific evidence of this is. My statement was simply meant to reflect the 'orthodox' position, namely, that the same 5 sense-door consciousnesses are all there ever have been or will be. As I understand it, the truths contained in the teachings are said to be 'eternal' truths. Hope this clarifies my remark, and unbaffles you ;-)). Jon 43632 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Mar 25, 2005 9:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Unchanging, For All Times jonoabb Hi Matthew Matthew Miller wrote: >For sure. As I was baffled by an earlier statement from Nina. In >response to my description of the "great elements" as being an >obsolete Hindu cosmological scheme, Nina wrote: > > > >>N: I find [the elements] as real as anything. This is for all times. >> >> > >(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/40877) > >What does that mean... "for all times"? Doesn't this contradict >impermanence? Do the categories of the abhidhamma represent some >kind of fixed, eternal structure of the universe? Or do they evolve >like everything else? > > This is not just a matter of the Abhidhamma, but of the teachings as a whole, suttas included. The Buddha stated that the truths discovered and taught by him are valid for all time. This does not contradict impermanence. The characteristic of impermanence has a very specific meaning in the teachings, as I tried to explain in my earlier post. Jon 43633 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Mar 25, 2005 9:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Rupa Madness: Seeing with the Tongue jonoabb Hi Matthew Thanks for the info HHDL's website regarding his interest in science (nothing radical here!). Matthew Miller wrote: >Here is some context for his remarks. The Dalai Lama has been a great >admirer of science most of his life. This is from his website: > >"His Holiness has said that if he were not a monk, he would have liked >to have been an engineer. As a youth in Lhasa it was he who was called >on to fix broken machinery in the Potala Palace, be it a clock or a >car. A highlight of his first trip to the west in 1973 was a visit to >the astronomy observatory at Cambridge University. ... > >And here's a a quote from HH himself: >"Today, science means a valid method of explaining the observed >reality. The well-founded disciplines of modern science are in a way >related to Buddhism since Buddhist philosophy also searches and >establishes truth through rational analysis, similar to that of >science." -- Dalai Lama, January 5, 2002 > >So if we open our minds and use rational analysis to discuss the >relationship of brain science and Buddhism, we are in good company! > > Hmm, I'm not sure to what extent HH would agree with your concluding statement! Seems to me that in the quote from his website his words are rather carefully chosen (especially "...are in a way related to...") to avoid the *necessary* conclusion that an understanding of one was a means to the understanding of the other ;-)) >>'Impermanence' in the teachings is a characteristic of all dhammas. >>'Dhammas' here has a specific meaning. The Buddha described and >>classified dhammas in a number of ways, including as the khandhas, >>ayatanas, elements, four foundations of mindfulness, etc. >>It is these dhammas that are to be the object of insight, to >>be seen as they truly >>are (as anicca, dukkha and anatta). >> >> > >So, the sense-doors *are* subject to evolutionary change? > > The anicca-ness of dhammas is a momentary thing, and has no bearing on the question of evolutionary change. Yes, the conventional sense-doors as we know them are, like everything else at the conventional level, subject to evolutionary change. At the level of dhammas, however, the teachings are said to be valid for all times, in all realms, for all beings. This would include the teachings about the khandhas, ayatanas, elements, noble truths, 3 characteristics, etc., all of which are found throughout the Tipitaka (sutta, vinaya, abhidhamma). Jon 43634 From: "sunnaloka" Date: Fri Mar 25, 2005 10:29pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Rupa Madness: Seeing with the Tongue sunnaloka --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Hmm, I'm not sure to what extent HH would agree with your concluding > statement! Seems to me that in the quote from his website his words are > rather carefully chosen (especially "...are in a way related to...") to > avoid the *necessary* conclusion that an understanding of one was a > means to the understanding of the other ;-)) Hi Jon, Somewhere (sorry but I don't remember where, although I think it was in one of the books containing the transcibed discourses of one or more of the scientific conferences HH initiated, which Matthew mentions) I remember reading HHDL saying that if anything was ever definitively proven by Western science that contradicted or refuted anything within the Buddhist Dharma, then the Dharma would necessarily have to be changed to remain valid with 'reality.' This is of course a paraphrase, but that's pretty much what he said. I think that from HH's perspective, he recognizes that the Dharma is true and therefore forever beyond refutation, and the further scientific knowledge progreses, the more it will confirm what the Buddha revealed 2500 years ago. Now he's not saying that a science is a substitute for contemplative practice, but he seems very much in favor of scientific/Buddhist integration as skillful means of presenting Dharma to Westerners who are coming to Dharma from a scientific paradigm. Geoff 43635 From: "kelvin_lwin" Date: Fri Mar 25, 2005 11:07pm Subject: [dsg] Re: New view on satipatthana 2 kelvin_lwin Send IM Hello John, > J: namely, the view that the development of sati requires directed > attention to a chosen object or objects, and the related idea that > awareness/insight developed in relation to a single chosen object only > is all that is called for in the teachings (I know the latter is Kel: It was never about the particular object. Objects are inconsequential, only the level of insight is of import. Then the contention is any and all objects are sufficient. > Buddha: "Suppose, Ananda, at a crossroads there is a great mound > of soil. If a cart or chariot comes from the east, west, north, > or south, it would flatten that mound of soil. > Commentary: The six sense bases are like the crossroads; the defilements > arising in the six sense bases are like the mound of soil there. > J: To me, the reference to traffic arriving at the crossroads from the four > directions causing the eventual flattening of the mound of soil strongly > suggests the situation where awareness is not 'directed' to a chosen > object but occurs in relation to whatever object it may. Kel: Well I can easily read it differently. It says if a mount comes from one direction, it'll flatten. Did it say it'll only fully flatten after the mounts from ALL directions come with the same frequency or amount? Did it say Ananda don't rely on a cart in one direction only because it won't flatten enough? Taking your (&Sarah) position, why didn't commentary say there are six different mounds? I thought we had to know each of them separately and fully. So seems to me 4 carts have to pass over each of the six mounts and flatten them. Now if someone is aware of any object that arises anywhere then good for them. Due to people's natural tendencies they do better or incline toward 1 out of 4. I'm sure you're well aware of that categorization. Then nothing is wrong with using that accumulation and doing a particular bhavana. The suttas are full with examples of people who again discover or stumble on again their strong suit and had rapid advancement. Before then it might seem like they had no paramis at all. This suggest to me insisting on equal mastery over everything is not a necessary requirement. > The vast majority of references elsewhere in the suttas to the > satipatthana also refer to the four bases collectively. Kel: Maybe it's just a collective nickname used like a lot of other things with cross-references. I don't see how that proves anything. I already found Ledi Sayadaw's writings stating the same position. I'll quote some of Mogok sayadaw's teaching below. Both of them are teachers of tipitaka. In case they're too much of pariyatti teachers then Webu sayadaw's teaching is also inline and he's known for his patipatti. I'm sure you'll read Pa Auk sayadaw's instructions and think it's all ridden with sense of "self". Bottom line is I'm quite comfortable with my position and really don't want to waste time convincing you of it which I doubt I can anyway. As for going to the suttas themselves as final proof, these sayadaws' words are enough for me since their knowledge clearly dwarves mine. - kel Mogok Sayadaw: When you meditate you must know the followings. You need to know that there are two components of the mind. Mental factors (Cetisaka) and consciousness (Citta). The mental factor (thought) must be in line with the consciousness when you contemplate. Do not let the mental factor go astray from the consciousness. Do not think of anything while meditating. Don't let any thoughts come into the mind. If you can master your mind you can eliminate defilement (Kilesa). If you don't you will neither be successful in your life nor can you eradicate the 1500 Kilesas. Mogok Sayadaw: I will give you an example how to master your mind. Suppose a herd tender wanted to tame a raw cow he needs to put a post firmly into the ground, insert a rein into the cow's nose, and tie it to the post and tame her. Likewise, you must tame your mind by fixing it to the cord of mindfulness (Sati) and tie it up to the post of the object of contemplation in your practice. Do you understand? Mogok Sayadaw: I'll give you another example. If you want to catch a lizard that went into a burrow that had six holes, you need to close five holes and wait at the sixth. The analogy to this procedure would be to close all the five sense doors, namely your ears, eyes, nose, body, your tongue and then to wait at the last door, which is your mind. You will surely catch the thought as it occurs, just like you catch the lizard. Is that clear? http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/thtutmg.htm 43636 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Unchanging, For All Times TGrand458@... In a message dated 3/25/2005 9:31:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, jsabbott@... writes: This does not contradict impermanence. The characteristic of impermanence has a very specific meaning in the teachings, as I tried to explain in my earlier post. Jon Hi Jon What's so "very specific" about -- "All conditioned things are impermanent"? TG 43637 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 0:40am Subject: Yahoo Changes ... christine_forsy... Hello all, Yahoo have gone to a new format. I'm not sure what others think, but I find it irritating to read at the website now - the 'expand message' facility seems to work backwards - i.e. one reads replies before the original post. (- please send Yahoo "forthright" feedback. (I wonder why if it wasn't broken they decided to "fix" it?) And everything seems to take so much more room. This is a quote from another list: "They have also included in bouncing members in the membership numbers, so groups like this one who don't clear their bouncing membership list regularly have now acquired an extra few hundred members overnight... and just as many members who are not bouncing will be on 'no email' with inactive accounts. Forgive my cynicism, this is just so yahoogroups can kid their advertisers (sorry 'sonsors') as to how many people actually read the lists." and another quote: "I am going to set a group up on google groups, test it out and see how that goes. A lot of people have moved all of their groups over there. If anybody wishes to read what other group owners have to say, the archives of EmailList-Managers list are public: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EmailList-Managers/" Metta, Chris 43638 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 0:49am Subject: [dsg] Re: New view on satipatthana 2 buddhatrue Hi Kel and Jon (Sarah and All), Kel: Now if someone is aware of any object that arises anywhere then good for them. Due to people's natural tendencies they do better or incline toward 1 out of 4. I'm sure you're well aware of that categorization. Then nothing is wrong with using that accumulation and doing a particular bhavana¡KThis suggest to me insisting on equal mastery over everything is not a necessary requirement. James: Kel, I couldn¡¦t agree with you more!! The point isn¡¦t to know the arising and perishing of each of the six sense bases in their entirety, or each of the five khandas in their entirety, or each of the four elements in their entirety, the