56600 From: "Phil" Date: Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:45pm Subject: Re: Dhamma Thread ( 865 ) A Strange Email ! philofillet Hi Tep > > What happened? I have seen Htoo's messages using Han Tun's email ... > Was it due to a spammer's trick? Who cares? If it is helpful Dhamma, it is helpful Dhamma. Only understanding knows that. People and personalities are irrelevant. Phil 56601 From: han tun Date: Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:55pm Subject: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 868 ) hantun1 Dhamma Thrtead ( 868 ) (U Htoo Naing requested me to send this. Han Tun) Dear Dhamma Friends, Kamma.t.thaana: Kaayagataa-sati can give rise to 1st ruupa jhaana. Kaayagatasati is recollections of memory or remembrances on each and every parts of 32 body parts as described in kaayagataasati sutta. These 32 body parts or 32 kotthaasa can also be learnt in mahaa satipatthaana sutta of Diigha Nikaaya 22. It is true that there are more than 32 body parts. But meditation-wise body parts with the same character of foulness or disgustingness are grouped as one part of 32 body parts. Example is that there are more than 200 bones in a human being but they all are seen as bone and all these bones are just a part or 1 part of 32 body parts or 32 kotthaasa. First the initial object of kaayagatasati is a visual object. These 32 body parts are 1. hair (on head)) 2. body hairs 3. nails 4. teeth 5. skin 6. flesh 7. sinew 8. bone 9. marrow 10.kidneys 11. heart 12. liver 13. membranes 14. spleen 15. ligments 16. intestines 17. mesentry 18. gorge 19. feces 20. brain 21. bile 22. phlegm 23. pus 24. blood 25. sweat 26. solid fat 27. tear 28. liquid fat 29. saliva 30. mucus 31. synovial fluid 32. urine The first 20 are solid and latter 12 are liquid. Through repeated observation, there arise mental image that the copy of visual object can clearly be seen in the mind and that new object is called mental image or uggaha nimitta or a sign in the mind, which is a pannatti. When well calm and there are few hindrances, then another sign is just going to arise. As soon as hindrances are cleared away and the mind is clean then there arises a third sign called patibhaaga nimitta or counter image of the mental image. When there is no hindrances, the samaadhi in that state is called upacaara samadhi or proximate concentration. It is a harald state of mind before the actual absorptive state of mind called jhaana or appanaa samadhi. As there are no hindrances and as there are 5 jhaana factors are working efficiently, the mind is ready to absorb into the object patibhaaga nimitta or counter sign or counter image of the mental image , which again is an identical copy of real image. Once the mind is absorbed the only object is patibhaaga nimitta or counter image and no other objects can be taken as object at all. When the mind emerges from the absorptive state then it takes another object other than patibhaaga nimitta or the counter image of mental image. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 56602 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat Mar 11, 2006 5:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 865 ) A Strange Email ! indriyabala Hi, Han - Please ignore my panicking -- lately, an unknown spammer has stormed my Inbox and Website real hard. But he has not done any harm beyond sending viruses and causing confusion. Just imagine if someone was able to hack my bank and credit card accounts and stole all the (not much) money! I probably would be 'out of my mind' as well as out of money. {:<( Thanks for the clarification. With appreciation, Tep ======== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > No spamming, Tep. > Htoo requested me to post those Dhamma Threads. > I have the threads up to 887. > I think he is at present moving about and cannot send > them by himself. > > With metta, > Han 56603 From: han tun Date: Sat Mar 11, 2006 5:05pm Subject: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 869 ) hantun1 Dhamma Thread ( 869 ) (U Htoo Naing requested me to send this. Han Tun) Dear Dhamma Friends, Kamma.t.thaana: 10 kasi.nas , 10 asubhas, and up to 9 anussati kamma.t.thaana have been discussed. In this post aanaapaanassati or breathing meditation is discussed. Aanaapaanasati kammatthaana or breathing-meditational object is actually a universal meditational object for all 4 ruupa jhaanas and vipassana kammatthaana object. But unlike vipassana, which always take naama dhamma or ruupa dhamma as its object, aanaapaanasati as a samatha meditation does not take naama or ruupa as its object. Initially the meditator is concentrating on his or her breath and as it is so subtle it is hard to obtain a good concentration. At this stage the object is called parikamma nimitta or preparatory sign and it is just the object that can be sensed by everyone when he or she is breathing through the nose. When a good concentration is obtained, there is not much difficult to perceive all the events at breathing and the mind is well calm. There will not be any other thoughts except that breath or breath-sign. That new sign which appears in the mind is now no more the real object that arises at nose but it is the mental image to the initial object breath. When there are little hindrances or no hindrances there is ready for a third sign to arise in the mind. But it will be no more the mental image of the initial object. It changes into a different forms. It may well be like a piece of cloud, smoke, a heap of salt, a pile of sugar, dust, mist, or anything depending the individual's past experience. When this third sign appears in the mind, it is called patibhaaga nimitta or counter image of the mental image or counter sign of the mental mimage. As it is not a paramattha dhamma that 3rd sign does not arise or does not fall away. Instead it seems to persist all the time without interruption. It is stable. It is unshakable. It is not wavering. It is not quivering. It is not shattering. It exists as if it is a solid thing. When the object is stable the mind who takes that object is also stable and does not move. That mind is well calm. As soon as the mind is absorbed into that 3rd object or 3rd sign, there is an unshakable mental state called 1st jhaana or 1st material absorption. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 56604 From: han tun Date: Sat Mar 11, 2006 5:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 865 ) A Strange Email ! hantun1 No problem, Tep It was my fault. I should have mentioned the arrangement. Han --- indriyabala wrote: > > Hi, Han - > > Please ignore my panicking 56605 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat Mar 11, 2006 5:12pm Subject: Re: Dhamma Thread ( 865 ) A Strange Email ! indriyabala Hi, Phil - You wrote: > > Who cares? If it is helpful Dhamma, it is helpful Dhamma. Only > understanding knows that. People and personalities are irrelevant. > > Phil > Lately I had been under attack by a spammer -- that's why I jumped to the conclusion about Han's post under Htoo's email (like seeing a rope and thought it might be a snake!). Anyway, you're right. Sincerely, Tep ===== 56606 From: han tun Date: Sat Mar 11, 2006 5:17pm Subject: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 870 ) hantun1 Dhamma Thread ( 870 ) (U Htoo Naing requested me to send this. Han Tun) Dear Dhamma Friends, Kamma.t.thaana: 10 kasi.nas, 10 asubha, 10 anussati kamma.t.thaanas have been discussed. There are 40 kamma.t.thaanas. So there are 10 more kamma.t.thaanas. 4 are aaruppa kamma.t.thaanas , which are 4 aruupa jhaana and they all have been discussed along with pathavii kasina as 8 jhaana-samaapatti. 4 are brahmavihaara kamma.t.thaana (4 pure abode). 1 is ahaarepa.tikuula-sa~n~naa kamma.t.thaana (disgustion on food). 1 is catu-dhaatu-vavatthaana kamma.t.thaana (analysis of 4 elements). The last two kamma.t.thaana can give rise only up to upacaara bhaavanaa and they can never give rise to appanaa bhaavanaa. Because their object is complicated and they can never absorb into unity. 4 brahmavihaara kammatthaana or 4 brahmacariya kammatthaanas are 1. metta (loving kindness) 2. karu.naa (compassion) 3. muditaa (sympathetic joy) 4. upekkhaa (equanimity) May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 56607 From: han tun Date: Sat Mar 11, 2006 5:28pm Subject: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 871 ) hantun1 Dhamma Thread ( 871 ) (U Htoo Naing requested me to send this. Han Tun) Dear Dhamma Friends, Kamma.t.thaana: 'Pure-living meditational object' or brahmavihaara kammatthaana is also known as 'pure-practice meditational object' or brahmacariya kammatthaana. These meditational methods had long been practised even before our Buddha, The Buddha Gotama. These meditations are methods that lead to pure-living and they make non-attachment to kaama objects. Because of these practice and when 'one who has been practising' is just going to die and he has not released his pure-living practice he will be reborn in brahma bhumi or fine material realm. These pure-living meditational methods are 1. mettaa or loving-kindness or universal-friendliness 2. karunaa or compassion 3. muditaa or sympathetic-joy or loving-appreciation 4. upekkhaa or equanimity or universal-appreciation All these 4 meditational methods can give rise up to 4th ruupa jhaana (3rd of 4 ruupa jhaana). But upekkha brahmavihara is normally not the top priority to practise for those who have not attain any jhaana yet. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 56608 From: han tun Date: Sat Mar 11, 2006 5:38pm Subject: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 872 ) hantun1 Dhamma Thread ( 872 ) (U Htoo Naing requested me to send this. Han Tun) Dear Dhamma Friends, Kamma.t.thaana: 'Metta brahmavihaara' or 'loving-kindness pure-living' is a method of meditation and it can give rise to 1st rupa jhana or 1st material absorption. The typical 1st jhana cittas derived from metta brahmavihara take the object of pannatti. That pannatti is satta-pannatti or idea-of-being. Unlike other meditations that can give rise to 1st jhana, metta brahmavihara and other 2 that is karuna and mudita cannot give rise to patibhaaga nimitta. But the object of all brahmaviharas is just pannatti like all other meditations that can give rise to 1st jhana. Metta is non-attachment. Metta is loving-kindness. Metta is universal friendliness. Metta is universal and it can act on anyone if there are conditions. Metta should not be equated with 'love'. To avoid this metta is talked as 'loving-kindness'. If metta is equated with 'love', then those who do not have enough understanding on metta may believe that 'love' between husband and wife is metta. This is not fully the case. Hasband and wife may develop metta to each other. But this pure metta may change into another 'love', which is lobha and strong attachment. And lobha or greediness is akusala or unwholesome thing. Metta is compared with 'the love of mother to her child'. This is especially true between newborn baby and its mother. From mother side there is no expectation from her baby when she treats anything to her baby. She will clean her baby's filth and any messy things that arisen from it. Still the mother is willing to do all things related to her baby. The baby may urinate directly to her face. Still the mother will smile and treat her baby as her most precious jewel. The baby kicks on her face. The mother smiles. The baby hit on her face. The mother smile. The mother will be very protective to her baby at all cost. Metta is really cool and it is more than that. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 56609 From: han tun Date: Sat Mar 11, 2006 5:48pm Subject: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 873 ) hantun1 Dhamma Thread ( 873 ) (U Htoo Naing requested me to send this. Han Tun) Dear Dhamma Friends, Kamma.t.thaana: There are many different ways of cultivating metta or loving-kindness. Metta sutta says all the details of effects of metta, how to develop metta, how to stay with metta and how to cover the whole world with metta. Metta brahmavihara or 'loving-kindness pure-living' is a kind of mental exertion. It is a mental work. It takes the object beings. As beings are all panatti the object of metta brahmavihara is also pannatti. The typical cittas of 1st jhana derived from metta brahmavihara are just cittas. They all have to ground on hadaya vatthu or heart-base material. They all take the object beings as their object and it is pannatti. As metta is pure thing there have not be any impure things like lobha or attachment, dosa or aversion, moha or ignorance, ditthi or wrong-view, maana or conceit, issaa or jealousy, macchariya or stinginess, kukkucca or worry, ahirika or shamelessness, anottappa or fearlessness and uddhacca or upset. As metta is pure and it is a good mental exertion, it has not to be with sloth and torpor. And metta has to be free from any form of suspicion or doubt. Metta is so pure that as soon as impurity comes metta instantaneously disappears. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 56610 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Mar 11, 2006 6:09pm Subject: Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 393- seeing the value scottduncan2 "When we understand that paññaa cannot grow with[out] mindfulness of what appears now, we shall not look for other ways, or go somewhere else, since we delay mindfulness at this moment. And if there is attachment to having a great deal of mindfulness, we go the wrong way." Dear Nina, I greatly appreciate your reply. I am fortunate to have "strong confidence in the Triple Gem." My immense need for learning seems to be good as well - there is so much to learn and learning is a pleasure for me. I humbly consider you and all the others within this group to be "friends in the Dhamma." I hope that I can work my way into this community such as to gain even more than I have to date. I'm struck over and over by the profound strength of things that are so influential and which occur in the time it takes for lightning to strike. It is beautiful how the right and exquisite concurrence of conditions can change everything. Thanks for your kind reply. Sincerely, Scott. 56611 From: "gazita2002" Date: Sat Mar 11, 2006 6:20pm Subject: Re: Cetasikas' study corner 393- Beautiful Cetasikas (Sobhana Cetasikas)accumulation. gazita2002 Hello Han, Nina and others, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Nina > > Nina: Do you see any conflict between paramattha sacca > and conventional truth? > > Han: No, I do not see any conflict between paramattha > sacca and conventional truth. That is why I could > combine them both in my statement: > > "If a person (conventional truth) does good deeds with > saddha, siila, bahusuta, caaga, pannaa (paramattha > sacca), he/she (conventional truth) will get good > kamma (paramattha sacca)." > > I agree that some people might become uneasy if others > constantly say: that is the self at work, there is the > self again. > > So I think the best thing for me is not to speak any > more on this subject matter. azita: there is a lovely expression that the Thais often use to encourage one to speak out, to be natural, and that is 'yaa krengjai', meaning dont be reluctant to impose upon. So, Han, yaa krengjai, because in IMO, this is a most important part of the Buddhas teaching. We take most everything for self and therefore its good to remind each other about this 'mistaken identity'. Maybe some do become uneasy, why? We dont really know cos we cant know anyone else's citta - dont even know our own! But my guess is that people don't want to hear that all is not self, dont want to be reminded that this very moment is just an arising phenomena that falls away ever so quickly, and therefore not worth clinging to. Anyway, these are just my musings on this subject, and they are not mine because there's no me :-) I (conventionally speaking) have been enjoying your posts, Han, keep going. There is a comment by T.A Sujin about 'one's own way' and I've heard it a lot in the past, but this last time in Bkk in Feb, 'ones own way' became more meaningful for me. We can hear, consider, discuss endlessly, but ultimately it is one's own way, that 'one' will travel, and that I believe will depend on the level of right understanding gained only at the moment that right understanding arises. If it doesn't arise then it cannot develop. Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita 56612 From: han tun Date: Sat Mar 11, 2006 9:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasikas' study corner 393- Beautiful Cetasikas (Sobhana Cetasikas)accumulation. hantun1 Dear Azita, Thank you very much for your mail. When I said I would not speak anymore, I said it with consideration for others’ feelings. For me, it is no problem. I have an open mind. I do believe the anatta doctrine. I often recite Anattalakkhana Sutta in Pali words with absolute faith in the doctrine. At the same time, I believe that I could do something to improve my kamma. I accept that paramattha dhammas arise on conditions. But I also believe that, to some extent, I can condition those conditions. For example, I see a road accident, a very unpleasant scene. My eyes are good, the accident is right there to be seen, there is light and I have intention to look in that way. So eye-consciousness arises. No one can make that eye-consciousness to arise without those conditions. No one can also prevent that consciousness from arising if the conditions are there. However, why I happen to be there at that moment to witness that unpleasant scene? It is because of my past akusala. Now, if I do kusala activities the conditions to see such unpleasant things will become less and less. That is what I mean by, to some extent, I can condition those conditions. When I was 70, I had developed three illnesses. I suffered for 3-5 years. (At that time I started already dhamma studies and practices.) I saw many physicians and took various medicines. (I am a medical doctor myself.) But those three illnesses would not go away. I stopped taking medicines. Then slowly, and miraculously, they were cured by themselves. Yes, completely cured. Please mind you, I did not do religious studies and practice with the idea of curing them. I have no ambitions in my life. If I do not get any magga nana in this life it would not bother me. What I found out was whether I like it or not, whether I wish for it or not, my actions bear fruits. When I do wholesome deeds, my good kamma becomes stronger. When my kusala kamma becomes strong enough my physical body (which has also kammaja ruupas) also improves, and that has cured my illnesses. You can dismiss my story as just an illusion or just a “story”, or just a coincidence. You can say whatever you like. But I believe I can do something good for my life and I have done it! In Dhammapada Verse 160, the Buddha started with “attaa hi attano naatho …”, One indeed is one’s own refuge. Yes, I do believe that I am my own refuge! With metta, Han --- gazita2002 wrote: > azita: there is a lovely expression that the Thais > often use to > encourage one to speak out, to be natural, and that > is 'yaa > krengjai', meaning dont be reluctant to impose upon. > > So, Han, yaa krengjai, 56613 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Sat Mar 11, 2006 9:47pm Subject: Question from Reg ... christine_fo... Hello All, We had a meeting of the 'buddhist blokes - brisbane chapter' today. After a social chat and cuppa in the Roma Street Gardens Cafe in Brisbane, Reg asked that I put this question on DSG, and send him any responses. Reg has heard a lot over the years from KenH, Andrew, Azita, myself and others - together with discussion of printed posts written by the longterm DSG members - at our Cooran weekends. From Reg: "If doing reading/studying of the Dhamma comes about by conditions, then doing sitting meditation must come about by conditions. The impression from dsg is that meditating is mostly considered as evidence of 'self view', and reading, discussing and reflecting on the dhamma is mostly not seen this way. Why?" metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- 56614 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Feb 12, 2006 1:07am Subject: How to Cure Cruelty and Revengefulness ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: Cruelty, Brutality, Mercilessness & Revengefulness are all diluted Hate: How to cure these painful derivatives of Cruelty: 1: Review the Danger in Cruelty like this: 'Ooh this can bring me to a bad destination, the downfall, to pain, even to hell!' 'Ooh this is a path of thorns, an evil way, a dark state, conflict, violence, pain!' 2: How does a friend dwell pervading one direction with his heart endued with pity (karuna) ? Just as he would feel pity on seeing an unlucky, unfortunate person, so he pervades all beings with infinite pity. Therefore first of all he imagines a poor man, unlucky, unfortunate, in every way a fit object for pity, ugly, reduced to utter misery, with hands and feet cut off, sitting in the shelter for the helpless, with an empty pot in front of him, with maggots oozing from sores on hands and legs, moaning, infinite pity should be felt for him in this way: 'This being has been reduced to utter misery! If he just could be freed from this misery...' Then later one can arouse the same pity & compassion for a neutral person and later even any wrong-doing person! This is mastery of pity: Compassion even with an Evil One! 3: All wrong doing is caused by blindness and craving. A real pity for the wrong-doers! All wrong-doers will thus suffer immensely in the future. How sad for these beings! 4: Begin and Cultivate meditation on Infinite pity: Sit down a silent & empty place with closed eye and beam from this the heart: May I and all beings be free from all cruelty by cultivating awareness of infinite pity. May I and all beings be free from all cruelty by cultivating examination of infinite pity. May I and all beings be free from all cruelty by cultivating energetic infinite pity. May I and all beings be free from all cruelty by cultivating joyous infinite pity. May I and all beings be free from all cruelty by cultivating stilled infinite pity. May I and all beings be free from all cruelty by cultivating concentrated infinite pity. May I and all beings be free from all cruelty by cultivating imperturbable infinite pity. Beaming first out in front, then right, then left, then down below and so also up above: May all beings be free from suffering, pain and frustration. May all beings live happily. May all beings be free from hate, cruelty, brutality, mercilessness & revengefulness! One who is virtuous and wise shines like a blazing fire; like a bee collecting nectar he acquires wealth by harming none. Digha Nikaya III, 188 May all creatures, all living things, all beings one and all, experience good fortune only. May they not fall into harm. Anguttara Nikaya II, 72 Solitude is happiness for one who is content, who has heard the Dhamma and clearly sees. Non-affliction is happiness in the world harmlessness towards all living beings. Udana 10 see also: Detachment and Compassion in Early Buddhism, AN VI.13, SN XLII.8, AN V.161 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PS: Please include the word Samahita in any comment, since then will my automatic mail filters pick it up and I will see it & respond!! Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. Friendship is the Greatest ... Let there be Calm & Free Bliss !!! <....> 56615 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 1:32am Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 395- Beautiful Cetasikas (Sobhana Cetasikas) Introduction (f) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== (Ch24 - Sobhana Cetasikas Introduction contd) In order to be able to apply oneself to the development of kusala and in particular to the development of right understanding, there have to be the right conditions for it. The Atthasåliní (Part II, Chapter I, 75) mentions these right conditions: residence in a suitable place, dependence on good associates, hearing the “good Dhamma”, merit performed in former existences. It is helpful to live in a country or place where one can hear the Dhamma and learn to develop the Path which leads to the eradication of defilements. In order to learn how to be mindful of nåma and rúpa one should associate with the good friend in Dhamma (kalyåùa-mitta) who can explain the Dhamma in the right way. What are the qualities the good friend in Dhamma should have? We read in the Middle Length Sayings (III, no. 110, Lesser Discourse at the time of a Full Moon) that the Buddha, while he was staying near Såvatthí, in the palace of Migåra’s mother, in the Eastern Monastery, spoke to the monks about the bad man (asappurisa) and the good man (sappurisa). We read about the good friends a good man consorts with: * "… And how, monks, does a good man consort with good men? As to this, monks, those recluses and brahmans who have faith (saddhå), shame, fear of blame, who have heard much, are of stirred up energy, whose mindfulness is aroused, who have wisdom— these are the friends and companions of that good man. It is thus, monks, that a good man consorts with good men…" * The ariyan is endowed with the qualities of the good men, mentioned in the sutta. He has an unshakable confidence in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha, and in wholesomeness. How can we find out who is an ariyan? So long as we have not attained enlightenment ourselves we cannot know who is an ariyan. It depends on conditions whether someone will meet an ariyan or not. However, we can find out whether our friend in the Dhamma helps us to develop right understanding or not. ***** (Ch24 - Sobhana Cetasikas Introduction to be contd) Metta, Sarah ====== 56616 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 1:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Cetasikas' study corner 393- Beautiful Cetasikas (Sobhana Cetasikas)accumulation. nilovg Dear Han, Azita wrote a very good post, do keep up, do speak out. In fact, I discussed your point with Lodewijk and he said very good things about this subject. First about kamma: yes, in a way you can say this, but who knows all the kammas of past lives who may have an opportunity to rpoduce vipaaka quite sudden, unexpectantly. See also Phil's good post about vipaaka. Because of your remarks we have a very good discussion about essential points and the way how to present Dhamma. No, I am very happy you are here with us. I am thinking about your points, and will write again about the subject. Very appropriate your post about abhiññaa, just studying this re Visuddhimagga Tiika, no 61. Nina. op 11-03-2006 22:19 schreef han tun op hantun1@...: > “If a person (conventional truth) does good deeds with > saddha, siila, bahusuta, caaga, pannaa (paramattha > sacca), he/she (conventional truth) will get good > kamma (paramattha sacca).” > > I agree that some people might become uneasy if others > constantly say: that is the self at work, there is the > self again. > > So I think the best thing for me is not to speak any > more on this subject matter. 56617 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 1:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 393- seeing the value nilovg Dear Scott, I do appreciate the way you take in the text about the concurrence of conditions and how dhammas come together in so short a moment, like a flash of lightning. No time for 'me' to do anything. Nina. op 12-03-2006 03:09 schreef Scott Duncan op scduncan@...: > I'm struck over and over by the profound strength of things that are > so influential and which occur in the time it takes for lightning to > strike. It is beautiful how the right and exquisite concurrence of > conditions can change everything. 56618 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 2:07am Subject: Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 61 and Tiika. nilovg Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 61 Intro: In this section the Vis. deals with kamma performed through the doorways of body, speech and mind. We read in the ŒDispeller of Delusion¹ : ³Herein, kaayasañcetanaa (bodily volition) is the twenty volitions, namely, the eight profitable volitions and the twelve unprofitable volitions of the sense sphere proceeding from the body door by arousing bodily intimation. It is also permissable to say that it is the twenty profitable and unprofitable volitions arisen when they arrive at taking, seizing and moving in the bodydoor...² Verbal volition is defined in a similar way. We read: ³ It is also permissable to say that it is the twenty volitions arisen when they arrive at motion of the jaw which is speech utterance in the speech door...² Kusala citta or akusala citta can produce the ruupa which is bodily intimation or speech intimation when one¹s intention is conveyed. For example, one may make known by gesture or speech that one wants to give things to someone else. But also when one does not convey an intention to someone else one can perform kusala kamma or akusala kamma. The Dispeller explains that mental volition are all twentynine volitions arisen in the mind-door. Thus, the four ruupaavacara kusala cittas and the aruupaavacara kusala cittas are included. In this section the Visuddhimagga deals with the kinds of mundane superknowledge, abhiññaa, which are based on the fourth jhaana (of the fourfold system), explaining that they do not produce vipaaka. We read in the Vis. Ch XII that these are: different kinds of supernormal power, the Divine Ear, the knowledge of penetration of minds, the recollection of past lives and the knowledge of the passing away and rebirth of beings. ******** Text Vis.: As regards the other three, the bodily formation is bodily volition, the verbal formation is verbal volition, and the mental formation is mental volition. This triad is mentioned in order to show that at the moment of the accumulation of the kamma the formations of merit, etc., occur in these [three] kamma doors. For the eight sense-sphere profitable and twelve unprofitable volitions, making twenty, are the bodily formation when they occur in the body door and produce bodily intimation. Those same volitions are called the verbal formation when they occur in the speech door and produce verbal intimation. But volition connected with direct-knowledge is not included here in these two cases because it is not a condition for [resultant rebirth-linking] consciousness later. ------------- N: We read in the Abhidhammattha Sangaha (Topics of Abhidhamma p. 341): The Tiika to the Visuddhimagga deals at length with this subject. The Tiika mentions that a question is raised: since direct knowledge (abhiññaa) is kusala, why does it not produce vipaaka? This question is answered as follows. The fourth ruupa-jhaana [of the fourfold system] is the foundation for abhiññaa. However, ruupaavacaara kusala citta produces ruupaavacara vipaakacitta which is a type of citta similar to the ruupaavacaara kusala citta that produces it. Moreover, it has an object similar to the ruupaavacara kusala citta. It does not have a paritta dhamma, an inferior dhamma, as object. Whereas abhiññaa cetanaa (volition or kamma that is direct knowledge) has inferior objects, such as sound, visible object, etc. The Dhammasangani (1403) explains that kaamaavacaara cittas, cittas of the sense sphere, and all ruupas are parittaa dhammaa. Therefore, abhiññaa could not produce vipaaka since this would have to be a type of citta similar to ruupaavacaara kusala citta with an object appropriate to it. -------- Text Vis.: And like direct-knowledge volition, so also volition connected with agitation is not included; therefore that too should not be included as a condition for [rebirth-linking] consciousness. ---------- N: We read in the Co. to the Abhidhammattha Sangaha (T.A. p. 17) about the type of moha-muulacitta that is associated with restlessness: The akusala citta rooted in moha, accompanied by uddhacca cannot produce rebirth-consciousness, but it can produce vipaakacitta in the course of life. As we read in the Tiika to Vis. Ch XIV, 93, the defilements that are abandoned by seeing or insight (dassana) are those eradicated by the streamwinner. His path-consciousness is called seeing, since there is the seeing of nibbaana for the first time. The defilements abandoned by cultivation (bhaavanaa) are those abandoned by arahatship. Only the arahat has eradicated restlessness completely. The streamwinner has no more conditions to be reborn in an unhappy plane. But since he still has not eradicated restlessness it is said in the Co. that the moha-muulacitta associated with restlessness has no intrinsic capacity to produce rebirth. It is explained that if this citta could produce an unhappy rebirth, then ariyans who are not arahats could be reborn in an unhappy plane, but this is impossible. Therefore, moha-muulacitta associated with restlessness can produce only result in the course of life. The Tiika refers to the Dhammasangani, no. 1394: < which dhammas are to be abandoned by development? The citta that is accompanied by uddhacca (uddhaccasahagato cituuppaado)>. ---------- Text Vis.: However, all these have ignorance as their condition. And all the twenty-nine volitions are the mental formation when they arise in the mind door without originating either kind of intimation. So this triad comes within the first triad, and accordingly, as far as meaning is concerned, ignorance can be understood as condition simply for formations of merit and so on. -------- N: The triad of bodily formation, vocal formation and mental formation, thus, kamma performed through body, speech and mind, are included in the first triad, namely, the formation of merit, of demerit and of the impertuarbable. --------- Conclusion: The cetanaas or kammas that are kusala, akusala and imperturbable lead to rebirth. As we have seen, the akusala citta rooted in moha, accompanied by uddhacca cannot produce rebirth-consciousness, but it is also conditioned by ignorance. We read in the Expositor (p. 118) that dhammas associated with cetanaa, volition, are also kamma. Thus, the citta and cetasikas accompanied by volition are included. It quotes a text from the Anguttara Nikaaya (II, 230) about kamma that leads to the destruction of kammas: The same is said about the ariyan eightfold Path. The factors of enlightenment are: mindfulness, investigation of Dhamma [paññaa], energy, rapture, concentration and equanimity. These develop when there is mindfulness and right understanding of whatever dhamma presents itself now. They lead to liberation from the cycle of birth and death. ******* Nina. 56619 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 2:51am Subject: conventional realities and paramattha dhammas. nilovg Dear Han, I want to tell you that Lodewijk was put off by the discussions in Bgk for twenty years. He found the saying: just stories, there are only nama and rupa too crude. He said that the Buddha was always so gentle to people who suffered from a loss. He would very gently and with great compassion speak about impermanence and in this way point to the impermanence of this moment. Now, for the first time he could attend the sessions for a longer time. Believe me, he used to flee away, could not stand them. He cannot listen to all that is said, but he finds that he gets something from them and he appreciates very much the dedication of the listeners and all Sarah and Jon's efforts to tape them. Your story about your illnesses is striking, and I believe it is also kusala citta arising at this moment that conditions the body, not only past kamma. Ruupas of the body are conditioned by kamma, by citta, by utu, temperature and by ahaara, nutrition. Now I give a personal story wanting to point out how the Buddha helped others by pointing to the paramattha dhamma of this moment. This morning I listened to a Bach partita that Lodewijk used to play on the piano for my late father. He died a year ago, 104 years old, as I mentioned. I still miss him, and the music was almost too much for me. I reread an old letter I had written on grief. It is on Rob K's web: fourth letter on grief. I am quoting some parts: When we see pain because of loss as an impersonal element, not my pain, we can face it with courage. These days I often think of the cycle. Old age, sickness and death are part of the cycle. There is no family without having suffered losses. Of course, when insight can see the impermanence of nama and rupa at this moment, the understanding will be clearer, but intellectual understanding is beneficial too. We need good friends to remind us to develop understanding of this very moment, otherwise we are forgetful and will not find the way out of the cycle. Nina. 56620 From: han tun Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 5:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] conventional realities and paramattha dhammas. hantun1 Dear Nina, I do not know how to express my gratitude to you for taking such a trouble to write to me such an excellent post. I also notice that you have put in your warm personal touch, and not just the usual cold paramattha dhammas. I appreciate very much for this also. I will read and study your post carefully and also the “Letters from Nina”. I have already downloaded it and will go through it more carefully. Dear Nina, I feel guilty for letting you write this long post. Thank you very, very much. With metta and deepest respect, Han --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Han, > > We need good friends to remind us to develop > understanding of this very > moment, otherwise we are forgetful and will not find > the way out of the > cycle. > Nina. 56621 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 0:08am Subject: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana upasaka_howard Hi, all - On another list, I have raised the question of what it means to "directly know" impermanence. (The Patisambhidamagga seems to state that it is to be directly known.) But impermanence isn't paramattha dhamma, is it? It belongs to none of the five khandhas, being neither rupa nor any mental operation. It must, therefore, be pa~n~natti. Now that poses two problems: 1) Pa~n~natti, it is said, cannot be objects of pa~n~na, and, more critically, 2) Pa~n~natti are actually nothing at all, and thus impermanence must be illusion, since, after all, the five khandhas constitute "the all", do they not? There seems to be a bit of a problem here, especially if one is much taken with "realities". 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) 56622 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 5:08am Subject: Re: Question from Reg ... indriyabala Dear Cris - A debate between discussion groups should be more educational and interesting than just debates among DSG members. Thanks. > From Reg: > "If doing reading/studying of the Dhamma comes about by conditions, > then doing sitting meditation must come about by conditions. The > impression from dsg is that meditating is mostly considered as > evidence of 'self view', and reading, discussing and reflecting on > the dhamma is mostly not seen this way. Why?" > Good question. Because they believe that sitting meditation is "dumb" due to absorption that does not lead to "right understanding", pure and simple. Regards, Tep ====== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christine Forsyth" wrote: > > Hello All, > > We had a meeting of the 'buddhist blokes - brisbane chapter' today. > After a social chat and cuppa in the Roma Street Gardens Cafe in > Brisbane, Reg asked that I put this question on DSG, and send him any > responses. Reg has heard a lot over the years from KenH, Andrew, > Azita, myself and others - together with discussion of printed posts > written by the longterm DSG members - at our Cooran weekends. > > metta > Chris > ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- > 56625 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 7:13am Subject: Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana scottduncan2 "There seems to be a bit of a problem here, especially if one is much taken with 'realities'." Dear Howard, Good question. I understand that there are aspects of both naama and ruupa which ensure their impermanence and are "built-in" to these dhammas. For the citta there is uppaada kha.na, ti.t.ti kha.na, and bhanga kha.na (the moment of arising, the moment of presence when it has not fallen away, and the moment of dissolution, A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas, p. 62.) For ruuupa, there are four ruupas which have to arise in each kalaapas, these being origination, continuity, decay, and falling away (the four lakha.na ruupas, ibid. p.34). These latter are said to be asabhaava ruuupas, which I think means they do not have their own nature but stand to be corrected. Would this not address the crux of your question? Sincerely, Scott 56626 From: "Joop" Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 7:19am Subject: Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, all - ... > There seems to be > a bit of a problem here, especially if one is much taken with "realities". > > With metta, > Howard Hallo Howard, Scott, all That's a well stated question, Howard. I don't have the answer. It's not really a problem to me although I am "much taken with "realities". Till you asked it, anicca was to me not a "reality" (technical spoken) itself but a principle governing realities; a kind of meta-reality. Sometimes I think there are not two but THREE REALITIES; I was thinking about that when discussing with Nina about her "accumulations" that are neither concept nor ultimate. And "anicca" belongs to the third too. To the same category belongs the causal principle of D.O.: " When this exists, that comes to be; with the arising of this, that arises. When this does not exist, that does not come to be; with the cessation of this, that ceases." I know "three kind of realities" is not according the Theravada orthodoxy; there is one (historical Chinese) tradition that has them: the Tiantai School, about which Brook Ziporyn has written. If you get answers elsewhere on your question: please inform us. Metta Joop 56627 From: "Joop" Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 7:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 865 ) A Strange Email ! And skillful means jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > No spamming, Tep. > Htoo requested me to post those Dhamma Threads. > I have the threads up to 887. > I think he is at present moving about and cannot send > them by himself. > > With metta, > Han Hallo Han, Tep, all In Mahayana there is a concept "upaya" (Skillful means) that Buddhas - and other teachers - use to teach different groups of persons. It seems to me that Han Tun and Htoo are one and the same person and that our Htoo is using skillful means to teach us. If I'm wrong, than I say 'sorry' to Han Metta Joop 56628 From: "Joop" Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 7:53am Subject: Re: Question from Reg ... jwromeijn Hallo Christine, Tep, all The problem of the "free will" is also in Greek/western philosophy well known; Theravada doesn't have a monopoly on it. If 'free will' exists or not is unanswersable. But we had to do as if it exists: we have our moral and others reponsibilities, we have to take (moral) decisions in life; even if we think that everything is predeterminated. And trying to "see things as they really are" (that's 'formal' meditation to me) is one of those decisions. Is it 'dangerous' (because of atta-belief) to want results of meditation? A better question is: is it possible to medidate without the desire of getting results? I think it is. So the answer to Reg's question: the DSG-people who don't belief in 'formal' meditation confound a difference in spiritual-cultural tradition in the difference useful-useless. BTW, Tep: sitting meditation is not primarely 'absorption' to me; vipassana-meditation (Mahasi-style) has only 'enough concentration' as a starting condition. But that difference is another discussion. Metta Joop --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" wrote: > > Dear Chris - > > A debate between discussion groups should be more educational and > interesting than just debates among DSG members. Thanks. > > > From Reg: > > "If doing reading/studying of the Dhamma comes about by conditions, > > then doing sitting meditation must come about by conditions. The > > impression from dsg is that meditating is mostly considered as > > evidence of 'self view', and reading, discussing and reflecting on > > the dhamma is mostly not seen this way. Why?" > > > > Good question. Because they believe that sitting meditation is "dumb" > due to absorption that does not lead to "right understanding", pure > and simple. > > > Regards, > > > Tep > > ====== > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christine Forsyth" > wrote: > > > > Hello All, > > > > We had a meeting of the 'buddhist blokes - brisbane chapter' today. > > After a social chat and cuppa in the Roma Street Gardens Cafe in > > Brisbane, Reg asked that I put this question on DSG, and send him > any responses. Reg has heard a lot over the years from KenH, Andrew, > > Azita, myself and others - together with discussion of printed > posts written by the longterm DSG members - at our Cooran weekends. > > > (snipped) > > metta > > Chris > > ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- > > > 56629 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 5:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 3/12/06 10:14:28 AM Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: > > "There seems to be a bit of a problem here, especially if one is much > taken with 'realities'." > > Dear Howard, > > Good question. I understand that there are aspects of both naama and > ruupa which ensure their impermanence and are "built-in" to these dhammas. > > For the citta there is uppaada kha.na, ti.t.ti kha.na, and bhanga > kha.na (the moment of arising, the moment of presence when it has not > fallen away, and the moment of dissolution, A Survey of Paramattha > Dhammas, p. 62.) > > For ruuupa, there are four ruupas which have to arise in each > kalaapas, these being origination, continuity, decay, and falling away > (the four lakha.na ruupas, ibid. p.34). These latter are said to be > asabhaava ruuupas, which I think means they do not have their own > nature but stand to be corrected. > > Would this not address the crux of your question? > > Sincerely, > > Scott > ====================== Ah, I think I follow what you are saying. You seem to be saying that the knowing of dhammas includes the knowing of their characteristics - and dukkha, anicca, and anatta are characteristics of all conditioned dhammas. That is a plausible and good answer, but I don't feel entirely satisfied by it. Impermanence has a relational, temporal aspect to it: a phenomenon that is now present will, in the future, not be present. Dukkha also strongly has a relational aspect to it. And anatta is related to dependent origination, which is certainly relational. It seems to me that properties and relations, none of which are paramattha dhammas, are yet not unreal and are not beyond the range of pa~n~na. In fact, impermanence, impersonality, insubstantiality, not-self, unsatisfiability, and dependent origination are all neither nama nor rupa, but are the most essential of all things that must be wisely and directly known. 