point is simply to *know* the arising and perishing of any object which appears in the consciousness (as well as the arising and perishing of consciousness itself). I will quote a sutta example for support at the end of this post. Sometime back, I offered an analogy of Satipattha for a children¡¦s presentation of Buddhism for Rob M. I described Satipattha as being like a gum ball machine which will spontaneously spit out four different colored gum balls, one for each of the four foundations of mindfulness. And, thus, the purpose of Satipatthana is to be aware of each gum ball in and of itself when it pops out (Notice I write EACH gumball, not EVERY gumball). It¡¦s not a great analogy but Sarah really liked it, and now I¡¦m not sure if she liked it for the right reason. She might have been under the impression that I mean Satipattha is to be aware of each and every gum ball that comes out of that machine, and that is not what I meant. What I meant is that the gum balls have to be known in and of themselves, they have to been know as they arise, persist, and perish. Satipatthana is not about quantity, it is about quality. True insight into the arising and perishing of just one dhamma, for example feelings, if practiced consistently and continuously, will result in full enlightenment (in as little as seven days for some people). „« The vast majority of references elsewhere in the suttas to the > satipatthana also refer to the four bases collectively. Kel: Maybe it's just a collective nickname used like a lot of other things with cross-references. I don't see how that proves anything. James: Right, of course the four bases are referred to collectively to not leave any of them out. That doesn¡¦t mean that they ALL have to be developed. The Buddha explained this in other suttas (see below). Kel: Bottom line is I'm quite comfortable with my position and really don't want to waste time convincing you of it which I doubt I can anyway. James: Right, you are probably not going to be able to convince Jon or Sarah to change or adapt their views (And I have tried all kinds of approaches for over a year now: nice, humble, funny, logical, evidentiary, bitchy, and scathing. None of them worked! ;-). However, maybe it isn¡¦t a complete waste of time because there may be other members here who aren¡¦t so decided who will benefit from the discussion. Good luck. Metta, James * While the Buddha was residing at the Jetavana monastery, a certain monk being anxious to know how one can realize and attain Nibbana approached an Arahat and asked, Kitta vatanukho Avuso Yathabhutam Nanadassanam Suvisuddham ahosi. My dear, what is it that is required for a clear vision of Nibbana? The Arahat replied, Yatokho Avuso channam Ayatananam Samudayanca Atthangamanca Yathabutam nanadassanam Suvisuddhamhosi. My dear, in order to have a very clear vision of Nibbana, it is required to know and perceive the arising and perishing of the six sense bases as they really are. (Ayatana: sense bases) are Eye, Ear, Nose, Tongue, Body and Mind.) Rupa (matter or corporeality) and Nama (Mind) must be comprehended as they really are, which are nothing but the phenomena of arising and perishing. Should one be able to comprehend and perceive these six sense bases as they really are, he will be able to see and realize Nibbana. The enquiring monk being a Puthujjana (ordinary worldling) was not satisfied with the answer because he thought the number of things which he had to comprehend was considerably too many. He was more concerned with the number than with the importance of the knowledge of arising and perishing. Thinking that the number was too many for him to work upon, he moved to another Arahat and asked the same question. The second Arahat answered that in order that a monk might be able to see and realise Nibbana he should try to perceive and comprehend the arising and perishing of Pancakkhandha (five aggregates or components) as they really are. With this answer he was not satified yet because he thought that it was still too many for him. It is obvious that the Puthujjana monk laid so much stress upon the number and not the essential point which is arising and perishing. Being unsatisfied with the second answer, he again approached the third Arahat and asked the usual question. The third Arahat answered that one would be able to see and realise Nibbana if he perceived and comprehended the arising and perishing nature of the four Mahabhutas (four elements), Pathavi, Apo, Vayo, Tejo. (1. Element of hardness and softness 2. Element of cohesion 3 Element of motion and 4. Element of heat and cold) With this answer too, the Puthujjana monk was not able to satisfy himself although he thought that the third answer was better than the first and the second answers. He failed to see that the significance did not lie in numerical quantity but in the arising and perishing. Then he went to the fourth Arahat and put the same question. The fourth one answered, 'Yam Kinci Samudhaya dhammam Sabbantam nirodhadhammanti.' Whatever phenomenon that arises is bound to perish and he who comprehends this dhamma will be able to see and realise Nibbana. The monk was not at all satisfied with this last Arahat's answer because he thought that he had yet to comprehend the two dhammas. He never realised that what he had to comprehend was the arising and perishing and not six Ayatanas, Five Khandhas, Four Mahabhutas; and that it is the arising and perishing or Anicca which is the essence and the central core of the Vipassana, so he went to the Buddha and explained what he had heard from the four Arahats and the dissatisfaction he had regarding the answers. Then the Buddha said, 'Monk, there was a man who had never seen in his life a butea tree. He went out and asked the first man he came across as to how it looked like. The man answered that the butea tree was black because he had seen it only after it had been burnt down. Being not satisfied with the answer, he went again and asked another man about it. The second man answered that the butea tree was like a chop of meat because he had only seen it when the tree was in bloom. Then again he went out and put the same question to the third who told him that the tree was just like the swords in sheaths because he only saw the tree when it when the tree was in bloom. Then again he went out and put the same question to the third who told him that the tree was just like the swords in sheaths because he only saw the tree when it was bearing some fruits. Being not satisfied with it, he again asked the fourth one who told him that the tree resembled the banyan tree with spreading foliage because he had seen it in spring time when it was luxuriant with green and shady leaves. The Buddha continued, 'The descriptions of the butea tree by the four men were quite correct in their own way. Similarly all the four Arahats who attained the highest stage of enlightenment and gained the true penetrative wisdom, purity of insight are right in their own way be cause all of them emphasised the importance of the arising and perishing, 'Samudayanca and Attangamanca.' 43639 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 0:58am Subject: Re: Yahoo Changes ... rjkjp1 DEar Chris, It is bad alright. I am thinking I might have to get messges sent to my mailbox, very hard to foilow at the website. rob B In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christine Forsyth" wrote: > > Hello all, > > Yahoo have gone to a new format. I'm not sure what others think, > but I find it irritating to read at the website now - the 'expand > message' facility seems to work backwards - i.e. one reads replies > before the original post. (- please send Yahoo "forthright" > feedback. (I 43640 From: "kelvin_lwin" Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 1:50am Subject: Re: Yahoo Changes ... kelvin_lwin Send IM This is usually how I like my mail box sorted in date from latest to earliest. It's more convenient for me since I don't have to scroll all the way down to the bottom of the page to see the newest post. I think they should add ascending or descending options for people who prefer it the old way though. Being able to customize is key to appeasing most people. 43641 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 2:12am Subject: Re: A Question Re: [dsg] Re: Ken--ultimate (Abhidhamma) view part 2 jonoabb Hi Charles Charles DaCosta wrote: >If I understand most of what is being said (even in other post), most of you have accepted, by faith, the Abidharma as the infallible truth; and therefore, are trying to understand its teaching with out changing it, and maybe even apply it also. Does this sound true? > > Speaking only for myself, my interest in knowing and understanding what the Abhidhamma has to say on matters being discussed here is based on a confidence that the Buddha knew more about these matters than anyone else. There is nothing to be gained by mere acceptance by faith. However there is, I believe, a lot to be gained from getting a good grasp of the Sutta-Vinaya-Abhidhamma perspective on things. You are right about trying to understand its meaning without changing it. As far as I'm concerned, that would defeat the whole purpose of having it ;-)). What's your thinking on this? Jon 43642 From: Sarah and Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 2:24am Subject: Yahoo Groups New Look! dsgmods All, Yahoo have made some changes, as Chris has pointed out, and we're also very concerned about them, especially ones affecting the searching for specific posts, backing-up with numbers and others mentioned. We also recommend sending feedback to yahoo. Hopefully they'll take note. Meanwhile, we suggest: *Consider getting your messages in your in-box if you don't already. They are much easier to read this way and the reading order can be changed. Consider opening a yahoo or google account for this purpose, perhaps. Google accounts make it very easy to read threads. (contact Jon for a google invite). *Be patient! Let's give them a little while to sort out bugs and respond. *Continue discussing dhamma issues as usual on list. Jon & Sarah p.s Further comments off-list only. Thanks! 43643 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 2:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Rupa Madness: Seeing with the Tongue jonoabb Hi Geoff Thanks for these comments, which I think I largely agree with. I'm sure HH would be keen to reassure those coming to the Dhamma from a scientific paradigm that there would be no question of having to reject the results of scientific research. Jon sunnaloka wrote: >I think that from HH's perspective, he recognizes that the Dharma is >true and therefore forever beyond refutation, and the further >scientific knowledge progreses, the more it will confirm what the >Buddha revealed 2500 years ago. > >Now he's not saying that a science is a substitute for contemplative >practice, but he seems very much in favor of scientific/Buddhist >integration as skillful means of presenting Dharma to Westerners who >are coming to Dharma from a scientific paradigm. > >Geoff > > 43644 From: "Joop" Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 3:50am Subject: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature jwromeijn Dear all My conclusion (as always: temporary): - There are no real Theravada-concepts with which the Mahayana- concept 'Buddha-Nature' can be translated. - I like the Pabhassara Suttas - Luminous (AN I.49-52), but don't have an idea what they mean - My superficial idea that the kamma-concept can be used for it, is in vain, thanks Jon for the information you gave about the meaning of 'kamma'. - The only remaining meaning of 'Buddha-Nature' is that enlightenment is possible for all beings. And that's a truism. - The more transcendent meaning the Mahayanists give to 'Buddha- Nature' is can only say: I don't believe it and I don't need it. Metta Joop 43645 From: "Joop" Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 3:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Having no opinions jwromeijn Dear Jon, Howard, and all > >- I'm not sure if "the consciousness that thinks" (quote Jon) is > >exact enough; I should say: "opinions (that are pannatti) as the > >result of flee floating consciousness". The art of not having > >opinions is than: mindfulness that prevents consciousness to float > >freely (that was the initial topic of the thread). > Jon: But what is an opinion if it is not a moment of 'consciousness that thinks'? > Do you have a more precise description than that? Joop: That's a misunderstanding (perhaps because english is not my native language). I agree that an opinion is a moment of consciousness. DOT I don't know what 'thinking' is, otherwise than 'reasoning', and an opinion is hardly the result of reasoning. My desciption was: opinions are the result of flee floating consciousness (I think 'free floating' can be described more in Abhidhamma-language). > >- If "an opinion is not as being kept in a person's brain" (quote > > Jon), what is the function of the human brain in Abhidhamma at all? I > >mean the function of the human brain different from the brain of any > >animal, thus not the simple process of seeing etc. Even the seat of > >the mind is not the brain but the heart (hadaya vatthu): an idea not > >found in the Abhidhamma but later by commentaries ascribed to > >Abhidhamma. > Jon: In the human realm, as in most other realms, mentality is to a degree > dependent on materiality also. These relationships are complicated, > which is why we are urged to study about all the different kinds of > conditions; otherwise it is easy to mistake a merely supporting factor > (like the brain) as being a more substantive causative factor. Joop: You did not react on my conclusion that there is a loose end. Why do you think the brain is merely a supporting factor (in the producing process of an opinion)? What is the difference of the brain being a supporting factor in human beings and the brain being a supporting factor in animals (the other realm) ? Metta Joop BTW I know it's another topic but suddendly another question arises in me: do animals have opinions ? 43646 From: "Matthew Miller" Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 3:53am Subject: [dsg] Re: Rupa Madness: Seeing with the Tongue bupleurum TG: > Matthew Matthew Matthew ... its not nature that's impermanent > or evolving ... its 'dhammas.' You need to think, outside the > box, as it were, and realize that using English expressions > to describe things in English to English speaking people is > nonsense when we have at our disposal Pali words that can > be conveniently injected to conceal what the hell we're talking > about, and sound nifty while we do it! C'mon Matthew, get > with the program! 43647 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 4:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: New view on satipatthana 2 jonoabb Hi Kel Thanks for bringing up the views of the Sayadaw. They are certainly worth considering. You say: "As for going to the suttas themselves as final proof, these sayadaws' words are enough for me since their knowledge clearly dwarves mine." Yes, many of the respected teachers are very knowledgeable as regards the teachings, but may I suggest that it is always worth questioning whether an author has given references from the suttas or other texts to support his important propositions, and whether the views he expresses are in accordance with one's own general reading of the texts. I say this because there are many learned authors and respected teachers out there, but they mostly have different ideas as to what the teaching says, so they can't all be right ;-)). The only chance we have of sorting out the 'more correct' from the 'less correct' is to ourselves have a good knowledge of the texts. Jon kelvin_lwin wrote: > Kel: Well I can easily read it differently. It says if a mount >comes from one direction, it'll flatten. Did it say it'll only >fully flatten after the mounts from ALL directions come with the >same frequency or amount? Did it say Ananda don't rely on a cart in >one direction only because it won't flatten enough? > >... > I already found Ledi Sayadaw's writings stating the same >position. I'll quote some of Mogok sayadaw's teaching below. Both >of them are teachers of tipitaka. In case they're too much of >pariyatti teachers then Webu sayadaw's teaching is also inline and >he's known for his patipatti. I'm sure you'll read Pa Auk sayadaw's >instructions and think it's all ridden with sense of "self". Bottom >line is I'm quite comfortable with my position and really don't want >to waste time convincing you of it which I doubt I can anyway. As >for going to the suttas themselves as final proof, these sayadaws' >words are enough for me since their knowledge clearly dwarves mine. > >- kel > > 43648 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 4:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Unchanging, For All Times jonoabb Hi TG TGrand458@... wrote: >Hi Jon > >What's so "very specific" about -- "All conditioned things are impermanent"? > > The Pali word 'sankhara' ('conditioned things') has a specific meaning or, to be more exact, a number of specific meanings depending on the context (Nyanatiloka's dictionary gives 4 main meanings). In the context of your quoted passage, I understand sankhara to mean 'conditioned dhammas', that is to say, the dhammas other than Nibbana. These dhammas are those classified in the suttas in various ways including as the 5 khandhas, six ayatanas, 18 elements, 4 establishments of mindfulness, etc. In other words, the passage does not refer to 'things' in the conventional sense of the word, to my understanding. Jon 43649 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 4:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: New view on satipatthana 2 jonoabb Hi James Thanks for coming in on this thread. Just to clarify, I don't think I said to Kel that all 6 sense-doors have to be fully known in their entirety. I believe I said that the development of awareness and insight was not a matter of choosing a particular object, and especially it was not a matter of developing insight into a single (chosen) object only. So from this I think you will see that there is much in what you say that I would not take issue with. (I do, however, understand the texts to be saying that awareness/insight must be developed in relation to experiences through all the sense doors, as and when objects appear through those doors to sati and panna.) I liked your sutta story, and would be interested to know the reference for it, please. Jon buddhatrue wrote: >Hi Kel and Jon (Sarah and All), > >... >James: Kel, I couldn¡¦t agree with you more!! The point isn¡¦t to know >the arising and perishing of each of the six sense bases in their >entirety, or each of the five khandas in their entirety, or each of >the four elements in their entirety, the point is simply to *know* >the arising and perishing of any object which appears in the >consciousness (as well as the arising and perishing of consciousness >itself). I will quote a sutta example for support at the end of this >post. > >... > > >James: Right, of course the four bases are referred to collectively >to not leave any of them out. That doesn¡¦t mean that they ALL have >to be developed. The Buddha explained this in other suttas (see >below). > > 43650 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 5:06am Subject: [dsg] Re: New view on satipatthana 2 rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kelvin_lwin" wrote: > > > I already found Ledi Sayadaw's writings stating the same > position. I'll quote some of Mogok sayadaw's teaching below. Both > of them are teachers of tipitaka. In case they're too much of > pariyatti teachers then Webu sayadaw's teaching is also inline and > he's known for his patipatti. I'm sure you'll read Pa Auk sayadaw's > instructions and think it's all ridden with sense of "self". Bottom > line is I'm quite comfortable with my position and really don't want > to waste time convincing you of it which I doubt I can anyway. As > for going to the suttas themselves as final proof, these sayadaws' > words are enough for me since their knowledge clearly dwarves mine. > > - kel ========= Dear Kel, A potential problem with deciding to take a modern teacher as our authority is if they disagree on some aspect of Dhamma. Previously you've cited Mahasi sayadaw, also Pa Auk sayadaw. But they and their disciples have quite a difference in thinking,: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/pandita5.htm """Some very thick books of Pa Auk Sayadaw in English which were sent to Myanmar from Taiwan have been banned and prohibited from distribution by the Maha Nayaka Sayadaws of the Myanmar Religious Affairs Department in Kaba Aye, Yangon. In response to an attack on the Mahasi method by one Pa Auk disciple, Sayadaw U Panditabhivamsa remarked, "One should not immerse poison into pure, clean water which is very useful. After being contaminated it will become useless. So don't put poison into pure, clean water" A well known meditation teacher of Myanmar urged one of the most learned of monks to read his book. When Sayadaw U Sumangala finished reading, he commented that the Mahasi method is the right method. He compared the quotations of the Tipitaka featured in Pa Auk Sayadaw's book against the original Tipitaka and discovered discrepancies in interpretation. Having scrutitnised Mahasi Sayadaw's writings and teachings intensely, he came to understand fully Mahasi Sayadaw's doctrine and affirmed them to be correct and pure. Then the Tipitakadhara Sayadaw continued with the following points which puzzled and troubled me further. A recently published book contends that many of Mahasi Sayadaw's instructions for vipassana meditation are not in accord with the Buddha's teaching as expressed in the Tipitaka, the Buddhist Canon. The book, by a well known sayadaw, was no less than an attempt to set a new direction and a new agenda for vipassana meditation in Myanmar..."" RobertK 43651 From: "matheesha" Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 5:19am Subject: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma challenge 2 matheesha333 Hi Nina, >M:My teacher > > uses a series of directed vipassana techniques aimed at identifying > > 1) nama-rupa, then 2) their causal connection to each other and then > > 3) the arising and passing away of these cause and effect nama- rupa. > N: Your late teacher was actually explaining the stages of tender insight, > taru.na vipassanaa which arise in order. > This is a very important subject to discuss. M: Ok, we can come back to the rest of the post later.What is taruna vipassana? metta matheesha --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Hi Matheesha, > You have many interesting and important items here. I try to react. > op 25-03-2005 01:15 schreef matheesha op dhammachat@h...:> > >> N: This extinction, nirodha, is not > >> the experience of nibbaana. > > > > M: Any ideas how they differ? Is nirodha lokuttara? > N: When there is nirodha samaapatti, there is no experience of nibbaana, > thus, the cittas are not lokuttara. > Ven. Nyanatiloka's dictionary is very helpful to look up such terms. He > often gives texts quotations. > >> N:When that person emerges from it he experiences > >> nibbaana with the phalacitta of the anagami or arahat > > > > M: This is new to me. Does this mean that if a sakadagami, in > > training to become an anagami, experiences nirodha for the first > > time, when coming out of this nirodha will experience phalacitta and > > become an anagami? > N: He has to be already an anaagami before nirodha samaapatti. A > sakadaagaami cannot enter nirodha. It would be impossible to experience > phalacitta without the preceding magga-citta of the stage of the anaagaami. > >> N: As to > through > >> contemplation...>, yes, also that is citta, a conditioned nama, > > and it > >> should be object of mindfulness, otherwise one takes that changing > > of > >> thoughts for self. > > > > M: Yes, very tricky and applies to all practices really...My teacher > > uses a series of directed vipassana techniques aimed at identifying > > 1) nama-rupa, then 2) their causal connection to each other and then > > 3) the arising and passing away of these cause and effect nama- rupa. > N: Your late teacher was actually explaining the stages of tender insight, > taru.na vipassanaa which arise in order. > This is a very important subject to discuss. > > M: The Self view is usually abandoned between 1 and 3 in the trainees. > N: The sotaapanna has completely eradicated the self view. But it is wearing > away slowly during the development of insight in stages. > > M: The last technique 4) is anapanasathi -seeing arising and passing > > away of the breath (similar to the fourth tetrad of the anapanasathi > > sutta in that impermenence is viewed). I suspect he used the last > > one because the joining vipassana with samatha at this point has a > > better chance of giving rise to aanantharika samadhi. > N: The fourth tetrad pertains to insight alone. I requote from my study > about it, with some words of Jon: > "The fourth tetrad pertains to the contemplation of dhammas (mental objects) > in dhammas. We read in the Commentary to the Anapanasati Sutta (translated > by Ven. Nyanatiloka) about the explanations of the words of the sutta: > becomes one who looks on with complete equanimity>: here covetousness is the > hindrance of lust. By grief the hindrance of ill will is pointed out. For > this tetrad is stated by way of insight. And contemplation of mental objects > is sixfold... Of that contemplation, the section on the hindrances is the > beginning... Accordingly, he said, in order to > point out the beginning of the contemplation of mental objects. abandoning> (pahaana.m) means it is the knowledge of abandoning, thus, abandons the perception of permanence through the contemplation of > impermanence> that is intended... > N: The Co refers to higher stages of insight knowledge leading to more > detachment from conditioned realities: fading away (viraaga~naa.na), > cessation (nirodha ~naa.na), and relinquishment (pa.tinissagga). We read > further on: > : because one who proceeds by the method, > etc., is one who looks on > with complete equanimity after successively seeing with understanding not > only the mental objects beginning with the hindrances, but also the > knowledge of the abandoning of the mental objects stated under the heading > of covetousness and grief. Therefore, it should be understood that occasion... a bhikkhu abides contemplating mental objects in the mental > objects.