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) 56630 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 5:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana upasaka_howard Hi, Joop (and Scott) - In a message dated 3/12/06 10:20:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, jwromeijn@... writes: > Hallo Howard, Scott, all > > That's a well stated question, Howard. > I don't have the answer. It's not really a problem to me although I > am "much taken with "realities". Till you asked it, anicca was to me > not a "reality" (technical spoken) itself but a principle governing > realities; a kind of meta-reality. > > Sometimes I think there are not two but THREE REALITIES; I was > thinking about that when discussing with Nina about > her "accumulations" that are neither concept nor ultimate. > And "anicca" belongs to the third too. > > To the same category belongs the causal principle of D.O.: " When > this exists, that comes to be; with the arising of this, that arises. > When this does not exist, that does not come to be; with the > cessation of this, that ceases." > > I know "three kind of realities" is not according the Theravada > orthodoxy; there is one (historical Chinese) tradition that has them: > the Tiantai School, about which Brook Ziporyn has written. > > If you get answers elsewhere on your question: please inform us. > > > Metta > > Joop > ========================= I think your pointing to more than two categories of actual, directly discernable phenomena has merit. And the ultimates the direct knowing of which is liberating are prime examples. An alternative to positing more than two categories, however, lies in the the sixth-sense category of mind & mind-objects. One might fairly argue, I hypothesize, that specific instances (and not the general concepts) of unsatisfiability, impermanence, insubstantiality, not-self, and dependent origination are all paramattha dhammas, that they fall, in fact, under the umbrella of nama in the sense of being realities knowable only through the mind door. 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) 56631 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 11:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] conventional realities and paramattha dhammas. nilovg Dear Han, no, on the contrary, I want to thank you for speaking yourself out. Really, it is very good to make such points. It was such a good occasion to discuss matters with Lodewijk who completely feels with you. And it helps me to consider more the presentation of the Dhamma to different people. I learn from you! Nina. op 12-03-2006 14:07 schreef han tun op hantun1@...: > Dear Nina, I feel guilty for letting you write this > long post. > Thank you very, very much. 56632 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 11:17am Subject: Re: Question from Reg ... indriyabala Hello Joop ^_* , I understand Mahasi Sayadaw's bare attention (simple notings of the realities) and respectfully accept his observation that "near 1st jhana" concentration can result from such bare attention practice (that does not require "sitting", although sitting is not forbidden). Best wishes, Tep, your friend. May your persistence be aroused and not lax.. Your mindfulness established and not confused.. Your body calm and not aroused.. Your mind centered and unified. ========== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joop" wrote: > > Hallo Christine, Tep, all > (snipped) > > BTW, Tep: sitting meditation is not primarely 'absorption' to me; > vipassana-meditation (Mahasi-style) has only 'enough concentration' > as a starting condition. But that difference is another discussion. > > > Metta > > Joop > > (snipped) 56633 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 11:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 865 ) A Strange Email ! And skillful means indriyabala Hi Joop & Han - Joop wrote: > It seems to me that Han Tun and Htoo are one and the same person and > that our Htoo is using skillful means to teach us. > If I'm wrong, than I say 'sorry' to Han > Tep: I know both of them (through online communications)long enough to say with 100% confidence that they are not the same person, Joop. In fact, they are very different in several ways. Am I right, dear Han? Sincerely, Tep ========= 56634 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 6:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana TGrand458@... In a message dated 3/12/2006 6:09:44 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Hi, all - On another list, I have raised the question of what it means to "directly know" impermanence. (The Patisambhidamagga seems to state that it is to be directly known.) But impermanence isn't paramattha dhamma, is it? It belongs to none of the five khandhas, being neither rupa nor any mental operation. It must, therefore, be pa~n~natti. Now that poses two problems: 1) Pa~n~natti, it is said, cannot be objects of pa~n~na, and, more critically, 2) Pa~n~natti are actually nothing at all, and thus impermanence must be illusion, since, after all, the five khandhas constitute "the all", do they not? There seems to be a bit of a problem here, especially if one is much taken with "realities". With metta, Howard Hi Howard Excellent observation. "The problem" is in an approach to the Suttas that does not correspond to the content of the Suttas. "Watching things change" and understanding it 'directly' and 'conceptually' is the approach of the Suttas. Discerning "ultimate realities" with "their own characteristics" is not the approach found in the Suttas. This latter approach, besides being flawed, is far too limited and tunnel-visionish to be able to present the scope the Suttas deal with. It is only in the aspect of discerning 'actual conditions' from 'imaginations' that the latter approach has merit. But what I see is that folks take that 'one factor' and then "run with it" as the heart and soul of their religion. This seems blind them from the real heart and soul of the practice which is the tilakkhana...that IS the insight that leads to detachment. The so called "ultimate realities" are far less "ultimately real" than the principles of the tilakkhana. TG 56635 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 7:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 3/12/06 2:33:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: > > In a message dated 3/12/2006 6:09:44 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, > upasaka@... writes: > > Hi, all - > > On another list, I have raised the question of what it means to > "directly know" impermanence. (The Patisambhidamagga seems to state that it > > is to be > directly known.) But impermanence isn't paramattha dhamma, is it? It > belongs > to none of the five khandhas, being neither rupa nor any mental operation. > It > must, therefore, be pa~n~natti. Now that poses two problems: 1) Pa~n~natti, > > it > is said, cannot be objects of pa~n~na, and, more critically, 2) Pa~n~natti > are actually nothing at all, and thus impermanence must be illusion, since, > > after all, the five khandhas constitute "the all", do they not? There seems > > to be > a bit of a problem here, especially if one is much taken with "realities". > > With metta, > Howard > > > > Hi Howard > > Excellent observation. "The problem" is in an approach to the Suttas that > does not correspond to the content of the Suttas. > > "Watching things change" and understanding it 'directly' and 'conceptually' > > is the approach of the Suttas. > > Discerning "ultimate realities" with "their own characteristics" is not the > > approach found in the Suttas. This latter approach, besides being flawed, > is > far too limited and tunnel-visionish to be able to present the scope the > Suttas deal with. > > It is only in the aspect of discerning 'actual conditions' from > 'imaginations' that the latter approach has merit. But what I see is that > folks take > that 'one factor' and then "run with it" as the heart and soul of their > religion. This seems blind them from the real heart and soul of the > practice which > is the tilakkhana...that IS the insight that leads to detachment. > > The so called "ultimate realities" are far less "ultimately real" than the > principles of the tilakkhana. > > TG > ====================== Whether all that you have put forward here is part of "the solution" or not I don't really know. I do know that there seems to be a genuine problem, and the fact of there being a problem is what I am putting forward. What you say here that I most particularly agree with and applaud is your final statement: "The so called 'ultimate realities' are far less 'ultimately real' than the principles of the tilakkhana." They are, as you say, "the real heart and soul" of the Dhamma. And I would add to this my own view that nibbana is, in fact, the most real of all and probably the only dhamma close to being worthy of the label "reality"in the fullness of its meaning. There is nothing that I have experienced, including all the common conditioned "paramattha dhammas", that I consider to be realities, as none of them is as it appears to be, a separate thing in and of itself. What is "real" must be non-delusive and unflawed. In my opinion, the word 'reality' is a precious one, even a sacred one, and a term which should be carefully guarded against the abuse of overuse. 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) 56636 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 1:13pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Thanks for your reply. H: "You seem to be saying that the knowing of dhammas includes the knowing of their characteristics - and dukkha, anicca, and anatta are characteristics of all conditioned dhammas." S: Yes, I think that is the gist of it. Sorry to have put it such that it was unclear. I was saying that knowing the dhamma subsumes knowing its characteristics. As such it strikes me that the properties and relations of paramattha dhammas are by association "paramattha" as well. To say this I'd have to make an argument which shows that these three aspects are, in fact, characteristics of all conditioned dhammas. I'll keep working on that, just for the learning. H: "Impermanence has a relational, temporal aspect to it: a phenomenon that is now present will, in the future, not be present. Dukkha also strongly has a relational aspect to it. And anatta is related to dependent origination, which is certainly relational." S: I'm not sure, I realise now, how you are using the term "relational." This may be distorting my understanding of your question. By relational do you mean "conditioned?" I think of co-nascence condition, condition by way of mutuality, and support condition when I think of tilakkhana. I likely think this because I don't know any better. The temporal aspect seems to be, again, subsumed by the inherent nature of the dhamma - they are by nature prone to arising, persisting, and falling away; they are not-self; they are unsatisfactory (as a result?). Please help me, if you would, by clarifying your terms. H: "It seems to me that properties and relations, none of which are paramattha dhammas, are yet not unreal and are not beyond the range of pa~n~na. In fact, impermanence, impersonality, insubstantiality, not-self, unsatisfiability, and dependent origination are all neither nama nor rupa, but are the most essential of all things that must be wisely and directly known." S: Are you making the point that anicca, anatta, and dukkha, are more than merely properties of dhammas? Are they more "paramattha" than the "regular" paramattha dhammas? Or do you think that they should also be considered to be "paramattha?" I think that these three are totally central. To assert that there are realities in the highest sense (paramattha dhammas)is not to negate conventional reality. I'd like to learn where these three qualities (anicca, anatta, and dukkha), if "qualities" they are, fit in. I would venture to suggest that these three are to be considered "concepts" from the point of view of this discussion, and hence not "paramattha." By this I mean to say that we are discussing them as concepts. Pa~n~na is the cetasika that "is right view, right understanding of the characteristics of dhammas and right understanding of cause and result with regard to realities," (A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas, p. 437). When these characteristics of dhammas are realised, this realisation is not conventional. I would say, to conclude my sophomoric attempts to discuss this with you, that anicca, anatta, and dukkha are "characteristics of dhammas," and as such are also paramattha. Please accept my apologies if I have totally misread your question, been completely illogical, or whatever. I don't mean to do your point injustice, just to learn. Sincerely, Scott. 56637 From: han tun Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 1:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 865 ) A Strange Email ! And skillful means hantun1 Dear Joop and Tep and other DSG members, Joop: It seems to me that Han Tun and Htoo are one and the same person and that our Htoo is using skillful means to teach us. If I'm wrong, than I say 'sorry' to Han Tep: I know both of them (through online communications) long enough to say with 100% confidence that they are not the same person. Han: We are two different persons. With metta, Han 56638 From: han tun Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 1:51pm Subject: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 874 ) hantun1 Dhamma Thread ( 874 ) (U Htoo Naing requested me to send this. Han Tun) Dear Dhamma Friends, Kamma.t.thaana: May I be free from enemies. May you be free from enemies. May they be free from enemies. What a good mind it is! There are enemies. Some live inside of the body and some live outside of the body. Some are element of dhamma and some are formation of derivations of elements of dhamma. Who is the enemy that lives inside of ourselves? He is aversion or dosa or hatred. Dosa or aversion has a great power to destroy anything that it meets. Dosa destroys the home where it resides. As soon as dosa arises in us we start to suffer from painful experience. So may I be free from dosa. May you be free from enemies. May you be free from dosa, which will destroy you and your properties of physical and mental. So my wish is that 'you be free from dosa so that you are free from destruction'. May they be free from enemies. May they be free from dosa, which will definitely destroy the peace and tranquility and everything. So my wish is that they are free from dosa and they are free from the effect of dosa and so free from destruction. These are just references. When I am exerting by myself I would exert mentally that 'may I be free from enemies. May I be free from dosa. When there are other people with me when I am doing that mental job, I would say 'may we be free from enemies. May we be free from dosa'. When I say 'you' and 'may you be free from enemies. May you be free from dosa', this may mean 'only you' when there is only a single person reading this message. If there are more than one person reading this message at the same time, then this 'you' will also refer to 'all of you'. When I say 'may they be free from enemies. May they be free from dosa', this include all those who are not involve in this current communication mode of message reading. They in these wishes include all. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 56639 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 8:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - Let me preface what I write here by saying that in my opinion your approach is very sensible and intelligent, and has a great deal of merit. I don't really concur with it, but that is just a matter of my perspective differing from yours. It doesn't in the slightest demean your careful and intelligent consderation of this matter. In a message dated 3/12/06 4:14:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: > Dear Howard, > > Thanks for your reply. > > H: "You seem to be saying that the knowing of dhammas includes the > knowing of their characteristics - and dukkha, anicca, and anatta are > characteristics of all conditioned dhammas." > > S: Yes, I think that is the gist of it. Sorry to have put it such > that it was unclear. > ------------------------------------- Howard: It was clear enough for me to properly paraphrase it! :-) ------------------------------------ I was saying that knowing the dhamma subsumes> > knowing its characteristics. As such it strikes me that the > properties and relations of paramattha dhammas are by association > "paramattha" as well. To say this I'd have to make an argument which > shows that these three aspects are, in fact, characteristics of all > conditioned dhammas. I'll keep working on that, just for the learning. ------------------------------------ Howard: Your perspective is very clear to me. I would call it dhamma-centric. I personally find that perspective problematical for at least two reasons. One is that it invests dhammas, IMO, with self-nature/identity, as opposed to making them merely conditioned aspects of a greater, "interconnected whole". (I put this in quotes as I do not mean to imply a mere bland collection.) A second is that I think that the dichotomy consisting of dhammas and characteristics carried by those dhammas is a false one. All dhammas, as I view them, are mere fleeting qualities themselves, and are inseparable, though distinguishable, from other dhammas. (BTW, I regret even using the word 'themselves', as it is misleading, but language demands compromise.) ------------------------------------- > > H: "Impermanence has a relational, temporal aspect to it: a > phenomenon that is now present will, in the future, not be present. > Dukkha also strongly has a relational aspect to it. And anatta is > related to dependent origination, which is certainly relational." > > S: I'm not sure, I realise now, how you are using the term > "relational." This may be distorting my understanding of your > question. By relational do you mean "conditioned?" > ------------------------------------ Howard: No, not solely. "Relational" pertains to interconnections of various sorts. The thing is, though, it goes *beyond* single dhammas, and hence cannot be paramatthic according to Abhidhamma orthodoxy. ------------------------------------- I think of> > co-nascence condition, condition by way of mutuality, and support > condition when I think of tilakkhana. I likely think this because I > don't know any better. The temporal aspect seems to be, again, > subsumed by the inherent nature of the dhamma - they are by nature > prone to arising, persisting, and falling away; they are not-self; > they are unsatisfactory (as a result?). Please help me, if you would, > by clarifying your terms. ----------------------------------------- Howard: You seem to do very well on your own. In any case, it would not be appropriate for me to clarify anything in this regard, being an "Abhidhammic outsider"! ;-) Nina and others will provide any help in that regard. ----------------------------------------- > > H: "It seems to me that properties and relations, none of which are > paramattha dhammas, are yet not unreal and are not beyond the range of > pa~n~na. In fact, impermanence, impersonality, insubstantiality, > not-self, unsatisfiability, and dependent origination are all neither > nama nor rupa, but are the most essential of all things that must be > wisely and directly known." > > S: Are you making the point that anicca, anatta, and dukkha, are more > than merely properties of dhammas? Are they more "paramattha" than > the "regular" paramattha dhammas? Or do you think that they should > also be considered to be "paramattha?" -------------------------------------- Howard: I invest them with greater "reality". I consider them to be of major importance, and I believe it is *essential* that they be directly known with wisdom. But they are not paramattha dhammas as far as Abhidhammic categorizing is concerned. They are not paramattha dhammas, they are not dhatus, they are not ayatanas, they are not khandhic elements, and so, as far as orthodox Abhidhamma seems to teach, they cannot be known by pa~n~na! --------------------------------------- > > I think that these three are totally central. > --------------------------------- Howard: We quite agree on that! ------------------------------- To assert that there> > are realities in the highest sense (paramattha dhammas)is not to > negate conventional reality. I'd like to learn where these three > qualities (anicca, anatta, and dukkha), if "qualities" they are, fit > in. > --------------------------------- Howard: Yes! I think that is important. ------------------------------- I would venture to suggest that these three are to be considered> > "concepts" from the point of view of this discussion, and hence not > "paramattha." By this I mean to say that we are discussing them as > concepts. > > Pa~n~na is the cetasika that "is right view, right understanding of > the characteristics of dhammas and right understanding of cause and > result with regard to realities," (A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas, p. > 437). When these characteristics of dhammas are realised, this > realisation is not conventional. I would say, to conclude my > sophomoric attempts to discuss this with you, that anicca, anatta, and > dukkha are "characteristics of dhammas," and as such are also paramattha. ----------------------------------------- Howard: That is a very reasonable position! --------------------------------------- > > Please accept my apologies if I have totally misread your question, > been completely illogical, or whatever. I don't mean to do your point > injustice, just to learn. --------------------------------------- Howard: You have *nothing* to apologize for. You've understood me well, and you've been very logical and fair minded. --------------------------------------- > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > > =================== 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) 56640 From: "Andrew" Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 2:04pm Subject: Occupation success/failure corvus121 Greetings all I have a question about something in Khun Sujin's "A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas". In chapter 14, The Cycle of Birth and Death, she refers to 4 (or 8)conditioning factors re whether kamma produces fruit. One is success (or failure) in one's occupation. Page 138: "Success or failure in one's means or occupation (payoga sampatti and vipatti) are also factors that condition kamma to produce result or that can prevent kamma from producing result. Someone is successful in his occupation when he is skilful, diligent and clever in the performing of his tasks. Each kind of occupation, even that of a thief, needs expertise and skill for the accomplishment of one's tasks. The ability to accomplish one's work is success in occupation, be it in a wholesome way or in an unwholesome way. No matter which profession or task one performs, one needs success in occupation, skilfulness and competence in the accomplishment of one's work. Then akusala kamma that has been committed in the past has no opportunity to condition vipakacitta. Someone may be upright, but he may lack expertise, knowledge and competence in his profession or task, and thus there is failure in occupation. This may prevent the arising of kusala vipaka." Success or failure in occupation seems to me to be a basket of concepts and conventional designations (occupation/task/competence and so on) and I am wondering how to interpret the above passage in the impersonal, mind-moment fashion more familiar to Abhidhammikas? As I'm sure there is such an Abhidhamma interpretation, what is the benefit of having the conventional 'signpost'? Any assistance would be appreciated. Best wishes Andrew T 56641 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 4:30pm Subject: Re: Question from Reg ... philofillet Hi Reg > From Reg: > "If doing reading/studying of the Dhamma comes about by conditions, > then doing sitting meditation must come about by conditions. The > impression from dsg is that meditating is mostly considered as > evidence of 'self view', and reading, discussing and reflecting on > the dhamma is mostly not seen this way. Why?" > I don't think anyone would deny that self view is almost always involved in reading, discussing and reflecting on the dhamma. Of course it is. We are not sotapanna. The difference comes in with the degree of lobha, the strength of akusal desire for results. A methodic meditator is hoping, whether subtly or explicity, to cause the arising of kusala citta by his sitting. We might have such an expectation when reading, discussing and reflecting, but it is not as strong. As Jon put it in one talk there is not the belief that if we do X, Y will result here and now. That is implicitly involved in methodic meditation, in my opinion. Nevertheless, why not do it? Find out for oneself whether it is helpful or not, as long as one is honest about what is really going on. Phil 56642 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 6:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 61 and Tiika. lbidd2 Hi Nina, Since Htoo isn't here, here is a list of the 20 body door and 20 speech door volitions and the 29 mind door volitions, please correct: body door and speech door volitions: greed (lobha): 1 consciousness rooted in greed + pleasant feeling + associated with wrong view + prompted, 1 umprompted, 1 consciousness rooted in greed + neutral feeling, + associated with wrong view, + prompted, 1 unprompted, 1 conscousness rooted in greed, + pleasant feeling, + dissociated from wrong view, + prompted, 1 umprompted 1 consciousness rooted in greed, + neutral feeling, + dissociated from wrong view, + prompted, 1 unprompted hatred (dosa): 1 consciousness rooted in hatred + unpleasant feeling + prompted, 1 unprompted ignorance (moha): 1 consciousness rooted in ignorance + neutral feeling + associated with doubt, 1 consciousness rooted in ignorance + neutral feeling + associated with restlessness sensesphere wholesome (kasula) consciousness (these are a mix of consciousnesses rooted in alobha, adosa, and amoha): 1 consciousness + pleasant feeling + associated with knowledge + prompted, 1 unprompted 1 consciousness + pleasant feeling + dissociated from knowledge + prompted, 1 unprompted 1 consciousness + neutral feeling + associated with knowledge + prompted, 1 unprompted 1 consciousness + neutral feeling + dissociated from knowledge + prompted, 1 unprompted -------------------------- 29 mind door volitions same as above + fine-material-sphere (rupavacara) wholesome consciousnesses: 1 1st jhana consciousness + applied thought + sustained thought + zest (piti) + happiness (sukkha/pleasant feeling) + one pointedness 1 2nd jhana consciousness + sustained thought + zest + happiness + one pointedness 1 3rd jhana consciousness + zest + happiness + one pointedness 1 4th jhana consciousness + happiness + one pointedness 1 5th jhana consciousness + equanimity (neutral feeling) + one pointedness immaterial-sphere (arupavacara) consciousness: 1 wholesome consciousness pertaining to the base of infinite space, 1 wholesome consciousness pertaining to the base of infinite consciousness, 1 wholesome consciousness pertaining to the base of nothingness 1 wholesome consciousness pertaining to the base of nether-perception-nor-nonperception all these are conditioned by ignorance Larry taken from "A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" (Abhidhammatta Sangaha) 56643 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 7:44pm Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 396- Beautiful Cetasikas (Sobhana Cetasikas) Introduction (g) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== (Ch24 - Sobhana Cetasikas Introduction contd) The Buddha taught that all realities are anattå, non-self, but it is extremely hard to become more detached from the self in the situations of daily life. We think of ourselves most of the time, we want to get pleasant things for ourselves. When we associate with the good friend in the Dhamma we can learn to develop right understanding and then there will eventually be less clinging to the concept of self. The person who has developed right understanding and encourages others through his example to be less selfish and more considerate for others is a true friend in the Dhamma. He does not pay mere lip-service to the Dhamma, but he practises the Dhamma in his daily life. “Hearing the good Dhamma” is also a necessary factor for the development of kusala. We should not listen passively; when we truly listen, we consider what we hear and apply it; otherwise the listening is not fruitful. Another factor which conditions the development of kusala is “meritorious deeds done in the past”. If someone has applied himself to dåna, síla and bhåvanå in the past he has conditions for confidence in kusala today. ***** (Ch24 - Sobhana Cetasikas Introduction to be contd) Metta, Sarah ====== 56644 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 8:37pm Subject: Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Thank you for engaging me in this discussion, as well as your very kind words. I hope to learn a lot. May I try responding for now as follows, and then, as time allows, try to speak more cogently to your points: H: "Your perspective is very clear to me. I would call it dhamma-centric. I personally find that perspective problematical for at least two reasons. One is that it invests dhammas, IMO, with self-nature/identity, as opposed to making them merely conditioned aspects of a greater, "interconnected whole". (I put this in quotes as I do not mean to imply a mere bland collection.) A second is that I think that the dichotomy consisting of dhammas and characteristics carried by those dhammas is a false one. All dhammas, as I view them, are mere fleeting qualities themselves, and are inseparable, though distinguishable, from other dhammas. (BTW, I regret even using the word 'themselves', as it is misleading, but language demands compromise.)" S: I find the thesis you put forward regarding an "interconnected whole" to be worth stopping and looking at. For now I might say, in my opinion, that you seem to actually be uncomfortable with anicca in the end. Let me explain: I see you as wanting to posit this "interconnectedness" to somehow assuage the harshness entailed in the abhidhammic statements which are to the effect that things completely fall away and that the next thing arises as conditioned by the last thing. I'm likely being unfair to you in this, and apologise if so, but it just seems that to suggest an interconnected whole is to suggest some vast thing which, in its interconnectedness somehow defies impermanence. Does this make sense? What do you think? I'll have to leave it at this for now, but if I haven't insulted you then I'd like to take up your other points when I have more time to consider them. Hoping to continue, Scott. 56645 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 8:44pm Subject: Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana rjkjp1 Dear Howard and Scott, This old post by Steve is related to your discussion: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/23140 ""These modes, (that is, the 3 characteristics) are not included in the aggregates because they are states without individual essence (asabhaava-dhammaa); and they are not separate from the aggregates because they are unapprehendable without the aggregates. But they should be understood as appropriate conceptual differences (pa~n~natti-visesaa) that are reason for differentiation in the explaining of dangers in the five aggregates, and which are allowable by common usage in respect of the five aggregates" < Visuddhimagga Maha Tika (found in the notes on page 747 of Visuddhimagga) Robert 56646 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 4:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana TGrand458@... Hi Howard, All Reading the Suttas, it seems the Buddha was not overly concerned whether a mind had the notion of 'people' being impermanent, afflicted, and not-self; or 'the 5 aggregates' being impermanent, afflicted, and not-self. What WAS/IS crucial is the notion of impermanence, affliction, and no-self. I do grant that the further conditions are reduced to bare elements, the easier it is to understand conditionality principles. However, if the elements are seen as "with individual essence," all is lost, because the tilakkhana are the principles diametrically opposed to that view. TG 56647 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 5:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 3/12/06 11:38:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: > Dear Howard, > > Thank you for engaging me in this discussion, as well as your very > kind words. I hope to learn a lot. May I try responding for now as > follows, and then, as time allows, try to speak more cogently to your > points: > > H: "Your perspective is very clear to me. I would call it > dhamma-centric. I personally find that perspective problematical for > at least two reasons. One is that it invests dhammas, IMO, with > self-nature/identity, as opposed to making them merely conditioned > aspects of a greater, "interconnected whole". (I put this in quotes as > I do not mean to imply a mere bland collection.) A second is that I > think that the dichotomy consisting of dhammas and characteristics > carried by those dhammas is a false one. All dhammas as I view them, > are mere fleeting qualities themselves, and are inseparable, though > distinguishable, from other dhammas. (BTW, I regret even using the > word 'themselves', as it is misleading, but language demands compromise.)" > > S: I find the thesis you put forward regarding an "interconnected > whole" to be worth stopping and looking at. For now I might say, in > my opinion, that you seem to actually be uncomfortable with anicca in > the end. Let me explain: I see you as wanting to posit this > "interconnectedness" to somehow assuage the harshness entailed in the > abhidhammic statements which are to the effect that things completely > fall away and that the next thing arises as conditioned by the last > thing. I'm likely being unfair to you in this, and apologise if so, > but it just seems that to suggest an interconnected whole is to > suggest some vast thing which, in its interconnectedness somehow > defies impermanence. Does this make sense? What do you think? ---------------------------------------------- Howard: I can well understand your saying this, and there is indeed the grave danger in thinking of that "interconnectedness" as some immutable thing. But that isn't at all what I intend. I didn't uses quotes around the phrase "interconnected whole" by accident. In large part that was to avoid reifying the notion. The point was to emphasize that nothing anywhere exists on its own, but only interdependently within a vast network of empty phenomena. Nothing whatsoever, anywhere, stands on its own, but is in fact empty of its very self. Reality, to me, isn't a thing at all really. It is beyond all conditions and characterizations. It really can't even be talked about as an "it". As I view the matter, all that can be said truly in regard to reality is denial. Not lasting, not conditioned, not substantial, not an "it" at all. As for things arising and then fully falling away, what arises and fully falls away in fact never exists at all as an entity. It is nothing more than a momentary appearance with borrowed existence and never other than empty of itself. In reality, there are no substantial entities to arise or pass away, and certainly none to remain either. Both nihilistic nothingness and substantial existence are illusions, as from SN XII.15: _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ "By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. "'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle ... --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Reality is beyond all pairs of opposites, and nothing can accurately put forward of it. As the Korean master Seung Sahn has said, "Open mouth already a mistake!" ------------------------------------------------------ > > I'll have to leave it at this for now, but if I haven't insulted you > then I'd like to take up your other points when I have more time to > consider them. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: That would be great. First of all, I don't insult so easily! Secondly, I don't see insult when none is intended. :-) ------------------------------------------------------ > > Hoping to continue, > > Scott. > > =========================== 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) 56648 From: "Dan D." Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 10:05pm Subject: Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana onco111 Hi Howard, Tell me if this makes any sense: The tilakkhana are essentially three sides to the same coin, viz. the coin of "ungraspability" of paramatthata dhammas. When apprehension of the characteristic of ungraspability leaves the impression "ungraspable, fleeting, gone", we reconstruct it as "anicca". When it leaves the impression "ungraspable, fearful (or painful or disgusting or dangerous or pointless)", we reconstruct it as "dukkha". When it leaves the impression "ungraspable, empty, without core", we reconstruct it as "anatta". I'm not so sure that it matters whether the rigor and completeness of the logic of any particular conceptual scheme of classification is very important here. What is important is the underlying reality and the understanding of it, and not how we conceptualize it or how someone else describes it, don't you think? Dan --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, all - > > On another list, I have raised the question of what it means to > "directly know" impermanence. (The Patisambhidamagga seems to state that it is to be > directly known.) But impermanence isn't paramattha dhamma, is it? It belongs > to none of the five khandhas, being neither rupa nor any mental operation. It > must, therefore, be pa~n~natti. Now that poses two problems: 1) Pa~n~natti, it > is said, cannot be objects of pa~n~na, and, more critically, 2) Pa~n~natti > are actually nothing at all, and thus impermanence must be illusion, since, > after all, the five khandhas constitute "the all", do they not? There seems to be > a bit of a problem here, especially if one is much taken with "realities". > > With metta, > Howard 56649 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 5:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana upasaka_howard Hi, Robert (and Scott) - In a message dated 3/12/06 11:45:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, rjkjp1@... writes: > Dear Howard and Scott, > This old post by Steve is related to your discussion: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/23140 > ""These modes, (that is, the 3 characteristics) are not included in > the aggregates because they are states without individual essence > (asabhaava-dhammaa); and they are not separate from the aggregates > because they are unapprehendable without the aggregates. But they > should be understood as appropriate conceptual differences > (pa~n~natti-visesaa) that are reason for differentiation in the > explaining of dangers in the five aggregates, and which are allowable > by common usage in respect of the five aggregates" Maha Tika (found in the notes on page 747 of Visuddhimagga) > > Robert > =========================== Thank you for this, Robert. However, I readily admit that I really don't understand it. Could you be so kind, please, to explain to me what you think this actually means? What do you understand it to say as to the ontological status of impermanence and the possibility of its being known by pa~n~na? 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) 56650 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 5:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 3/13/06 12:12:55 AM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: > ... if the elements are seen as "with individual essence," all is lost, > because the tilakkhana are the principles diametrically opposed to that view. > ======================== I fully agree! 