> > Nina: In the Way of Mindfulness, Co translated by Ven. Soma, it is stated > that just as in the case of body, feeling and citta, the mental objects > should be contemplated in seven ways: as impermanent; as being subject to > dukkha; as anatta; by way of turning away from it and not by way of > delighting in it; by freeing himself of passion for it; with thoughts making > for cessation and not making for origination; and not by way of laying hold > of it, by by way of giving it up. > As we have seen, the hindrances are classified under the mental objects, and > they include also the khandhas, the sense-bases (ayatanas), the seven > factors of enlightenment and the four Truths. > Jon: The mind objects/mental > objects section refers to the dhammas (realities) that can be the object > of a moment of consciousness, and this in turn means any and all realities > (including those covered by the other 3 sections of the sutta). > Only dhammas (realties) can be the object of satipatthana, because only > something that has its own characteristic that is capable of being > experienced is considered to be a dhamma'; anything that does not, is > not.> " end quote. > > > > N:> I cannot see satipatthana as a mechanism, I am not sure what you > > mean. It is > >> to be developed. > > > > M: Sati--> develop insight into the tilakkana/udaya-vya nana-- > >> nibbida (?), letting go based on that insight ie- erradication of > > craving delusion, craving and aversion (based on maggacitta)-- > >> vimukthi/release. > N: Aversion can only be eradicated by anaagami and all delusion and craving > by the arahat. > M: This is the mechanism behind the sathipattana if Im not mistaken. However > vitakkasanthana sutta seems to be talking about a more active/direct method > of identifying lobha,dosa,moha and getting rid of them. > N: I just repost a part with my thoughts about this sutta: > cittas. He is not troubled by restlessness, worry or doubt. > However, he had to go a long way and needed patience and perseverance to > fully develop paññaa. The bhikkhu in this sutta had to use all available > means and finally he had to have heroic fortitude to attain arahatship. > In each Sutta satipatthana is implied, because through satipatthana, the > development of vipassana, the truth of anatta can be realized.The teaching > of anatta is exclusively the Buddha¹s teaching. That is why the Commentary > emphasizes the development of vipassana time and again. The goal is the > eradication of all defilements, but the wrong view of self has to be > eradicated first. > We are thinking with lobha, attachment, dosa, aversion and moha, ignorance, > because these unwholesome roots have not been eradicated. The Buddha > explained several ways of abandoning unwholesome thinking by wholesome > thinking. However, we should realize that there is no self who can be master > of his thoughts. We can learn this by the development of understanding of > naama and ruupa, by the development of insight. If we develop conditions for > kusala without satipatthana we still have the wrong view of my akusala and > my kusala. We may think of the akusala citta that has fallen away and worry > about it. But, how can that which falls away immediately be self or mine?> > end quote. > M: I'm wondering if there are > > other paths to maggacitta rather than through udaya-vya which doesnt > > seem to be the style of vitakkasanthana practice which seems to use > > more direct and pointed action as and when required rather than > > prolonged mindfulness. > N: What a person takes for prolonged mindfulness is likely to be full of > self. Sati arises and falls away and it can only arise when there are the > appropriate conditions. All the stages of insight have to be accomplished in > order to attain enlightenment. > We should discuss more the first stage of tender insight, but this post is > already too long. If the first stage is not correct, the subsequent stages > are not right. > Nina. 43652 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 6:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re Rob K: Buddha Nature rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "lokuttaracitta" wrote: > > --- In> > Q-1 > > The note 7 VII Visuddhimagga says, > "it is called omniscient knowledge becaue its objective field > consists of formed, unformed,and conventional(sammuti) > [i.e.conceptural]dhammas without remainder." > > > Do not the objects of the Buddha's omniscient knowledge include > formed ,unformed and conventional dhammas in the past and the future ? ||||||| Dear LK, Yes that is correct. ------ > > > > > > > > 2)Can you say " Wisdom in lokuttaracittas of Sotapana or > > Sakadagami > > > without any abhinna have entirely actual experience that has past > > and > > > future as its objective field since it is devoid of assumption > > based > > > on inference, tradition or conjecture" > > > > > > ===========-- > > Sotapanna and sakadagami without abhinna do not directly know the > > future. But they do know directly the immediately past cittas when > > reviewing knowledge of change of lineage occurs: > > as Nina said 'No citta > > can know itself, but shortly after it has fallen away paññaa can > > have direct > > understanding of its characteristic. There can be direct > > understanding of a > > dhamma even though it has just fallen away' > > > > RobertK > > Q-2 > There is Bhavanga citta between falling away of a Sotapanna's > Pharacitta and arising of the Subsequent Reviewing knowledge. > > Can the reviewing knowledge still be called "direct knowledge devoid > of assumption based on inference when the Sotapanna has no abbhinna ? > ======= Yes, it is still direct knowledge because it is known by panna, without any inference. It happens so fast, billions of cittas arise and fall away in split second. Later there be be thinking about the experience but this is different from teh direct understanding that occurs during reviewing knowledge. It is highly developed panna that knows, so no doubt about the attainment. Robertk 43653 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 7:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Having no opinions jonoabb Hi Joop Joop wrote: >I don't know what 'thinking' is, otherwise than 'reasoning', and an >opinion is hardly the result of reasoning. > > Thinking need not be limited to reasoning. There is 'ordinary' thinking most of the time, for example, while you are brushing your teeth, eating breakfast, taking a walk, etc. >My desciption was: opinions are the result of flee floating >consciousness (I think 'free floating' can be described more in >Abhidhamma-language). > > Sorry, but I haven't caught your meaning. Would you mind giving an example or two of 'floating consciousness'. Also, 'opinions' can mean different things. Do you mean likes and dislikes, or forming views about issues, or 'judging' people and things, or something else? Thanks. >Joop: You did not react on my conclusion that there is a loose end. >Why do you think the brain is merely a supporting factor (in the >producing process of an opinion)? > > Well, the holding/forming of an opinion is a mental process, and to my understanding of the teachings all mental processes are performed by consciousness, which is a nama. Rupa (such as the brain) cannot experience an object, cannot perform a mental process. >What is the difference of the brain being a supporting factor in >human beings and the brain being a supporting factor in animals (the >other realm) ? > > No fundamental difference, that I'm aware of. >BTW I know it's another topic but suddendly another question arises >in me: do animals have opinions ? > > Not altogether a different topic, perhaps. The answer will depend on what you have in mind by an opinion ;-)). Jon 43654 From: "Matthew Miller" Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 7:55am Subject: [dsg] Re: Rupa Madness: Seeing with the Tongue bupleurum Geoff: >>[Dalai Lama] seems very much in >>favor of scientific/Buddhist >>integration as skillful means of presenting Dharma to Westerners who >>are coming to Dharma from a scientific paradigm. So the Dalai Lama's interest in science is at heart just a proselytizing gimmick (er, upaya)? Matthew 43655 From: "kelvin_lwin" Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 9:37am Subject: [dsg] Re: New view on satipatthana 2 kelvin_lwin Send IM Hi RobK, Well, having debated with my uncle who's from Pa Auk tradition I think I'm in position to comment. It's hard to find exact reference to "abdomen" method but it falls under kaya and dhatu. If you read Pa Auk, you'll find he gave anapana and dhatu. Proper context of Pa Auk's method is samatha and I can appreciate his position more as people seem to be going overboard with "no-control". The article you quoted is also full with misinformation and confusion. For example, anapana being the method of choice for all Buddhas is something many sayadaws use. Anyone with rudimentary knowledge of Visuddhimagga should know what is consistent about the techniques. So which method is correct? All of them when they're applied correctly. Very few can actually do it so maybe that's where the confusion and arguments arise. This is like age old debate of vipassana versus samatha vehicles. You'll find one side bashing the other and trying to make it appear impossible to reach enlightenment if it's not their way. Mostly you find this is due to followers and not sayadaws when you really look into their teachings. Also we should keep in mind the lesson from the sutta James quoted, even an arahat's knowledge is not complete unlike a Buddha. So is there any surprise in the world of puthujjanas? It's just politics. - kel ps. it occured it me the problem is the obsession with objects of meditation and not meditation itself. 43656 From: "Larry" Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 10:33am Subject: Re: Yahoo Changes ... lbidd2 Hi Chris and Mods., I don't like this at all. I was working on an index for the Vism. thread based on message numbers that is now useless. There used to be a message number box that would take you directly to a particular message. Plus I don't like the format either. Larry 43657 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 11:21am Subject: Re: New view on satipatthana 2 buddhatrue Hi Jon, Jon: Thanks for coming in on this thread. James: Sure, no problem. But don't count on me continuing because with this new Yahoo format it is hard for me to find anything! (And in addition to being an English teacher I am a certified web site designer. Yahoo has lost their minds with this new format! ;-)). Jon: Just to clarify, I don't think I said to Kel that all 6 sense- doors have to be fully known in their entirety. I believe I said that the development of awareness and insight was not a matter of choosing a particular object, and especially it was not a matter of developing insight into a single (chosen) object only. James: Oh Jon, please spare me the political jargon mumbo-jumbo. If you say that one cannot choose a particular object or mind door then of course you are saying that all six doors must be developed. Do you think I feel off the turnip truck yesterday?? ;-)) Objects at all six doorways are arising and falling in a continuous fashion and there is hardly a moment when this isn't the case. When you suggest that one cannot *choose* which doorway is to be known with insight, then you are in essence saying that all six doorways must be known in their entirety. Please, to facilitate communication, do call a spade for a spade. Jon: from this I think you will see that there is much in what you say that I would not take issue with. James: Oh, wonderful! (if this was true). But, please, don't pretend to be on my side if you really aren't. Jon: (I do, however, understand the texts to be saying that awareness/insight must be developed in relation to experiences through all the sense doors, as and when objects appear through those doors to sati and panna.) James: No, again, it doesn't have to be through ALL the sense doors. Awareness must only be of arising and falling, that is it- regardless of if this awareness is through one, two, three, four, five, or all six of the sense doors. Jon: I liked your sutta story, and would be interested to know the reference for it, please. James: You liked it for what reason? Do you agree with it? Anyway, it is a paraphrase of a sutta found in the Tipitaka- now you must find it. Usually I give complete references for everything I quote, but this time I don't think I will. Jon, if you love the texts so much, the find the sutta and bring it to light! ;-) Metta, James 43658 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 0:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Rupa Madness: Seeing with the Tongue nilovg Dear Matthew, And I hope also it unbaffles you with regard to the elements. Naama elements and ruupa elements, these are just dhammas that can be expeirneced without having to think about them. True for everybody. Nina. op 26-03-2005 06:13 schreef Jonothan Abbott op jsabbott@...: > I'm not sure what the scientific evidence of this is. My statement was > simply meant to reflect the 'orthodox' position, namely, that the same 5 > sense-door consciousnesses are all there ever have been or will be. As > I understand it, the truths contained in the teachings are said to be > 'eternal' truths. > > Hope this clarifies my remark, and unbaffles you ;-)). 43659 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 0:52pm Subject: Re: New view on satipatthana 2 christine_forsy... Hello Jon, (James), and all, Jon - it is a story in Chapter XX of 'The Doctrine of Paticcasammupada' U Than Daing MOGOK VIPASSANA YEIKTHA http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/tdaing3.htm James - it may be that humour doesn't translate very well from one culture to another - but your post seemed to be a little 'tetchy'?? metta, Chris --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" > > Jon: I liked your sutta story, and would be interested to know the > reference for it, please. > > James: You liked it for what reason? Do you agree with it? Anyway, > it is a paraphrase of a sutta found in the Tipitaka- now you must > find it. Usually I give complete references for everything I quote, > but this time I don't think I will. Jon, if you love the texts so > much, the find the sutta and bring it to light! ;-) > > Metta, > James 43660 From: "sunnaloka" Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 1:44pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Rupa Madness: Seeing with the Tongue sunnaloka Hi Matthew, > So the Dalai Lama's interest in science is at heart just a > proselytizing gimmick (er, upaya)? That's neither what I said nor what I meant. HH's upaya is, in my opinion, profound and sincere--as is his interest in science. Furthermore, I don't appreciate your sarcastic tone. In all honesty Matthew, what is your motivation for making such a statement? What is your upaya motivated by? Geoff 43661 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 9:31am Subject: Faith and the Abidharma dacostacharles I can see, for some of you, the word "faith" razes red flags. So I had to post some definitions in-hopes that it will to help people see that the red flags are not needed. Many of the Buddha's teachings that I don't understand or can not prove (even though I believe) I accept by faith. Faith: (Christian Bible) 1.. The substance of things hoped for. 2.. The evidence of things unseen. (Random House Unabridged Dic.) 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims. 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty. 5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith. 6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith. I like the biblical definition the best, however, I would replace the word "unseen" with "that can not be verified." In the case of your post, the Buddhist scripture is the evidence. 43662 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 9:32am Subject: Re: A Question Re: [dsg] Re: Ken--ultimate (Abhidhamma) view part 2 dacostacharles Hi Jon, I can see, not only from you, that the word "faith" razes red flags I am going to make a separate post defining it. My hopes will be to help people see that the red flags are not needed. However, I will start with you. Faith: (Christian Bible) 1.. The substance of things hoped for. 2.. The evidence of things unseen. (Random House Unabridged Dic.) 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims. 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty. 5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith. 6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith. I like the biblical definition the best, however, I would replace the word "unseen" with "that can not be verified." In the case of your post, the Buddhist scripture is the evidence. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonothan Abbott To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, 26 March, 2005 11:12 Subject: Re: A Question Re: [dsg] Re: Ken--ultimate (Abhidhamma) view part 2 Hi Charles Charles DaCosta wrote: {>If I understand most of what is being said (even in other post), most of you have accepted, by faith, the Abidharma as the infallible truth; and therefore, are trying to understand its teaching with out changing it, and maybe even apply it also. Does this sound true?} Speaking only for myself, my interest in knowing and understanding what the Abhidhamma has to say on matters being discussed here is based on a confidence that the Buddha knew more about these matters than anyone else. There is nothing to be gained by mere acceptance by faith. However there is, I believe, a lot to be gained from getting a good grasp of the Sutta-Vinaya-Abhidhamma perspective on things. You are right about trying to understand its meaning without changing it. As far as I'm concerned, that would defeat the whole purpose of having it ;-)). What's your thinking on this? Jon 43663 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 0:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Unchanging, For All Times dacostacharles Hi Matthew, Thanks for uncovering an inconsistency. The Buddha said his teachings will not last for ever. The evolutionary approach has not yet been accepted, especially by western Buddhist. CharlesD ----- Original Message ----- From: Matthew Miller To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, 25 March, 2005 23:46 Subject: [dsg] Unchanging, For All Times >N: I find [the elements] as real as anything. This is for all times. (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/40877) What does that mean... "for all times"? Doesn't this contradict impermanence? Do the categories of the abhidhamma represent some kind of fixed, eternal structure of the universe? Or do they evolve like everything else? Matthew 43664 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 0:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Unchanging, For All Times dacostacharles But even the Buddha said the teachings will not last for ever. And most are for humans, so if humans don't exist then they are no longer valid. So yes they are relative and imperment. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonothan Abbott To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, 26 March, 2005 06:21 Subject: Re: [dsg] Unchanging, For All Times Hi Matthew Matthew Miller wrote: ... >What does that mean... "for all times"? Doesn't this contradict >impermanence? Do the categories of the abhidhamma represent some >kind of fixed, eternal structure of the universe? Or do they evolve >like everything else? > This is not just a matter of the Abhidhamma, but of the teachings as a whole, suttas included. The Buddha stated that the truths discovered and taught by him are valid for all time. This does not contradict impermanence. The characteristic of impermanence has a very specific meaning in the teachings, as I tried to explain in my earlier post. Jon 43665 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 0:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Unchanging, For All Times dacostacharles good question ----- Original Message ----- From: TGrand458@... To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, 26 March, 2005 08:28 Subject: Re: [dsg] Unchanging, For All Times In a message dated 3/25/2005 9:31:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, jsabbott@... writes: This does not contradict impermanence. The characteristic of impermanence has a very specific meaning in the teachings, as I tried to explain in my earlier post. Jon Hi Jon TG: What's so "very specific" about -- "All conditioned things are impermanent"? 43666 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 0:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Unchanging, For All Times dacostacharles So is the Abidharma and other teachings Nibbana, or do they not really exist? CharlesD ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonothan Abbott To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, 26 March, 2005 13:23 Subject: Re: [dsg] Unchanging, For All Times Hi TG TGrand458@... wrote: >Hi Jon > >What's so "very specific" about -- "All conditioned things are impermanent"? > The Pali word 'sankhara' ('conditioned things') has a specific meaning or, to be more exact, a number of specific meanings depending on the context (Nyanatiloka's dictionary gives 4 main meanings). In the context of your quoted passage, I understand sankhara to mean 'conditioned dhammas', that is to say, the dhammas other than Nibbana. These dhammas are those classified in the suttas in various ways including as the 5 khandhas, six ayatanas, 18 elements, 4 establishments of mindfulness, etc. In other words, the passage does not refer to 'things' in the conventional sense of the word, to my understanding. Jon 43667 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 1:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Brain on Dhamma dacostacharles Matthew, You should have referred your reader to DO. It has Mind/Form. The teaching alludes to them being two things that work as one; and they are dependent on each other; therefore they are one (at least in the case of humans). CharlesD ----- Original Message ----- From: Matthew Miller To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, 23 March, 2005 18:23 Subject: [dsg] The Brain on Dhamma RobertK wrote: > I predict that the current scientific picture of the > world is completely skewed and will be viewed in the > near futures with derision... > > I do not believe that dhamma practice occurs in the brain. Then where does it occur? Some people seem to think that saying "We are the brain" somehow reduces the richness of human experience to a lump of clay. The fact is, the human brain is the most complex object in the known universe. Carl Sagan pointed out: ... 