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) 56651 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 5:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana upasaka_howard Hi, Dan - In a message dated 3/13/06 1:06:52 AM Eastern Standard Time, onco111@... writes: > Hi Howard, > Tell me if this makes any sense: The tilakkhana are essentially three > sides to the same coin, viz. the coin of "ungraspability" of > paramatthata dhammas. When apprehension of the characteristic of > ungraspability leaves the impression "ungraspable, fleeting, gone", > we reconstruct it as "anicca". When it leaves the > impression "ungraspable, fearful (or painful or disgusting or > dangerous or pointless)", we reconstruct it as "dukkha". When it > leaves the impression "ungraspable, empty, without core", we > reconstruct it as "anatta". > > I'm not so sure that it matters whether the rigor and completeness of > the logic of any particular conceptual scheme of classification is > very important here. What is important is the underlying reality and > the understanding of it, and not how we conceptualize it or how > someone else describes it, don't you think? > > Dan > ======================== So, now the subject header need sto be changed to "Ontological Status of Ungraspability"! ;-)) It happens that I *very* much like what you say above with regard to ungraspability and its relationship to the tilakkhana. Your insights and analysis are novel, fresh, and very pleasing to me! :-) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 56652 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 11:06pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Trees and Anger (was Re: Did Buddhaghosa (formal) meditate? (Was: Reasons for staying on DSG sarahprocter... Hi Charles D, --- Charles DaCosta wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > I don't have that much time today to reply but I hope to before I leave > for > Hong Kong on the 30th. .... S: I'll be glad to see your further comments if you have time for them. .... I will be staying until the 20th of April. > > It would also be nice to meet you all when I get there (I am not sure if > I > will have access to the internet) so send me a way to contact you. .... S: home tel: 23697624, Jon's mobile: 92725492 Or co-ordinate with either of us off-list, thanks. We'll look forward to meeting you too. Metta, Sarah ======= 56653 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 11:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Example of the second kind of dukkha? sarahprocter... Hi Phil & Nina, --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Hi Phil, > no. 2: viparinaama dukkha, no 3: dukkha inherent in all conditioned > dhammas > that arise and fall away, sa"nkhaara dukkha. > Example 2: Dispeller of Delusion (p. 113): bodily and mental pleasant > feeling are dukkha in change, of > dukkha through their change>. > For instance you are in good health and live in comfort, but this > changes. > I forgot her answer, but the talks are good. .... S: I'm not sure of this example - it sounds rather like the one Erik gave about enjoying living in a comfortable flat, but then it's lost. K.Sujin stressed that that was an example of the first, dukkha dukkha. I think she gave the example of choosing toilet paper!! She stressed the aspect of pleasant feeling when we move from one object to another, like at a buffet of food, following the pleasant feelings. She said it was much quicker than this of course, just following pleasant feelings all the time. Perhaps it was this aspect you were stressing above and I misunderstood. It's much easier to understand the unpleasant feelings as dukkha, but of course, pleasant feelings are just as much dukkha because they change and I think this is what is stressed. Phil, thanks for your comments. Howard picked up on exactly this same point. Look forward to more of your feedback. Does anyone else have any? Metta, Sarah ====== 56654 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 11:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] New Member sarahprocter... Hi Newtone, --- Madhoor wrote: > Regards to all, > > I have just now joined this Group. I have been fortunate enought to be > in company of friends who are studying dhamma. Have superficial > knowledge of meditation and dhamma. Wish to learn more.. Hope all > here will give me a chance to learn more. > > Newtone. .... S: Welcome here from me as well. Thanks for introducing yourself and I hope you find it helpful being on DSG. Where do you live and where is your group of friends? Please ask any questions (however simple) and make any comments or ask for any clarifications anytime. You may wish to ignore some of the more complex discussions for the time being. In 'Useful Posts' in the files, there are some past posts put aside on 'New to the list....' and also 'Abhidhamma -beginners'. These may be helpful as may the simple Pali glossary in 'files'. Just ask for any help and look f/w to hearing more from you. Metta, Sarah ========= 56655 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Mar 13, 2006 0:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Question from Reg ... sarahprocter... Hi Chris & Reg, By coincidence, I was listening to (and editing) a very good discussion on this same question which you raised in India. It's good to have Reg's input as well -we enjoyed our friendly discussions with him last year in Australia. Thx for sharing this, Chris. --- Christine Forsyth wrote: From Reg: "If doing reading/studying of the Dhamma comes about by conditions, then doing sitting meditation must come about by conditions. The impression from dsg is that meditating is mostly considered as evidence of 'self view', and reading, discussing and reflecting on the dhamma is mostly not seen this way. Why?" .... I think as Phil said, self-view can arise at anytime. Only the development of wisdom will know it for what it is – we need to consider a lot more about dhammas (realities), otherwise wrong views will never be known when they arise. Strictly speaking, it is dhammas which arise by conditions, not ideas about reading/studying or sitting meditation. We can only know for ourselves what is the purpose or idea behind the sitting meditation, reading/studying or any other activity. Is there a subtle (or not so subtle) idea of willing dhammas to be a particular way at such times or an idea that quiet or special focusing assists? Right now, we're writing and reading letters and the dhammas (realities) can be known. What is the purpose of thinking about other activities or other dhammas? Is there an idea that somehow another time, another place, another activity will be more suitable for our practice, for the understanding of these dhammas? As I wrote recently to another friend, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/56442 >To elaborate a little further, there's no need to 'try to do' anything at all, even to be aware, because every moment, every dhamma is conditioned already as you point out. For example, now we're sitting at our computers and there's touching the keyboard. If we have an idea of touching another object at this moment or experiencing any particular object in order for understanding to arise, it means there's no awareness of the present dhamma (reality) appearing. There's an idea at such a time that I can touch another object or experience something different, which is impossible. Even when we are thinking about developing kusala states or trying to have them arise by intention, it's like we're preparing for another moment in the future. Similarly, when we mark or label states that have just past, it's like we're tracking those dhammas which have already gone. Instead, if there's understanding now of a reality such as touching or tangible object, seeing or visible object or thinking as it appears, slowly these dhammas can begin to be known as dhatus (elements). There have been some recent discussions on sotapannas. As I see it, this is the only way to become a sotapanna, i.e by developing detachment towards whatever dhamma is conditioned at this moment, not by limiting or restricting the field of objects in anyway with a lurking idea of self. When we focus on the rupas of the body, 'do cittanupassana' or attend to the particular mental factors we'd like to see arise such as metta, I don't believe there is any understanding of conditioned dhammas. As the oft-quoted lines in the Anattalakkhana sutta stress, the Buddha said that 'If consciousness were the self, this consciousness would not lend itself to disease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.' And so on for the other khandhas. But, the khandhas are anatta and they cannot be made to arise by will. As soon as there is attachment to particular dhammas arising, to results of any kind or there's any idea of 'trying to do' in order for there to be understanding at this moment, its not any awareness of the present dhamma appearing. This is true whether the 'trying to do' is by sitting in a special way or place, focussing on cittas, reading texts, listening to A.Sujin, reading DSG(!) or anything else with an idea of willing the present dhamma to be of any particular kind, however noble those intentions might appear.< ..... Reg, thanks for your question. Please do join in more of our discussions here - your keen interest in dhamma, deep reflections and good humour would be a real asset. I’ll be glad to hear any comments either of you (Reg & Chris) or anyone else has on any of these points. Metta, Sarah p.s Chris, would you also kindly give Reg a copy of these recent letters of Jon’s which I think are relevant: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/55811 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/55622 Also, of course, anyting else from U.P. under ‘Meditation in the texts’, ‘Bhavana’, ‘Practice’, ‘Pariyatti etc...’:)). ======== 56656 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 11:10pm Subject: How to Cure Envy and Jealousy ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: Envy and Jealousy is a mix of own internal egoistic Greed and Hate! How to cure these painful mental states of Envy & Jealousy: 1: Review the Danger in Envy & Jealousy like this: 'Ooh this is the very Acid eating up my mind from within... All Happiness is Destroyed!' 2: Know that Envy & Jealousy arise because one wants something that another has! Then aversion towards that person arise. Wanting (greed) is Craving towards an object. Aversion (hate) is Craving away from an object. All forms of Craving causes Suffering! Know that Envy & Jealousy is the proximate cause of frustrated Dissatisfaction. 3: Envy & Jealousy is cured by rejoicing in other's success & gains: Mutual Joy! (Mudita) 'How good that this being, having done good in the past, now earns the well deserved fruit!!!' Thus one substitutes a disadvantageous mental state with an advantageous mental state. Know that Mutual Joy! (Mudita) is the proximate cause of satisfied Contentment. 4: Begin and Cultivate meditation on Infinite Mutual Joy: Sit down a silent & empty place with closed eye and beam from this the heart: 'May I be successful, rich, beautiful, famous, intelligent, popular and praised!' then: 'May my friends be successful, rich, beautiful, famous, intelligent, popular and praised!' 'May my enemies be successful, rich, beautiful, famous, intelligent, popular and praised!' 'May all in this village be successful, rich, beautiful, famous, intelligent, popular and praised!' 'May all in this country be successful, rich, beautiful, famous, intelligent, popular and praised!' 'May all in this earth be successful, rich, beautiful, famous, intelligent, popular and praised!' 'May all in this galaxy be successful, rich, beautiful, famous, intelligent, popular and praised!' 'May all in this universe be successful, rich, beautiful, famous, intelligent, popular and praised!' beaming this tender sympathy out from the heart first out in front, the right, left, back, above as below, so gradually expanding up to and beyond the limitations of space and into the infinitude!!! 5: Keep on doing that 15-45 min every day. Note the difference in joyous mentality during the day! May all beings rejoice in Mutual Joy celebrating all beings success, since any real progress is good! One should not despise giving. One should neither envy others. One who envy others cannot attain absorption and will never enter any concentrated trance. Dhammapada 365 Neither nice speech nor serene behaviour make one accomplished, if one is still possessed of envy, miserliness or deceit. Dhammapada 262 Absorbed in distractions, not paying appropriate attention, giving up the goal, following the pleasant, one come to envy those who of right effort! Dhammapada 209 see also: Rejoicing Bliss = Mudita -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PS: Please include the word Samahita in any comment, since then will my automatic mail filters pick it up and I will see it & respond!! Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. Friendship is the Greatest ... Let there be Calm & Free Bliss !!! <...> 56657 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Feb 12, 2006 9:00pm Subject: Great is Google Gmail! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: Google Gmail is Giantly Great: The free Google Gmail Offers: > 2.5 Gigabyte storage !!! No advertisements... Highly efficient Spam filtering! Free, multiple & filterable Forwarding. Free POP and SMTP mail client access. IMHO the very best free email currently. One needs to be invited to it though... If anyone is interested in a free gmail account, then send an email to me: bhikkhu.samahita@... including these words: samahita & gmail, then I will mail you an invitation asap... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PS: Please include the word Samahita in any comment, since then will my automatic mail filters pick it up and I will see it & respond!! Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. Friendship is the Greatest ... Let there be Calm & Free Bliss !!! <...> 56658 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Mon Mar 13, 2006 1:54am Subject: Re: Question from Reg ... christine_fo... Hello all, Thank you for your responses to Reg's question. I have forwarded them to his work email address - he doesn't have a home computer, so cannot read or access the posts on DSG. I'll let you know of his reply (if any), and any further questions - should they arise. metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- 56659 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 61 and Tiika. nilovg Hi Larry, Your summary is correct. op 13-03-2006 03:09 schreef LBIDD@... op LBIDD@...: > all these are conditioned by ignorance ------- N: I am listening to tapes by Kh Sujin about the D.O. I like to add something. We have to remember that all these cittas (for me, the jhaanacittas being excepted) pertain to our life at this moment. There is thinking now and this is with either kusala citta or akusala citta, but mostly with akusala citta. This thinking is sankhaara, conditioned by avijjaa, ignorance. All the factors of D.O. are not just terms, they are realities. We lost our way for such a long time because of ignorance, also in past lives. Therefore it is difficult to proceed on the way leading to the end of the cycle. Vipassanaa, awareness and direct understanding of dhammas, leads to the end of the cycle, but it is difficult to be aware of seeing and visible object. Visible object appears to seeing, not to a perosn, to me. But we are used to the idea of 'I see'. We can ask ourselves: is there sankhaara now? Where does it come from? Nina. 56660 From: "gazita2002" Date: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:12am Subject: Re: Cetasikas' study corner 393- Beautiful Cetasikas (Sobhana Cetasikas)accumulation. gazita2002 Hello Han, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Azita, > > Thank you very much for your mail. > When I said I would not speak anymore, I said it with > consideration for others' feelings. > For me, it is no problem. I have an open mind. > > I do believe the anatta doctrine. > I often recite Anattalakkhana Sutta in Pali words with > absolute faith in the doctrine. > At the same time, I believe that I could do something > to improve my kamma. > I accept that paramattha dhammas arise on conditions. > But I also believe that, to some extent, I can > condition those conditions. azita: I'd like to suggest that intention arises with each moment of consciousness, and that when we think we can do something, that intention has gone already. Its as if the conventional thinking is a result of the just- passed reality, not the other way round. Like the cittas and cetasikas that arise and pass away condition the thinking. would like to hear your comments on this, Han Patience, courage and good cheer, azita 56661 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Mar 13, 2006 6:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Letter to Phil 1. Detachment. nilovg Hi Phil, when you are back on line next weekend, I will not be there. We go away for a long weekend, Fridy-Monday. I am glad the Dhamma helped you when you were with your parents. When we watched my father's declining with age it was a grim reminder for us. I choose some points of your letter. op 11-03-2006 14:43 schreef Phil op philco777@...: I >I have never had a moment of mindfulness of a reality as far as I > know, though I guess I may have. I have had lots of moments of clear > thinking about the very very very very recent past. And that is > better than being in a complete fog. But it is not mindfulness. But > I am not pressing. When there are conditions for mindfulness, there > will be mindfulness, and not a moment sooner. --------- Rob K used to say, thinking in the present moment. Mostly we are totally absorbed in concepts and events, but sometimes there can be consideration of hardness now, sound now. Without trying, without planning, unexpectantly. Rob K explained that this could happen when walking in a market or busy place, and that it was unexpectantly. This is a good example. But even if there is a slight trying, we can learn that this is not sati, that we are on the wrong track, trying to take over the task of citta and cetasika, which is absurd. In this way we can learn the difference between the moment of absorption in concepts and considering dhamma now, or a beginning of awareness. There is sati, but at the level of listening, considering. --------- Ph: Anyways, my point is that yes the self is trying to do something, > always, except, again, for those rare moments. "Wealthy man!" ------ N: Here I should explain to others your remark. The late Ven. Dhammadharo used to say this: true awareness, even one moment, is precious and it can accumulate. Even once in a lifetime, he said. Just a remark: when I say something loosely during the discussions as taped, do not pay too much attention to it. I just exclaimed in my enthusiasm that I learnt much in Bgk, or India. Or somewhere I wrote: considering after each para: I meant thinking it over, not satipatthana. Some misunderstandings may easily arise. To conclude, I quote something from the tape. < When one understands that each reality is conditioned, it means that there is no encouragement for a an idea of self to have sati, there is disencouragement to this. No one can condition the arising of any reality at all. There is no 'I' who understands, but understanding understands. This is the way to become detached. When sound appears, we do not have to say that it is sound, that characteristic appears at that very moment. There is nothing, then a dhamma like sound appears, and then it is gone. This sounds very common, but when understanding develops, it will be clear that there is no self at all. Dhammas arise because of conditions. If there is no understanding, there is an idea of self who observes.> Nina. 56662 From: han tun Date: Mon Mar 13, 2006 6:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasikas' study corner 393- Beautiful Cetasikas (Sobhana Cetasikas)accumulation. hantun1 Dear Azita, Azita: I'd like to suggest that intention arises with each moment of consciousness, and that when we think we can do something, that intention has gone already. Its as if the conventional thinking is a result of the just-passed reality, not the other way round. Like the cittas and cetasikas that arise and pass away condition the thinking. -------------------- Han: Maybe so. But it is beyond my comprehension to know that much details. Anyway, I thank you for your suggestion. With metta, Han --- gazita2002 wrote: > Hello Han, > azita: I'd like to suggest that intention arises > with each moment > of consciousness, and that when we think we can do > something, that > intention has gone already. 56663 From: "indriyabala" Date: Mon Mar 13, 2006 6:23am Subject: Re: Question from Reg ... indriyabala Hi Chris - Today home computer is a consumer product and it is cheap. So the reason for Reg to have no computer at home is likely not financial. Is it because he wants to have peaceful seclusion after work? If I got rid of my home computer, I would have up to 5 hours a day I can use for peaceful contemplation! Peace, Tep ===== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christine Forsyth" wrote: > > Hello all, > > Thank you for your responses to Reg's question. I have forwarded them > to his work email address - he doesn't have a home computer, so cannot > read or access the posts on DSG. I'll let you know of his reply (if > any), and any further questions - should they arise. > > metta > Chris > ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- > 56664 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Mar 13, 2006 6:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Occupation success/failure nilovg Hi Andrew, good to hear from you again. The skillfullness in occupation deals with some examples in daily life and are in conventional terms as you remark. But situations can be analysed into different moments of citta, some kusala cittas, some akusala cittas. Skillfullness and expertise have been accumulated, even from past lives.We could say, they are conditions by way of natural decisive support condition, pakatupanissaya paccaya. Some people are clumsy, whatever they handle, they break or destroy it. Some are deft, and whatever comes from their hands is excellent, beautiful. It is all a question of accumulated inclinations. A clumsy person will be prone to accident more easily, thus, akusala kamma has an opportunity to produce result. Don't we see this in our surroundings? Such factors are beyond control. Just like the other factors that are favorable for kusala kamma or akusala kamma to produce result: such as being born in time of war or in time of peace. Or being born in a place where you can hear the Dhamma, or a place where there is not such an opportunity. Sometimes when a person has an accident, we say: he was at the wrong place, and he was there at the wrong time. All this is not be accident, it has conditions. The way kamma operates is very intricate, and we cannot know much about it. So many factors play their parts. What is your opinion? It is nice to talk to you, Nina. op 12-03-2006 23:04 schreef Andrew op athel60@...: > I have a question about something in Khun Sujin's "A Survey of > Paramattha Dhammas". In chapter 14, The Cycle of Birth and Death, > she refers to 4 (or 8)conditioning factors re whether kamma produces > fruit. One is success (or failure) in one's occupation. > Page 138: "Success or failure in one's means or occupation (payoga > sampatti and vipatti) are also factors that condition kamma to > produce result or that can prevent kamma from producing result. .... Success or failure in occupation seems to me to be a basket of > concepts and conventional designations (occupation/task/competence > and so on) and I am wondering how to interpret the above passage in > the impersonal, mind-moment fashion more familiar to Abhidhammikas? 56665 From: "Dan D." Date: Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:36am Subject: Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana onco111 Dear Howard, I'm glad you liked my comments. And, as long as we're thinking about changing the name of the thread, why not change it to "The status of 'ontology'"? What I'm getting at is that I don't think Buddha was concerned at all about the ontological status of anything at all. The Dhamma simply describes the perception/vision/view/understanding of the liberated man and constrasts it with unliberated and unliberating perceptions/visions/views. Several times in the suttas the view that "contemplating the ontological status of [things] is important" is dismissed as unliberating (alluring though it may be). Another version of the Mulapariyaya sutta (MN 1) might just as well read: "The assutava puthajjana perceives tilakkhana as 'tilakkhana'. Having perceived tilakkhana as 'tilakkhana', he conceives 'tilakkhana'..." The tilakkhana are simply a nice, succinct description of a liberating view. When a moment is impressed as "ungraspable", call it anatta, anicca, or dukkha. To dwell on what it *IS* that you are calling anatta/anicca/dukkha or to dwell on what the tilakkhana *ARE* seems to me to be nothing more than an exercise in grasping to put a core in what is coreless, in reification. Metta, Dan --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Dan - > > In a message dated 3/13/06 1:06:52 AM Eastern Standard Time, > onco111@... writes: > > > Hi Howard, > > Tell me if this makes any sense: The tilakkhana are essentially three > > sides to the same coin, viz. the coin of "ungraspability" of > > paramatthata dhammas. When apprehension of the characteristic of > > ungraspability leaves the impression "ungraspable, fleeting, gone", > > we reconstruct it as "anicca". When it leaves the > > impression "ungraspable, fearful (or painful or disgusting or > > dangerous or pointless)", we reconstruct it as "dukkha". When it > > leaves the impression "ungraspable, empty, without core", we > > reconstruct it as "anatta". > > > > I'm not so sure that it matters whether the rigor and completeness of > > the logic of any particular conceptual scheme of classification is > > very important here. What is important is the underlying reality and > > the understanding of it, and not how we conceptualize it or how > > someone else describes it, don't you think? > > > > Dan > > > ======================== > So, now the subject header need sto be changed to "Ontological Status > of Ungraspability"! ;-)) > It happens that I *very* much like what you say above with regard to > ungraspability and its relationship to the tilakkhana. Your insights and > analysis are novel, fresh, and very pleasing to me! :-) > > With metta, > Howard 56666 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Mar 13, 2006 4:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana upasaka_howard Hi, Dan - In a message dated 3/13/06 11:38:03 AM Eastern Standard Time, onco111@... writes: > Dear Howard, > I'm glad you liked my comments. ------------------------------------------ Howard: And this makes two in a row, Dan!! Three cheers for phenomenology and pragmatism, and a back seat for ontology!! :-) ===================== With metta, Howard P.S. The content of your post follows without further comment of mine. > > And, as long as we're thinking about changing the name of the thread, > why not change it to "The status of 'ontology'"? What I'm getting at > is that I don't think Buddha was concerned at all about the > ontological status of anything at all. The Dhamma simply describes > the perception/vision/view/understanding of the liberated man and > constrasts it with unliberated and unliberating > perceptions/visions/views. Several times in the suttas the view > that "contemplating the ontological status of [things] is important" > is dismissed as unliberating (alluring though it may be). > > Another version of the Mulapariyaya sutta (MN 1) might just as well > read: "The assutava puthajjana perceives tilakkhana as 'tilakkhana'. > Having perceived tilakkhana as 'tilakkhana', he > conceives 'tilakkhana'..." > > The tilakkhana are simply a nice, succinct description of a > liberating view. When a moment is impressed as "ungraspable", call it > anatta, anicca, or dukkha. To dwell on what it *IS* that you are > calling anatta/anicca/dukkha or to dwell on what the tilakkhana *ARE* > seems to me to be nothing more than an exercise in grasping to put a > core in what is coreless, in reification. > > Metta, > > Dan > /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) 56667 From: "Pablo" Date: Mon Mar 13, 2006 9:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] about DSG cerini_pablo sarah abbott wrote: > S: As Nina said, pls don't compare levels of knowledge. dear Sarah and Nina, thank you. you' re right : in comparing there's always deceit. I'll try to snap in as soon as I read the various threads. pablo 56668 From: "Pablo" Date: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:01am Subject: Re: Letter to Phil 1. Detachment. cerini_pablo --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: >I always warn of lobha at work in people who > intentionally seek sati. He said of course there is lobha when he > sits and tried to have satipatthana...there's also lobha if he's > walking down there street and tries to identify paramattha dhammas, > present realities. I don't understand well this point.It's not the first time that I face it, so I take the chance to point out this. I feel grateful for the warning, because sometimes yes, I feel that I start the bhavana with pride or subtle desire for "special effects" in mind. But if one doesn't *intentionally* sit and try to have satipatthana, how could he on the other hand do ? should one wait for an arising citta that spontaneously brings sati into bagavha ? when I sit thinking "now I'll meditate to reach nibbana",ok, in this moment there's surely lobha, but I think that it's a matter of overcoming deceit by deceit. Cerini Pablo 56669 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Letter to Phil 1. Detachment. nilovg Hi Pablo, op 13-03-2006 19:01 schreef Pablo op cerini_pablo@...: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: >> I always warn of lobha at work in people who >> intentionally seek sati. He said of course there is lobha when he >> sits and tried to have satipatthana...there's also lobha if he's >> walking down there street and tries to identify paramattha dhammas, >> present realities. > > I don't understand well this point.It's not the first time > that I face it, so I take the chance to point out this. > I feel grateful for the > warning, because sometimes yes, I feel that I start the > bhavana with pride or subtle desire for "special effects" in mind. > But if one doesn't *intentionally* sit and try to have > satipatthana, how could he on the other hand do ? ------ N: This seems to me more like samatha, not vipassana or satipatthaana. Because the object of vipassana is any, any object that presents itself through one of the six doors, the sense-doors or the mind-door. This happens not just when sitting, but in any posture. ------- P: should one > wait for an arising citta that spontaneously brings > sati into bavanaa ? ------ N: It is not a matter of waiting for the arising of sati. When you have right understanding of what sati is, a mental quality that accompanies kusala citta, and what the object of sati is, there are conditions for sati. But it cannot arise when you have expectations. -------- P: when I sit thinking "now I'll meditate to reach nibbana",ok, > in this moment there's surely lobha, but I think that > it's a matter of overcoming deceit by deceit. ------- N: It is overcoming by paññaa, paññaa knows when there is lobha. I do not think I have given you a complete answer, but ask whatever is not clear yet. Nina. 56670 From: Matthew Miller Date: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:31am Subject: Why I Can't Embrace Buddhism bupleurum Hi All, I recently found the following article by John Horgan, a science writer for Scientific American. Horgan, a former Buddhist practitioner, now takes a skeptical view of Buddhism. I would be interested to hear feedback on his article "Why I Can't Embrace Buddhism". For example, what do you make of Horgan's claim that "Buddhism is functionally theistic, even if it avoids the 'G' word. Like its parent religion Hinduism, Buddhism espouses... karma, the law of moral cause and effect... [which implies] the existence of some cosmic judge who, like Santa Claus, tallies up our naughtiness and niceness before rewarding us with rebirth as a cockroach or as a saintly lama." Also, Horgan points out that, like Catholicism, Buddhism exalts monasticism "as the epitome of spirituality. It seems legitimate to ask whether a path that turns away from aspects of life as essential as sexuality and parenthood is truly spiritual. From this perspective, the very concept of enlightenment begins to look anti-spiritual: It suggests that life is a problem that can be solved, a cul-de-sac that can be, and should be, escaped." Matthew Why I Can't Embrace Buddhism Slate, February 12, 2003 Buddhist Retreat Why I gave up on finding my religion. By John Horgan For a 2,500-year-old religion, Buddhism seems remarkably compatible with our scientifically oriented culture, which may explain its surging popularity here in America. Over the last 15 years, the number of Buddhist centers in the United States has more than doubled, to well over 1,000. As many as 4 million Americans now practice Buddhism, surpassing the total of Episcopalians. Of these Buddhists, half have post-graduate degrees, according to one survey. Recently, convergences between science and Buddhism have been explored in a slew of books—including Zen and the Brain and The Psychology of Awakening—and scholarly meetings. Next fall Harvard will host a colloquium titled "Investigating the Mind," where leading cognitive scientists will swap theories with the Dalai Lama. Just the other week the New York Times hailed the "rapprochement between modern science and ancient [Buddhist] wisdom." Four years ago, I joined a Buddhist meditation class and began talking to (and reading books by) intellectuals sympathetic to Buddhism. Eventually, and regretfully, I concluded that Buddhism is not much more rational than the Catholicism I lapsed from in my youth; Buddhism's moral and metaphysical worldview cannot easily be reconciled with science—or, more generally, with modern humanistic values. For many, a chief selling point of Buddhism is its supposed de-emphasis of supernatural notions such as immortal souls and God. Buddhism "rejects the theological impulse," the philosopher Owen Flanagan declares approvingly in The Problem of the Soul. Actually, Buddhism is functionally theistic, even if it avoids the "G" word. Like its parent religion Hinduism, Buddhism espouses reincarnation, which holds that after death our souls are re-instantiated in new bodies, and karma, the law of moral cause and effect. Together, these tenets imply the existence of some cosmic judge who, like Santa Claus, tallies up our naughtiness and niceness before rewarding us with rebirth as a cockroach or as a saintly lama. Western Buddhists usually downplay these supernatural elements, insisting that Buddhism isn't so much a religion as a practical method for achieving happiness. They depict Buddha as a pragmatist who eschewed metaphysical speculation and focused on reducing human suffering. As the Buddhist scholar Robert Thurman put it, Buddhism is an "inner science," an empirical discipline for fulfilling our minds' potential. The ultimate goal is the state of preternatural bliss, wisdom, and moral grace sometimes called enlightenment—Buddhism's version of heaven, except that you don't have to die to get there. The major vehicle for achieving enlightenment is meditation, touted by both Buddhists and alternative-medicine gurus as a potent way to calm and comprehend our minds. The trouble is, decades of research have shown meditation's effects to be highly unreliable, as James Austin, a neurologist and Zen Buddhist, points out in Zen and Brain. Yes, it can reduce stress, but, as it turns out, no more so than simply sitting still does. Meditation can even exacerbate depression, anxiety, and other negative emotions in certain people. The insights imputed to meditation are questionable, too. Meditation, the brain researcher Francisco Varela told me before he died in 2001, confirms the Buddhist doctrine of anatta, which holds that the self is an illusion. Varela contended that anatta has also been corroborated by cognitive science, which has discovered that our perception of our minds as discrete, unified entities is an illusion foisted upon us by our clever brains. In fact, all that cognitive science has revealed is that the mind is an emergent phenomenon, which is difficult to explain or predict in terms of its parts; few scientists would equate the property of emergence with nonexistence, as anatta does. Much more dubious is Buddhism's claim that perceiving yourself as in some sense unreal will make you happier and more compassionate. Ideally, as the British psychologist and Zen practitioner Susan Blackmore writes in The Meme Machine, when you embrace your essential selflessness, "guilt, shame, embarrassment, self-doubt, and fear of failure ebb away and you become, contrary to expectation, a better neighbor." But most people are distressed by sensations of unreality, which are quite common and can be induced by drugs, fatigue, trauma, and mental illness as well as by meditation. Even if you achieve a blissful acceptance of the illusory nature of your self, this perspective may not transform you into a saintly bodhisattva, brimming with love and compassion for all other creatures. Far from it—and this is where the distance between certain humanistic values and Buddhism becomes most apparent. To someone who sees himself and others as unreal, human suffering and death may appear laughably trivial. This may explain why some Buddhist masters have behaved more like nihilists than saints. Chogyam Trungpa, who helped introduce Tibetan Buddhism to the United States in the 1970s, was a promiscuous drunk and bully, and he died of alcohol-related illness in 1987. Zen lore celebrates the sadistic or masochistic behavior of sages such as Bodhidharma, who is said to have sat in meditation for so long that his legs became gangrenous. What's worse, Buddhism holds that enlightenment makes you morally infallible—like the pope, but more so. Even the otherwise sensible James Austin perpetuates this insidious notion. " 'Wrong' actions won't arise," he writes, "when a brain continues truly to express the self-nature intrinsic to its [transcendent] experiences." Buddhists infected with this belief can easily excuse their teachers' abusive acts as hallmarks of a "crazy wisdom" that the unenlightened cannot fathom. But what troubles me most about Buddhism is its implication that detachment from ordinary life is the surest route to salvation. Buddha's first step toward enlightenment was his abandonment of his wife and child, and Buddhism (like Catholicism) still exalts male monasticism as the epitome of spirituality. It seems legitimate to ask whether a path that turns away from aspects of life as essential as sexuality and parenthood is truly spiritual. From this perspective, the very concept of enlightenment begins to look anti-spiritual: It suggests that life is a problem that can be solved, a cul-de-sac that can be, and should be, escaped. Some Western Buddhists have argued that principles such as reincarnation, anatta, and enlightenment are not essential to Buddhism. In Buddhism Without Beliefs and The Faith To Doubt, the British teacher Stephen Batchelor eloquently describes his practice as a method for confronting—rather than transcending—the often painful mystery of life. But Batchelor seems to have arrived at what he calls an "agnostic" perspective in spite of his Buddhist training -— not because of it. When I asked him why he didn't just call himself an agnostic, Batchelor shrugged and said he sometimes wondered himself. All religions, including Buddhism, stem from our narcissistic wish to believe that the universe was created for our benefit, as a stage for our spiritual quests. In contrast, science tells us that we are incidental, accidental. Far from being the raison d'être of the universe, we appeared through sheer happenstance, and we could vanish in the same way. This is not a comforting viewpoint, but science, unlike religion, seeks truth regardless of how it makes us feel. Buddhism raises radical questions about our inner and outer reality, but it is finally not radical enough to accommodate science's disturbing perspective. The remaining question is whether any form of spirituality can. 56671 From: "icarofranca" Date: Mon Mar 13, 2006 0:01pm Subject: Re: Why I Can't Embrace Buddhism icarofranca Hi Matthew! Sorry if Mr. Horgan thinks in this way about Buddhism...his opinions are very tainted out by many mahayana characteristics, like the necessity of a link between Kamma and a supposed-to-be High Spiritual Judge...one can thinks about how many divulgation of Buddhism on Mahayana´s teachings basis had ill-formed public opinion about the Real Doctrine of Buddha! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Also, Horgan points out that, like Catholicism, Buddhism exalts > monasticism "as the epitome of spirituality. It seems legitimate to > ask whether a path that turns away from aspects of life as essential > as sexuality and parenthood is truly spiritual. From this > perspective, the very concept of enlightenment begins to look > anti-spiritual: It suggests that life is a problem that can be > solved, a cul-de-sac that can be, and should be, escaped." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- So only now Mr. Horgan perceived that Buddhism has a monastic nature ? Or that enlightment hasn´t any deal with theistic spirituality? It seems to me that Buddhism for mr. Horgan could be a mind game for sophisticated tastes or a short Cut coming out from scientific problems...sadly for him, of course, Buddhism HAS a monastic feature and doesn´t consider sexuality or parenthood as essential for the Noble Path: Tantric Buddhism is a heterodoxical development that couldn´t exist on true Buddhism, and MANY suttas describes encounters of Buddha with His former wife, parents and relatives like Ananda on a doctrinary basis only, debunking any idea about the value of mundane parenthood on the Way to Nibbana. Well, Mr. Horgan could now do better leaving his "idea" of Buddhism and embrace someting else, more fitted to his biased viewpoints... Mettaya Ícaro (Follows mr.Horgan´s article, to geral analysis) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Why I Can't Embrace Buddhism > Slate, February 12, 2003 > Buddhist Retreat > Why I gave up on finding my religion. > By John Horgan > > For a 2,500-year-old religion, Buddhism seems remarkably compatible > with our scientifically oriented culture, which may explain its > surging popularity here in America. Over the last 15 years, the > number of Buddhist centers in the United States has more than > doubled, to well over 1,000. As many as 4 million Americans now > practice Buddhism, surpassing the total of Episcopalians. Of these > Buddhists, half have post-graduate degrees, according to one survey. > Recently, convergences between science and Buddhism have been > explored in a slew of books—including Zen and the Brain and The > Psychology of Awakening—and scholarly meetings. Next fall Harvard > will host a colloquium titled "Investigating the Mind," where leading > cognitive scientists will swap theories with the Dalai Lama. Just the > other week the New York Times hailed the "rapprochement between > modern science and ancient [Buddhist] wisdom." > > Four years ago, I joined a Buddhist meditation class and began > talking to (and reading books by) intellectuals sympathetic to > Buddhism. Eventually, and regretfully, I concluded that Buddhism is > not much more rational than the Catholicism I lapsed from in my > youth; Buddhism's moral and metaphysical worldview cannot easily be > reconciled with science—or, more generally, with modern humanistic > values. > > For many, a chief selling point of Buddhism is its supposed > de-emphasis of supernatural notions such as immortal souls and God. > Buddhism "rejects the theological impulse," the philosopher Owen > Flanagan declares approvingly in The Problem of the Soul. Actually, > Buddhism is functionally theistic, even if it avoids the "G" word. > Like its parent religion Hinduism, Buddhism espouses reincarnation, > which holds that after death our souls are re-instantiated in new > bodies, and karma, the law of moral cause and effect. Together, these > tenets imply the existence of some cosmic judge who, like Santa > Claus, tallies up our naughtiness and niceness before rewarding us > with rebirth as a cockroach or as a saintly lama. > > Western Buddhists usually downplay these supernatural elements, > insisting that Buddhism isn't so much a religion as a practical > method for achieving happiness. They depict Buddha as a pragmatist > who eschewed metaphysical speculation and focused on reducing human > suffering. As the Buddhist scholar Robert Thurman put it, Buddhism is > an "inner science," an empirical discipline for fulfilling our minds' > potential. The ultimate goal is the state of preternatural bliss, > wisdom, and moral grace sometimes called enlightenment—Buddhism's > version of heaven, except that you don't have to die to get there. > > The major vehicle for achieving enlightenment is meditation, touted > by both Buddhists and alternative-medicine gurus as a potent way to > calm and comprehend our minds. The trouble is, decades of research > have shown meditation's effects to be highly unreliable, as James > Austin, a neurologist and Zen Buddhist, points out in Zen and Brain. > Yes, it can reduce stress, but, as it turns out, no more so than > simply sitting still does. Meditation can even exacerbate depression, > anxiety, and other negative emotions in certain people. > > The insights imputed to meditation are questionable, too. Meditation, > the brain researcher Francisco Varela told me before he died in 2001, > confirms the Buddhist doctrine of anatta, which holds that the self > is an illusion. Varela contended that anatta has also been > corroborated by cognitive science, which has discovered that our > perception of our minds as discrete, unified entities is an illusion > foisted upon us by our clever brains. In fact, all that cognitive > science has revealed is that the mind is an emergent phenomenon, > which is difficult to explain or predict in terms of its parts; few > scientists would equate the property of emergence with nonexistence, > as anatta does. > > Much more dubious is Buddhism's claim that perceiving yourself as in > some sense unreal will make you happier and more compassionate. > Ideally, as the British psychologist and Zen practitioner Susan > Blackmore writes in The Meme Machine, when you embrace your essential > selflessness, "guilt, shame, embarrassment, self-doubt, and fear of > failure ebb away and you become, contrary to expectation, a better > neighbor." But most people are distressed by sensations of unreality, > which are quite common and can be induced by drugs, fatigue, trauma, > and mental illness as well as by meditation. > > Even if you achieve a blissful acceptance of the illusory nature of > your self, this perspective may not transform you into a saintly > bodhisattva, brimming with love and compassion for all other > creatures. Far from it—and this is where the distance between certain > humanistic values and Buddhism becomes most apparent. To someone who > sees himself and others as unreal, human suffering and death may > appear laughably trivial. This may explain why some Buddhist masters > have behaved more like nihilists than saints. Chogyam Trungpa, who > helped introduce Tibetan Buddhism to the United States in the 1970s, > was a promiscuous drunk and bully, and he died of alcohol-related > illness in 1987. Zen lore celebrates the sadistic or masochistic > behavior of sages such as Bodhidharma, who is said to have sat in > meditation for so long that his legs became gangrenous. > > What's worse, Buddhism holds that enlightenment makes you morally > infallible—like the pope, but more so. Even the otherwise sensible > James Austin perpetuates this insidious notion. " 'Wrong' actions > won't arise," he writes, "when a brain continues truly to express the > self-nature intrinsic to its [transcendent] experiences." Buddhists > infected with this belief can easily excuse their teachers' abusive > acts as hallmarks of a "crazy wisdom" that the unenlightened cannot > fathom. > > But what troubles me most about Buddhism is its implication that > detachment from ordinary life is the surest route to salvation. > Buddha's first step toward enlightenment was his abandonment of his > wife and child, and Buddhism (like Catholicism) still exalts male > monasticism as the epitome of spirituality. It seems legitimate to > ask whether a path that turns away from aspects of life as essential > as sexuality and parenthood is truly spiritual. From this > perspective, the very concept of enlightenment begins to look > anti-spiritual: It suggests that life is a problem that can be > solved, a cul-de-sac that can be, and should be, escaped. > > Some Western Buddhists have argued that principles such as > reincarnation, anatta, and enlightenment are not essential to > Buddhism. In Buddhism Without Beliefs and The Faith To Doubt, the > British teacher Stephen Batchelor eloquently describes his practice > as a method for confronting—rather than transcending—the often > painful mystery of life. But Batchelor seems to have arrived at what > he calls an "agnostic" perspective in spite of his Buddhist training > -— not because of it. When I asked him why he didn't just call > himself an agnostic, Batchelor shrugged and said he sometimes > wondered himself. > > All religions, including Buddhism, stem from our narcissistic wish to > believe that the universe was created for our benefit, as a stage for > our spiritual quests. In contrast, science tells us that we are > incidental, accidental. Far from being the raison d'être of the > universe, we appeared through sheer happenstance, and we could vanish > in the same way. This is not a comforting viewpoint, but science, > unlike religion, seeks truth regardless of how it makes us feel. > Buddhism raises radical questions about our inner and outer reality, > but it is finally not radical enough to accommodate science's > disturbing perspective. The remaining question is whether any form of > spirituality can. > 56672 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Mar 13, 2006 9:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Why I Can't Embrace Buddhism TGrand458@... In a message dated 3/13/2006 12:33:10 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, bupleurum@... writes: Hi All, I recently found the following article by John Horgan, a science writer for Scientific American. Horgan, a former Buddhist practitioner, now takes a skeptical view of Buddhism. I would be interested to hear feedback on his article "Why I Can't Embrace Buddhism". For example, what do you make of Horgan's claim that "Buddhism is functionally theistic, even if it avoids the 'G' word. Like its parent religion Hinduism, Buddhism espouses... karma, the law of moral cause and effect... [which implies] the existence of some cosmic judge who, like Santa Claus, tallies up our naughtiness and niceness before rewarding us with rebirth as a cockroach or as a saintly lama." Also, Horgan points out that, like Catholicism, Buddhism exalts monasticism "as the epitome of spirituality. It seems legitimate to ask whether a path that turns away from aspects of life as essential as sexuality and parenthood is truly spiritual. From this perspective, the very concept of enlightenment begins to look anti-spiritual: It suggests that life is a problem that can be solved, a cul-de-sac that can be, and should be, escaped." Matthew Hi Matthew Sounds like Mr Horgan is frustrated that his "scientific mind" has not been able to piece together the complexities of Buddhism. So he is resorting to trashing it ... because that's much easier. I'm not saying its intentional...but it its cause and effect. BTW, cause and effect, the crux of Buddhism (and science), seems to have completely escaped Mr. Horgan's attempted understanding of Buddhism. His criticisms are 'stock criticisms' of those who have just scratched the surface and are trying to understand Buddhism from the point of view based on delusion. Other than that, his own comments are too shallowly considered to even waste time on. TG 56673 From: han tun Date: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:28pm Subject: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 875 ) hantun1 Dhamma Thread ( 875 ) (U Htoo Naing requested me to send this. Han Tun) Dear Dhamma Friends, Kamma.t.thaana: There are enemies outside of us. The attacks through the agents of weapon of any kind, the attacks through the agents of fire of any kinds including radiation, nuclear energy etc., the attacks through the agents of poison of any kind, and the attacks through the agents of animals of any kind are external enemies. May I be free from these attacks. May I be free from attacks with weapon. Here weapon include any outside agents like sticks, knives, guns, thorns, boiling water, boiling oil etc and also include body parts like leg, feet, fists, elbows, heels etc etc. May I be free from attackes with fire. Naked fire, flames, burning materials of any kind, radiation, nuclear etc etc be free and away from me. May I be free from attacks of poison of any kind whatever they are attacks by someone else or accidental happenings. May I be free from attacks with animals of any kind. Animals may attack by their own rights or they may attack through someone else wish. May I be free from such attacks by animals like snakes, dogs, foxes, wolves, tigers, lions etc etc. May you all be free from attacks of all such things. May they be free from attacks of all such things. May you be free from external enemies. May they be free from external enemies. May I be free from attacks of external enemies. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 56674 From: "Andrew" Date: Mon Mar 13, 2006 4:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Occupation success/failure corvus121 Hello Nina Thanks for your explanation which looks very sound to me. The occupation success/failure teaching seems to me to be like 'Right Livelihood' in that both are couched in conventional terms and most easily understood in conventional terms. We see a farmer trading in cattle and we see a clumsy worker dropping things. Trying to see the absolute factors at work in such cases can be hard and seem 'strained'. I think the key is in what you wrote below: > Skillfullness and expertise have been accumulated, even from past lives.We > could say, they are conditions by way of natural decisive support condition, > pakatupanissaya paccaya. > Some people are clumsy, whatever they handle, they break or destroy it. Some > are deft, and whatever comes from their hands is excellent, beautiful. It is > all a question of accumulated inclinations. I do think there is value in reflecting conventionally (as you do above) with a background knowledge of the aggregates, anatta and conditionality. It can be a window to the absolute. Thanks again for your thoughts. Best wishes Andrew T 56675 From: LBIDD@... Date: Mon Mar 13, 2006 5:19pm Subject: Vism.XVII,62 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII 62. Herein, it might be [asked]: How can it be known that these formations have ignorance as their condition?--By the fact that they exist when ignorance exists. For when unknowing--in other words, ignorance--of suffering, etc., is unabandoned in a man, owing firstly to his unknowing about suffering and about the past, etc., then he believes the suffering of the round of rebirths to be pleasant and he embarks upon the three kinds of formations which are the cause of that very suffering. Owing to his unknowing about suffering's origin he embarks upon formations that, being subordinated to craving, are actually the cause of suffering, imagining them to be the cause of pleasure. And owing to his unknowing about cessation and the path, he misperceives the cessation of suffering to be in some particular destiny [such as the Brahmaa-world] that is not in fact cessation; he misperceives the path to cessation, believing it to consist in sacrifices, mortification for immortality, etc., which are not in fact the path to cessation; and so while aspiring to the cessation of suffering, he embarks upon the three kinds of formations in the form of sacrifices, mortification for immortality, and so on. ************************** 62. tattha siyaa -- katha.m paneta.m jaanitabba.m ``ime sa"nkhaaraa avijjaa paccayaa hontii''ti. avijjaabhaave bhaavato. yassa hi dukkhaadiisu avijjaasa"nkhaatam a~n~naa.na.m appahiina.m hoti, so dukkhe taava pubbantaadiisu ca a~n~naa.nena sa.msaaradukkha.m sukhasa~n~naaya gahetvaa tasseva hetubhuute tividhepi sa"nkhaare aarabhati. samudaye a~n~naa.nena dukkhahetubhuutepi ta.nhaaparikkhaare sa"nkhaare sukhahetuto ma~n~namaano aarabhati. nirodhe pana magge ca a~n~naa.nena dukkhassa anirodhabhuutepi gativisese dukkhanirodhasa~n~nii hutvaa nirodhassa ca amaggabhuutesupi ya~n~naamaratapaadiisu nirodhamaggasa~n~nii hutvaa dukkhanirodha.m patthayamaano ya~n~naamaratapaadimukhena tividhepi sa"nkhaare aarabhati. 56676 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Mar 13, 2006 7:33pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Slowpoke coming along; here's some further ideas from your second-last post. I'm enjoying the chance to discuss this with you! H:" I invest [the tilakkhana] with greater "reality". I consider them to be of major importance, and I believe it is *essential* that they be directly known with wisdom. But they are not paramattha dhammas as far as Abhidhammic categorizing is concerned. They are not paramattha dhammas, they are not dhatus, they are not ayatanas, they are not khandhic elements, and so, as far as orthodox Abhidhamma seems to teach, they cannot be known by pa~n~na!" In the Abhidhammattha Sangaha is written: "Pa~n~na, in the strictest sense of the term, is seeing things as they truly are, i.e. in the light of Anicca, Dukkha, and Anattaa," (p.141). This would relieve you of the anxiety that the Abhidhamma does not teach that the tilakkhana cannot be known by pa~n~na (I humbly suggest). What think you? Sincerely, Scott. 56677 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Mar 13, 2006 7:57pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana scottduncan2 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Howard, > > Slowpoke coming along; here's some further ideas from your second-last > post. I'm enjoying the chance to discuss this with you! > > H:" I invest [the tilakkhana] with greater "reality". I consider them > to be of major importance, and I believe it is *essential* that they > be directly known with wisdom. But they are not paramattha dhammas as > far as Abhidhammic categorizing is concerned. They are not paramattha > dhammas, they are not dhatus, they are not ayatanas, they are not > khandhic elements, and so, as far as orthodox Abhidhamma seems to > teach, they cannot be known by pa~n~na!" > > In the Abhidhammattha Sangaha is written: > > "Pa~n~na, in the strictest sense of the term, is seeing things as they > truly are, i.e. in the light of Anicca, Dukkha, and Anattaa," (p.141). > > This would relieve you of the anxiety that the Abhidhamma does not > teach that the tilakkhana cannot be known by pa~n~na (I humbly suggest). > > What think you? > > Sincerely, > > Scott. Well, no it doesn't actually. But please respond anyway. This sloppiness is what comes when trying to repond while doing laundry and getting kids into bed. Pa~n~na sees things as they truly are but this still doesn't get to your question as to knowing the tilakkhana directly. It does suggest that they are characteristics of cetasika pa~n~na. Sorry, Scott. > 56678 From: "Kom Tukovinit" Date: Mon Mar 13, 2006 9:12pm Subject: Hello tikmok Greetings! Sarah asked me to post this msg after a long absence (but unfortunately, no return either). Let me summarize what happened. After being inpired by lectures given by a Bikkhu, and by auspicious personal circumstances, I decided to join the robe on a temporary basis initially just for the vassa, but eventually expanded to a 6-month stint at two different temples in Chiangrai, a province in the remote Northern part of Thailand, and the other one nearby Bangkok. My experience has been tremendously fruiful: my confidence deepens, I better understand this phrase "it's not easy living at home to practice the celibate life totally perfect, totally pure, like a polished shell", and now I have figured out what I need to learn to satisfy myself. (to be continued) 56679 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:03pm Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 397- Beautiful Cetasikas (Sobhana Cetasikas) Introduction (h) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== (Ch24 - Sobhana Cetasikas Introduction contd) The consideration of the conditions for kusala can remind us of the fact that nothing arises without the appropriate conditions. Kusala citta does not belong to a self; there is no self who can direct the arising of kusala citta. The Atthasåliní (I, Part II, Chapter I, 62) states about kusala: * "By kusala is meant (moral) “good” in the sense of destroying or disturbing contemptible states; or in the sense of wholesomeness, faultlessness, and accomplishment by skill…" * The Atthasåliní explains that the word “kusala” can be used in the sense of healthy, not being sick in body. When the word kusala is used for mental phenomena, “it should be understood in the sense of ‘health’, i.e., absence of sickness, illness or disease through the ‘corruptions’. Moreover, from the absence of the faultiness, hate, and torments of the ‘corruptions’, kusala has the sense of faultlessness.” The Atthasåliní, in the same section (63), defines kusala as follows: -its characteristic is that it has faultless, happy results, -its function is the destruction of immoralities, -its manifestation is purity, -its proximate cause is wise attention. ***** (Ch24 - Sobhana Cetasikas Introduction to be contd) Metta, Sarah ====== 56680 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello sarahprocter... Hi Kom, --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > > Greetings! > > Sarah asked me to post this msg after a long absence (but unfortunately, > no return either). .... S: Many thanks - I know many friends here will be very glad to hear your news. ... Let me summarize what happened. > > After being inpired by lectures given by a Bikkhu, and by auspicious > personal circumstances, I decided to join the robe on a temporary basis > initially just for the vassa, but eventually expanded to a 6-month stint > at two different temples in Chiangrai, a province in the remote Northern > part of Thailand, and the other one nearby Bangkok. My experience has > been tremendously fruiful: my confidence deepens, I better understand > this phrase "it's not easy living at home to practice the celibate life > totally perfect, totally pure, like a polished shell", and now I have > figured out what I need to learn to satisfy myself. > > (to be continued) .... S: It's good to hear about your fruitful experience and I'll certainly be glad to hear more about what you've 'figured out' etc. I look forward to the continued thread. Can you say which were the lectures or bhikkhu who inspired you so much? Looking forward to anything you care to share. If you'd also care to put one of your 'ordained' photos in the album that you showed me, I'm sure others would like to see it too. How did you adapt to the 'homeless life'? Metta, Sarah p.s For any newbies, Kom was one of our first members and he also helped Jon and I a lot behind the scenes with moderator tasks for a long time and even recently as well. We'll always be very grateful to you, Kom. ======= 56681 From: "Kom Tukovinit" Date: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:25pm Subject: Re: Hello - at the first temple tikmok As some of you might have known, Buddhism, despite being a state- supported religion in Thailand, varies in practices from temples to temples and from teachers to teachers, so I didn't have any expectation. I didn't know what to expect: I didn't do the research on the temple that I was joining --- I was ordaining along with another man who did the research. It turned out the abbot gave quite rigorous training to the new monks. Out of the 6 monks (with the 7th being his own father, who wasn't inclined to participate), 5 were monks under 5 years in the monkhoods, i.e, still greens. His program included waking up before 4 in the morning to do the student-teacher duties, meditating for half an hour, "praying" for another hour (imagine being on your knees for that long...), going for alms in the villege which was a couple of klicks away, eating while listening to the dhamma, studying the rules and disciplines (from the Vinaya pitaka and the commentaries), optionally eating lunch, taking a break, back studying Abhidhamma-sangaha, doing chores, taking a break, back to meditation, praying, alternating reading from the tiptakas (not excluding the one novice we had), and then topping it all off, circumbulating the beautiful stupa (sorry, don't have any picture) containing the relics from the Buddha, V. Sariputta, and V. Sivali, sometimes with rain and more often than not with unbelievably persistent mosquitoes --- you never escape them in Thailand. The lessons alternated between having them with just monks, having them with the city laypeople (the more educated ones), and the local laypeople. With the 2 sections of Abhidhamma-sangaha, sections from Vissudhimagga were mixed in. During the Vassa, we also had 2 different outside (laypeople) teachers who came in and gave lessons (for days straight, talk about stamina, or maybe confidence? of these people). During the vassa, we had two additional people becoming monks for the traditional reasons [e.g. doing this for your parents, a rite of passage,], visits from all sorts of people. After the vassa, there was a big Kathina day --- a house (it was meant to be a detached kitchen but it ended up more like a house: it is a detached kitchen with 2 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms attached to it) got built, the stupa and the stairs (including the birds and the devas guarding the stairs) going up to it got totally cleaned and repainted. Well, you may ask, if there are so many things going on, is there any time for any reflections (or heck, all these studies sound just like Kom)? Well, I'll tell that on a different day :-). ps: I uploaded a picture of myself as a monk. I did look unrealistically young in that picture - I guess you just need to compare to my other pictures in the folder. 56682 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:34pm Subject: Re: Stream Entry - relatively easy? .. was [dsg] Re: Meeting with Acharn Sujin sarahprocter... Hi Matheesha, --- matheesha wrote: > M: I do absorb what is useful for my practice from whatever source. > The task is not easy and I use all the help I can get. Your emphasis > on right view and discussion is something I have taken on board. It > has given me more motivation to practice so many thanks to everyone > in this group. It has turned out to be the only group where I can > learn something new from as well. .... S: It's kind of you to say so. Praise indeed, considering our often different views at times:). ... >The group I belong to in sri lanka > are jhaana and vipassana practitioners. So the majority of the > discussion were on those lines. But I did have a sutta discussion on > the mahacattasarika sutta, focusing a bit more on mindfulness, right > effort and right view in developing each factor of the N8FP. .... S: This is a great sutta - I'd be glad to hear any more of your discussion or ideas. ... > > I do recall you sending me a list of questions right before i left. > I'm not sure where it is rihgt now, but if you can dig it out from > under this waterfall of posts, I can, with time, discuss each one > with you. ... S: I just had a quick look without success. If you can tell me the date you left or last posted before your trip, that would help. Also, in your absence I sent Tep a few long posts(!!) which were addressed to a thread of yours....if I come across them, I'll give you the links or Tep may have them. (I also have some unfinished threads with Tep on a couple of his well-considered replies). Metta, Sarah ======= 56683 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] difficullty understanding of Mp III 275 sarahprocter... Dear Wong & Han, I don't think anyone gave you a reply or any assistance with the Pali passage you quoted below from AN-a and I felt sorry about that. Simply put, we're not Pali scholars here, though some members like Han have a good knowledge of Pali I believe. Han, I don't know if you were a member when Wong (a friend from Taiwan), posted this and asked for help. You may have some ideas. Wong, why don't you give us some background, your interest in this passage and your translation so far....maybe then it's easier for friends here to help with any gaps. Do you have a full reference to the sutta to which this is the commentary? Thanks. Metta, Sarah --- wchangli wrote: > Hi!Dear anyone, > I have difficullty to understand this paragrah, could anyone help! > > Yathaavimutta.m citta.m na paccavekkhatiiti yathaa ya.m citta.m > vimutta.m, ye ca dosaa pahiinaa, gu.naa ca pa.tiladdhaa, te > paccavekkhitvaa uparigu.napa.tilaabhaaya vaayaama.m na karotiiti attho. > Iti imasmi.m suttee sattanna., sekhaana.m uparigu.nehi parihaani- > kaara.na~n-ca vuddhi-kaara.na~nca kathita.m. Ya~nca naama sekhassa > parihaana-kaara.na.m, ta.m puthujjanassa pa.thamameva hotiiti. > (Manorathapuura.nii III p.275 = a.t.thakathaa of Anguttara-nikaaya, > III, p.275) > > Your help are highly appreciate! Thanks a lot. > > From:wong 56684 From: "Kom Tukovinit" Date: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:53pm Subject: Re: Hello - at the first temple tikmok (to be continued) 56685 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 0:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 384- Different Groups of Defilements Part 3 (h) sarahprocter... Hi Matheesha, --- matheesha wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > > Questions, comments and different views welcome;-....The magga- > citta of the sotåpanna eradicates wrong > > view and doubt. > > M: My current opinion is that such fetters like wrong view, > doubt,anger,desire etc must be greatly weakened by practice to the > point that they hardly appear, before magga citta can iradicate them. .... S: I agree with this - the gradual wearing away like the adze handle. As you say, it's the magga cittas which eradicate them. .... > In fact im not sure if the suttas speak at all of magga-citta, and it > doing such things, at all. .... S: I think they refer to the 'direct knowledge and full understanding' which abandons. This is the full understanding which accompanies the magga cittas with nibbana as object as I understand. And then there are all the references to the Path for the abandoning of desire etc and the NEP which refers to the moments when the 8 path factors arise together at moments of magga-citta. Of course it is at moments of attainment of path that the disciple becomes an ariyan - a sotapanna etc when the various fetters are eradicated. So the term 'magga-citta' may not be used, but I think the meaning is implied, don't you? .... > IMO if we wait purely for magga-citta to get rid of them it will > never happen. ... S: I agree it's not a 'waiting' game, but neither is it a 'doing' game.... Hence the middle way to cross the flood by not halting and not straining either. Right understanding, right effort and so on....but no one understanding or making an effort along the way. Always good to have you around, Math. [Btw, thx for your post on lay people, #56110, with all the good references. There was a reference to adhi-citta or the fulfilment of higher concentration in the anagami as referring to the 4 jhanas (I think) which I didn't quite agree with, but I don't have it in front of me now. We have some difference when it comes to the urging of jhana, I know.) Metta, Sarah ======= 56686 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 0:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] sense-object déjà vu sarahprocter... Dear Antony, Nina already replied, but I wished to add a short note too and to try and encourage you to elaborate further: --- Antony Woods wrote: > Dear Sarah and Group, > > Every sense-impression is newly arisen. It only seems like I have > sensed the object before as a lasting entity but is this just déjà vu? > > Are some sense-objects less impermanent than others? .... S: All conditioned dhammas are equally impermanent (although of course namas fall away quicker than rupas). So even when we look at the computer, the visible objects seen are completely different at each instant they're seen. It is the illusion of ignorance which hides their true characteristics and the particular perversion (vipallasa) of seeing things as permanent which hides this aspect of the truth all the time. We think we see familiar trees, houses, computers and people because sanna (perception) marks the dhammas appearing all the time, marking the signs and features and remembering these, so when similar dhammas are experienced, they seem like the same. Please tell us the significance of your comments....usually there's some deep thinking behind what you say, Antony. It's always good to hear from you. How's your health these days? Metta, Sarah ======== 56687 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 0:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Hello - at the first temple nilovg Venerable Phra Kom, I am really impressed by your description of daily life as a monk. We, also laypeople, can learn from this. And you study at the temple a great deal of Abhidhamma, that is wonderful. It will be greatly appreciated of you post more on your daily life. With respect, Nina. op 14-03-2006 08:25 schreef Kom Tukovinit op kom@...: > As some of you might have known, Buddhism, despite being a state- > supported religion in Thailand, varies in practices from temples to > temples and from teachers to teachers, 56688 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 0:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Occupation success/failure nilovg Hi Andrew, I quite agree. We are living in this world, thinking in conventional terms, and at the same time we can develop understanding of paramattha dhammas. These help us to have more understanding of our social life, our dealings with people. Nina. op 14-03-2006 01:29 schreef Andrew op athel60@...: > I do think there is value in reflecting conventionally (as you do > above) with a background knowledge of the aggregates, anatta and > conditionality. It can be a window to the absolute. 56689 From: "Kom Tukovinit" Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 1:05am Subject: [dsg] Re: Hello - at the first temple tikmok --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Venerable Phra Kom, Dear Nina, No longer a monk, but maybe some time again in the future??? :-) kom 56690 From: han tun Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] difficullty understanding of Mp III 275 hantun1 Dear Sarah (and Wong), I am not a Pali expert, and I have severe limitations. I would need to know a few things before I can insert Pali words or before I can explain the meaning of the Pali words. For example, if it concerns with a sutta, I need to know the title of the sutta, or the number of the sutta e.g. MN 1. Then, I open the two books that I have, namely, (1) Burmese translation of the sutta and (2) the Pali text of the sutta in Burmese script. Then I can locate the passage and carry on. Without the title of the sutta or the number of the sutta I cannot locate the passage and I cannot do anything. Another thing is if you give me Book number and page number (without the title or sutta number) I cannot locate it, because I do not have older editions of English translation of suttas. I also do not have any atthakathaa. What Wong asked in this case is from atthakathaa of anguttara nikaya. So I cannot help in this case. With metta and deepest respect, Han Tun --- sarah abbott wrote: > Dear Wong & Han, > > I don't think anyone gave you a reply or any > assistance with the Pali > passage you quoted below from AN-a and I felt sorry > about that. Simply > put, we're not Pali scholars here, though some > members like Han have a > good knowledge of Pali I believe. Han, I don't know > if you were a member > when Wong (a friend from Taiwan), posted this and > asked for help. You may > have some ideas. > 56691 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 0:12am Subject: How to be a Real Buddhist on Observance Day ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: How to be a Real True Buddhist through Observance? Any Lay Buddhist simply joins the Three Refuges and undertakes the Five Precepts like this: Newly bathed, shaved, white-clothed, with clean bare feet, one kneels at a shrine with a Buddha-statue, and bows first three times, so that feet, hands, elbows, knees and head touch the floor. Then, with joined palms in front of the heart, one recite these memorized lines in a loud, calm & steady voice: As long as this life lasts: I hereby take refuge in the Buddha. I hereby take refuge in the Dhamma. I hereby take refuge in the Sangha. I hereby seek shelter in the Buddha for the 2nd time. I hereby seek shelter in the Dhamma for the 2nd time. I hereby seek shelter in the Sangha for the 2nd time. I hereby request protection from the Buddha for the 3rd time. I hereby request protection from the Dhamma for the 3rd time. I hereby request protection from the Sangha for the 3rd time. I will hereby respect these Three Jewels the rest of my life! I accepts to respect & undertake these 5 training rules: I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Killing. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Stealing. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Sexual Abuse. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Dishonesty. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Alcohol & Drugs. As long as this life lasts, I am thus protected by 5 precepts... Then, one keeps and protects these sacred vows better than one's own eyes & children(!), since they protect you & all other beings much better than any army! They are the highest offer one can give in & to this world! This is the very start on the path towards Nibbana -the Deathless Element- This is the Noble Way to Peace, to Freedom, to Bliss, initiated by Morality, developed further by Dhamma-Study and fulfilled by training Meditation... Today indeed is Pooya or uposatha or observance day, where any lay Buddhist normally keeps the Eight Precepts from sunrise until the next dawn... If any wish an official recognition by the Bhikkhu-Sangha, they may simply forward the lines starting with "I..." signed with name, date, town & country to me or join here. A public list of this new Saddhamma-Sangha is here! The New Noble Community of Disciples: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/sangha/Saddhamma_Sangha.htm Join Here: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/sangha/Sangha_Entry.htm May your journey hereby be eased, light, swift and sweet. Never give up !!! Bhikkhu Samahita: what.buddha.said@... For Details on Uposatha Observance Days: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/uposatha.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PS: Please include the word Samahita in any comment, since then will my automatic mail filters pick it up and I will see it & respond!! Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. Friendship is the Greatest ... Let there be Calm & Free Bliss !!! <...> 56692 From: "icarofranca" Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:20am Subject: Re: How to be a Real Buddhist on Observance Day ... !!! icarofranca Hi Bhikkhu Samahita!!!! Thank you for your gentle invitation to join G-Mail! Now it´s linked to Orkut.com also! Mettaya Ícaro -------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Bhikkhu Samahita" wrote: > > Friends: > How to be a Real True Buddhist through Observance? > > Any Lay Buddhist simply joins the Three Refuges and undertakes > the Five Precepts like this: Newly bathed, shaved, white- clothed, > with clean bare feet, one kneels at a shrine with a Buddha- statue, > and bows first three times, so that feet, hands, elbows, knees and > head touch the floor. Then, with joined palms in front of the heart, > one recite these memorized lines in a loud, calm & steady voice: > > As long as this life lasts: > I hereby take refuge in the Buddha. > I hereby take refuge in the Dhamma. > I hereby take refuge in the Sangha. > I hereby seek shelter in the Buddha for the 2nd time. > I hereby seek shelter in the Dhamma for the 2nd time. > I hereby seek shelter in the Sangha for the 2nd time. > > > I hereby request protection from the Buddha for the 3rd time. > I hereby request protection from the Dhamma for the 3rd time. > I hereby request protection from the Sangha for the 3rd time. > I will hereby respect these Three Jewels the rest of my life! > > I accepts to respect & undertake these 5 training rules: > I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Killing. > I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Stealing. > I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Sexual Abuse. > I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Dishonesty. > I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Alcohol & Drugs. > As long as this life lasts, I am thus protected by 5 precepts... > > Then, one keeps and protects these sacred vows better than one's own > eyes & children(!), since they protect you & all other beings much better > than any army! They are the highest offer one can give in & to this world! > This is the very start on the path towards Nibbana -the Deathless Element- > This is the Noble Way to Peace, to Freedom, to Bliss, initiated by Morality, > developed further by Dhamma-Study and fulfilled by training Meditation... > > Today indeed is Pooya or uposatha or observance day, where any lay Buddhist > normally keeps the Eight Precepts from sunrise until the next dawn... > If any wish an official recognition by the Bhikkhu-Sangha, they may simply > forward the lines starting with "I..." signed with name, date, town & country > to me or join here. A public list of this new Saddhamma-Sangha is here! > > The New Noble Community of Disciples: > http://What-Buddha-Said.net/sangha/Saddhamma_Sangha.htm > > Join Here: > http://What-Buddha-Said.net/sangha/Sangha_Entry.htm > > May your journey hereby be eased, light, swift and sweet. Never give up !!! > > Bhikkhu Samahita: what.buddha.said@... > > For Details on Uposatha Observance Days: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/uposatha.html > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- > PS: Please include the word Samahita in any comment, since then > will my automatic mail filters pick it up and I will see it & respond!! > > Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. > > Friendship is the Greatest ... > Let there be Calm & Free Bliss !!! > > <...> > 56693 From: "robmoult" Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello robmoult Hi Gunasaro, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Gunasaro" wrote: > > Dear Sarah: > > > Thanks for Your kind response & support... > The Abhidhamma Course is taking place in Bogor, a city nearby Jakarta > [included in The Greater Jakarta, 1-1½ hrs from Jakarta by car]. We're > staying in Jakarta & now the class's discussing about RUPA [material] & 31 > realms. > > Our new group from Jakarta has 9 people, started from early this year. So, > actually we inserted in the middle of the intermediate subject. But it's > fine; all of us feel very convenience with the tutoring methods from Mr. > Selamat. There're an elder couple who had no excellence in Indonesian, but > still can follow the course very well. > > Exactly last week, we brought 4 new pupils [2 were elders]. Actually we can > bring many more, but the class already full. So, it'll be better for us > start all over from the beginning in Jakarta [probably next April]. I have > no idea of why others used to say that it's hard to convince ones to learn > Abhidhamma. But in our new group, we can easily recruit newcomers; of course > by sharing from what exactly we're got from the course. For other instance: > last night I accompanied my brother to a mobile-phone outlet. I saw some > Buddhism images inside the shop & after a few chitchat, I knew that he's a > Theravada Buddhist. It only took my ± 20 minutes to make sure that he'd > attend the Abhidhamma Course in Bogor... > Even a friend of mine [non-Buddhist], last week also recruited a Buddhist to > join the course. So, if I may say: the key point is depending on the: > ~the effort to share this amazing happiness [Abhidhamma] to others, > sincerely; > ~teaching methods &; > ~the tutor's attitudes... > > Great thanks to Mr. Selamat who has been "fighting" for the existing of the > activities, years. For my friends & me, it's a great opportunity & > responsible as well [as the followers of Lord Buddha] to let others know > about Abhidhamma [Dhamma in its most universal form]... > > Thanking so much for the kind supports. > > > Sukhi Hotu, > Gunasaro ===== It is very nice to read your message. It brought me out of "hibernation". I lived in Jakarta almost 20 years ago and got married in a local Vihara. I have visited Bogor many times. I now live in Kuala Lumpur and teach Abhidhamma on Sunday mornings. I am glad to hear that the Abhidhamma is catching on in Indonesia. I am curious - what text do you use? Has Bhikkhu Bodhhi's "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" been translated into Bahasa? I ask because I think that my wife would feel more comfortable reading in her native language. Sukhi Hotu, Rob M :-) 56694 From: "robmoult" Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:52am Subject: [dsg] Re: Hello - at the first temple robmoult Hi Kom... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom > wrote: > > > Venerable Phra Kom, > > Dear Nina, > > No longer a monk, but maybe some time again in the future??? :-) > > kom > ===== Great to see you posting again!!! Metta, Rob M :-) 56695 From: Sarah and Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 4:46am Subject: Fwd: RES: Welcome to dhammastudygroup dsgmods f/w Message to the list from a newcomer --- Newton Sodre wrote: > Subject: RES: Welcome to dhammastudygroup > Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 15:57:06 -0300 > From: "Newton Sodre" > To: "dhammastudygroup Moderator" > > > Hi, friends in Dhamma. > My name is Newton, a Buddhism newcomer (only two years of 'alone' > practice, after forthyfive years of a 'inconscious' compassionate life). > Once i'm looking for a lineage, and reading everything i could find... > Forgive-me my english faults, because i'm better english reader than > english writer. > Peace > N. 56696 From: Sarah and Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 4:47am Subject: Fwd: Re: Welcome to dhammastudygroup dsgmods another f/w message to the list from another newcomer --- Lieu Phap wrote: > Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 11:13:47 +0530 > From: "Lieu Phap" > To: "dhammastudygroup Moderator" > > Subject: Re: Welcome to dhammastudygroup > > *Dear Dhamma Friends,* > *I'm very glad to join the Dhammastudy Group. While searching materials > for > my research I came to know about this Group and thought that it might be > useful for me to join and learn from other Dhamma friends in the Group.* > *I'm a Vietnamese Theravadin nun, doing Ph.D. in Buddhist Studies at > University of Delhi. My topic is "An analytical study of the concept of > Anusaya in Early Buddhism with special reference to Freudian > Psychology".* > *I hope that you may have some sources concerning my topic and will be > willing to share it with me. I will welcome all the suggestions and > advice > from the Dhamma friends in the Group.* > *May the Buddha bless you all!* > *In the Dhamma,* > *Lieu Phap* > 56697 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] difficullty understanding of Mp III 275 sarahprocter... Dear Han, Wong & friends of Htoo, I quite understand. Perhaps Wong will share what he's found out and give the full reference later. .... Btw, thank you for helping Htoo out. I'd also like to assure everyone that Han is just assisting with the sending of Htoo's D.T.s out of his kindness. Htoo is unable to access his yahoo or google accounts for now, but he asked me to pass on the following brief message: "Please tell DSGs that I remembers all of them and give my regards." Sometimes we forget how fortunate we are to be in places where we have internet access:). Metta, Sarah ========= --- han tun wrote: > Dear Sarah (and Wong), > > I am not a Pali expert, and I have severe limitations. > > I would need to know a few things before I can insert > Pali words or before I can explain the meaning of the > Pali words. 56698 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:25am Subject: Is Samsaara An Illusion? Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana abhidhammika Dear Howard How are you? You wrote: "Reality, to me, isn't a thing at all really. It is beyond all conditions and characterizations. It really can't even be talked about as an "it". As I view the matter, all that can be said truly in regard to reality is denial. Not lasting, not conditioned, not substantial, not an "it" at all." Are you asserting that Samsaara is an illusion because it represents conditioned phenomena? I am reading you correctly? Thanking you in advance. Suan www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Scott - > Reality, to me, isn't a thing at all really. It is beyond all conditions and characterizations. It really can't even be talked about as an "it". As I view the matter, all that can be said truly in regard to reality is denial. Not lasting, not conditioned, not substantial, not an "it" at all. As for things arising and then fully falling away, what arises and fully falls away in fact never exists at all as an entity. It is nothing more than a momentary appearance with borrowed existence and never other than empty of itself. In reality, there are no substantial entities to arise or pass away, and certainly none to remain either. Both nihilistic nothingness and substantial existence are illusions, as from SN XII.15: 56699 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 0:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 3/13/06 10:33:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: > In the Abhidhammattha Sangaha is written: > > "Pa~n~na, in the strictest sense of the term, is seeing things as they > truly are, i.e. in the light of Anicca, Dukkha, and Anattaa," (p.141). > > This would relieve you of the anxiety that the Abhidhamma does not > teach that the tilakkhana cannot be known by pa~n~na (I humbly suggest). > > What think you? > ==================== You're right - that quote certainly implies that the tilakkhana are knowable by pa~n~na. That "scores a merit point" for the Abhidhammattha Sangaha! I personally wouldn't doubt for a second that the tilakkhana are directly knowable with wisdom, as that occurrence is the doorway to awakening. My questioning pertains to the positions of some folks on DSG in this regard. As I have understood their stance, it is the case that 1) the three facts about all dhammas, their essential lack of ability to satisfy, their lack of permanence, and their lack of self, are not paramattha dhammas, 2) pa~n~na is unable to know anything other than paramattha dhammas, and, thus, 3) the tilakkhana cannot be known by pa~n~na. It would seem that one or both of the first two of these - the premisses - is incorrect. That is, either they are not held beliefs here, or, they are but the folks believing them are in error. There is an alternative, though, and it is you who put it forward: The tilakkhana are characteristics of paramattha dhammas, and characteristics of paramattha dhammas are, themselves, paramattha dhammas. This is a very interesting attempt at a solution, not only in its being clever but also in its intellectual appeal (especially to mathematician-philospher types like me. ;-) However, I have some problems with it. Whatever alleged paramattha dhammas the tilakkhana might be, they woud have to fit into the five aggregates, which, of course, constitute "the all". Of these, they could not be rupa, nor could they be any of the mental operations, neither vi~n~nana (being aware of), nor vedana (feeling as pleasant, unpleasant, or affectively neutral), nor sa~n~na (recognizing/perceiving), nor sankhara (constructing or forming or assembling). Now, one might say that within the last aggregate, of fabrications, besides the fabricating operations are fabricated dhammas, and that among these are dukkha, anicca, and anatta. But I am uneasy with that, not as regards dukkha, but as regards anicca and anatta.Impermanence and not-self are not constructed. So, at bottom, this issue raises an uneasiness in me with regard to the neat package that Abhidhamma as understood on DSG presents, specifically with regard to what are the fundamental elements of experience and their categories, and what may and may not be directly known with wisdom. I would find it interesting to see the really knowledgable Abhidhammikas here weigh in on this issue in a detailed and unambiguous way, as I think it offers both a challenge and an opportunity for putting forward the Abhidhamma as understood and conveyed by Khun Sujin as a central and clarifying element of the Dhamma. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 56700 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 1:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Is Samsaara An Illusion? Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana upasaka_howard Hi, Suan - In a message dated 3/14/06 8:25:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, suanluzaw@... writes: > Dear Howard > > How are you? > > You wrote: > > "Reality, to me, isn't a thing at all really. It is beyond all > conditions and characterizations. It really can't even be talked > about as an "it". As I view the matter, all that can be said truly > in regard to reality is denial. Not lasting, not conditioned, not > substantial, not an "it" at all." > > > Are you asserting that Samsaara is an illusion because it represents > conditioned phenomena? I am reading you correctly? > > Thanking you in advance. > > Suan > ========================== I feel as if I am about to step into a large, steaming pile of heresy, Suan! ;-) I do hope that I will not be consigned to someone's idea of Buddhist hell! LOL! Yes, I view samsara as illusory, because it is perceived "reality" - it is "reality" as perceived through the blinders of the three poisons, but I do not view it as illusory because of conditioning. It is the very fact that all dhammas other than nibbana are conditioned that makes them empty. 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) 56701 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 6:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana jonoabb Hi Howard As I understand it, the object of panna of the level of satipatthana/vipassana is always a dhamma, never a concept (although the object of panna of the level of samatha can be a concept). However, what panna can know about dhammas is, as it were, unlimited. The extent or scope of knowledge of a Buddha, for example, is one of the 'unthinkables'. So there is no conceptual problem in panna directly knowing dhammas as annica, dukkha and anatta, these being characteristics (lakkhana) pertaining to dhammas. Hoping I haven't misunderstood the question. Jon upasaka@... wrote: >Hi, all - > > On another list, I have raised the question of what it means to >"directly know" impermanence. (The Patisambhidamagga seems to state that it is to be >directly known.) But impermanence isn't paramattha dhamma, is it? It belongs >to none of the five khandhas, being neither rupa nor any mental operation. It >must, therefore, be pa~n~natti. Now that poses two problems: 1) Pa~n~natti, it >is said, cannot be objects of pa~n~na, and, more critically, 2) Pa~n~natti >are actually nothing at all, and thus impermanence must be illusion, since, >after all, the five khandhas constitute "the all", do they not? There seems to be >a bit of a problem here, especially if one is much taken with "realities". > >With metta, >Howard > > 56702 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 1:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Is Samsaara An Illusion? Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana upasaka_howard Hi again, Suan - There is an important typo in what I wrote. In a message dated 3/14/06 9:02:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: > Yes, I view samsara as illusory, because it is perceived "reality" - > it is "reality" as perceived through the blinders of the three poisons, but > I > do not view it as illusory because of conditioning. > ======================== Please change 'perceived' in <> to 'misperceived'! (Sorry) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 56703 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 6:35am Subject: Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana scottduncan2 Dear Howard, "Pa~n~na, in the strictest sense of the term, is seeing things as they truly are, i.e. in the light of Anicca, Dukkha, and Anattaa," (p.141). H:" You're right - that quote certainly implies that the tilakkhana are knowable by pa~n~na." S: I think, when considering this further, that this amounts to merely a definition of pa~n~na and suggests that the tilakkhana illuminate what is seen. Pa~n~na sees that all things are impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not-self; that all things have these three essential characteristics. I don't think that this amounts to knowing the tilakkhana directly since these characteristics, being without their own nature, are not knowable in and of themselves but only as qualilities which inhere in objects. One can come to know that an object has the characteristics within the tilakkhana. H: "I personally wouldn't doubt for a second that the tilakkhana are directly knowable with wisdom, as that occurrence is the doorway to awakening." S: See above; the tilakkhana are characteristics of dhammas, and as each dhamma is known, it is known as to its characteristic impermanence, unsatisfacoriness, and lack of self. H (S): "The tilakkhana are characteristics of paramattha dhammas, and characteristics of paramattha dhammas are, themselves, paramattha dhammas." S: I don't know if I can say that a characteristic of a paramattha dhamma is also a paramattha dhamma. I will stop at saying that a characteristic of a paramattha dhamma is a characteristic of a paramattha dhamma. Is it splitting hairs to try to say more? If pa~n~na can come to know that a dhamma is, say, impermanent, then the impermanence of the dhamma is known as well. Is that like saying pa~n~na then knows impermanence? H: "Whatever alleged paramattha dhammas the tilakkhana might be, they would have to fit into the five aggregates, which, of course, constitute "the all". Of these, they could not be rupa, nor could they be any of the mental operations, neither vi~n~nana (being aware of), nor vedana (feeling as pleasant, unpleasant, or affectively neutral), nor sa~n~na (recognizing/perceiving), nor sankhara (constructing or forming or assembling). Now, one might say that within the last aggregate, of fabrications, besides the fabricating operations are fabricated dhammas, and that among these are dukkha, anicca, and anatta. But I am uneasy with that, not as regards dukkha, but as regards anicca and anatta.Impermanence and not-self are not constructed." S: The tilakkhana do fit into the five aggregates - they are characteristics of all dhammas. All of these things you've elucidated above have impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and not-self as characteristic. I agree that something doesn't quite ring true when you consider the "fabricating operations" and "fabricated dhammas" part, above. I'm way over my head, and clearly am stuck. As you say, time for the abhidhammikas to weigh in. . . Sincerely, Scott. > 56704 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 1:40am Subject: Learning Emptiness from You!! (Re: [dsg] Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana) upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 3/14/06 9:06:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: > Hi Howard > > As I understand it, the object of panna of the level of > satipatthana/vipassana is always a dhamma, never a concept (although the > object of panna of the level of samatha can be a concept). > > However, what panna can know about dhammas is, as it were, unlimited. > The extent or scope of knowledge of a Buddha, for example, is one of the > 'unthinkables'. > > So there is no conceptual problem in panna directly knowing dhammas as > annica, dukkha and anatta, these being characteristics (lakkhana) > pertaining to dhammas. > > Hoping I haven't misunderstood the question. > > Jon > > ====================== I understand you, Jon! It is not dukkha, anicca, and anatta that are directly known by pa~n~na, as they are actually nothing at all (being concept-only). What is directly known are dhammas, and the knowing of them with wisdom is the knowing of them *as* dukkha, anicca, and anatta. This is a very plausible, commonsense approach, and I should leave it as that. Not only that, there is something quite properly emptiness-oriented in saying that the three characteristics are not, themselves, phenomena. I find that slightly, lingeringly, I am still somewhat bothered by the tilakkhana, especially anicca and anatta, not being "realities". But I now realize that this is just a problem of mine that you are helping me get over! I realize that in my (I think very worthy) pursuit of unreifying dhammas, I have been guilty of trying to reify the tilakkhana! I find this brief and beautifully uncomplicated post of yours, Jon, to be wonderfully helpful!! I find it to be a fundamental corrective for me! In fact, I am now inclined to dismiss my recent posts to Scott, especially the last one, as actually quite irrelevant and seriously flawed by reification! Scott was closer to the right view of this matter, I think, than I. And you are closest of all. Thank you. :-) With metta, Howard P.S. An additional piece of irony: Somewhere in his master work, the great Nagarjuna, om i admire greatly, in writing of emptiness (actually anatta), stated something along the lines that the person who reifies emptiness is truly hopeless! LOL! It seems you may be pulling me back from the brink of hopelessness, Jon! /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 56705 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 6:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Re: Welcome to dhammastudygroup, anusayas. nilovg Dear Lieu Phap, Welcome to the list. I am glad you joined and are interested in Abhidhamma. I translated from Thai some materials about anusaya and I find the subject very important. It is in the archives of dsg under latent tendencies, anysayas, or, if you like I can send it to you. Nina. op 14-03-2006 13:47 schreef Sarah and Jonothan Abbott op dsgmods@...: > another f/w message to the list from another newcomer > > --- Lieu Phap wrote: > To: "dhammastudygroup Moderator" >> >> Subject: Re: Welcome to dhammastudygroup > >> *I'm a Vietnamese Theravadin nun, doing Ph.D. in Buddhist Studies at >> University of Delhi. My topic is "An analytical study of the concept of >> Anusaya in Early Buddhism with special reference to Freudian >> Psychology".* 56706 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 6:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] difficullty understanding of Mp III 275 nilovg Dear Wong, If I know which sutta I can compare with the Co. I have in Thai. Nina. op 14-03-2006 08:43 schreef sarah abbott op sarahprocterabbott@...: > Wong, why don't you give us some background, your interest in this passage > and your translation so far....maybe then it's easier for friends here to > help with any gaps. > > Do you have a full reference to the sutta to which this is the commentary? > Thanks. > > Metta, > > Sarah > --- wchangli wrote: > >> Hi!Dear anyone, >> I have difficullty to understand this paragrah, could anyone help! >> >> Yathaavimutta.m citta.m na paccavekkhatiiti yathaa ya.m citta.m >> vimutta.m, ye ca dosaa pahiinaa, gu.naa ca pa.tiladdhaa, te >> paccavekkhitvaa uparigu.napa.tilaabhaaya vaayaama.m na karotiiti attho. >> Iti imasmi.m suttee sattanna., sekhaana.m uparigu.nehi parihaani- >> kaara.na~n-ca vuddhi-kaara.na~nca kathita.m. Ya~nca naama sekhassa >> parihaana-kaara.na.m, ta.m puthujjanassa pa.thamameva hotiiti. >> (Manorathapuura.nii III p.275 = a.t.thakathaa of Anguttara-nikaaya, >> III, p.275) 56707 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 6:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: RES: Welcome to dhammastudygroup nilovg dear Newton, welcome to the list. It is good if you join in with remarks and questions, and no worry about your English. Many of us are not native English speakers. Looking forward to hearing from you, Nina. op 14-03-2006 13:46 schreef Sarah and Jonothan Abbott op dsgmods@...: > f/w Message to the list from a newcomer > > --- Newton Sodre wrote: > >> My name is Newton, a Buddhism newcomer (only two years of 'alone' >> practice, after forthyfive years of a 'inconscious' compassionate life). >> Once i'm looking for a lineage, and reading everything i could find... >> Forgive-me my english faults, because i'm better english reader than >> english writer. 56708 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:38am Subject: Re: Why I Can't Embrace Buddhism rjkjp1 Dear Matthew, John is my favorite science writer, well worth reading his seminal 'End of Science'. I wrote to him a couple of years ago and we exchanged some mail. He took a fairly serious look into Buddhism and was, I gather, rather impressed initially. But he firmly believes in a material view of the universe, so most of the Dhamma is just not going to fit. At least he studied enough to see that Dhamma is incompatible with a material worldview. I think it is worse when people like some aspects of Dhamma but then try to change the rest of it to fit their views. Robert --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Matthew Miller wrote: > > Hi All, > > I recently found the following article by John Horgan, a science > writer for Scientific American. Horgan, a former Buddhist > practitioner, now takes a skeptical view of Buddhism. I would be > 56709 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 2:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 3/14/06 10:03:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: > Dear Howard, > > "Pa~n~na, in the strictest sense of the term, is seeing things as they > truly are, i.e. in the light of Anicca, Dukkha, and Anattaa," (p.141). > > > H:" You're right - that quote certainly implies that the tilakkhana > are knowable by pa~n~na." > > S: I think, when considering this further, that this amounts to > merely a definition of pa~n~na and suggests that the tilakkhana > illuminate what is seen. Pa~n~na sees that all things are > impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not-self; that all things have these > three essential characteristics. I don't think that this amounts to > knowing the tilakkhana directly since these characteristics, being > without their own nature, are not knowable in and of themselves but > only as qualilities which inhere in objects. One can come to know > that an object has the characteristics within the tilakkhana. -------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, you're quite right! Please see my recent post to Jon. :-) -------------------------------------- > > H: "I personally wouldn't doubt for a second that the tilakkhana are > directly knowable with wisdom, as that occurrence is the doorway to > awakening." > > S: See above; the tilakkhana are characteristics of dhammas, and as > each dhamma is known, it is known as to its characteristic > impermanence, unsatisfacoriness, and lack of self. -------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. ------------------------------------- > > H (S): "The tilakkhana are characteristics of paramattha dhammas, and > characteristics of paramattha dhammas are, themselves, paramattha > dhammas." > > S: I don't know if I can say that a characteristic of a paramattha > dhamma is also a paramattha dhamma. I will stop at saying that a > characteristic of a paramattha dhamma is a characteristic of a > paramattha dhamma. Is it splitting hairs to try to say more? If > pa~n~na can come to know that a dhamma is, say, impermanent, then the > impermanence of the dhamma is known as well. Is that like saying > pa~n~na then knows impermanence? ---------------------------------------- Howard: Your reticence here is quite correct! You are right on target!! ---------------------------------------- > > H: "Whatever alleged paramattha dhammas the tilakkhana might be, they > would have to fit into the five aggregates, which, of course, > constitute "the all". Of these, they could not be rupa, nor could they > be any of the mental operations, neither vi~n~nana (being aware of), > nor vedana (feeling as pleasant, unpleasant, or affectively neutral), > nor sa~n~na (recognizing/perceiving), nor sankhara (constructing or > forming or assembling). Now, one might say that within the last > aggregate, of fabrications, besides the fabricating operations are > fabricated dhammas, and that among these are dukkha, anicca, and > anatta. But I am uneasy with that, not as regards dukkha, but as > regards anicca and anatta.Impermanence and not-self are not constructed." > > S: The tilakkhana do fit into the five aggregates - they are > characteristics of all dhammas. All of these things you've elucidated > above have impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and not-self as > characteristic. I agree that something doesn't quite ring true when > you consider the "fabricating operations" and "fabricated dhammas" > part, above. > > I'm way over my head, and clearly am stuck. As you say, time for the > abhidhammikas to weigh in. . . ----------------------------------------- Howard: No - the fault was mine! The material of mine quoted just above really serves to demonstrate the mistake in reifying the tilakkhana! What it shows is that they are realities only in the sense of being facts about phenomena, but they are not realities-as-things! (I need to reread my Nagarjuna more frequently!! :-) ----------------------------------------- > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > ====================== 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) 56710 From: "icarofranca" Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:50am Subject: Re: Why I Can't Embrace Buddhism icarofranca Hi Robert! Even the neophyte reader on Buddhistic issues must perceive that the Dhamma is incompatible with certain non-Dhamma viewpopints, namely: Who attains Dhamma cannot attain Materialism. Who attains Dhamma cannot attain Marxism. Who attains Dhamma cannot attain Masonry or Rosicrucianism. Perhaps he will embrace some of these "viewpoints" above. Who attains Dhamma attains a monastic way of life a better life with better parameters to evaluate rightly external world...but Materialism or Marxism is the true rule on Mr. Horgan´s mind (?). What a pity! Mettaya Ícaro --------------------------------------------------------------------- 56711 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 2:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why I Can't Embrace Buddhism upasaka_howard Hi, Robert (and Matthew) - In a message dated 3/14/06 10:39:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, rjkjp1@... writes: > Dear Matthew, > John is my favorite science writer, well worth reading his seminal > 'End of Science'. I wrote to him a couple of years ago and we > exchanged some mail. He took a fairly serious look into Buddhism and > was, I gather, rather impressed initially. But he firmly believes in > a material view of the universe, so most of the Dhamma is just not > going to fit. > At least he studied enough to see that Dhamma is incompatible with a > material worldview. I think it is worse when people like some > aspects of Dhamma but then try to change the rest of it to fit their > views. > Robert > > ======================= Robert, I very much agree with you with regard to your conclusions in the following: "But he firmly believes in a material view of the universe, so most of the Dhamma is just not going to fit. At least he studied enough to see that Dhamma is incompatible with a material worldview." I know a number of materialists who consider themselves Theravadin Buddhists, but this constantly perplexes me. I find it odd, to say the least! ;-) Reasonably on their part they typically also dismiss rebirth, the mechanics of rebirth in a purely materialist universe being problematical at best. But without rebirth one has to wonder about the importance of the "Dhammic enterprise"! (With there being but a single lifetime, it would seem to me that all that one might usefully cultivate in that brief sojourn is a modicum of patience! ;-) 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) 56712 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 8:14am Subject: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Robert (and Scott) - > > In a message dated 3/12/06 11:45:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, > rjkjp1@... writes: > > > Dear Howard and Scott, > > This old post by Steve is related to your discussion: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/23140 > > ""These modes, (that is, the 3 characteristics) are not included in > > the aggregates because they are states without individual essence > > (asabhaava-dhammaa); and they are not separate from the aggregates > > because they are unapprehendable without the aggregates. But they > > should be understood as appropriate conceptual differences > > (pa~n~natti-visesaa) that are reason for differentiation in the > > explaining of dangers in the five aggregates, and which are allowable > > by common usage in respect of the five aggregates" > Maha Tika (found in the notes on page 747 of Visuddhimagga) > > > > Robert > > > =========================== > Thank you for this, Robert. However, I readily admit that I really > don't understand it. Could you be so kind, please, to explain to me what you > think this actually means? What do you understand it to say as to the ontological > status of impermanence and the possibility of its being known by pa~n~na? > > ++++++++ Dear Howard, What it means is fairly clear to me, but explaining it satisfactorily is not easy. YOur discussion with Scott looks to be on target anyway: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/56709 Howard: "What it shows is that they are realities only in the sense of being facts about phenomena". Robert 56713 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 3/14/06 11:18:15 AM Eastern Standard Time, rjkjp1@... writes: > Dear Howard, > What it means is fairly clear to me, but explaining it > satisfactorily is not easy. YOur discussion with Scott looks to be > on target anyway: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/56709 > Howard: "What it shows > is that they are realities only in the sense of being facts about > phenomena". > Robert > ======================= Thanks. My perspective on this matter is happily changing in the proper direction. 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) 56714 From: "Kom Tukovinit" Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 8:28am Subject: [dsg] Re: Hello - at the first temple tikmok --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" > > Great to see you posting again!!! > Not for long :-) kom 56715 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana upasaka_howard Hi again, Robert & Jon & Scott, and all - In a message dated 3/14/06 11:24:40 AM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: > Thanks. My perspective on this matter is happily changing in the > proper direction. > ======================== It's amusing. I just looked back at my original post on this thread, and I realize that what I expressed there was actually without a problem, as it merely pointed out that the tilakkhana are not phenomena, and it asked, accordingly, what it means to understand them directly with wisdom. In subsequent posts I believe I went astraya bit, and now I have found my way back to my "okay" origination point. But I think that I, if no one else (LOL!), have gained in the process, the matter of what it means to directly understand the tilakkhana having been clarified. 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) 56716 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana upasaka_howard Hi, all - In the following, I missed addressing Joop and TG (and perhaps others)! My apologies. In a message dated 3/14/06 11:36:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, Upasaka writes: > Hi again, Robert &Jon &Scott, and all - ===================== 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) 56717 From: bupleurum Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 9:19am Subject: Re: Why I Can't Embrace Buddhism bupleurum TG: > BTW, cause and effect, the crux of Buddhism (and science), seems to > have completely escaped Mr. Horgan's attempted understanding of > Buddhism. As I see it, there is only a superficial similarity between cause/effect in the context of kamma theory and cause/effect as described by science. First off, the theory of kamma has no predictive value whatsoever. It is a completely post hoc, after-the-fact, metaphysical interpretation of events. Any scientific theory of causal mechanism would have to be predictive and reproducible, and not just based on faith or canonical authority. Kamma/rebirth theory posits a cosmic moral principle underpinning the entire structure of the universe. From a scientific point of view, there are serious logical problems with this. For example, there is what one might call the "administration difficulty": how is all this accounting system to work, and by what mechanism does it happen? Furthermore, the crux of kamma theory is the idea of a *moral* principle of cause and effect in the universe. However, human assertions about morality are just that, notions that humans impose on an indifferent universe, instead of absolute law. We are social animals who have evolved ethical rules of behavior, but those rules do not apply to the universe outside our social group. If we project our human moral concepts (kusala/akusala, good/evil, etc) onto the world, how are we "functionally" different from the early theists who first projected human intention, motive, personality and morality onto the universe and called it "God." Ícaro: > his opinions are very tainted out by many mahayana > characteristics, like the > necessity of a link between Kamma > and a supposed-to-be High Spiritual Judge I think Horgan's point is that the very idea of a cosmic moral principle like kamma is "functionally theistic" since no natural mechanism could account for such a system, only a supernatural one. Of course, if you think of God as a bearded fellow on a throne, then Buddhism (and, to be fair, most Christian theology for that matter) rejects this simplistic notion. > > Had a chuckle about this! Equating a fully enlightened being in > > the Buddhist sense with the Pope just shows how far off the (true) > > rails John Horgan has gone. Where is the scriptural evidence that > > Buddhas can act "abusively" like some of the Popes who were > > soldiers/lechers/killers and be 'morally right' in doing so? I > > thought a Buddha cannot do those things by definition? I think Horgan is disturbed by the belief that a Fully Enlightened Buddha is infallible. > a Buddha cannot do those things by definition A Buddha is infallible (cannot perform wrong actions) "by definition" only if you believe in the moral infallibility of Enlightened Buddhas (a bit of circular reasoning!) Catholics "believe" in the infallibility of the Pope. Buddhists "believe" in the infallibility of the Buddha. Both positions are based on faith, not evidence. History has shown us that there are often dire consequences whenever a person or persons believes themselves or someone else to be morally infallible -- though Buddhism's track record is certainly a lot better than Catholicism's. Matthew 56718 From: "matheesha" Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 9:32am Subject: [dsg] Re: Some Matters of Interest from MN 44 matheesha333 Dear Ícaro, >M: > The anapanasathi sutta seems to suggest a samatha first vipassana > >later > > approach as your quoation shows. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >I: As a matter of fact, at the Anapanasati Sutta, despite its > apparent "Progressive Learning" method of mindfulness, the main idea > is free of choice: M: I feel you maybe right. There is nothing about dealing with hindrences in the anapanasati sutta, perhaps suggesting that this is part of the gradual training (dealing with the 5 hindrences happening earlier as mentioned in that scheme). But for us who jump in, in the middle and then complain of stray thoughts, a more flexbile approach might be better! > I: "Balancing with Viriya" seems to me an idea about calm your mind > against sleaziness or torpor, by focusing your mind in a counter- > concept...it´s just an idea. M: Yes, you are right. I guess to generate viriya we should be doing things like death contemplation? metta Matheesha 56719 From: "matheesha" Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 9:58am Subject: [dsg] Re: The place of "meditation" ... Viharati (corrected) matheesha333 Hi Jon, >J: There was no blame on my part. When I said there are many people on > the internet who think they've attained jhana, I was just mentioning > something that I thought may be of interest to Pablo (since he had not > previously been aware of personal claims that jhana was indeed > attainable). I certainly did not mean it as a put-down of any kind . M: I'm glad to hear it. J: In > my experience, most people equate samatha with concentration, which is > not a kusala quality at all. M: Its intersting that you say that. There must be something in that about levels of concentration. I'm thinking that jhana has been said to be one of the highest kusala? Can you clarify this a bit more? > To summarise, I'm all for the development of samatha, but wary about the > claims people make about their jhana experiences. M: Fair enough. Have you tried to do this yourself though? > > >I think the better way to > >give rise to faith, is to experience the first jhana yourself - this > >is something Ven Ananda mentions in the suttas. > > I don't know of any sutta that links the development of samatha to > saddha in the teachings, so I'd be interested to know which sutta (s) you > have in mind here. M: Sorry, just tried to find it but it doesnt seem to be picked up by google. But I distinctly remember reading it from a sutta, because it was something which struck me at the time. >J: But a much more important issue, I think, and one that may interest > Pablo, is whether a particular level of samatha is required in order for > the development of awareness to begin. My understanding is that the > answer to that question is clearly 'No'. In which case I'd like to > suggest that there is more to be gained by discussing the development of > satipatthana than of samatha, speaking in general terms. Satipatthana > is the only form of kusala that leads to the ending of samsara. M: Indeed, however there might be more forms of satipattana practice than mentioned in the satipattana sutta. For example see the samatha first vipassana later method in the sutta below: Anguttara Nikaya IX.36 Jhana Sutta "I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the first jhana... the second jhana... the third... the fourth... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness. I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. "'I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the first jhana.' Thus it has been said. In reference to what was it said? There is the case where a monk, withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities, enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. He regards whatever phenomena there that are connected with form, feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness, as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a disintegration, an emptiness, not-self. He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite -- the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' "Suppose that an archer or archer's apprentice were to practice on a straw man or mound of clay, so that after a while he would become able to shoot long distances, to fire accurate shots in rapid succession, and to pierce great masses. In the same way, there is the case where a monk... enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born of withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. He regards whatever phenomena there that are connected with form, feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness, as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a disintegration, an emptiness, not-self. He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite -- the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' "Staying right there, he reaches the ending of the mental fermentations. Or, if not, then -- through this very dhamma-passion, this very dhamma-delight, and from the total wasting away of the first five of the Fetters [self-identity views, grasping at precepts & practices, uncertainty, sensual passion, and resistance] -- he is due to be reborn [in the Pure Abodes], there to be totally unbound, never again to return from that world. "'I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the first jhana.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said. [Similarly with the other levels of jhana up through the dimension of nothingness.] "Thus, as far as the perception-attainments go, that is as far as gnosis-penetration goes. As for these two spheres -- the attainment of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception & the attainment of the cessation of feeling & perception -- I tell you that they are to be rightly explained by those monks who are meditators, skilled in attaining, skilled in attaining & emerging, who have attained & emerged in dependence on them." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- See also: AN X.6; AN X.7 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Revised: Mon 3-May-2004 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an09-036.html This seems to suggest that the practice of samatha is not only for kusala, but also used as a basis for the development of vipassana. metta Matheesha 56720 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Is Samsaara An Illusion? Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana TGrand458@... Hi Suan and Howard Suan... note that Howard called samsara "illusory" and not an "illusion." This might be important because by calling samsara an illusion, one might take it that samsara "does not appear (or exist)." By calling it illusory, it is more likely meant that samsara is "not what it appears to be." (Perhaps even from an insightful perspective.) These are two very different outlooks and it seemed to me it was possible they could be confused as being the same. (Probably just by me.) ;-) TG In a message dated 3/14/2006 7:02:24 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: > Are you asserting that Samsaara is an illusion because it represents > conditioned phenomena? I am reading you correctly? > > Thanking you in advance. > > Suan > ========================== I feel as if I am about to step into a large, steaming pile of heresy, Suan! ;-) I do hope that I will not be consigned to someone's idea of Buddhist hell! LOL! Yes, I view samsara as illusory, because it is perceived "reality" - it is "reality" as perceived through the blinders of the three poisons, but I do not view it as illusory because of conditioning. It is the very fact that all dhammas other than nibbana are conditioned that makes them empty. With metta, Howard 56721 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 10:25am Subject: [dsg] Re: Hello - at the first temple buddhatrue Hi Kom, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > > Hi Kom... > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Kom Tukovinit" > wrote: > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom > > wrote: > > > > > Venerable Phra Kom, > > > > Dear Nina, > > > > No longer a monk, but maybe some time again in the future??? :-) > > > > kom > > > ===== > > Great to see you posting again!!! > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > I join Rob M. in welcoming you back (for however long that will be). I have also been enjoying your temple updates. It's funny because, obviously, Nina read your update and noticed right away that you studied the Abhidhamma, and I read your update and noticed right away that you had scheduled meditation! Lol! We all bring our biases and interests to the table. Anyway, I would be interested in you describing more about the meditation you practiced at the temple. How did you find the experience? Metta, James 56722 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why I Can't Embrace Buddhism TGrand458@... Hi Matthew, All I don't see a "moral theory" the way I think you do. "Morality" to me isn't some cosmic moral principle. Morality is just guidelines based on pain. We determine what is right or wrong based on whether it results in pain for oneself and others. Pain arises due to conditions incorporating both physical and psychological aspects. These conditions, though complicated, are quite predictable and are completely cause and effect oriented ... without needing to project some cosmological substrate about it. Kamma is -- "the momentum of cognitive-formations and associated energies." IMO, there is nothing about Buddhism that should turn off a scientist. Quite the opposite!!! Primitive man might have seen an airplane and thought it was God or magic...because they didn't understand it. When its understood, its just conditions...."doing what we (modern man) would expect them to do." Kamma is just the same. To Mr Horgan, Karma is theistic because he doesn't understand the principles of karma. But to the Buddha....Karma was just -- "conditions doing what he expected them to do." There are only conditions involved, not theism. TG In a message dated 3/14/2006 10:20:51 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, bupleurum@... writes: As I see it, there is only a superficial similarity between cause/effect in the context of kamma theory and cause/effect as described by science. First off, the theory of kamma has no predictive value whatsoever. It is a completely post hoc, after-the-fact, metaphysical interpretation of events. Any scientific theory of causal mechanism would have to be predictive and reproducible, and not just based on faith or canonical authority. Kamma/rebirth theory posits a cosmic moral principle underpinning the entire structure of the universe. From a scientific point of view, there are serious logical problems with this. For example, there is what one might call the "administration difficulty": how is all this accounting system to work, and by what mechanism does it happen? Furthermore, the crux of kamma theory is the idea of a *moral* principle of cause and effect in the universe. However, human assertions about morality are just that, notions that humans impose on an indifferent universe, instead of absolute law. We are social animals who have evolved ethical rules of behavior, but those rules do not apply to the universe outside our social group. If we project our human moral concepts (kusala/akusala, good/evil, etc) onto the world, how are we "functionally" different from the early theists who first projected human intention, motive, personality and morality onto the universe and called it "God." Ícaro: > his opinions are very tainted out by many mahayana > characteristics, like the > necessity of a link between Kamma > and a supposed-to-be High Spiritual Judge I think Horgan's point is that the very idea of a cosmic moral principle like kamma is "functionally theistic" since no natural mechanism could account for such a system, only a supernatural one. Of course, if you think of God as a bearded fellow on a throne, then Buddhism (and, to be fair, most Christian theology for that matter) rejects this simplistic notion. > > Had a chuckle about this! Equating a fully enlightened being in > > the Buddhist sense with the Pope just shows how far off the (true) > > rails John Horgan has gone. Where is the scriptural evidence that > > Buddhas can act "abusively" like some of the Popes who were > > soldiers/lechers/killers and be 'morally right' in doing so? I > > thought a Buddha cannot do those things by definition? I think Horgan is disturbed by the belief that a Fully Enlightened Buddha is infallible. > a Buddha cannot do those things by definition A Buddha is infallible (cannot perform wrong actions) "by definition" only if you believe in the moral infallibility of Enlightened Buddhas (a bit of circular reasoning!) Catholics "believe" in the infallibility of the Pope. Buddhists "believe" in the infallibility of the Buddha. Both positions are based on faith, not evidence. History has shown us that there are often dire consequences whenever a person or persons believes themselves or someone else to be morally infallible -- though Buddhism's track record is certainly a lot better than Catholicism's. Matthew 56723 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana TGrand458@... In a message dated 3/14/2006 9:57:17 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: But I think that I, if no one else (LOL!), have gained in the process, the matter of what it means to directly understand the tilakkhana having been clarified. With metta, Howard That's the amazing thing about a group like this. You never know where you're going to end up, but its almost always better than when you started. :-) TG 56724 From: "Kom Tukovinit" Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:02am Subject: [dsg] Re: Hello - at the first temple tikmok > right away that you had scheduled meditation! Lol! We all bring our > biases and interests to the table. Anyway, I would be interested in > you describing more about the meditation you practiced at the > temple. How did you find the experience? Dear James, The abbot encouraged Metta Brahmavihara, and the teacher intensively taught Anapanasati. The teaching strategies of both of these teachers were to bring out the explanations from Visuddhimagga, Sutra, Vinaya, commentaries, Tikas as completely as possible [I had a 5-day intensive lecture on Anapanasati, OK], and then you are pretty much left to do whatever you need to do. As for the experience, I am afraid you will have to come see me, because if I say it here, I think it will be the end of the year before I can finish my story :-) kom 56725 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:24am Subject: Learning Emptiness from You!! (Re: [dsg] Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana) buddhatrue Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 3/14/06 9:06:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, > jonabbott@... writes: > > > Hi Howard > > > > As I understand it, the object of panna of the level of > > satipatthana/vipassana is always a dhamma, never a concept (although the > > object of panna of the level of samatha can be a concept). > > > > However, what panna can know about dhammas is, as it were, unlimited. > > The extent or scope of knowledge of a Buddha, for example, is one of the > > 'unthinkables'. > > > > So there is no conceptual problem in panna directly knowing dhammas as > > annica, dukkha and anatta, these being characteristics (lakkhana) > > pertaining to dhammas. > > > > Hoping I haven't misunderstood the question. > > > > Jon > > > > > ====================== > I understand you, Jon! It is not dukkha, anicca, and anatta that are > directly known by pa~n~na, as they are actually nothing at all (being > concept-only). What is directly known are dhammas, and the knowing of them with wisdom > is the knowing of them *as* dukkha, anicca, and anatta. This is a very > plausible, commonsense approach, and I should leave it as that. Not only that, there > is something quite properly emptiness-oriented in saying that the three > characteristics are not, themselves, phenomena. I find that slightly, lingeringly, I > am still somewhat bothered by the tilakkhana, especially anicca and anatta, > not being "realities". But I now realize that this is just a problem of mine > that you are helping me get over! I realize that in my (I think very worthy) > pursuit of unreifying dhammas, I have been guilty of trying to reify the > tilakkhana! > I find this brief and beautifully uncomplicated post of yours, Jon, to > be wonderfully helpful!! I find it to be a fundamental corrective for me! In > fact, I am now inclined to dismiss my recent posts to Scott, especially the > last one, as actually quite irrelevant and seriously flawed by reification! > Scott was closer to the right view of this matter, I think, than I. And you are > closest of all. Thank you. :-) > > With metta, > Howard > > P.S. An additional piece of irony: Somewhere in his master work, the great > Nagarjuna, om i admire greatly, in writing of emptiness (actually anatta), > stated something along the lines that the person who reifies emptiness is truly > hopeless! LOL! It seems you may be pulling me back from the brink of > hopelessness, Jon! This has been an interesting thread which I have followed closely. Actually, Howard, this question of yours has possessed my thinking for a few days now. I read your original post (just happened to pop in to read) and knew what you were trying to say, but couldn't quite wrap my mind around it. I have shifted from "Howard's got something here" to "This issue is a red herring." You may consider the issue closed now but I don't. There is still something which I can't wrap my mind around and express. Originally, you questioned how impermanence can be known by panna since it isn't an ultimate reality, but rather the characteristic of an ultimate reality. When examining impermanence the issue of time presents itself. Frankly, I don't understand how the Abhidhamma rectifies its momentary theory with time, and I think there are some inherent problems there. Therefore, your original question is still pertinent. Conditioned phenomenons arise, persist, and fall away. According to the Abhidhamma, panna can know each of these stages as they occur, in the moment, but to string them all together in order to know impermanence is a function of conceptualizing. Hmmm…still thinking about it. Metta, James 56726 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana upasaka_howard Yep!! :-) With metta, Howard In a message dated 3/14/06 1:58:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: > That's the amazing thing about a group like this. You never know where > you're going to end up, but its almost always better than when you started. > :-) > > TG > /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) 56727 From: han tun Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 0:35pm Subject: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 876 ) hantun1 Dhamma Thread ( 876 ) (U Htoo Naing requested me to send this. Han Tun) Dear Dhamma Friends, Kamma.t.thaana: May I be free from enemies. May you be free from enemies. May they be free from enemies. May enemies of both inside (dosa) and outside (weapon, fire, poison, animals) not be able to attack us. There should not be any boundaries between any person or any being. 