43668 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 1:20pm Subject: LK- Re: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature dacostacharles Hi LK, I could not help to respond because, I am a both a Mahayanist and a Theravadin. I don't understand the question at the end (I don't know pali) so I can begin to try and answer it. CharlesD ----- Original Message ----- From: lokuttaracitta To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, 22 March, 2005 03:25 Subject: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature Dear Joop: ... Abhiddhama says there are 33 to 36 cetasikas in each of lokuttaracittas. The object of lokuttarcittas is Nibbana. How can the 36 to 38 cetasikas in each of lokuttaracittas be known as such ? (I gave this question to Sarah, but I have not receive her answer yet. ) From LK 43669 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 1:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Brain on Dhamma dacostacharles It is interesting though, with chemicals, we can manipulate the thing you call Consciousness. ----- Original Message ----- From: rjkjp1 To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, 24 March, 2005 03:40 Subject: [dsg] Re: The Brain on Dhamma ... And this is only an analogy - the internet is something that can be understood without the help of a Buddha . Consciousness is much more profound. =============== > > But if we do look at the evidence of neuroscience, the case becomes > even more convincing and a much more detailed picture emerges. As > Colin McGinn writes: > > What we call the mind is in fact made up of a great number > of subcapacities, and each depends upon the functioning of > the brain > ======= Colin Mcginn is a materialist philosopher (as so many are at this time). But even with his materialist views he admits about the various scientific ideas on consciousness?gThe head spins in theoretical disarray; no explanatory model suggests itself; bizarre ontologies loom. There is a feeling of intense confusion, but no clear idea of where the confusion lies?h(1993) Problems in philosophy: the limits of inquiry. RobertK 43670 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 1:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Having no opinions dacostacharles Hi Jon, ... or is the brain the real factor? CharlesD ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonothan Abbott To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, 25 March, 2005 23:25 Subject: Re: [dsg] Having no opinions Hi Joop ... In the human realm, as in most other realms, mentality is to a degree dependent on materiality also. These relationships are complicated, which is why we are urged to study about all the different kinds of conditions; otherwise it is easy to mistake a merely supporting factor (like the brain) as being a more substantive causative factor. Jon 43671 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 1:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Having no opinions dacostacharles Jon, In Buddhist thought/teachings, "the consciousness that thinks" would be very unclear because it is the aggregates of feelings and intellect that thinks. The aggregate of consciousness senses only. CharlesD ----- Original Message ----- From: upasaka@... To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, 24 March, 2005 14:43 Subject: Re: [dsg] Having no opinions Hi, Jon (and Joop) - In a message dated 3/24/05 8:08:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, jsabbott@... writes: > The dhamma explanation, as I understand it, would not see an opinion as > being kept in a person's brain. "An opinion" merely refers to a way of > thinking about something. The 'reality' of that moment is the > consciousness that thinks, but that consciousness is not 'kept' anywhere > at other times. > > Jon > ================== I agree with you Jon. The distinction is one of process/operation versus substance. There occurs "opinion-ing", but nowhere are there to be found "opinions". Howard 43672 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 2:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Seeing with the Tongue dacostacharles Thanks ----- Original Message ----- From: Matthew Miller To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, 21 March, 2005 23:44 Subject: [dsg] Re: Seeing with the Tongue Have you seen this site? It's a fun resource: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ Matthew 43673 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 2:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] On Buddha nature from Lokuttaracitta dacostacharles Hi LK, The orthodox Theravada schools teach that the Buddhasavatas (poor spelling) were real people, not deities. This is the main difference. The issue of re-incarnation is relative to the Theravadas (some believe in it, others don't) and for those that do, the re-incarnation is not the same being, so it is relative as to the level and .... If you are a Mahayanist or Vajrayanist, the important thing would not be complex teachings. The reason for turning to the schools of the elders is to re-gain the basics, and clarify them so that they become a mantra (a method of taming the mind and cultivating virtue). What do you mean by "profound?" CharlesD ----- Original Message ----- From: lokuttaracitta To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, 25 March, 2005 10:59 Subject: [dsg] On Buddha nature from Lokuttaracitta ... As a Mahayana buddhist, I have interestes in What the orthodox theravadin teachs becuase it has been helping me understand better how profound some(not all) views and practices in mahayana and Vajrayana are. But I do not intend to compare Theravada with Mahayana on those open forums untill I become an adept in Mahayana . I believe that will end in long long tangled discussions if we dig into .That will not get us nowhere unless we are maha-panditas of Maha-yana or followers of a certain Maha-yana sect. There are various views in different Mahayana traditions even on Emptiness alone. There are many debates and arguments on it in Mahayana.It also is deeply connected with Buddha-nature and 3-kayas ,4-kayas or 5-kayas etc. And ,in my view, Mahayana can not be fully understood without sufficient knowldges and actual experiences of Vajrayana which itself consists of various traditions. 43674 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 2:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cooran. dacostacharles Good post Ken H. Your point is exactly why "I" live in samsara and it is ok. It is very tough, but I will keep on living. In hopes that when time stops, "I" will still exist, unchanged, unconditioned. CharlesD PS: Dharma also teaches us to sense the future five khandhas and to understand the past five khandhas. ----- Original Message ----- From: kenhowardau To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, 24 March, 2005 00:41 Subject: [dsg] Re: Cooran. Hi Nina ... This reminds me of a topic that came up repeatedly at the Cooran meeting. We were facing the fact that enlightenment has consequences that we, as unenlightened folk, find disagreeable: namely, it proclaims that final extinction of consciousness is nigh. A Sotapanna has, at most, seven more lives. To us unenlightened folk, it is as if he has jumped out of an aeroplane with no parachute - there is no turning back! We might pretend to want enlightenment and final extinction of the khandhas, but that is just bluff. Fortunately for us, the laws of nature save us from ourselves by not calling our bluff. :-) All this seems obvious to me now, but only after having met you and other DSG people. The Dhamma does not teach us to want to be other than we are. It teaches us to know the present five khandhas. Ken H 43675 From: "sunnaloka" Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 3:27pm Subject: Re: Introduction Time sunnaloka Hi everyone at DSG, In an earlier thread Sarah suggested that I introduce myself, and today I have time to do so. My name is Geoff and I reside in Western Canada. I'm a practicing Buddhist (for almost 20 yrs now) and consider myself to be nonsectarian, although I have a deep faith- connection to both the Kammatthana Thai forest tradition and the Madhyamika/Dzogchen Nyingma tradition. Although these two traditions may appear to represent quite different facets of Dhamma, to my discernment anyway, they seem to have very much in common. I believe that the Kammatthana tradition as expressed in the teachings of Ajahns: Mun, Chah, Sumedho, Amaro, and also Ajahn Thanissaro and Ajahn Buddhadasa represents something of a practice centred reform movement within the Theravada (although to my knowledge none of these Ven. teachers have ever stated so, nor might any of them specifically admit to such an apparently outlandish notion). Nevertheless, within the teachings of all these forest monks I see definite connections to the nondual Nyingma teachings that I've been practicing with for many years (Nyingma and Kagyu also being practice lineages). Furthermore, it seems to me that what the Buddha is saying in the Sutta Pitaka is more accurately interpreted by not only the experiential discernment of the Thai forest masters, but by much of the nondual Nyingma teachings as well. So, you might ask, why not remain with the Nyingmapas and leave us orthodox Abhidhamma Theravadins alone ;-) since the Tibetans also acknowledge many of the Sutta's as being part of their canon? Well, because I believe that the Tibetans have possibly overemphasized the nondual fruitional aspect of the path (at least as their teachings are being represented in the West), and that there is generally an under-appreciation of the Suttas in all so-called Mahayana schools, as well as a persistent notion that the Pali Suttas, Chinese Agamas, and their Tibetan counterparts reveal an 'inferior' or 'provisional' view, which must be relinquished to discern the 'definitive' view of the Mahayana Sutras. I personally believe that this notion is baseless. There are many Suttas that express the same profoundly definitive view. Also, as a contemporary practitioner I believe that the teachings found in the Pali canon (and Chinese/Tibetan counterparts) are the only ones that we can with any historical accuracy trace back to the Buddha himself, and the Thai forest tradition beautifully integrates a profound view with pragmatic renunciation and emphasis on practice, all of which are qualities that I aspire to emulate, and which I believe are about as close to the historical Buddha as a modern practitioner can get. What's more, I believe that we are now slowly but inevitably moving toward an integrated Dhamma, much more integrated than that traditionally represented by the Tibetan three yana system. Of course all of this is just my personal opinion. I'm not out to ruffle any feathers or claim any sectarian exclusivity to truth. I merely wish to engage in some skillful, open-minded discourse with people who know the Pali Tipitaka much better than I do. Thus my intentions are good-natured and gentle, and not in any way rigid or judgemental. With omnidirectional metta, Geoff 43676 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 11:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Unchanging, For All Times TGrand458@... In a message dated 3/26/2005 2:29:59 PM Pacific Standard Time, dacostas@... writes: The Pali word 'sankhara' ('conditioned things') has a specific meaning or, to be more exact, a number of specific meanings depending on the context (Nyanatiloka's dictionary gives 4 main meanings). In the context of your quoted passage, I understand sankhara to mean 'conditioned dhammas', that is to say, the dhammas other than Nibbana. These dhammas are those classified in the suttas in various ways including as the 5 khandhas, six ayatanas, 18 elements, 4 establishments of mindfulness, etc. In other words, the passage does not refer to 'things' in the conventional sense of the word, to my understanding. Jon Hi Jon, All "Things" is exactly the 5 khandhas, 18 elements, Four Great Elements, etc. There is no other "thing." (I infer Nibbana not to be a 'thing' though some would not agree with that.) When the term 'dhammas' is used...it just means 'things or states.' Its no big deal. The term 'dhammas' does not add one iota of importance to it. "All conditioned things are impermanent" whether or not they are being seen from a deluded or insightful perspective ... the fact of that principle remains the same. TG 43677 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 8:22pm Subject: [dsg] Re: New view on satipatthana 2 rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kelvin_lwin" wrote: > > Hi RobK, > > Well, having debated with my uncle who's from Pa Auk tradition I > think I'm in position to comment. The article > you quoted is also full with misinformation and confusion. For > example, anapana being the method of choice for all Buddhas is > something many sayadaws use. ======= Dear Kel, Thanks for the extra information. It is interesting the piece about Anapanasati The article is citing U Pandita, I'm a little surprised you disagree? "Panditarama Sayadaw has become perhaps the foremost and most successful among many Myanmar Sayadaws teaching vipassana who have won world-wide renown. "Did the Buddha not attain Buddhahood through anapana-sati?" "Ko Hla Myint," the Sayadaw replied, "You have not studied the scriptures with the necessary attention to detail. It is true that the Buddha-to-be attained pubbenivasanussau-abhinna (Knowledge of Former States of Being) and dibbacakkhu abhinna (the Divine Eye of Omniscient Vision) in the first and second watches of the night through anapana-sati. But in the third and last watch of the night, the Buddha-to-be was no longer absorbed in anapana-sati, but had turned his great intellect to the doctrine of paticcasamuppada, or Dependent Origination. 'Through ignorance are conditioned the sankharas, the rebirth producing volitions or kamma-formations, and so on'. Then, just before the break of day, while meditating on the five khandhas, the physical and mental phenomena of existence, the Buddha-to-be attained arahatta-magga, arahatta-phala, and the Omniscience of the Buddha, the Supremely Enlightened. Thus, Buddhahood was won not through anapana-sati, but through mindfulness on the physical and mental phenomena of the five khandhas." ========== Robertk 43678 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 8:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature jonoabb Hi Joop I have one minor quibble about your 4th conclusion: Joop wrote: >Dear all > >My conclusion (as always: temporary): > >- There are no real Theravada-concepts with which the Mahayana- >concept 'Buddha-Nature' can be translated. > >- I like the Pabhassara Suttas - Luminous (AN I.49-52), but don't >have an idea what they mean > >- My superficial idea that the kamma-concept can be used for it, is >in vain, thanks Jon for the information you gave about the meaning >of 'kamma'. > >- The only remaining meaning of 'Buddha-Nature' is that enlightenment >is possible for all beings. And that's a truism. > > I think the truism actually stated by the Buddha is that 'enlightenment is possible' (no mention of 'all beings'). Jon 43679 From: "Matthew Miller" Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 9:11pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Rupa Madness: Seeing with the Tongue bupleurum > > So the Dalai Lama's interest in science is at heart just a > > proselytizing gimmick (er, upaya)? > > That's neither what I said nor what I meant. HH's upaya is, in my > opinion, profound and sincere--as is his interest in science. > Furthermore, I don't appreciate your sarcastic tone. In all honesty > Matthew, what is your motivation for making such a statement? > What is your upaya motivated by? No sarcasm intended. 1. pros•e•lyt•ize (pros'u-li-tīz"), —v.t., v.i., to convert or attempt to convert; recruit. 2. upaya. the ability to present the teachings in such a way as they will be understood by audiences with different levels of comprehension. What's the difference? According to your post, the Dalai Lama believes that the dhamma is "forever beyond refutation" and that the purpose of his scientific/ Buddhist integration is to "present" dharma to science-trained Westerners. In a genuine dialogue between Buddhism and science, each side could potentially have their views changed by input from the other, and neither side would have prior commitment to a position that is "beyond refutation." Using science as skillful means to present to scientifically-minded Westerners a position that is "beyond refutation" is not genuine dialogue. It is proselytizing. Matthew Geoff: > he recognizes that the Dharma is > true and therefore forever beyond refutation, and the further > scientific knowledge progreses, the more it will confirm what the > Buddha revealed 2500 years ago... > he seems very much in favor of scientific/Buddhist > integration as skillful means of presenting Dharma > to Westerners who are coming to Dharma from a scientific paradigm. 43680 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 9:02pm Subject: Re: A Question Re: [dsg] Re: Ken--ultimate (Abhidhamma) view part 2 jonoabb Hi Charles Thanks for the research on the various meanings of 'faith'. I would not have guessed there was such a wide range of meanings. One thing puzzles me though, and that is your perception that for me the Abhidhamma is seen as 'evidence of things that cannot be verified' (if I have understood you correctly). This seems to suggest that the Abhidhamma consists of 'unattainables'. That is very much not the case; if it were then there would be limited value in its study. The things contained in the texts (suttas, vinaya and abhidhamma) comprise (a) things capable of verification by us, and that perhaps have been (tentatively) verified at a certain level, (b) things that have not been verified by direct experience as yet, but are capable of being verified as insight is developed, and (c) things that are capable of verification only by one with high attainments, or by a Buddha, but that will not be directly verified by those of lesser attainments. Of the 3 groups, the things under (a) are by far the minority in my own case ;-)), but it is on the basis of these that there is confidence in the value of further study of the teachings. BTW, how do you see the suttas, in terms of your definitions of 'faith'? Jon Charles DaCosta wrote: >Hi Jon, > >I can see, not only from you, that the word "faith" razes red flags I am going to make a separate post defining it. My hopes will be to help people see that the red flags are not needed. However, I will start with you. > >Faith: >(Christian Bible) > 1.. The substance of things hoped for. > 2.. The evidence of things unseen. >(Random House Unabridged Dic.) >1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. > >2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. > >3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims. > >4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty. > >5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith. > >6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith. > >I like the biblical definition the best, however, I would replace the word "unseen" with "that can not be verified." >In the case of your post, the Buddhist scripture is the evidence. > > 43681 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 9:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yahoo Changes ... jonoabb Hi Larry Larry wrote: >Hi Chris and Mods., > >I don't like this at all. I was working on an index for the Vism. >thread based on message numbers that is now useless. There used to be a >message number box that would take you directly to a particular message. > > Links to post numbers (as in the UP) will still work, so as long as you keep a note or the relevant post numbers it will be possible to create a working index (which will be much appreciated). So don't despair, and keep up the good work! Jon 43682 From: "kelvin_lwin" Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 9:21pm Subject: [dsg] Re: New view on satipatthana 2 kelvin_lwin Send IM Hi RobK, > Buddhahood was won not through anapana-sati, but through mindfulness > on the physical and mental phenomena of the five khandhas." Splitting hair imho to direct it toward their particular tradition. The position was that anapana is the stepping stone used by Buddhas which is consistent. Maybe you're aware of how and why Mahasi sayadaw arrived at abdomen to begin with? I think whatever technical reasons are just post justification to counter the criticism of non-conformity to the texts. Then I personally find it hilarious when they become the most renown, the arguments are reversed. In terms of Myanmar traditions that have become most renown world-wide I think Goenka takes the cake. I can always add enough adjectives to make myself the best at something. - kel 43683 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 9:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Unchanging, For All Times jonoabb Hi Charles Charles DaCosta wrote: >But even the Buddha said the teachings will not last for ever. > Quite so. He said both things, namely, that the truths are eternal, and that the teachings will gradually decline. No inconsistency there. >And most are for humans, so if humans don't exist then they are no longer valid. So yes they are relative and imperment. > > Yes, the teachings decline, and life in the human plane disappears at an appropriate time. But neither of these things has any bearing on the validity of the truths taught, as I see it. Jon 43684 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 9:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: New view on satipatthana 2 jonoabb Hi Chris Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, no reference is given (it is a retelling by the Sayadaw). I know I've seen the sutta before (I think in MN), so I'm sure I'll come across it again soon. Jon Christine Forsyth wrote: >Hello Jon, (James), and all, > >Jon - it is a story in Chapter XX of 'The Doctrine of >Paticcasammupada' U Than Daing MOGOK VIPASSANA YEIKTHA >http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/tdaing3.htm > > 43685 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 9:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Unchanging, For All Times jonoabb Hi Charles Charles DaCosta wrote: >So is the Abidharma and other teachings Nibbana, or do they not really exist? > > Sorry, but I haven't caught your point here. No, the teachings are not Nibbana, and nor are they 'dhammas' as in the 5 khandhas, etc. They are truths about dhammas. Jon 43686 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 9:39pm Subject: [dsg] Re: New view on satipatthana 2 rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kelvin_lwin" wrote: > > Hi RobK, > > > Buddhahood was won not through anapana-sati, but through mindfulness > > on the physical and mental phenomena of the five khandhas." > Splitting hair imho to direct it toward their particular tradition. > The position was that anapana is the stepping stone used by Buddhas > which is consistent. Maybe you're aware of how and why Mahasi sayadaw > arrived at abdomen to begin with? I think whatever technical reasons > are just post justification to counter the criticism of non- conformity > to the texts. Then I personally find it hilarious when they become > the most renown, the arguments are reversed. In terms of Myanmar > traditions that have become most renown world-wide I think Goenka > takes the cake. I can always add enough adjectives to make myself the > best at something. > > - kel Dear Kel. :) :) Fair enough! Robert p.s actually I don't know the story of how Mahasi came to the abdomen method? 43687 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 9:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Having no opinions jonoabb Hi Charles Charles DaCosta wrote: >In Buddhist thought/teachings, "the consciousness that thinks" would be very unclear because it is the aggregates of feelings and intellect that thinks. The aggregate of consciousness senses only. > > Yes, I think I see what you are saying here. However, when I refer to "consciousness that thinks" I refer to the citta and its accompanying mental factors collectively. That is, I am not distinguishing between the different functions performed by the citta and the mental factors. In any event, as I think you know, all 4 nama khandhas are dhammas that experience an object, and co arising members of the different khandhas all experience the same object*. In the case of a moment of thinking, that object is a concept. Jon *Thus at a given moment of consciousness, the citta (vinnana-khandha) and its co-arising mental factors comprising the other 3 nama khandhas, namely vedana kh (feeling), sanna kh (perception) and sankhara kh (formations), all experience the same object. 43688 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 9:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Introduction Time jonoabb Hi Geoff Thanks for the intro and for giving us your background in dhamma study. We very much welcome your interest in the Pali canon -- no need to worry about coming from a non-Theravada or non-Tipitaka study approach. I'm sure you will have much to share with us. Please feel free to come in on threads at any time. Jon sunnaloka wrote: >Hi everyone at DSG, > >In an earlier thread Sarah suggested that I introduce myself, and >today I have time to do so. My name is Geoff and I reside in Western >Canada. I'm a practicing Buddhist (for almost 20 yrs now) and >consider myself to be nonsectarian, although I have a deep faith- >connection to both the Kammatthana Thai forest tradition and the >Madhyamika/Dzogchen Nyingma tradition. ... > > 43689 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 10:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Unchanging, For All Times jonoabb Hi TG TGrand458@... wrote: >"Things" is exactly the 5 khandhas, 18 elements, Four Great Elements, etc. >There is no other "thing." (I infer Nibbana not to be a 'thing' though some >would not agree with that.) When the term 'dhammas' is used...it just means >'things or states.' > No argument from me, at least I think not, but perhaps I should check with you on that. The 5 khandhas, 18 elements, etc., with which you (correctly) equate 'things', are specific dhammas that are enumerated in the texts (including the suttas). That is to say, they are not conventional 'things', but are the dhammas that we take to be the conventional world. They are what is to be known by insight. Is this how you see it? Jon 43690 From: "sunnaloka" Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 10:18pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Rupa Madness: Seeing with the Tongue sunnaloka Matthew: > No sarcasm intended. > > 1. pros•e•lyt•ize (pros'u-li-tīz"), —v.t., v.i., > to convert or attempt to convert; recruit. > > 2. upaya. the ability to present the teachings in such a way as they > will be understood by audiences with different levels of > comprehension. > > What's the difference? I was refering to the *just* a [...] *gimick* -- and not to either proselytize or upaya. This sounds sarcastic to me. If that wasn't your intention, so be it. Personally I don't think Buddhism has any 'proselytizing' agenda, as the Buddha stated that it's inappropriate to present Dhamma unless specifically requested to do so. If you