1. being who is myself 2. being who is one that I dear of 3. being who is one that I hate of 4. being who is one that I do not dear or hate of All these beings should have receive equal weightage of metta. May all beings be free from enemies. These all beings are all beings who are living right now in any of 31 realms or 31 planes of existence. As soon as the boundries are broken down and there is equilibrium there is limitlessness. This is appamanna. And this is appamanna kammatthaana or 'limitless pure-living'. The boundries are between 1. being who we believe is ourselves. 2. beings who are deared by being so called 'we' 3. beings who are hated by being so called 'we' 4. beings who are not deared or not hated by being so called 'we' So metta is not just limited to 'me' or 'us'. If metta is limited to 'me' or 'us', we will be selfish and we will always be doing good only to us and not to others and we will not be performing any altrusitic jobs. If metta is stopped when enemies are encountered, then there is limitation. So as soon as the boundries are broken there is unlimitness or there is appamanna. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 56728 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 8:02am Subject: Re: Learning Emptiness from You!! (Re: [dsg] Ontological Status of the Tilakk... upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 3/14/06 2:25:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > Originally, you questioned how impermanence can be known by panna > since it isn't an ultimate reality, but rather the characteristic of > an ultimate reality. When examining impermanence the issue of time > presents itself. Frankly, I don't understand how the Abhidhamma > rectifies its momentary theory with time, and I think there are some > inherent problems there. Therefore, your original question is still > pertinent. Conditioned phenomenons arise, persist, and fall away. > According to the Abhidhamma, panna can know each of these stages as > they occur, in the moment, but to string them all together in order > to know impermanence is a function of conceptualizing. Hmmm…still > thinking about it. > ======================= I think that Jon had a handle on this when he pointed towards pa~n~na being wide ranging. I think that any proper understanding obtainable through our conceptualization should be outdoable (is that a word? LOL!) by supermundane wisdom. Pa~n~na, I would think, while based in actual phenomena, could not be bound to a single dhamma at a time. It must be able to know not only the trees but also the forest. 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) 56729 From: "Matthew Miller" Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 1:58pm Subject: Re: Why I Can't Embrace Buddhism bupleurum TG: > I don't see a "moral theory" the way I think you do. > "Morality" to me isn't some cosmic moral principle. Morality is > just guidelines > based on pain. We determine what is right or wrong based on > whether it results in pain for > oneself and others. Pain arises due to conditions incorporating > both physical and psychological aspects. Is this viewpoint canonical -- "Morality is just guidelines based on pain"? Hmm. That seems to open up an ethical can of worms. Off the top of my head, I can think of examples of wholesome actions that involve pain (e.g. certain medical procedures) and unwholesome actions that involve no pain (e.g. murdering someone under anesthesia, or destroying rainforests full of plants that do not have pain receptors ). In neurophysiological terms, pain denotes specific activity in nerve pathways, usually in response to tissue damage or inflammation, though emotional distress can affect pain perception as well. Pain is an important part of the body's defense system and helps detect and avoid physical harm. The critical role of pain can be seen by studying people born with a rare defect in which they have no sense of pain. These people do not detect any discomfort from sitting in the same position for extended periods of time. As a result, their joints suffer a lot of damage. As babies, when they start teething they often gnaw on their own tongue, lips and fingers to the point of mutilation. These people bump into things constantly. 80 percent of them suffer curvature of the spine because they have no concept of posture. Most of these people don't live to the age of 40. Pain is an important component of being alive. The avoidance of anything that results in pain seems like a shaky ground for a moral system. Pain is a response to specific stimulation of nerve endings. Of course, it can be a *cause* as well as an effect -- for example, if I cause someone pain, they might punch me in the nose! But in order to explain how causing someone pain might result in my rebirth as a cockroach requires a more supernatural, "functionally theistic" explanation. Matthew 56730 From: han tun Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 2:06pm Subject: [dsg] Letters from Nina (1) hantun1 Dear Nina, In the Letters from Nina, in the First letter, you wrote: “When we try to "catch" realities and desire to know whether the phenomenon which appears is citta, feeling, rupa or any other reality, it is thinking, not mindfulness.” and “Some people might be inclined to sit and wait for hearing, for sound, for like or dislike to appear. In that way realities will not be known. We can go on with all the things we usually do and we do not have to do anything special in order to have more awareness.” ------------------------------ In Satipatthaana Sutta, under cittanupassana, the Buddha said: “And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu abide contemplating mind as mind? Here a bhikkhu understands mind affected by lust as mind affected by lust ….. and so on” ------------------------------ Han: From the above passages, I understand that I should not try to “catch” the mind affected by lust, or I should not “sit and wait” for the mind affected by lust to appear. I should, instead, go on with all the things I usually do and only when the mind affected by lust appears due to conditions, I note it. Is my understanding correct? Thank you very much. With metta and deepest respect, Han 56731 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 9:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why I Can't Embrace Buddhism TGrand458@... Hi Matthew Would it help if I said "dukkha" instead of "pain."? I do contend that the point of view I'm expressing is canonical. It would take a paper to prove it well, but I'll input this quote for consideration...which shows the relationship between pain and unwholesomeness; and no-pain and wholesomeness... “Now, venerable Ananda, what kind of bodily behavior is censured by wise recluses or Brahmins?â€? “Any bodily behavior that is unwholesome, great king.â€? “Now, venerable Ananda, what kind of bodily behavior is unwholesome?â€? “Any bodily behavior that is blameworthy, great king.â€? “Now, venerable Ananda, what kind of bodily behavior is blameworthy?â€? “Any bodily behavior that brings affliction, great king.â€? “Now, venerable Ananda, what kind of bodily behavior brings affliction?â€? “Any bodily behavior that has painful results, great king.â€? “Now, venerable Ananda, what kind of bodily behavior has painful results?â€? “Any bodily behavior, great king, that leads to one’s own affliction, or to the affliction of others, or to the affliction of both, and on account of which unwholesome states increase and wholesome states diminish. Such bodily behavior is censured by wise recluses and Brahmins, great king.â€? The same formula as above, describing unwholesome bodily behavior is then repeated for unwholesome verbal behavior and again for unwholesome mental behavior. Immediately following this, venerable Ananda explains wholesome behavior of body speech, and mind. Below is shown only the mind example but the bodily and verbal examples follow the same question/answer formula… “Now, venerable Ananda, what kind of mental behavior is uncensored by wise recluses and Brahmins?â€? “Any mental behavior that is wholesome, great king.â€? “Now, venerable Ananda, what kind of mental behavior is wholesome?â€? “Any mental behavior that is blameless, great king.â€? “Now, venerable Ananda, what kind of mental behavior is blameless?â€? “Any mental behavior that does not bring affliction, great king.â€? “Now, venerable Ananda, what kind of mental behavior does not bring affliction?â€? “Any mental behavior that has pleasant results, great king.â€? “Now, venerable Ananda, what kind of mental behavior has pleasant results?â€? “Any mental behavior, great king, that does not lead to one’s own affliction, or to the affliction of others, or to the affliction of both, and on account of which unwholesome states diminish and wholesome states increase. Such mental behavior is uncensured by wise recluses and Brahmins, great king.â€? (Venerable Ananda . . . Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha , pg. 724 – 726, The Cloak, Bahitika Sutta, #88) In a message dated 3/14/2006 3:00:32 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, bupleurum@... writes: Is this viewpoint canonical -- "Morality is just guidelines based on pain"? Hmm. That seems to open up an ethical can of worms. Off the top of my head, I can think of examples of wholesome actions that involve pain (e.g. certain medical procedures) and unwholesome actions that involve no pain (e.g. murdering someone under anesthesia, or destroying rainforests full of plants that do not have pain receptors ). In neurophysiological terms, pain denotes specific activity in nerve pathways, usually in response to tissue damage or inflammation, though emotional distress can affect pain perception as well. Pain is an important part of the body's defense system and helps detect and avoid physical harm. The critical role of pain can be seen by studying people born with a rare defect in which they have no sense of pain. These people do not detect any discomfort from sitting in the same position for extended periods of time. As a result, their joints suffer a lot of damage. As babies, when they start teething they often gnaw on their own tongue, lips and fingers to the point of mutilation. These people bump into things constantly. 80 percent of them suffer curvature of the spine because they have no concept of posture. Most of these people don't live to the age of 40. Pain is an important component of being alive. The avoidance of anything that results in pain seems like a shaky ground for a moral system. TG: Shaky ground or not, I believe all "moral systems" originate from that premise...albeit very possibly unintentionally. TG Pain is a response to specific stimulation of nerve endings. Of course, it can be a *cause* as well as an effect -- for example, if I cause someone pain, they might punch me in the nose! But in order to explain how causing someone pain might result in my rebirth as a cockroach requires a more supernatural, "functionally theistic" explanation. Matthew 56732 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Control or No control? jonoabb Hi Howard In a recent post to Tep you made the following useful remarks: upasaka@... wrote: > I do not think that dependent origination, either in its general >this-that conditionality formulation (the general case of conditionality) or in the >specific 12-link exemplification that deals with arising and ceasing of >dukkha, constitutes a theory of causative power. ... You asked "How is it possible that >these cetasikas, being empty of ownership and not-self themselves, can make >things happen?" But "making things happen" is exactly what is NOT put forward in >the Buddha's teaching on conditionality. All that is put forward is dependable, >objective, necessary, and regular dependency. With this, that; without this, >not that. That's all. Not more, and not less. > > Your last couple of sentence in particular are worth repeating: H: But "making things happen" is exactly what is NOT put forward in the Buddha's teaching on conditionality. All that is put forward is dependable, objective, necessary, and regular dependency. With this, that; without this, not that. That's all. Not more, and not less. As I'm sure you'd agree, the teaching on conditionality is not a separate, discrete part of the teachings. It *is* the teachings. So when it comes to the development of awareness/insight, things work in just the same way. Awareness/insight is as dependent on other conditions as anything else. Now taking your succinct formulation of dependency ... "With this, that; without this, not that." ... we can say: "With [the appropriate conditions for it], then awareness/insight; without [those appropriate conditions], no awareness/insight." Thus, if the appropriate conditions are in place, awareness/insight will occur. It is not a matter of awareness/insight being "made to happen" ;-)). And so it is neither a matter of "doing something", but nor is it a matter of there "doing nothing". Jon 56733 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Control or No control? philofillet Hi Jon, Howard and all > Thus, if the appropriate conditions are in place, awareness/insight will > occur. It is not a matter of awareness/insight being "made to happen" > ;-)). And so it is neither a matter of "doing something", but nor is it > a matter of there "doing nothing". I like the dynamic implied in this sentence that I came across: "The truth of the Dhamma...we shall know this when the characteristics of realities can be know as they are." When there are conditions for satipatthana - realites *may/can* be known as they are - we will/shall/are bound to see the truth of the Dhamma. It is by trying to force the matter that the "project" goes wrong. Patience is the key, but there is so little patience in this day and age. (One of the many ways in which Dhamma goes against the ways of the world.) Phil 56734 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:00am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Control or No control? TGrand458@... In a message dated 3/14/2006 4:09:57 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: As I'm sure you'd agree, the teaching on conditionality is not a separate, discrete part of the teachings. It *is* the teachings. So when it comes to the development of awareness/insight, things work in just the same way. Awareness/insight is as dependent on other conditions as anything else. Now taking your succinct formulation of dependency ... "With this, that; without this, not that." ... we can say: "With [the appropriate conditions for it], then awareness/insight; without [those appropriate conditions], no awareness/insight." Thus, if the appropriate conditions are in place, awareness/insight will occur. It is not a matter of awareness/insight being "made to happen" ;-)). And so it is neither a matter of "doing something", but nor is it a matter of there "doing nothing". Jon Hi Jon This was super!!! Sounds like something I would have written. LOL TG 56735 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:17am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Control or No control? upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 3/14/06 6:09:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: > Hi Howard > > In a recent post to Tep you made the following useful remarks: > > upasaka@... wrote: > > > I do not think that dependent origination, either in its general > >this-that conditionality formulation (the general case of conditionality) > or in the > >specific 12-link exemplification that deals with arising and ceasing of > >dukkha, constitutes a theory of causative power. ... You asked "How is it > possible that > >these cetasikas, being empty of ownership and not-self themselves, can make > > >things happen?" But "making things happen" is exactly what is NOT put > forward in > >the Buddha's teaching on conditionality. All that is put forward is > dependable, > >objective, necessary, and regular dependency. With this, that; without > this, > >not that. That's all. Not more, and not less. > > > > > > Your last couple of sentence in particular are worth repeating: > H: But "making things happen" is exactly what is NOT put forward in the > Buddha's teaching on conditionality. All that is put forward is dependable, > objective, necessary, and regular dependency. With this, that; without > this, not that. That's all. Not more, and not less. > > As I'm sure you'd agree, the teaching on conditionality is not a > separate, discrete part of the teachings. It *is* the teachings. > > So when it comes to the development of awareness/insight, things work in > just the same way. Awareness/insight is as dependent on other > conditions as anything else. > > Now taking your succinct formulation of dependency ... > "With this, that; without this, not that." > > ... we can say: > "With [the appropriate conditions for it], then awareness/insight; > without [those appropriate conditions], no awareness/insight." > > Thus, if the appropriate conditions are in place, awareness/insight will > occur. It is not a matter of awareness/insight being "made to happen" > ;-)). And so it is neither a matter of "doing something", but nor is it > a matter of there "doing nothing". > > Jon ======================= Of course that is so, Jon! Every word of it! Does that mean that the activities that are conventionally called "carrying out the practices urged by the Buddha" are not possible? No. If you agree with me on that, then we have no disagreement on the "practice" issue. Else, we do. ;-) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 56736 From: "Andrew" Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 4:22pm Subject: Re: Why I Can't Embrace Buddhism corvus121 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, bupleurum wrote: > A Buddha is infallible (cannot perform wrong actions) "by definition" > only if you believe in the moral infallibility of Enlightened Buddhas > (a bit of circular reasoning!) Catholics "believe" in the > infallibility of the Pope. Buddhists "believe" in the infallibility > of the Buddha. Both positions are based on faith, not evidence. > > History has shown us that there are often dire consequences whenever > a person or persons believes themselves or someone else to be morally > infallible -- though Buddhism's track record is certainly a lot > better than Catholicism's. Hi Matthew Strictly speaking, I think you'll find that, according to Catholic doctrine, the Pope's infallibility is not general - it only applies to certain questions. I think your general point is misconceived, though, and you give insufficient credit to Buddhist logic - if a being thought to be a Buddha committed wrong actions like killing or harmful sexual conduct, we know him thus not to be a Buddha. If the Pope declares infallibly that it is time to take up arms and kill infidels in the Holy Land, a loyal Catholic should believe that this is right. You and Horgan are trying to equate these two ideas and then huff and puff about being nervous about Buddha's infallibility because it might hoodwink people into all manner of exploitation. Au contraire, it might just save them from it!! Let's be fair about this, no? Best wishes Andrew T 56737 From: LBIDD@... Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Hello - at the first temple lbidd2 Hi Kom. Good to see you. I'm looking forward to reading more about what you learned and what's next. I'm glad you became a monk even if it was only for a short period. It's a good thing. Larry 56738 From: LBIDD@... Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Re: Welcome to dhammastudygroup lbidd2 Hi *Lieu Phap*, Welcome to the group. I'm curious, what does Freud have to say about anusayas (latent tendencies)? Larry LP: " *I'm a Vietnamese Theravadin nun, doing Ph.D. in Buddhist Studies at University of Delhi. My topic is "An analytical study of the concept of Anusaya in Early Buddhism with special reference to Freudian Psychology".* " 56739 From: LBIDD@... Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: RES: Welcome to dhammastudygroup lbidd2 Hi Newton, Welcome to the group. Could you tell us a little about yourself and where you live. Don't worry about your english. It's fine. Larry N: "My name is Newton" 56740 From: LBIDD@... Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why I Can't Embrace Buddhism lbidd2 Hi Mathew, What is your view on Buddhism? It seems that you don't absolutely reject it, otherwise you wouldn't be here. Larry 56741 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:58pm Subject: [dsg] Is Samsaara An Illusion? Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana abhidhammika Dear Howard and TG I think TG seemed to understand you as saying Samsaara was not an illusion. Howard, do you agree with TG's understanding of your position? Is Samsaara an illusion? Or does Samsaara merely appear illusory? Which one is your position, if you don't mind clarifying? With regards, Suan --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: Hi Suan and Howard Suan... note that Howard called samsara "illusory" and not an "illusion." This might be important because by calling samsara an illusion, one might take it that samsara "does not appear (or exist)." By calling it illusory, it is more likely meant that samsara is "not what it appears to be." (Perhaps even from an insightful perspective.) These are two very different outlooks and it seemed to me it was possible they could be confused as being the same. (Probably just by me.) ;-) TG In a message dated 3/14/2006 7:02:24 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: > Are you asserting that Samsaara is an illusion because it represents > conditioned phenomena? I am reading you correctly? > > Thanking you in advance. > > Suan > ========================== I feel as if I am about to step into a large, steaming pile of heresy, Suan! ;-) I do hope that I will not be consigned to someone's idea of Buddhist hell! LOL! Yes, I view samsara as illusory, because it is perceived "reality" - it is "reality" as perceived through the blinders of the three poisons, but I do not view it as illusory because of conditioning. It is the very fact that all dhammas other than nibbana are conditioned that makes them empty. With metta, Howard 56742 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana scottduncan2 Dear Howard, "It's amusing. I just looked back at my original post on this thread, and I realize that what I expressed there was actually without a problem, as it merely pointed out that the tilakkhana are not phenomena, and it asked, accordingly, what it means to understand them directly with wisdom. In subsequent posts I believe I went astraya bit, and now I have found my way back to my "okay" origination point. But I think that I, if no one else (LOL!), have gained in the process, the matter of what it means to directly understand the tilakkhana having been clarified." I appreciate being able to discourse with you! I've learned a lot as well. I for one hadn't noticed you had gone astray - I was too busy trying to tread water. Great topic! Sincerely, Scott. 56743 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 2:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Is Samsaara An Illusion? Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana upasaka_howard Hi, Suan - In a message dated 3/14/06 8:58:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, suanluzaw@... writes: > > Dear Howard and TG > > I think TG seemed to understand you as saying Samsaara was not an > illusion. > > Howard, do you agree with TG's understanding of your position? > > Is Samsaara an illusion? Or does Samsaara merely appear illusory? > > Which one is your position, if you don't mind clarifying? > > With regards, > > Suan > ========================= Existentially, samsara, as I understand the term, refers to what there is, but *misperceived* due to avijja. Behaviorally, it is the state of wandering from grasping at this to grasping at that, being tossed about on the waves of ignorance-based desire. In samsara, which, itself, is an actual state of becoming, there is the seeming of permanence when there is no permanence, there is the seeming of substantial self-existence when there is none such, and there is the seeming of satisfaction obtainable through acquisition when satisfaction is obtainable only through letting go and letting be. It is the state in which dukkha rules. That which actually "is" is not illusion, but the "world" beset by all the seemings listed above has an illusory appearance. Samsara is reality caught under the spell cast by illusion, the darkness of fundamental ignorance. When the three poisons are dead and gone, so is samsara. These are the terms in which I choose to frame my answer. I hope they clarify my perspective. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 56744 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:34pm Subject: Lotika scottduncan2 Dear All, In reading about the classification of akusula cetasikas in A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas (p.429) I see where in the "lotika," or the triad consisting of lobha, di.t.ti (wrong view), and maana (conceit)it is stipulated that di.t.ti and maana cannot arise together with lobha-mula cittas, rather only separately. May I ask why this is so? What is the significance of this? A secondary question would be regarding the distinction between di.t.ti and maana, i.e., what is it? Is maana, for example, a particular type of wrong view but only in relation to the concept "self?" and as such it would be redundant for both to arise at once? (That was the best I could do at the moment.) Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, Scott. 56745 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 10:33pm Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 398- Beautiful Cetasikas (Sobhana Cetasikas) Introduction (i) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== (Ch24 - Sobhana Cetasikas Introduction contd) The Atthasåliní gives a second method of defining kusala: -its characteristic is faultlessness by being opposed to fault, -its function is purity, -its manifestation is desirable results, -its proximate cause is wise attention. The characteristic of kusala, according to the first definition, is that it has pleasant results, whereas, according to the second definition, pleasant results are the manifestation of kusala. Classifications are not rigid and by means of different methods of classification different aspects are shown. Pleasant results can be experienced in daily life, they are a manifestation of the fact that good deeds have been performed. Whenever we see, hear, smell, taste or touch a pleasant object there is kusala vipåkacitta, the result of a good deed. The moments of vipåkacitta fall away immediately, they are only conditioned elements which do not last. When this truth has not been realized there is bound to be clinging to pleasant objects and sadness when these objects are gone. The characteristic of kusala, according to the second definition, is faultlessness by being opposed to fault. At the moment of kusala citta there is no opportunity for akusala citta. When there is an opportunity for kusala it should not be neglected. There are opportunities for kusala right at hand, such as a kind word, a thought of appreciation of other people’s good qualities, or a moment of mindfulness of realities such as hardness, softness, sound or hearing. ***** (Ch24 - Sobhana Cetasikas Introduction to be contd) Metta, Sarah ====== 56746 From: Leslie Wilson Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 9:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: RES: Welcome to dhammastudygroup lesgwilson My name is Leslie. I live in northern Nevada. I am interested in your group and thanks for letting me visit. LBIDD@... wrote: Hi Newton, Welcome to the group. Could you tell us a little about yourself and where you live. Don't worry about your english. It's fine. Larry N: "My name is Newton" 56747 From: Bhikkhu samahita Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 9:19pm Subject: Re: Mutual Appreciation ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friend icarofranca wrote: > Hi Bhikkhu Samahita!!!! > Thank you for your gentle invitation to join G-Mail! Thanx2U2 friend! Mutual appreciation of what is really good is naturally quite advantageous. Friendship is the Greatest ... Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. <...> 56748 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 10:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Re: Welcome to dhammastudygroup, anusayas. sarahprocter... Dear Lieu Phap (& Nina), Welcome to the list from me too. Many thanks for your intro (which we assumed you had intended to send to DSG here). --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Lieu Phap, > Welcome to the list. I am glad you joined and are interested in > Abhidhamma. > I translated from Thai some materials about anusaya and I find the > subject > very important. > It is in the archives of dsg under latent tendencies, anysayas, > .... S: As Nina said, she translated some very helpful material on anusaya and there have been other letters on this important topic which we've also put aside in 'Useful Posts', which can be found in the 'files' section of the DSG: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/ Scroll down to "Useful Posts". These are the numbers of these good past posts on 'anusayas' - you can either key in the numbers in the space at the top where you read messages on the website or in you are in 'Useful Posts', just click on the numbers which will take you to the posts directly: ***** Anusaya (Latent tendencies) 27710, 27792, 28438, 28819, 28861, 28997, 29033, 29067, 29105, 29207, 29209, 29228, 29255, 29352, 33139, 36068, 38940, 38983, 39139, 39190, 39191, 39729, 39764, 39817, 39935, 41040, 41147, 46223, 47607, 49160, 54567, 54696 ***** We also have members here with a background in psychology. I'm one, so I'll look forward to reading your messages. Please add your comments or questions to any of these past posts or share some extracts from your own writing and considerations for us to reflect on. Some of us were in Delhi last October....How long have you been living/studying there? Very interesting. With metta, Sarah ========= > --- Lieu Phap wrote: > > To: "dhammastudygroup Moderator" > >> > >> Subject: Re: Welcome to dhammastudygroup > > > >> *I'm a Vietnamese Theravadin nun, doing Ph.D. in Buddhist Studies at > >> University of Delhi. My topic is "An analytical study of the concept > of > >> Anusaya in Early Buddhism with special reference to Freudian > >> Psychology".* > 56749 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 10:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: RES: Welcome to dhammastudygroup sarahprocter... Hi Newton, I'm glad to see Larry & Nina have welcomed you already. Last week another new member Newtone joined us:). > --- Newton Sodre wrote: > > Hi, friends in Dhamma. > > My name is Newton, a Buddhism newcomer (only two years of 'alone' > > practice, after forthyfive years of a 'inconscious' compassionate > life). .... S: As Larry asked, where do you live? What is your 'alone' practice? I'm interested to know more. .... > > Once i'm looking for a lineage, and reading everything i could find... > > Forgive-me my english faults, because i'm better english reader than > > english writer. > > Peace > > N. .... S: We're just interested in the ideas and understandings of dhamma here, not in the English expertise, so don't worry ....it's easy to understand your message. Please let us know if you need any assistance and let us know what you've found out so far in your search for a lineage:). In the 'Useful Posts' I just mentioned, there's a section 'New to the list and New to the dhamma' which contains some kind letters which may be helpful to any newcomers here. Ask questions and skip any threads which seem too complicated for now. I'll look forward to speaking to you later. metta, Sarah ======== 56750 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: RES: Welcome to dhammastudygroup sarahprocter... Hi Leslie, --- Leslie Wilson wrote: > My name is Leslie. > I live in northern Nevada. > I am interested in your group and thanks for letting me visit. .... S: Nice to welcome you too - glad to see many newcomers. Please not only visit, but move in:). There are lots of members here from the States, but no one else I remember from Nevada.... If you care to tell us anything more about your background/interest in the Buddha's treachings, that would be good. Otherwise, please chip in to any discussions or start your own (often the best way for newcomers to get settled). Hope you find it helpful here. Newcomers, please don't be put off by all the Pali terms which are used. Consider printing out the simple Pali glossary in the files and having it next to your computer. Also, if you start your own threads in simple English, people will respond in the same way:). Metta, Sarah ======== 56751 From: "Kom Tukovinit" Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Hello - the rules and displines (vinaya) tikmok The most interesting/pressing parts about being a monk (at least a short term one) are basically figuring out what I am supposed to be doing, trying to learn all the rules and disciplines that are spelled out voluminously in the scriptures, and what I should learn to figure out what the Buddha said the path really was. Figuring out how to wear the robes was a challenge for me, going for alms without dropping the bowl, the lid, the food, worse yet the robe and the belt can be challenging at times. The more interesting parts, however, are learning and following the disciplines, which turn out not to be that easy of a task. The Buddha gave ten reasons for issuing each of the rule (from V. Thanissaro): for the excellence of the Community, the peace of the Community, the curbing of the shameless, the comfort of well-behaved bhikkhus, the restraint of pollutants related to the present life, the prevention of pollutants related to the next life, the arousing of faith in the faithless, the increase of the faithful, the establishment of the true Dhamma and the fostering of discipline. From memory, the commentaries further explain these ten points: 1) For the agreement of the communities (for the excellence of the community): so that the Bikkhus may agree to the issuance of these rules that they are good; they are no rules without causes or justifications. 2) For the peace of the communities: so that the Sangha may live peacefully (and contentedly). 3) For the curbing of the shameless: with the rules, the shameless can be reminded that some behaviors are prohibited, and some behaviors are required. 4) For the comfort of well-behaved bhikkhus - [kom - because well-behaved people would certainly not want to live along side with ill-behaved people) 5) For getting rid of ill-effects (of ill-behaviors) in this life - effects such as not getting support from the laypeople because of improper behaviors 6) For the prevention of ill-effects in the next life - as results of kamma 7) For the arousing of faith in the faithless - because when the faithless examine the rules and disciplines, they marvel at the extensiveness, the wonder, and the good of the disciplines [kom - all aspects of a monk's life are minutely "regulated"] 8) For the increase of faith of the faithful 9) For the establishment of the true dhamma 10) For the continuance of the true dhamma: as the Bikhhus still keep even the defeat rules, then the dhamma is said to continue --- as it is said that the rules and disciplines (vinaya) will be the last to disappear With this in mind, there are over 227 rules spelled out in the patikmokkha, and with the rules (both what not to do, and what to do) both in the Pali and the commentaries combined, there are perhaps hundreds of thousands of rules of conduct that a monk supposed to be following. This raises multiple interesting questions: Q1) How does keeping the rules help the achievement of the sasasana's goal? How does not keeping the rules hinder the achievement of the sasana's goals? Q2) How clear are these rules? Q3) How closely observed can these rules be? Q4) To fully apply these rules, what do you need to learn? Well, I guess some of the answers will have to come another day... -- Kom Tukovinit kom@... 56752 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Mar 15, 2006 0:29am Subject: Any Pride is Self-Deception ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: Any Pride is all Arrogant Self-Deception: COOLED One whose senses have been guarded & calmed, like horses well tamed by the trainer, whose pride, conceit & mental fermentation are all uprooted, Even the Divines love such one. Dhammapada 94 CURED The one who has shedded both lust, hate & pride as the fallen seed, which never again returns to the straw, such one is a Holy One. Dhammapada 407 STILLED One should cool any anger, let go of any pride and leave behind any attachment. Such cooled one, not clinging neither to identity, body, form nor world cannot ever suffer any pain... Dhammapada 221 MY BODY It is a bag held up by bones, plastered with flesh, blood and skin. In it lives aging, sickness, death, pride & deceit... Dhammapada 150 TOUGH TRANSMISSION If a Bhikkhu masters his speech. If he speaks exact, clever & wise. If he is not of puffed up by pride. If he expound both text, meaning & spirit. Then exceedingly sweet will be his words. Dhammapada 363 Much More here: http://what-buddha-said.net/Canon/Sutta/KN/Dhammapada.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PS: Please include the word Samahita in any comment, since then will my automatic mail filters pick it up and I will see it & respond!! Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. Friendship is the Greatest ... Let there be Calm & Free Bliss !!! <...