think that this injunction amounts to proselytizing, so be it. > In a genuine dialogue between Buddhism and science, each side could > potentially have their views changed by input from the other, and > neither side would have prior commitment to a position that is "beyond refutation." > > Using science as skillful means to present to scientifically-minded > Westerners a position that is "beyond refutation" is not genuine > dialogue. It is proselytizing. I began that post by stating: I remember reading HHDL saying that if anything was ever definitively proven by Western science that contradicted or refuted anything within the Buddhist Dharma, then the Dharma would necessarily have to be changed to remain valid with 'reality.' This is of course a paraphrase, but that's pretty much what he said.... By making such a statement I think (and of course I can't speak for HH) but it sounds to me like he's coming to such discourse with an open mind and is sincere about engaging in genuine dialogue. It seems he's saying that if reality is proven different than what the Dharma states, then he's completely ready and willing to accept that proof. I then went on to say that it's my opinion that HH recognizes i.e. *has direct valid cognition* concerning Dhamma: I think that from HH's perspective, he recognizes that the Dharma is true and therefore forever beyond refutation.... This statement is based solely on my opinion as predicated by *I think* and as such refers to my faith in HH as a highly developed bodhisattva capable of direct valid cognition. Such cognition is defined by the Tibetan schools as being *beyond refutation*. But being a bodhisattva with direct valid cognition would in no way make him close minded or incapable of genuine dialogue by having a 'prior commitment to a position.' Prasangika Madhyamika of the Gelugpa's (as I understand it) has no recourse to any 'prior commitment to a position' because it puts forth no 'position.' It's a reductio ad absurdum dialectic which results in inferential valid cognition (pramana). This inferential cognition results in nonconceptual wisdom-mind (nirvikalpa jnana), which when assertained during jhana/dhyana is what they term 'yogic direct perception,' and as such is direct valid cognition. Of course, this is all based on my very meager understanding of the Gelugpa system and may not be completely accurate as I'm not a practitioner of their system. But based on my understanding of their contemplative methodology, I have faith that HHDL is completely fluent in Prasangika Madhyamika, and therefore is capable of direct valid cognition, but this direct valid cognition wouldn't make HH incapable of genuine dialogue in any way, shape, or form. This is all just my opinion though. Geoff 43691 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Mar 26, 2005 11:36pm Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 156- Determination /adhimokkha & Energy/viriya (f) sarahprocterabb... 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.9 Determination(adhimokkha) & Energy(viriya) contd] Adhimokkha which accompanies lokuttara citta is “convinced”, sure about the object which is nibbåna. Adhimokkha is not self; it is saòkhåra dhamma, a conditioned dhamma which arises and falls away with the citta it accompanies. It performs its function only while it is accompanying the citta and then it falls away together with the citta. If the next citta is accompanied by adhimokkha it is another adhimokkha and this falls away again. Since adhimokkha arises with all cittas except the ten pañcaviññåùas and the type of moha-múla-citta which is accompanied by doubt, it arises with seventy-eight cittas in all (1). *** 1) When cittas are counted as 89. Cittas can be counted as 89 or 121. When they are counted as 121 the lokuttara jhånacittas accompanied by jhåna-factors of the five stages of jhåna are included. ***** [Ch.8 Determination(adhimokkha) & Energy(viriya))to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 43692 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Mar 27, 2005 0:11am Subject: Re: New view on satipatthana 2 buddhatrue Hi Christine, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christine Forsyth" wrote: > > Hello Jon, (James), and all, > > Jon - it is a story in Chapter XX of 'The Doctrine of > Paticcasammupada' U Than Daing MOGOK VIPASSANA YEIKTHA > http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/tdaing3.htm Oh darn it, you gave the secret away! ;-0 > > James - it may be that humour doesn't translate very well from one > culture to another - but your post seemed to be a little 'tetchy'?? Just speaking my mind dear...just speaking my mind ;-) (BTW, do you think Australian culture is greatly different than American culture? You seem more uptight than I picture most Australians as being?) > > metta, > Chris Metta, James 43693 From: "bernard.vital" Date: Sun Mar 27, 2005 0:06am Subject: Dear friends vital_moors Today I leave The Netherlands to become a monk in Wat Thaton (www.wat-thaton.org) in Thailand. I hope to become a little bit enlightend there to do well for all the people who I will met. I wish you happiness and I you you will find the path to end the suffering in your situation. Ant if you are once in the oppotunity to visit the meditationcenter in Wat Thaton, you are always welcomm. Om Mani Padme Hum Vital Moors Mr. Vital E.H. Moors sahmkan@... http://www.instantsites.nl/3/vitalmoors 43694 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Mar 27, 2005 1:00am Subject: Agreement between Buddhism, Modern Science & Cosmology ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: Buddhism, Modern Science & Cosmology: Modern cosmology have recently found out that the universe is not in a steady state but undergoes periodic expansion (big bang) and contraction. The blessed Buddha told of this > 2500 !!! years ago: He said "He recalls to mind his various temporary states in days gone by - one birth, or two or three or four or 5 births, 10 or 20, 30 or 50, a 100 or a 1000 or a 100.000 births, through many cycles of cosmic contraction & cosmic expansion... Now there comes a time, friends, when, sooner or later, after the lapse of a long, long period of contraction, this world-system passes away. And when this happens beings have mostly been reborn in the World of Radiance, and there they dwell made of mind, feeding on joy, radiating light from themselves, traversing the air, dwelling in glory; and thus they remain for a long, long period of time. Now there comes also a time, friends, when, sooner or later, this universe begins to re-evolve by expansion. Digha Nikaya 1: Brahma-Jala Sutta Time & space are not universal! Albert Einstein presented the special & general relativity theory almost a hundred years ago. Still the philosophical implications is only known by a very few mathematicians. Mainly Einstein's relativity theory points out that time & locality in space cannot be regarded independent if the observer & object is moving fast relative to each other. Differently moving observers will experience different speeds of time even when using the same watches. They will disagree on the order of different events. A 'Universal' time do not exist: Buddha also told about this > 2500 years ago . : 'Bhikkhus, 50 human years is one night & day to the four guardian gods. 500 of those divine years are the life span of the four guardian gods. . Bhikkhus, 1600 human years is one night and day to the gods with power over other's creations. 16 thousand of those divine years are the life span of these gods.' (Paranimmita-vasavatti-devas) Anguttara Nikaya III.71: The Roots of the Uposatha http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an03-070.html Matter is quanta of discrete events! Another implication of both Einstein's theory & also of quantum mechanics is that matter cannot be regarded to be continuously existing in time nor in space. A movement of a body is therefore absolutely speaking events of disappearance in one place & its rearising in the next place. This process is though so incredible fast, that we experience it as continuous existence. Exactly so do the Higher Buddha-Dhamma ie: The Abhidhamma consider movement of matter to be serial vanishing & re-arising in adjacent locations... So modern Science even regarding physical phenomena (rupa) is not so 'Modern' after all!!! Most seem to rediscovering of what was known already 2 millenniums ago but ignored & forgotten as usual... Hihihi ;-) Friendship is the Greatest ! Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. <....> 43695 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Mar 27, 2005 2:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dear friends jonoabb Dear Vital This is wonderful news. We wish you all the best in your life as a monk. Thank you for letting us know, and giving us the opportunity to share in your kusala. Jon and Sarah bernard.vital wrote: >Today I leave The Netherlands to become a monk in Wat Thaton >(www.wat-thaton.org) in Thailand. I hope to become a little bit enlightend >there to do well for all the people who I will met. I wish you happiness and >I you you will find the path to end the suffering in your situation. Ant if >you are once in the oppotunity to visit the meditationcenter in Wat Thaton, >you are always welcomm. > >Om Mani Padme Hum >Vital Moors >Mr. Vital E.H. Moors >sahmkan@... >http://www.instantsites.nl/3/vitalmoors > > 43696 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Mar 27, 2005 2:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: New view on satipatthana 2 jonoabb Hi James buddhatrue wrote: >James: Oh Jon, please spare me the political jargon mumbo-jumbo. If >you say that one cannot choose a particular object or mind door then >of course you are saying that all six doors must be developed. Do >you think I feel off the turnip truck yesterday?? ;-)) Objects at >all six doorways are arising and falling in a continuous fashion and >there is hardly a moment when this isn't the case. When you suggest >that one cannot *choose* which doorway is to be known with insight, >then you are in essence saying that all six doorways must be known >in their entirety. Please, to facilitate communication, do call a >spade for a spade. > > Hmm, who's being the drama queen now? ;-)) Just to clarify, my comment was meant to be to the effect that knowledge regarding all six doors must be developed, but that it was not necessary for each doorway to be fully known in its entirety. Jon 43697 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun Mar 27, 2005 3:25am Subject: Re: Dear friends rjkjp1 --- Dear Bernard, I just had a look at your link- what a great site the temple is at! Best wishes Robert In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "bernard.vital" wrote: > > Today I leave The Netherlands to become a monk in Wat Thaton > (www.wat-thaton.org) in Thailand. 43698 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Mar 27, 2005 3:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma challenge 3 nilovg Hi Matheesha, op 26-03-2005 14:19 schreef matheesha op dhammachat@...: > >> M:My teacher >>> uses a series of directed vipassana techniques aimed at > identifying >>> 1) nama-rupa, then 2) their causal connection to each other and > then >>> 3) the arising and passing away of these cause and effect nama- > rupa. >> N: Your late teacher was actually explaining the stages of tender > insight, >> taru.na vipassanaa which arise in order. >> This is a very important subject to discuss. > > M: Ok, we can come back to the rest of the post later.What is taruna > vipassana? N: Tender insight, the three beginning stages of insight before Maha-vipassana, principal insight. 1. Distinguishing the difference between the characteristic of nama and of rupa. 2. Understanding nama and rupa as conditioned dhammas. 3. Understanding their arising and passing away. No 3 is different from the first stage of principal insight. One discerns nama and rupa as dhammas that arise and fall away very rapidly, but there is not yet precise knowledge of each dhamma that appears, as it arises and passes away. Now, for me this is a difficult subject and I prefer to discuss more about the first stage of tender insight. Indeed, in order to understand this, a basic knowledge of Abhidhamma about different doorways and processes is necessary. A sense object such as visible object that is rupa is experienced through the eye-door and then through the mind-door. After that there are other mind-door processes which may define it and think about it. Naama, such as seeing can only be known through the mind-door. The first stage of insight that knows the difference between the characteristics of nama and rupa occurs in the mind-door process. I wrote in My Letters about Vipassana (see Rob K's web: http://www.vipassana.info/letter_about_vipassana_i.htm ):