> 56753 From: "Gunasaro" Date: Wed Mar 15, 2006 1:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello gunasaro@... Dearest Rob: Do apologise for delayed responding. The pleasure & happiness are mine as well. Perhaps I may refresh Your memory about Nanapalo [alias Selamat Rodjali]. Since You mentioned about visiting Bogor, I guess You ever met [somehow] him before. He's now our tutor. He actually had translated the earlier version of 'Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma' [before editted by Ven. Boddhi], but hadn't come up to the final editting yet. Please just give comments whether You need it. It has become one of our goals [few friends & me] to be seriously & sincerely in introducing Abhidhamma to others. We just joined the course from Jan '06, 1½ hours once a week ~ but all of us [if I may say so] have gained so many benefit things in overcoming our daily issues. We can understand things clearer & be able to accept own & others weakness. To share the happiness for You all, by this mid April we'll open a new Abhidhamma Class in Jakarta. Nanapalo will spend 2 times a month to Jakarta, exactly after tutoring from Bogor [morning class]. Probably the class will be filled >30 pupils, ¾ of them are all new. And we're very much assured that the number will be increased in a very short of time. That's why now we're planning to print some specific manual books for Abhidhamma which had been translating by Nanapalo. And we'll distribute its freely to everyone & everywhere [especially Indonesia]. I was born in a village at West Borneo, Buddha Dhamma had just been introduced there for the past 1½ years ago. Last month I shared to them about Abhidhamma Course in Bogor. I don't even believe that now they're sooo... enthusiast to have the manual book in Indonesian. So, would You mind sharing us here any kind of tools which can be supporting our activities? Anumodana... Sukhi Hotu, Gunasaro [08178.YUWEI] ----- Original Message ----- From: robmoult To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 18:48 Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello Hi Gunasaro, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Gunasaro" wrote: > > Dear Sarah: > > > Thanks for Your kind response & support... > The Abhidhamma Course is taking place in Bogor, a city nearby Jakarta > [included in The Greater Jakarta, 1-1½ hrs from Jakarta by car]. We're > staying in Jakarta & now the class's discussing about RUPA [material] & 31 > realms. > > Our new group from Jakarta has 9 people, started from early this year. So, > actually we inserted in the middle of the intermediate subject. But it's > fine; all of us feel very convenience with the tutoring methods from Mr. > Selamat. There're an elder couple who had no excellence in Indonesian, but > still can follow the course very well. > > Exactly last week, we brought 4 new pupils [2 were elders]. Actually we can > bring many more, but the class already full. So, it'll be better for us > start all over from the beginning in Jakarta [probably next April]. I have > no idea of why others used to say that it's hard to convince ones to learn > Abhidhamma. But in our new group, we can easily recruit newcomers; of course > by sharing from what exactly we're got from the course. For other instance: > last night I accompanied my brother to a mobile-phone outlet. I saw some > Buddhism images inside the shop & after a few chitchat, I knew that he's a > Theravada Buddhist. It only took my ± 20 minutes to make sure that he'd > attend the Abhidhamma Course in Bogor... > Even a friend of mine [non-Buddhist], last week also recruited a Buddhist to > join the course. So, if I may say: the key point is depending on the: > ~the effort to share this amazing happiness [Abhidhamma] to others, > sincerely; > ~teaching methods &; > ~the tutor's attitudes... > > Great thanks to Mr. Selamat who has been "fighting" for the existing of the > activities, years. For my friends & me, it's a great opportunity & > responsible as well [as the followers of Lord Buddha] to let others know > about Abhidhamma [Dhamma in its most universal form]... > > Thanking so much for the kind supports. > > > Sukhi Hotu, > Gunasaro ===== It is very nice to read your message. It brought me out of "hibernation". I lived in Jakarta almost 20 years ago and got married in a local Vihara. I have visited Bogor many times. I now live in Kuala Lumpur and teach Abhidhamma on Sunday mornings. I am glad to hear that the Abhidhamma is catching on in Indonesia. I am curious - what text do you use? Has Bhikkhu Bodhhi's "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" been translated into Bahasa? I ask because I think that my wife would feel more comfortable reading in her native language. Sukhi Hotu, Rob M :-) 56754 From: "Joop" Date: Wed Mar 15, 2006 1:14am Subject: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana And the incomprehensibles jwromeijn Hallo Howard, James, Scott, all Like James, my thinking about the nature (?) of anicca is not yet stopped. You responded some days ago to my suggestion that there are not two but three 'truths' (aka kind of realities aka languages): (1) concepts, (2) ultimates and (3) things (?) like anicca, and perhaps also (Nina's) accumulations. As I understood you well, you said - in my words - that for every kind of truth we distinguish, we need to have an "instrument" with which we (human beings) can dtect and experience that kind of truth. For concepts there is the mind door and for ultimates there are the five sense doors. I have another suggestion to solve this problem. Perhaps we have another sense to detect this kind of truth; the seventh sense: intuition. This makes thinks more complex, too complex. Perhaps the nature of anicca is in a way a incomprehensible. As Nyatiloka said in his Dictionary: acinteyya: lit. 'That which cannot or should not be thought, the unthinkable, incomprehensible, impenetrable, that which transcends the limits of thinking and over which therefore one should not ponder. These 4 unthinkables are: the sphere of a Buddha (buddha- visaya), of the meditative absorptions (jhána-visaya), of karma- result (kamma-vipáka), and brooding over the world (loka-cintá), especially over an absolute first beginning of it (s. A. IV, 77). "Therefore, o monks, do not brood over the world as to whether it is eternal or temporal, limited or endless .... Such brooding, O monks, is senseless, has nothing to do with genuine pure conduct (s. ádibrahmacariyaka-síla), does not lead to aversion, detachment, extinction, nor to peace, to full comprehension, enlightenment and Nibbána, etc." (S.LVI, 41). More about it in Ven. Mahasi's Niyama-Dipani. Metta Joop 56755 From: "robmoult" Date: Wed Mar 15, 2006 2:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello robmoult Hi Gunasaro, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Gunasaro" wrote: > Do apologise for delayed responding. The pleasure & happiness are mine as well. > Perhaps I may refresh Your memory about Nanapalo [alias Selamat Rodjali]. Since You mentioned about visiting Bogor, I guess You ever met [somehow] him before. He's now our tutor. He actually had translated the earlier version of 'Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma' [before editted by Ven. Boddhi], but hadn't come up to the final editting yet. Please just give comments whether You need it. > ===== When I lived in Jakarta (1988-1989), I attended a Thai Vihara at Sunter Agung. I am a buleh - my bahasa is okay for conversation but not good enough to have a serious discussion on Abhidhamma. I do not think that I have met Nanapalo, though I am sure that I would enjoy a discussion with him. I think that you are talking about Narada's "Manual of Abhidhamma" which Bhikkhu Bodhi built upon when writing his "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma". If you have a soft copy of Nanapalo's Indonesian version, it would be great if you could email it to me. ===== > It has become one of our goals [few friends & me] to be seriously & sincerely in introducing Abhidhamma to others. We just joined the course from Jan '06, 1½ hours once a week ~ but all of us [if I may say so] have gained so many benefit things in overcoming our daily issues. We can understand things clearer & be able to accept own & others weakness. > > To share the happiness for You all, by this mid April we'll open a new Abhidhamma Class in Jakarta. Nanapalo will spend 2 times a month to Jakarta, exactly after tutoring from Bogor [morning class]. Probably the class will be filled >30 pupils, ¾ of them are all new. And we're very much assured that the number will be increased in a very short of time. That's why now we're planning to print some specific manual books for Abhidhamma which had been translating by Nanapalo. And we'll distribute its freely to everyone & everywhere [especially Indonesia]. > > I was born in a village at West Borneo, Buddha Dhamma had just been introduced there for the past 1½ years ago. Last month I shared to them about Abhidhamma Course in Bogor. I don't even believe that now they're sooo... enthusiast to have the manual book in Indonesian. ===== There are many people who get benefits from studying Abhidhamma. We must always remember that study is meant as a foundation for practice. Here is a quote from Dr. K. Sri Dhammanada, Chief Reverend at the temple at which I give my Abhidhamma classes, "The question is raised whether the Abhidhamma is essential for Dhamma practice. The answer to this will depend on the individual who undertakes the practice. People vary in their levels of understanding, their temperaments and spiritual development. Ideally, all the different spiritual faculties should be harmonized, but some people are quite contented with devotional practices based on faith, while others are keen on developing penetrative insight. The Abhidhamma is most useful to those who want to understand the Dhamma in greater depth and detail. It aids the development of insight into the three characteristics of existence - impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and non-self. It is useful not only for the periods devoted to formal meditation, but also during the rest of the day when we are engaged in various mundane chores. We derive great benefit from the study of the Abhidhamma when we experience absolute reality. In addition, a comprehensive knowledge of the Abhidhamma is useful for those engaged in teaching and explaining the Dhamma. In fact, the real meaning of the most important Buddhist terminologies such as Dhamma, Kamma, Samsara, Sankhara, Paticcasamuppada and Nibbana cannot be understood without a knowledge of Abhidhamma." I hope that you find this quote as inspiring as I do. ===== > So, would You mind sharing us here any kind of tools which can be supporting our activities? ===== In the "Files" section of DSG, you can download a copy of the class notes that I used last year. I am in the process of rewriting (and adding to) my class notes this year. This year, I am following the structure of the Abhidhammatthasangaha. Metta, Rob M :-) 56756 From: han tun Date: Wed Mar 15, 2006 2:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana And the incomprehensibles hantun1 Dear Joop, Joop: More about it in Ven. Mahasi's Niyama-Dipani. Han: Is it Ledi Sayadaw’s Niyama Dipani? Han 56757 From: "icarofranca" Date: Wed Mar 15, 2006 2:47am Subject: Re: Why I Can't Embrace Buddhism icarofranca Hi Andrew!- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > You and Horgan are trying to equate these two ideas and then huff and > puff about being nervous about Buddha's infallibility because it > might hoodwink people into all manner of exploitation. Au contraire, > it might just save them from it!! Let's be fair about this, no? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- It seems to me that Mr.Horgan is very deceived with buddhism due its monastic nature - no "sexy suttas" to chat about in idle hours or hints about how to Solve "Halliday & Resnick" Physical and Mathematical problems with Abhidhamma stanzas´help. There were many fuss about these matters due to Mr. Fritoj Capra especulations about some links between Tao and Buddhism with science...and since then people accostumed in with the idea that the buddhistic and Taoist Monks were waiting at the end of the path where scientists were hardly threading on. Nothing of this business with TRUE Buddhism, of course...and Mr.Horgan now wants embrace something else more...adequate (?) to his mind, if any. And Matthew - it´s just my opinion, pal! - wants to relate the question with the Catholic Pope infalibility. Logically speaking, there´s no link - again, it´s about the western idea that Buddha is only a godlike being to be cultued. Oh yes, in East you´ll find MANY people that consider Buddhism as ONLY a matter of doing Puja at some Buddha´s statue or picture... so the words of a so high being can be infallible, isn´t it ? Not necessarily! The Doctrine of Buddha alerts us precisely about these ill-remarks: there´s not a Self to impinge on infalibility or a Dhamma so beautiful and perfect that could not be impermanent. Apparently Matthew is haunted by Roman Catholicism and wants to see infalible Roman Popes in the more improbable places! And finally, Andrew T is right: what about to be fair about it ? Mettaya, Ícaro 56758 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Mar 15, 2006 3:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Lotika nilovg Dear Scott, op 15-03-2006 04:34 schreef Scott Duncan op scduncan@...: > In reading about the classification of akusula cetasikas in A Survey > of Paramattha Dhammas (p.429) I see where in the "lotika," or the > triad consisting of lobha, di.t.ti (wrong view), and maana (conceit)it > is stipulated that di.t.ti and maana cannot arise together with > lobha-mula cittas, rather only separately. > > May I ask why this is so? What is the significance of this? --------- N: When one believes that the self really exists, it is wrong view. When one clings to these five khandhas here as important, it is conceit. Thus, a person may have eradicated wrong view, and has realized that this individual or that individual are only five khandhas arising and falling away, he may still have conceit. Conceit can arise on account of one's accumulated skill, intelligence, outward appearance (the ruupas of the body), etc. He may compare his abilities with someone else's, but also when he does not compare, conceit may arise. The sotaapanna has eradicated wrong view, and the arahat has eradicated conceit. ------- Scott: A secondary question would be regarding the distinction between > di.t.ti and maana, i.e., what is it? Is maana, for example, a > particular type of wrong view but only in relation to the concept > "self?" and as such it would be redundant for both to arise at once? > (That was the best I could do at the moment.) ------ N: Perhaps this question is answered by the above? If not, let me know. 56759 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Mar 15, 2006 3:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Letters from Nina (1) nilovg Dear Han, op 14-03-2006 23:06 schreef han tun op hantun1@... > N: “When we try to "catch" realities and desire to know > whether the phenomenon which appears is citta, > feeling,... > > “Some people might be inclined to sit and wait for > hearing,...We can go on > with all the things we usually do and we do not have > to do anything special in order to have more > awareness. > ------------------------------ > H: In Satipatthaana Sutta, under cittanupassana, the > Buddha said: > > “And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu abide contemplating > mind as mind? Here a bhikkhu understands mind affected > by lust as mind affected by lust .. and so on. > > ------------------------------ N: Just an addition to this quote as to: 'abide'. Abide, dwell, or live: viharati. In the Vibhanga , Analysis of jhaana, Ch, 12, no 540: We read under Kaayanupassana satipa.tthaana, that the monk should have sati sampajañña no matter what he is doing, walking, standing, eating, speaking, etc. This does not say that he should only be aware of ruupas of the body. He cannot help hearing, and then sound appears, or hearing. He should also understand these dhammas. Nothing is excluded. He is aware in all four postures, he 'dwells' contemplating. When we read about cittanupassana, he is aware in all four postures, naturally. ----------- > Han: > From the above passages, I understand that I should > not try to “catch the mind affected by lust, or I > should not “sit and wait for the mind affected by > lust to appear. -------- N: I think, we do not have to wait, it appears already. There is all the time an object fit for lobha. If one would sit and wait, one is heedless, doing nothing. -------- H: I should, instead, go on with all the > things I usually do and only when the mind affected by > lust appears due to conditions, I note it. ---------- N: There are countless moments of lobha we do not know about it. When it is accompanied by indifferent feeling it is not so obvious. We learn from the Abhidhamma that after seeing, hearing, etc. there are javana cittas that are either kusala cittas or akusala cittas. Very often they are cittas rooted in lobha. We do not like to be without seeing or hearing, we cling to it. Tanhaa is our companion, or we are in its retinue (parivaara), because we are in the cycle (see Tiika to Vis. 62 that I will post). We cling to all our experiences in life. After seeing there are other processes with thinking, and when the objective is not daana, siila or bhaavanaa, thinking is akusala. We mostly think with lobha. Gradually we can learn that even when we stretch out an arm or want to drink water, there is bound to be lobha. Very often lobha with indifferent feeling, and we do not notice this. We may stare at something such as a script with lobha, move a finger with lobha, and so on, all day long. When we go on naturally with what we usually do, we can learn about our true inclinations. We shall discover more and more lobha, much more than we ever thought. Cittas arise and then fall away immediately, and when we notice a dhamma it has gone already. When there can be direct awareness there will be more precise understanding, but this cannot be immediately so. But if we select cittas, this prevents us from seeing them as conditioned elements, there is some manipulation going on. Also, the first stage of insight comes first: knowing the difference between the characteristic of naama and of ruupa. Otherwise it is not clearly understood what naama is. Nina. 56760 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Mar 15, 2006 3:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Hello - the rules and displines (vinaya) nilovg Dear Kom, these topics interest me very much. op 15-03-2006 08:50 schreef Kom Tukovinit op kom@...: Figuring out how to wear the > robes was a challenge for me, going for alms without dropping the bowl, > the lid, the food, worse yet the robe and the belt can be challenging at > times. ------- N: How to wear robes, how one's outward conduct should be, this is important. I think lobha can show up already by the way how one wears one's robes. That is why I appreciate the minutest details of the Vinaya. They are not merely outward rules, we should see the deep meaning of these. Arahatship is the goal of monkhood. As I wrote before, the outward conduct of a monk should be like an arahat's. While doing one's best to follow this principle, one can be reminded of satipatthana. Without satipatthaana it is impossible to see danger in the minutest faults. One can also be reminded how much lobha is involved in the minutest movements of the body, the way one holds the bowl, etc. Yes, the rules are for the sake of in the faithless, the increase of the faithful, the establishment of the > true Dhamma> . It can help confidence: the Path can be followed, satipatthana can be developed, no matter in the daily life of monk or lay person. ------ K: 4) For the comfort of well-behaved bhikkhus - [kom - because > well-behaved people would certainly not want to live along side with > ill-behaved people) ------ N: We see so much the Buddha's compassion in the rules, in all details. They are for the sake of the wellbeing of the community. --------- K: > Q1) How does keeping the rules help the achievement of the sasasana's > goal? How does not keeping the rules hinder the achievement of the > sasana's goals? -------- N: Kh. Sujin explained that we should see separately a bhikkhu as a person, and a bhikkhu that is involved in the official work (kamma) of the Sangha. Such as in the case of Sangha daana: we do not give to a bhikkhu in person, but to the Sangha. This can help laypeople not to get upset when a bhikkhu is ill behaved. We can think of the ariyan sangha, all those who attained enlightenment. For instance, we saw a person, clearly a beggar, in yellow robe in India, asking for money. We did not give money, but the robe could remind us of the Sangha. Or, we pay respect to a bhikkhu, even though we see that he handled money. We pay respect to the Sangha. -------- K: Q2) How clear are these rules? > Q3) How closely observed can these rules be? > Q4) To fully apply these rules, what do you need to learn? ------- N: the commentary can help. The bhikkhu observes them as best as he is able to. Nina. 56761 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:23am Subject: [dsg] Is Samsaara An Illusion? Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana abhidhammika Dear Howard, TG, Robert K, Mike N, Scott, Dan and all Thank you for your clarification, Howard. Your statement 1: Existentially, samsara, as I understand the term, refers to what there is, Your statement 2: In samsara, which, itself, is an actual state of becoming, Your statement 3: That which actually "is" is not illusion, Your statement 4: Samsara is reality caught under the spell cast by illusion, When we collate your statements 1,2,3 and 4, assuming that 'that which' in statement 3 refers to Samsaara, you do appear to accept that Samsaara is a reality. If you agree with my this conclusion, Saadhu, saadhu, saadhu! So far, so good! When we get here thus, you now seem needing to revise your earlier position that reality is beyond conditions. This is because Samsaara constitutes series of conditioned phenomena and because Samsaara is a reality. As you know all along, there are four ultimate realites, namely, matter, consciousness, mental associates and nibbaana. Samsaara covers three ultimate realities which are subject to Dependent Origination. Nibbaana is the only ultimate reality beyond conditions. Howard, are you now happy with the above stock-taking of ultimate realities with their conditioned status (or unconditioned status in the case of nibbaana)? With regards, Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Suan - > Existentially, samsara, as I understand the term, refers to what there is, but *misperceived* due to avijja. Behaviorally, it is the state of wandering from grasping at this to grasping at that, being tossed about on the waves of ignorance-based desire. In samsara, which, itself, is an actual state of becoming, there is the seeming of permanence when there is no permanence, there is the seeming of substantial self-existence when there is none such, and there is the seeming of satisfaction obtainable through acquisition when satisfaction is obtainable only through letting go and letting be. It is the state in which dukkha rules. That which actually "is" is not illusion, but the "world" beset by all the seemings listed above has an illusory appearance. Samsara is reality caught under the spell cast by illusion, the darkness of fundamental ignorance. When the three poisons are dead and gone, so is samsara. These are the terms in which I choose to frame my answer. I hope they clarify my perspective. With metta, Howard 56762 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Lotika scottduncan2 Dear Nina, Thank you very much for your reply. N: "When one believes that the self really exists, it is wrong view. When one clings to these five khandhas here as important, it is conceit. Thus, a person may have eradicated wrong view, and has realized that this individual or that individual are only five khandhas arising and falling away, he may still have conceit...The sotaapanna has eradicated wrong view, and the arahat has eradicated conceit." If I am following, wrong view is the greater or broader of the two (wrong view/conceit). Wrong view is somehow an overarching sort of thing; a more global or encompassing form of delusion. One literally believes that the self exists and hence is more deeply ensconced in ignorance. When this is eradicated, say in the case of a sotaapanna, one is left with relatively less ignorance, but ignorance nonetheless. Now one clings subtly to the importance of each of the various aspects of the five khandas. Conceit arises with lobha-mula-cittas from time to time, despite the eradication of the more global wrong view. Is this correct? Sincerely, Scott. 56763 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:21am Subject: Re: Letter to Phil 1. Detachment. philofillet Hi Nia > when you are back on line next weekend, I will not be there. We go away for > a long weekend, Fridy-Monday. Have a nice little trip. I'll be signing off DSG and internet for a little while as I've lost the concentration on my other projects that I had when our computer was in the shop. Of course having said that I'll probably within a few days, the way I always am. > I am glad the Dhamma helped you when you were with your parents. When we > watched my father's declining with age it was a grim reminder for us. Ph: There is clinging to loved ones, and moments of understanding, and then back to people and things. But now the people and things are illuminated by our understanding of the Buddha's teaching. It almost seems that they become a little transparent or something. We still love them. But there is a little bit less clinging because there is a little bit less to cling to, or something. I don't know quite what it is. I am writing an essay/article entitled "metta through understanding" for the project you mentionned to me... >> Ph: >I have never had a moment of mindfulness of a reality as far as I > > know, though I guess I may have. I have had lots of moments of clear > > thinking about the very very very very recent past. And that is > > better than being in a complete fog. But it is not mindfulness. But > > I am not pressing. When there are conditions for mindfulness, there > > will be mindfulness, and not a moment sooner. > --------- > Rob K used to say, thinking in the present moment. Ph: That is a good expression to get at it. Mostly we are totally > absorbed in concepts and events, but sometimes there can be consideration of > hardness now, sound now. Without trying, without planning, unexpectantly. Ph: Sometimes. Not very often. Usually we dig up this consideration out of a desire to be thinking about Dhamma for the comfort it provides. I do at least. But there are kusala moments as well. > Rob K explained that this could happen when walking in a market or busy > place, and that it was unexpectantly. This is a good example. But even if > there is a slight trying, we can learn that this is not sati, that we are on > the wrong track, trying to take over the task of citta and cetasika, which > is absurd. Ph: Absurd indeed. The Buddha made it very clear in his second discourse, the anatta sutta, that there is no self that can give rise to cittas the way we want them. But it'll take us a long time to *really* understand that. In the meantime, lost in self, we try to be kusala citta factories. Absurd, but natural enough, for the ayatanas are burning with greed, hatred and delusion, as the Buddha taught in his third discourse. He didn't teach that to warn us and prompt us to be otherwise. He taught us that to show us the way things are for all but the ariyanas who develop revulsion etc in that sutta. So we try and try to have more kusala. That's not going to change any day soon. > Ph: Anyways, my point is that yes the self is trying to do something, > > always, except, again, for those rare moments. "Wealthy man!" > ------ > N: Here I should explain to others your remark. The late Ven. Dhammadharo > used to say this: true awareness, even one moment, is precious and it can > accumulate. Even once in a lifetime, he said. Ph: In a post to Howard I said that I was satisfied with odd moments of kusala. That was too much. There is more kusala than that. But moments of sati accompanied by panna, satipatthana? Wealthy man, if any of those arise. > > Just a remark: when I say something loosely during the discussions as taped, > do not pay too much attention to it. I just exclaimed in my enthusiasm that > I learnt much in Bgk, or India. Ph: That's the nature of the recorded talks. You say it once, I hear it a hundred times! Of course, thing said loosely reveal a lot so I did sense clinging to Acharn Sujin in what you said. Which is natural enough. We cling to our good Dhamma friends, naturally enough. > No one can condition the arising of any reality at all. There is no 'I' who > understands, but understanding understands. This is the way to become > detached. Ph: Panna works its way. > When sound appears, we do not have to say that it is sound, that > characteristic appears at that very moment. > There is nothing, then a dhamma like sound appears, Ph: How miraculous it is that the ayatanas appear where there has been bhavangas. Conditioned. Beyond our control. > and then it is gone. Ph:so miraculous. Also conditioned, beyond our control. > This sounds very common, but when understanding develops, it will be clear > that there is no self at all. Dhammas arise because of conditions. If there > is no understanding, there is an idea of self who observes.> Ph: There is very little understanding, so the idea of self who observes is still very strong. But we know where we are, and by the very fact of knowing where we are, small steps are made. Real steps. Phil 56764 From: "Joop" Date: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:19am Subject: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana And the incomprehensibles jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Joop, > > Joop: More about it in Ven. Mahasi's Niyama-Dipani. > > Han: Is it Ledi Sayadaw's Niyama Dipani? > > Han > Dear Han Yes, it is. It's too long to quote but I like to read it Metta Joop 56765 From: han tun Date: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Letters from Nina (1) hantun1 Dear Nina, Thank you ever so much for your clear and precise explanation. I have learned a lot. With metta and deepest respect, Han --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Han, > N: I think, we do not have to wait, it appears > already. There is all the > time an object fit for lobha. If one would sit and > wait, one is heedless, > doing nothing. > -------- > N: There are countless moments of lobha we do not > know about it. When it is > accompanied by indifferent feeling it is not so > obvious. -------- > When we go on naturally with what we usually do, we > can learn about our true > inclinations. -------- > But if we select > cittas, this prevents us from seeing them as > conditioned elements, there is > some manipulation going on. > Also, the first stage of insight comes first: > knowing the difference between > the characteristic of naama and of ruupa. Otherwise > it is not clearly > understood what naama is. > Nina. > 56766 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Example of the second kind of dukkha? philofillet Hi Sarah, Nina and all > --- nina van gorkom wrote: > > > Hi Phil, > > no. 2: viparinaama dukkha, no 3: dukkha inherent in all conditioned > > dhammas > > that arise and fall away, sa"nkhaara dukkha. > > Example 2: Dispeller of Delusion (p. 113): bodily and mental pleasant > > feeling are dukkha in change, > of > > dukkha through their change>. > > For instance you are in good health and live in comfort, but this > > changes. > > I forgot her answer, but the talks are good. > .... > S: I'm not sure of this example - it sounds rather like the one Erik gave > about enjoying living in a comfortable flat, but then it's lost. K.Sujin > stressed that that was an example of the first, dukkha dukkha. > > I think she gave the example of choosing toilet paper!! She stressed the > aspect of pleasant feeling when we move from one object to another, like > at a buffet of food, following the pleasant feelings. She said it was much > quicker than this of course, just following pleasant feelings all the > time. Perhaps it was this aspect you were stressing above and I > misunderstood. Ph: Yes, I heard it again, and it wasn't so clear to me. Very ephemeral, quickly passing likes and dislikes. I thought of the example Nina uses in ADL, I think, about reaching out for the hot water tap when the bath goes lukewar, but that's not right. Something to think about. > It's much easier to understand the unpleasant feelings as dukkha, but of > course, pleasant feelings are just as much dukkha because they change and > I think this is what is stressed. Ph: The other day I jotted down in a notebook 4 very helpful teachings from the suttanta re feelings: 1 - when pleasant feeling is not understood, the tendency to lust is present 2 - the Buddha taught pleasant, unpleasant and neutral feeling, but they all fall under suffering 3 - I forget but it was GREAT 4 - the one about the two darts, the first dart of physical plain that is followed by the second dart of mental suffering caused by it. None of us can say "I will suffer in body, but not in mind." Not yet, not yet. THough of course there may be less of it going on and on and on... Phil 56767 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Mar 15, 2006 0:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana And the incomprehensibles upasaka_howard Hi, Joop - In a message dated 3/15/06 4:16:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, jwromeijn@... writes: > > Hallo Howard, James, Scott, all > > Like James, my thinking about the nature (?) of anicca is not yet > stopped. > You responded some days ago to my suggestion that there are not two > but three 'truths' (aka kind of realities aka languages): (1) > concepts, (2) ultimates and (3) things (?) like anicca, and perhaps > also (Nina's) accumulations. > As I understood you well, you said - in my words - that for every > kind of truth we distinguish, we need to have an "instrument" with > which we (human beings) can dtect and experience that kind of truth. > For concepts there is the mind door and for ultimates there are the > five sense doors. > > I have another suggestion to solve this problem. > Perhaps we have another sense to detect this kind of truth; the > seventh sense: intuition. > This makes thinks more complex, too complex. > Perhaps the nature of anicca is in a way a incomprehensible. > > As Nyatiloka said in his Dictionary: > acinteyya: lit. 'That which cannot or should not be thought, the > unthinkable, incomprehensible, impenetrable, that which transcends > the limits of thinking and over which therefore one should not > ponder. These 4 unthinkables are: the sphere of a Buddha (buddha- > visaya), of the meditative absorptions (jhána-visaya), of karma- > result (kamma-vipáka), and brooding over the world (loka-cintá), > especially over an absolute first beginning of it (s. A. IV, 77). > "Therefore, o monks, do not brood over the world as to whether it is > eternal or temporal, limited or endless .... Such brooding, O monks, > is senseless, has nothing to do with genuine pure conduct (s. > ádibrahmacariyaka-síla), does not lead to aversion, detachment, > extinction, nor to peace, to full comprehension, enlightenment and > Nibbána, etc." (S.LVI, 41). > > More about it in Ven. Mahasi's Niyama-Dipani. > > > Metta > > Joop > ========================== With regard to anicca and anatta, I believe these are facts about phenomena that are known through the mind door. They are universal facts about dhammas that express relational characteristics. I think that there are two ways in which these facts can be known. One of these - the primary, if not sole, one for us - is through thinking, based, of course, on observation. The other is the purified, supermundane perception or recognition called pa~n~na/wisdom. For anicca, we see that a phenomenon is present but later not present. That very fact of "here now, then not" is anicca. I believe that is all there is to anicca - the property of not remaining. Now, anatta is more subtle, I think, and also more complex. The most fundamental aspect of anatta is that of a phenomenon not having self/identity/own-being. A related aspect is the lacking of substance/core. Still another aspect, is that of being impersonal. That last applies to all dhammas but is most often applied to the five-aggregate collection called a sentient being in the recognition of it as a mere collection of ever-changing, impersonal elements.The depth and complexity of anatta is such that grasping it through thought is a far more difficult and complicated task than grasping impermanence by thinking. The only way either of these can be understood in a manner that is actually freeing is through a supremely heightened wisdom which awaits the completion of lengthy and serious practice in cultivating the mind. 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) 56768 From: han tun Date: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana And the incomprehensibles hantun1 Dear Joop, Joop: Yes, it is. It's too long to quote but I like to read it Han: Thank you very much for bringing up this manual. For the benefit of other members who might like to read Ledi Sayadaw’s Niyama Dipani, I give below the link to click on. http://www.ubakhin.com/ledi/MANUAL04.html Metta Han 56769 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Mar 15, 2006 1:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Is Samsaara An Illusion? Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana upasaka_howard Hi, Suan (and all) - In a message dated 3/15/06 7:28:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, suanluzaw@... writes: > > Dear Howard, TG, Robert K, Mike N, Scott, Dan and all > > Thank you for your clarification, Howard. > > Your statement 1: Existentially, samsara, as I understand the term, > refers to what there is, > > Your statement 2: In samsara, which, itself, is an actual state of > becoming, > > Your statement 3: That which actually "is" is not illusion, > > Your statement 4: Samsara is reality caught under the spell cast by > illusion, > > When we collate your statements 1,2,3 and 4, assuming that 'that > which' in statement 3 refers to Samsaara, you do appear to accept > that Samsaara is a reality. If you agree with my this conclusion, > Saadhu, saadhu, saadhu! > > So far, so good! When we get here thus, you now seem needing to > revise your earlier position that reality is beyond conditions. > > This is because Samsaara constitutes series of conditioned phenomena > and because Samsaara is a reality. > > As you know all along, there are four ultimate realites, namely, > matter, consciousness, mental associates and nibbaana. > > Samsaara covers three ultimate realities which are subject to > Dependent Origination. > > Nibbaana is the only ultimate reality beyond conditions. > > Howard, are you now happy with the above stock-taking of ultimate > realities with their conditioned status (or unconditioned status in > the case of nibbaana)? --------------------------------------------- Howard: Not entirely so. What I'm about to say may sound like I am annoyed or very critical or upset. Please know that it is none of these. Not at all. It is very common for a number of us, and probably all of us on occasion, to take the statements of another and to then summarize them in a way that makes them more understandable to ourself and more manageable. This is never quite satisfactory for the one whose understanding is being characterized and summarized. That applies in this case. The only explicit deficit in your summary, as I see it, is in #1, where you omit the important element of misperception. Samsara is not what there is - it is what thre is *misperceived* under the sway of avijja. But, more generally, the activity of summarizing serves also as an activity of replacement. With respect, I would prefer to let my words stand on their own, as the formulation that I gave is about the best that I can give. All that I will add that perhaps you will find helpful is that, ironicaly, illusion *in the sense of the being deluded* is a reality! LOL! Misperceiving is a reality!. But the way things seem to be under the sway of delusion is not. ---------------------------------------------- > > With regards, > > Suan Lu Zaw > > www.bodhiology.org > ====================== 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) 56770 From: "Joop" Date: Wed Mar 15, 2006 8:51am Subject: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana And the incomprehensibles jwromeijn Hallo Howard, all Thanks for your reaction. I'm not sure that anatta is more subtle, more complex, than anicca; that is: to me anicca is more subtle and a more important topic to contemplate than anatta. My question still is: is there more than " thinking based on observation" PLUS "pa~n~na/wisdom" What I called "intuition" is -as far as I know - called in Buddhism: "the dhamma eye". See for example from SN LVI.11 Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta (Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion): "That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the group of five monks delighted at his words. And while this explanation was being given, there arose to Ven. Kondañña the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye: Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation." So now the question is: is the "dhamma eye" the same as "panna" ? I doubt. In www.baus.org/baus/library/5eyese.html (a Mahayana text) I found: "Buddhism classifies the eye into five categories; namely, the Physical eye, Heavenly eye, Wisdom eye, Dharma eye, and the Buddha eye." Metta Joop --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Joop - ... > 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) > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > 56771 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana And the incomprehensibles upasaka_howard Hi, Joop - In a message dated 3/15/06 11:53:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, jwromeijn@... writes: > Hallo Howard, all > > Thanks for your reaction. I'm not sure that anatta is more subtle, > more complex, than anicca; that is: to me anicca is more subtle and a > more important topic to contemplate than anatta. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, as applied to conditioned dhammas in their aspect of lacking self or identity or own-being, I see anatta as subsuming anicca, as the lack of self, identity, and own-being is basically equivalent to dependently arising and ceasing. ---------------------------------------------- > > My question still is: is there more than " thinking based on > observation" PLUS "pa~n~na/wisdom" ----------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't see why there need be. ---------------------------------------------- > What I called "intuition" is -as far as I know - called in > Buddhism: "the dhamma eye". > See for example from SN LVI.11 > Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta (Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion): > "That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the group of five > monks delighted at his words. And while this explanation was being > given, there arose to Ven. Kondañña the dustless, stainless Dhamma > eye: Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation." > > So now the question is: is the "dhamma eye" the same as "panna" ? I > doubt. > > In www.baus.org/baus/library/5eyese.html (a Mahayana text) I found: > "Buddhism classifies the eye into five categories; namely, the > Physical eye, Heavenly eye, Wisdom eye, Dharma eye, and the Buddha > eye." --------------------------------------- Howard: There is much in Mahayana that I like, but this isn't included. ;-) -------------------------------------- > > Metta > > Joop =================== 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) 56772 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana And the incomprehensibles TGrand458@... Hi Joop and Howard In a message dated 3/15/2006 9:53:32 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, jwromeijn@... writes: Hallo Howard, all Thanks for your reaction. I'm not sure that anatta is more subtle, more complex, than anicca; that is: to me anicca is more subtle and a more important topic to contemplate than anatta. TG: Joop!!! This is excellent and I basically agree with you. I rate them pretty equally important, subtle, and inter-linked. To know one is to know the other. (The impermanence that 'seems easier' to understand is not an in-depth understanding of impermanence IMO.) Also, several Suttas make the point that "no-self" is understood/realized by investigating impermanence!!! I was going to post to Howard about this but then decided not to but now was able to do it after all. LOL My question still is: is there more than " thinking based on observation" PLUS "pa~n~na/wisdom" What I called "intuition" is -as far as I know - called in Buddhism: "the dhamma eye". See for example from SN LVI.11 Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta (Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion): "That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the group of five monks delighted at his words. And while this explanation was being given, there arose to Ven. Kondañña the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye: Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation." So now the question is: is the "dhamma eye" the same as "panna" ? I doubt. In www.baus.org/baus/library/5eyese.html (a Mahayana text) I found: "Buddhism classifies the eye into five categories; namely, the Physical eye, Heavenly eye, Wisdom eye, Dharma eye, and the Buddha eye." TG: Interesting post Joop. I'm not sure what the difference between the 'wisdom eye' and the 'dhamma eye' would be. Perhaps wisdom eye is more 'ethical insight oriented' and dhamma eye is more 'conditionality insight oriented.' The classification does seem to be a progressive scale that heads in the direction of more depth. Could you state what you think are the differences between 'dhamma eye' and 'panna'? Thanks. Metta Joop TG 56773 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Mar 15, 2006 10:43am Subject: Learning Emptiness from You!! (Re: [dsg] Ontological Status of the Tilakk... buddhatrue Hi Howard (and Jon), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, James - > ======================= > I think that Jon had a handle on this when he pointed towards pa~n~na > being wide ranging. I think that any proper understanding obtainable through > our conceptualization should be outdoable (is that a word? LOL!) by > supermundane wisdom. Pa~n~na, I would think, while based in actual phenomena, could not > be bound to a single dhamma at a time. It must be able to know not only the > trees but also the forest. While I basically agree with what you have written here, you are still making me very confused! I thought that your original point was how the Abhidhamma (or at least the way it is presented in this group) states that panna knows realities and not concepts. You gave the excellent example of impermanence. Then Jon writes you a post stating that really panna is "unknowable" and "unthinkable", and then you are suddenly whistling Dixie! ;-)) What gives? How does what Jon wrote really relate to the Abhidhamma or to what you wrote? Frankly, I see it as a cop out: can't explain something, then just label it as "unknowable", that sure is convenient! At that rate, why not just throw out the entire Abhidhamma? Seems like a colossal waste of time if everything is ultimately unknowable! Howard, I think there is more here and I am not convinced that the issue has been resolved. What is it that panna knows? Metta, James 56774 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana And the incomprehensibles upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and Joop) - In a message dated 3/15/06 12:39:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes,speaking of anicca and anatta: > I rate them > pretty equally important, subtle, and inter-linked. > > ======================== I agree with that. My last post was lost by Windows freezing up, and in the rewriting I missed something. What I missed was saying that, IMO, the full realization of any one of the tilakkhana leads to that of the others. Which is most suitable for a particular person, and at a particular time, depends on inclination and occasion. This is why there are three gates to liberation. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 56775 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:58am Subject: Re: Learning Emptiness from You!! (Re: [dsg] Ontological Status of the Tilakk... upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 3/15/06 1:44:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > > While I basically agree with what you have written here, you are > still making me very confused! I thought that your original point > was how the Abhidhamma (or at least the way it is presented in this > group) states that panna knows realities and not concepts. You gave > the excellent example of impermanence. Then Jon writes you a post > stating that really panna is "unknowable" and "unthinkable", and > then you are suddenly whistling Dixie! ;-)) What gives? How does > what Jon wrote really relate to the Abhidhamma or to what you > wrote? Frankly, I see it as a cop out: can't explain something, > then just label it as "unknowable", that sure is convenient! At > that rate, why not just throw out the entire Abhidhamma? Seems like > a colossal waste of time if everything is ultimately unknowable! --------------------------------------- Howard: No, no - that's not it. My impression on DSG has been that Abhidhamma as understood by the Abhidhammikas here says that wisdom knows nothing but paramattha dhammas, which then would make final realization of the tilakkhana problematical. But I understand Jon to have said, to paraphrase him, that wisdom is wide ranging, and that to know a paramattha dhamma with wisdom includes knowing *about* that dhamma with wisdom as as well, and so, it would include a deep and direct understanding of the tilakkhana with respect to it, and it would include relational knowledge pertaining to it including interdependencies of various sorts between it and other dhammas. If I have misunderstood Jon, then I await correction. ---------------------------------------------------- > > Howard, I think there is more here and I am not convinced that the > issue has been resolved. What is it that panna knows? ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: An awful lot, I think! ;-) ----------------------------------------------------- > > Metta, > James > > =========================== 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) 56776 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Mar 15, 2006 6:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana And the incomprehensibles TGrand458@... In a message dated 3/15/2006 11:44:52 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: I agree with that. My last post was lost by Windows freezing up, and in the rewriting I missed something. What I missed was saying that, IMO, the full realization of any one of the tilakkhana leads to that of the others. Which is most suitable for a particular person, and at a particular time, depends on inclination and occasion. This is why there are three gates to liberation. With metta, Howard Sounds good Howard. I figured something was wrong. ;-) By the way...those three gates make me think of a revolving door and the one tilakkhana one happens to be at...at the time of liberation...is the door that one enters. Don't know why I wrote this. LOL TG 56777 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Mar 15, 2006 6:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana And the incomprehensibles upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 3/15/06 2:08:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: > Sounds good Howard. I figured something was wrong. ;-) > > By the way...those three gates make me think of a revolving door and the > one > tilakkhana one happens to be at...at the time of liberation...is the door > that one enters. Don't know why I wrote this. LOL ----------------------------------------- Howard: Actually, I quite like that! Just think about this slightly mixed metaphor: 1) Which ever door is first, the other two follow immediately after! 2) The revolving door is like samsara, but once you get through, all is calm! :-) ----------------------------------------- TG> > ===================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 56778 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana And the incomprehensibles nilovg Dear Han. I have his works in hard cover, they are very good. I find citta niyama very helpful to consider: the sequence of cittas in processes, and nobody can change their order. Nina. op 15-03-2006 14:45 schreef han tun op hantun1@...: > Han: Thank you very much for bringing up this manual. > For the benefit of other members who might like to > read Ledi Sayadaw’s Niyama Dipani, I give below the > link to click on. > > http://www.ubakhin.com/ledi/MANUAL04.html 56779 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana And the incomprehensibles nilovg Hallo Joop, This is similar to (if not the same as) the Commentary to the Samyutta Nikaya IV, Salaayatanavagga, at the beginning. Nina. op 15-03-2006 17:51 schreef Joop op jwromeijn@...: > In www.baus.org/baus/library/5eyese.html (a Mahayana text) I found: > "Buddhism classifies the eye into five categories; namely, the > Physical eye, Heavenly eye, Wisdom eye, Dharma eye, and the Buddha > eye." 56780 From: "Justin" Date: Wed Mar 15, 2006 9:42am Subject: Re: Why I Can't Embrace Buddhism just999in Hello All, There can be no reassonable comparison whatsoever between Buddha and the pope. The pope is merely a politician elected to be head of the catholic church by the catholic elite. The pope has not acheived anything other than an elected office. The Buddha, of course, reached enlightenment through his own effort. Choosing not to embrace Buddhism is fine, but a reasonable comparison cannot be made with the Buddha and the pope. Cheers, justin --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "icarofranca" wrote: > > Hi Andrew!- ... > And Matthew - it�s just my opinion, pal! - wants to relate the > question with the Catholic Pope infalibility. Logically speaking, > there�s no link - again, it�s about the western idea that Buddha is > only a godlike being to be cultued. Oh yes, in East you�ll find MANY > people that consider Buddhism as ONLY a matter of doing Puja at some > Buddha�s statue or picture... so the words of a so high being can be > infallible, isn�t it ? > Not necessarily! > The Doctrine of Buddha alerts us precisely about these ill-remarks: > there�s not a Self to impinge on infalibility or a Dhamma so beautiful > and perfect that could not be impermanent. Apparently Matthew is > haunted by Roman Catholicism and wants to see infalible Roman Popes in > the more improbable places! > And finally, Andrew T is right: what about to be fair about it ? > > Mettaya, > > �caro > 56781 From: han tun Date: Wed Mar 15, 2006 2:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana And the incomprehensibles hantun1 Dear Nina, You are right. Thank you very much. Han --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Han. > I find citta niyama very helpful to consider: the > sequence of cittas in > processes, and nobody can change their order. > Nina. 56782 From: han tun Date: Wed Mar 15, 2006 2:14pm Subject: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 877 ) hantun1 Dhamma Thread ( 877 ) (U Htoo Naing requested me to send this. Han Tun) Dear Dhamma Friends, Kamma.t.thaana: Metta is a good thing and metta is universal to all. There are many different ways of practising of metta. There are 528 methods. 4 citations are general. There are 5 objects as general. So there are 20 citation. And there are 7 objects that are less general. So there are 28 citations. Altogether there are 48 citations. These 48 citations are general again. There are 10 specific directive citations. They are 1. east 2. south-east 3. south 4. south-west 5. west 6. north-west 7. north 8. north-east 9. up 10.down So there will be 48.10 = 480 citations. These 480 cittas are added to more general citation 48. So there will be 480 + 48 = 528 metta. In Myanmar cultural society, people say 528-metta when they talk about love between mother and son, father and daughter, brother and sister etc. But love between mother and son may not be as pure as these 528 citational metta. Because mother will have attachment of lobha and so does the son. This is like intellectual calculation. But one can practise metta in this way. 4 general citations are 1. sabbe sattaa averaa hontu 2. sabbe sattaa abyapajjaa hontu 3. sabbe sattaa aniighaa hontu 4. sabbe satta sukhi-attaanam pariharantu 5 general objects are satta-pannatti and they are 1. sabbe sattaa 2. sabbe paanaa 3. sabbe bhuutaa 4. sabbe puggalaa 5. sabbe attabhaava-pariyapannaa 7 less general objects are satta-pannatti and they are 1. sabbe ariyaa 2. sabbe anariyaa 3. sabbe purisaa 4. sabba itthiyo 5. sabbe manussaa 6. sabbe devaa 7. sabbe vinipatika asuraa So there are 12 objects and there are 4 citations. There will be 12.4 altogether 48 citations for general citation. There are 10 directions or disaa and so there will be 480 citations for all these directions. Along with 48 general 480 citations will make a total of 528 citations. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 56783 From: "Gunasaro" Date: Wed Mar 15, 2006 7:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello gunasaro@... Dearest Rob: Vihara Jakarta Dhammacakka Jaya, right? I was there in 1995, when the first time I was introduced to Buddhism. I'm sure Nanapalo will send You the softcopy soon after the final editing. He's kind of busy now, I believe he'll soon dive into this subject. It's a very inspiring quote from Bhante; thanks a lot for sharing. Essentially, we're also used to be reminded by Nanapalo about the same issue. Also about the effects that might be caused after learning Abhidhamma for a while, couple of them can be negative. So, for me it seems like we [as the beginners now] need to stick to the quote from Bhante. I'm going to grab the file soon & please let us know if You had done the other supporting files. Would You mind explaining in brief about the structure of the Abhidhammatthasangaha? So sorry for my ignorance... Anumodana... Sukhi Hotu, Gunasaro [08178.YUWEI] ----- Original Message ----- From: robmoult To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 17:15 Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello ===== When I lived in Jakarta (1988-1989), ===== There are many people who get benefits from studying Abhidhamma. I hope that you find this quote as inspiring as I do. ===== In the "Files" section of DSG, you can download a copy of the class notes that I used last year. Metta, Rob M :-) 56784 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Wed Mar 15, 2006 9:03pm Subject: Is Avijjaa Real? Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana abhidhammika Dear Howard How are you? Thank you for your attempt to answer my questions. You wrote: "Samsara is not what there is - it is what thre is *misperceived* under the sway of avijja." Avijjaa is one of the mental associates (cetaikas) called "moho". We can regard the Forward Process (Anuloma) of Dependent Origination (Pa.ticcasammuppaada) as the Buddha's technical description of Samsaara where avijjaa heads the anuloma process. Now, I would like to ask you the following. Is avijjaa real or unreal? Thanking you in advance. Suan www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Suan (and all) - Howard: Not entirely so. What I'm about to say may sound like I am annoyed or very critical or upset. Please know that it is none of these. Not at all. It is very common for a number of us, and probably all of us on occasion, to take the statements of another and to then summarize them in a way that makes them more understandable to ourself and more manageable. This is never quite satisfactory for the one whose understanding is being characterized and summarized. That applies in this case. The only explicit deficit in your summary, as I see it, is in #1, where you omit the important element of misperception. Samsara is not what there is - it is what thre is *misperceived* under the sway of avijja. But, more generally, the activity of summarizing serves also as an activity of replacement. With respect, I would prefer to let my words stand on their own, as the formulation that I gave is about the best that I can give. All that I will add that perhaps you will find helpful is that, ironicaly, illusion *in the sense of the being deluded* is a reality! LOL! Misperceiving is a reality!. But the way things seem to be under the sway of delusion is not. ---------------------------------------------- > > With regards, > > Suan Lu Zaw > > www.bodhiology.org > ====================== With metta, Howard 56785 From: "Kom Tukovinit" Date: Wed Mar 15, 2006 9:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Hello - at the first temple tikmok Here are a version of the answers to yesterday's questions: Q1) How does keeping the rules help the achievement of the sasasana's goal? How does not keeping the rules hinder the achievement of the sasana's goals? If the ultimate goal of this sasana is to achieve nibbana, then the Pali and commentaries are rather clear on this point. Without keeping the rules (perhaps perfectly or close to it?), then higher benefits of the sasana (samatha and vipassana) cannot be hoped for. Keeping the rules is a cause leading towards non-anxiety, non-anxiety towards Piti, Piti towards Sukha, Sukha towards single-pointedness, and single-pointedness towards the achievement of insights. It is clear to me that if you hope to achieve the ultimate goal as a monk, sila --- patimokha, the restraints of the faculties, the reflections on the life necessities, and the purity of the livelihood --- must be achieved. In fact, Vissudhimagga says this generally towards laypeople and monks alike. Q2) How clear are these rules? Even the rules are not uniformly followed across the sangha communities (which is totally expected, with the decline of the sasana), the main patimokha (not the infinite subtleties within it) rules are agreed on. When it comes to the subtleties and the detailed points, even within the main 227 rules, the details are as controversial as the "practice" in Buddhism itself. Let me give a couple of examples. Before a monk wears a piece of robe, he must designate it, as an outer robe for example. To designate the robe as an outer robe, this robe must be of a minimum size and cannot exceed the maximum size. Without being the right size, the designation is incomplete and hence the monk risks infracting the rule of non- designation of the robe. The problem is, nobody truly knows what the size measurements are --- the units used in the scriptures are ancient. Here's another example. If you read through the rules regarding asking non-relatives, or people who hasn't given permission (for asking), a monk cannot ask for fine food, alms-bowl, or robes. You might get a very clear impression that asking for other proper non-necessities would be OK. The impression won't serve you well. If you scrutinize the commentaries and the tika in multiple places (you would have to dig pretty hard), it turns out that the commentaries explicitly says that asking for water is an infraction. And then, there are implications that a monk cannot ask for anything at all, except to the relatives and those who already give permission, not even asking for other monks (which is a common misperception). Q3) How closely observed can these rules be? As you can see above, you can observe it as closely as you know the rules (and have faith towards them, even when it seems out of time or may not make sense at first). Q4) To fully apply these rules, what do you need to learn? The more minimum the life necessities are for a monk, and the fewer contacts he has with other people (including monks and laypeople), the less complicated the monk's life is going to be. To live in a more complicated environments, I think the monk will have to learn a lot from Pali, commentaries, and the tikas. The other choice is he would have to have a teacher already perfected in these conducts. Personally, based on my own experiences and on other monks' impressions about the communities today, I wouldn't place a high hope for the latter choice. (next, what benefits there are for being a monk, as I personally see) -- Kom Tukovinit kom@... 56786 From: "Kom Tukovinit" Date: Wed Mar 15, 2006 9:24pm Subject: Re: Hello - the rules and displines (vinaya) tikmok Dear Nina, I have a question for you. > Arahatship is the goal of monkhood. As I wrote before, the outward conduct > of a monk should be like an arahat's. Isn't the goal of Buddhism itself Arahatship? Why is it just for monks? kom 56787 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana -- The term "Reality" TGrand458@... Hi Suan, Howard, All A few comments. First of all is the term "reality." I know I'm uncomfortable using that term for a couple of reasons (although it occasionally slips in). So I looked it up in the dictionary to see if maybe I could find a problem there. Most definitions were very acceptable until I got to the last which was completely unacceptable. This last definition defined 'reality' as -- "Something that exists independently of all other things and from which all other things derive." This definition may be true regarding Nibbana; but it is diametrically opposed to what is true regarding conditions/conditionality. Eureka! Evidence that supports my innate discomfort with the term 'reality.' The definition of 'reality' above is actually a perfect definition of 'self.' I think the term 'reality,' at least subliminally, is very likely to imposes a sense of self onto that which is called a 'reality.' This continues to support what I believe is a unwitting effort by some folks to see states as "having self." I.E., "own characteristics," "ultimate realities," etc. These terms and the outlooks they imbue do not correspond to the Buddha's teachings as I understand them...as impermanent, unsatisfactory, not-self. As I see it, these terms impose, subliminally, a view of little 'effervescent selves.' Why don't we just call conditions -- 'conditions'? ... and leave it at that. TG In a message dated 3/15/2006 5:28:45 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, suanluzaw@... writes: So far, so good! When we get here thus, you now seem needing to revise your earlier position that reality is beyond conditions. This is because Samsaara constitutes series of conditioned phenomena and because Samsaara is a reality. As you know all along, there are four ultimate realites, namely, matter, consciousness, mental associates and nibbaana. Samsaara covers three ultimate realities which are subject to Dependent Origination. Nibbaana is the only ultimate reality beyond conditions. Howard, are you now happy with the above stock-taking of ultimate realities with their conditioned status (or unconditioned status in the case of nibbaana)? With regards, Suan Lu Zaw 56788 From: "Joop" Date: Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:49pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana And the incomprehensibles jwromeijn Hallo TG, Howard, Nina, all Two reactions and a remark TG. We agreed about most; only you asked me what (in my opinion) is the difference between "wisdom eye" and "dhamma eye"? As far as I understand the quotes I used the main idea behind it is that step by step one can penatrate more in the truth: from superficial to deepest (so not especially "two truths" according Abhidhamma-orthodoxy). And "dhamma eye" is a level that only noble persons (streamenterer of higher in Theravada, a bodhisattva in Mahayana) get and than have. Because I'm a wordling I can not exact understand what that "dhamma eye" is. Howard. My message had too much topic, now one question to you about SN LVI.11 Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta (Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion): "… That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the group of five monks delighted at his words. And while this explanation was being given, there arose to Ven. Kondañña the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye: Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation." If you agree with with that the last sentence "Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation." is about anicca, than my question is: Do you think that "dhamma eye" is this quote (in his translation Bhikkhu Bodhi uses "dhamma vision") is the same as "pa~n~na/wisdom"? (I think not, but I'm not sure, perhaps Nina has more 'grounds under her feets' ?) BTW It always surprises me that this first and (thus) one of the most important sermons of the Budhha is so "hidden" in the Tipitaka: somewhere in the Vinaya and somewhere in the middle of the last part of the Samyutta Nikaya. Metta Joop 56789 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:55pm Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 399- Beautiful Cetasikas (Sobhana Cetasikas) Introduction (j) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== (Ch24 - Sobhana Cetasikas Introduction contd) We should find out whether there is at this moment, on account of what is seen, kusala citta or akusala citta. We are usually absorbed in the details of the things around us, but sometimes there can be confidence in the value of awareness of the reality which appears now. Even if we are only beginners and there is not yet clear understanding of nåma and rúpa, there can be confidence in awareness of the present reality and then there are kusala cittas. The function of kusala, according to the first definition, is the destruction of akusala. Akusala cannot be eradicated unless right understanding of realities has been developed, but this does not mean that dåna or síla should be neglected. Through right understanding the wrong view of self can be eliminated, but, if there is no development of generosity and we keep on clinging to our possessions, how could there ever be detachment from the self? It is beneficial to develop all kinds of kusala for which we have accumulations, but when it is developed together with right understanding of realities akusala can eventually be eradicated. Purity is the manifestation of kusala according to the first definition, whereas in the second definition purity is the function of kusala. When the citta is akusala, it is impure, unclean. When we are attached to an object we experience, we are enslaved and at such a moment the citta is not pure. Whereas when there is kusala citta there is no enslavement, no selfishness; the citta is pure, free from defilements. If we know the difference between akusala citta and kusala citta we can understand that purity is a quality of kusala citta. According to both definitions, the proximate cause of kusala is wise attention. When there is akusala citta there is unwise attention to the object and when there is kusala citta there is wise attention to the object. When there is wise attention, there is no infatuation with the object, there is no aversion, no ignorance. Seeing realities as they are conditions wise attention. The arahat has the highest degree of wise attention: for him defilements do not arise on account of any object he experiences, no matter it is pleasant or unpleasant. ***** (Ch24 - Sobhana Cetasikas Introduction to be contd) Metta, Sarah ====== 56790 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 0:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Hello - the rules and displines (vinaya) sarahprocter... Hi Kom, I'd just like to say that I found this post most interesting, especially the detail on the 10 reasons for the rules etc, and am looking forward to the others to come:)). A friend off-list also wrote: "Kom´s experiences as a Bhikkhu are being precious for all of us! I won´t dare to butting in his posts...seriously!" Metta, Sarah ====== --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > The Buddha gave ten reasons for issuing each of the rule (from V. > Thanissaro): for the excellence of the Community, the peace of the > Community, the curbing of the shameless, the comfort of well-behaved > bhikkhus, the restraint of pollutants related to the present life, the > prevention of pollutants related to the next life, the arousing of faith > in the faithless, the increase of the faithful, the establishment of the > true Dhamma and the fostering of discipline. > > From memory, the commentaries further explain these ten points: <...> 56791 From: "robmoult" Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 0:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello robmoult Hi Gunasaro, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Gunasaro" wrote: > > Vihara Jakarta Dhammacakka Jaya, right? I was there in 1995, when the first time I was introduced to Buddhism. I'm sure Nanapalo will send You the softcopy soon after the final editing. He's kind of busy now, I believe he'll soon dive into this subject. > ===== I am looking forward to it! ===== > It's a very inspiring quote from Bhante; thanks a lot for sharing. Essentially, we're also used to be reminded by Nanapalo about the same issue. Also about the effects that might be caused after learning Abhidhamma for a while, couple of them can be negative. So, for me it seems like we [as the beginners now] need to stick to the quote from Bhante. > > I'm going to grab the file soon & please let us know if You had done the other supporting files. Would You mind explaining in brief about the structure of the Abhidhammatthasangaha? So sorry for my ignorance... ===== Let me explain about the Abhidhammatthasangaha. The seven volumes of the Abhidhamma together with their commentaries are massive in size and complexity. A summary was needed to act as an introduction to allow a new student to grasp the main features of the Abhidhamma before embarking on a study of the original texts. In fifty pages of Pali, Acariya Anuruddha was able to capture the essence of thousands of pages of Abhidhamma texts and their commentaries. Bhikkhu Bodhi's "A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" is an excellent translation with extensive explanatory notes. The chapters of the Abhidhammattha Sangaha provide the structure of presentation used in my new class notes (under preparation): - Chapter 1. Compendium of Consciousness: Listing of 89 / 121 Cittas - Chapter 2. Compendium of Mental Factors: Listing of 52 Cetasikas & Association of Cetasikas and Cittas - Chapter 3. Compendium of the Miscellaneous: Feeling / Roots / Functions / Doors / Objects / Bases - Chapter 4. Compendium of the Cognitive Process: Five Door Process / Mind Door Process / Jhana Process - Chapter 5. Compendium of the Process-freed: Planes of Existence / Rebirth-Linking / Kamma / Death and Rebirth - Chapter 6. Compendium of Matter: Listing / Classification / Origination / Grouping / Nibbana - Chapter 7. Compendium of Categories: Unwholesome (Taints / Floods / etc.) / Mixed (Roots / Faculties) / Requisites of Enlightenment - Chapter 8. Compendium of Conditionality: Dependent Origination / Conditional Relations - Chapter 9. Compendium of Meditation Subjects: Calm / Insight One must remember that the function of the Abhidhammattha Sangaha was to serve as an introductory text (Sangaha means "summary"). One cannot say that one has truly studied the Abhidhamma if one has gone no deeper than the Abhidhammattha Sangaha. In my opinion, the Abhidhammattha Sangaha presents phenomena more as "building blocks" while the original Abhidhamma texts present phenomena more as "dynamic processes". An opening paragraph of the Abhidhammattha Sangaha says that there are four "paramattha dhammas": consciousness (citta), mental factors (cetasikas), non-mental phenomena (rupa) and Nibbana (This structure originated with Buddhadatta, a contemporary of Buddhaghosa, in his Abhidhammavatara, an early summary of the Abhidhamma). The term "paramattha" does not arise in the suttas or in the early Abhidhamma texts. It first arises in the opening contraverted point of the Kathavatthu, "Is a being a paramattha dhamma?" A paramattha dhamma has its own intrinsic nature and cannot be further broken into components . Some have translated "paramattha dhamma" as "ultimate reality" and classified Abhidhamma as a type of ontology (the philosophy of what is real), even presenting the Abhidhamma as early phenomenology (the philosophy that only things perceived through the senses are real). I see these as speculative views, not linked to the Buddha's teaching. Sorry, I am digressing.... :-) Metta, Rob M :-) 56792 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 1:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana And the incomprehensibles sarahprocter... Hi Herman, Howard & all, --- Joop wrote: > So now the question is: is the "dhamma eye" the same as "panna" ? I > doubt. > > In www.baus.org/baus/library/5eyese.html (a Mahayana text) I found: > "Buddhism classifies the eye into five categories; namely, the > Physical eye, Heavenly eye, Wisdom eye, Dharma eye, and the Buddha > eye." .... S: See this extract from the Theravada commentaries which Christine posted before. It's not quite the same as in the quote you give because the physical eye is not here included in the fivefold eye of knowledge (~naanacakkhu). Note that ~naana means panna (wisdom), so all the 5 ~naanacakkhu refer to kinds of panna (wisdom). http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/29250 >p. 1397 of the Samyutta Nikaya Vol. II (B.Bodhi), 35 Salaayatanasamyutta - Note 3...< <....> "Spk distinguishes the different types of "eyes" referred to in the canon. These are first divided into two general classes: the eye of knowledge (~naanachakkhu) and the physical eye (mamsacakkhu). The former is fivefold: (i) the Buddha eye (buddhacakkhu), the knowledge of the inclinations and underlying tendencies of beings, and the knowledge of the degree of maturity of their spiritual faculties; (ii) the Dhamma eye (dhammacakkhu), the knowledge of the three lower paths and fruits; (iii) the universal eye (samantacakkhu), the Buddha's knowledge of omniscience; (iv) the divine eye (dibbacakkhu), the knowledge arisen by suffusion of light (which sees the passing away and rebirth of beings); and (v) the wisdom eye (pa~n~naacakkhu), the discernment of the Four Noble Truths. The physical eye is twofold: (i) the composite eye (sasambhaaracakkhu), the physical eyeball; and (ii) the sensitive eye (pasaadacakkhu), i.e., the sensitive substance in the visual apparatus that responds to forms(perhaps the retina and optic nerve). Here the Blessed One speaks of the sensitive eye as the 'eye base'. The ear, etc., should be similarly understood. Mind (mano) is the mind of the three planes, which is the domain of exploration with insight (tebhuumakasammasanacaaracitta)." ***** Metta, Sarah ======= 56793 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 1:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Lotika sarahprocter... Hi Scott, --- Scott Duncan wrote: > Dear All, > > In reading about the classification of akusula cetasikas in A Survey > of Paramattha Dhammas (p.429) I see where in the "lotika," or the > triad consisting of lobha, di.t.ti (wrong view), and maana (conceit)it > is stipulated that di.t.ti and maana cannot arise together with > lobha-mula cittas, rather only separately. > > May I ask why this is so? What is the significance of this? .... S: You may also find it helpful to look at posts saved in 'Useful Posts' under 'Conceit vs Wrong View' - there's been plenty of discussion on this topic. The objects are different as Nina said. I think the significance is in learning to understand the different characterisitics of wrong view, conceit and plain lobha for what they are. Just as it is obvious that there cannot be say attachment and aversion at the same moment, it also becomes clearer with awareness that there cannot be conceit and wrong view at the same time. The first is concerned with one's own importance, the second is concerned with one's idea about the way things are (erroneously of course), such as seeing them as permanent or as self. Metta, Sarah p.s You've been writing some good posts on various topics, I think:). ===== 56794 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 1:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana And the incomprehensibles sarahprocter... Oops, --- sarah abbott wrote: > Hi Herman, Howard & all, > > --- Joop wrote: ... That was meant to say Joop, Howard & all.....(Herman too if you're reading!! I had been thinking of Herman as I thought he'd be interested in Kom's series and of course Joop & Herman are both Dutch speakers:)) S. 56795 From: "gazita2002" Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 2:03am Subject: Re: Hello - the rules and displines (vinaya) gazita2002 Hello Kom, thanx for this post. I am finding your experiences both amusing - 'figuring out how to wear the robes; going for alms without dropping the bowl' and very helpful, especially about the rules for the monks. Glad to see u posting again. Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > > The most interesting/pressing parts about being a monk (at least a short > term one) are basically figuring out what I am supposed to be doing, > trying to learn all the rules and disciplines that are spelled out > voluminously in the scriptures, and what I should learn to figure out > what the Buddha said the path really was. Figuring out how to wear the > robes was a challenge for me, going for alms without dropping the bowl, > the lid, the food, worse yet the robe and the belt can be challenging at > times. The more interesting parts, however, are learning and following > the disciplines, which turn out not to be that easy of a task. > > The Buddha gave ten reasons for issuing each of the rule (from V. > Thanissaro): for the excellence of the Community, the peace of the > Community, the curbing of the shameless, the comfort of well- behaved > bhikkhus, the restraint of pollutants related to the present life, the > prevention of pollutants related to the next life, the arousing of faith > in the faithless, the increase of the faithful, the establishment of the > true Dhamma and the fostering of discipline. Kom Tukovinit > kom@... > 56796 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 2:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Lotika nilovg Dear Scott, op 15-03-2006 14:17 schreef Scott Duncan op scduncan@...: > > N: "When one believes that the self really exists, it is wrong view. > When one clings to these five khandhas here as important, it is > conceit. .... > Scott: If I am following, wrong view is the greater or broader of the two > (wrong view/conceit). Wrong view is somehow an overarching sort of > thing; a more global or encompassing form of delusion. One literally believes that the self exists and hence is more deeply ensconced in ignorance. ------- N: It is hard to compare the force of wrong view, conceit and ignorance. All of these have different degrees, and at each moment they are different. Just like now. Ignorance conditions every type of akusala. Wrong view and conceit go together with clinging, lobha. Conceit is more stubborn, because it is only eradicated at arahatship. There are many degrees of conceit. Conceit that is more coarse and obvious such as: I do things better than he. It can also be more subtle, arising on account of the sense objects we experience, and on account of vipaaka.For example, why do I experience such unpleasant vipaaka, why does this happen to me (important me). Or we go out for a walk and it is freezing cold (like now). Why do I have to suffer from all this cold at this time of the year? You see, it is very daily. We may think that this is dosa, it is, but it is conditioned by conceit. When it is subtle it is much harder to detect. It is also helpful to remember that we cling to 'ourselves': with lobha (not associated with wrong view, with wrong view and with conceit. We like ourselves very much. -------- S: When this is eradicated, say in the case of a sotaapanna, > one is left with relatively less ignorance, but ignorance nonetheless. > Now one clings subtly to the importance of each of the various > aspects of the five khandas. Conceit arises with lobha-mula-cittas > from time to time, despite the eradication of the more global wrong view. ------- N: For the sotaapanna there is still a great deal of ignorance. And conceit can still be strong, not subtle. Although it depends on the individual, I would not say: from time to time. It arises because it has been accumulated for so long. But it is wearing out by paññaa. *** Nina. 56797 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 2:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Hello - the rules and displines (vinaya) nilovg Dear Kom, I see the goal of Buddhism for laypeople somewhat different. Laypersons have a life full of sense pleasures, and our (the lay person's) goal is the development of paññaa in daily life to understand all kinds of akusala that arise as they are: conditioned naamas. We do not have to change our life style, but we have to understand defilements and their conditions. Lay life is imcompatible with arahatship. When a lay person becomes an arahat he has to ordain, or he will shortly reach parinibbaana. For the monk the situation is altogether different. He also has kilesas and he has to develop understanding of them. But he does not lead a life full of sense pleasures. I like what you explain about the rules, and in how far the monk can and should follow them. In how far can he ask for plain water? I think, by developing satipatthana he would know whether he is led by lobha and thus going against the principle of fewness of wishes, contentment with little. Not drinking can be hazardous for one's health. Food and drink are a medicin, necessary for continuing the brahma cariya. I have also seen a monk wearing the robe over ordinary trousers or layman's suit. The question can be asked: when the climate is cold or the conditions are not favorable to follow the rules, perhaps the monk should not go to such countries. There is the question of handling money while traveling etc. Perhaps one should consider ahead of time: are the surroundings unfavorable for the monk's life or not? I am enjoying your series, an important subject. Nina. op 16-03-2006 06:24 schreef Kom Tukovinit op kom@...: >> Arahatship is the goal of monkhood. As I wrote before, the outward > conduct >> of a monk should be like an arahat's. > > Isn't the goal of Buddhism itself Arahatship? Why is it just for > monks? 56798 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 2:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] paramattha dhamma nilovg Hi Rob M, and Gunasaro, It would be interesting for us all if you can post some more class notes about the Abhidhammattha Sangaha. As to the term paramattha dhammas, whatever is explained in the commentaries has its roots in a much older tradition. The most ancient commentaries which are lost now were rehearsed at the great Councils. Moreover, the term paramattha dhammas stands for dhammas, realities, as also explained in the Tipitaka. They are different from samutti sacca, conventionsl truth, such as person, table, tree. Nina. op 16-03-2006 09:51 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@...: >> Let me explain about the Abhidhammatthasangaha. > > The seven volumes of the Abhidhamma together with their commentaries > are massive in size and complexity. A summary was needed ... > > An opening paragraph of the Abhidhammattha Sangaha says that there > are four "paramattha dhammas": ....(This structure > originated with Buddhadatta, a contemporary of Buddhaghosa, in his > Abhidhammavatara, an early summary of the Abhidhamma). The > term "paramattha" does not arise in the suttas or in the early > Abhidhamma texts. It first arises in the opening contraverted point > of the Kathavatthu, "Is a being a paramattha dhamma?" 56799 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 3:05am Subject: Re: Learning Emptiness from You!! (Re: [dsg] Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana) jonoabb Hi Howard upasaka@... wrote: > I understand you, Jon! It is not dukkha, anicca, and anatta that are >directly known by pa~n~na, as they are actually nothing at all (being >concept-only). What is directly known are dhammas, and the knowing of them with wisdom >is the knowing of them *as* dukkha, anicca, and anatta. > Right. It is not the abstract qualities that are to be known, it is dhammas. The key is always dhammas. Their importance to the teachings cannot be stressed enough. (We learn about concepts only to help us not take for dhammas what are mere concepts.) >This is a very >plausible, commonsense approach, and I should leave it as that. Not only that, there >is something quite properly emptiness-oriented in saying that the three >characteristics are not, themselves, phenomena. I find that slightly, lingeringly, I >am still somewhat bothered by the tilakkhana, especially anicca and anatta, >not being "realities". But I now realize that this is just a problem of mine >that you are helping me get over! I realize that in my (I think very worthy) >pursuit of unreifying dhammas, I have been guilty of trying to reify the >tilakkhana! > > Happens to the best of us! The line between uuseful reflection and useless proliferation/'too much thinking' is one that we all cross frequently, I suspect. > I find this brief and beautifully uncomplicated post of yours, Jon, to >be wonderfully helpful!! I find it to be a fundamental corrective for me! In >fact, I am now inclined to dismiss my recent posts to Scott, especially the >last one, as actually quite irrelevant and seriously flawed by reification! >Scott was closer to the right view of this matter, I think, than I. And you are >closest of all. Thank you. :-) > > Kind of you to make these remarks, Howard. And may I say that your challenges to the orthodox teaching are almost always a cause to consider more carefully what one has perhaps taken for granted before, so I thank you, too. Jon