57800 From: "indriyabala" Date: Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:37pm Subject: Re: Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's not-self... It Is Yoniso-manasikara ! indriyabala Hi Dan D. & Howard - The concern about conventional effort and ritual is unnecessary if whatever you "engage in", you do it with the kind of appropriate attention which gives rise to the true knowledge of the four noble truths. Why? Because by "appropriate attention" (yoniso-manisikara) you would gain the right view that eradicates the first three fetters. "He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by seeing." [MN 2 Sabbasava Sutta] Even the atta-ditthi is also eliminated. Sincerely, Tep ===== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > > Hi Howard, (snipped) > > H: Should it not be engaged in, Dan, or, if it should, is that so > merely because it is a "useful and (conventionally) wholesome action > that is to be encouraged because it makes for a more civil and > pleasant culture," or because engaging in that "intensive > conventional effort can illuminate the futility of conventional > effort"? > > D: What should be engaged in is the sammas. That is the path to > wisdom. If the sammas arise in the course of your reading, wonderful! > If they arise in your sitting, wonderful! But suppose an upasaka (or > bhikkhu for that matter) resolves to do one hour of reading, one hour > of discussing, and two hours of sitting per day in order to bring > about sammas (or, even worse, suppose the upasaka does these things > because he thinks that doing these things really IS samma). That > upasaka is mired in a swamp because he is working from a deeply- > rooted assumption that the big "I" has the power to liberate through > ritual. Don't you think? > > Metta, > > Dan > 57801 From: han tun Date: Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's not-self strategy bad? Root-condition. hantun1 Dear Nina, Thank you very much for your kind explanation. It is good that you have pointed out the difference between the monks of Buddha’s time listening directly to the Buddha himself and the puthujjanas of today; and that when Buddha said something it was an exhortation, an encouragement, but not a command. I have also gratefully noted your additional information about the notions of will and effort; about the very powerful root-conditions of lobha, dosa and moha (we may not even notice if there is citta rooted in lobha with wrong effort) and the other types of condition on which citta is dependent; about the many conditions that are needed for the arising of even one kusala citta with paññaa; and that when paññaa arises the kusala citta is supported by wholesome roots and at that moment there is also alobha and adosa. Understanding root-condition and the other types of condition on which citta is dependent cures us of the conceit that "we" are master of kusala and can make it arise at will. But for me, I think it will take some more time to do away with that conceit. I am satisfied with your answers and I am very grateful for it. With metta and deepest respect, Han --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Understanding root-condition and the other types of > condition on which citta > is dependent cures us of the conceit that "we" are > master of kusala and can > make it arise at will. > Mettaa can be further developed if there is right > understanding of its > conditioned nature. It is right understanding that > should be emphasized. > Nina. 57802 From: Trasvin Date: Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Marisa's questions.Lessons in Dhamma, no 3. trasvin Dear Khun Nina, What you wrote made me almost hear Than Achan's voice. Thank you for sharing. But what happen to the book? Was it published? My best, Jiw --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Lessons in Dhamma, no 3. > > Throughout all these years with Acharn Sujin > we discussed again and again > what seeing is: the experience of what appears > through eyesense. We > discussed what hearing is: the experience of > what appears through the > earsense. We are always forgetful of seeing and > hearing, because we are more > interested in concepts such as people, things > and events. However, also > thinking which thinks of concepts is a type of > naama which can be realized > as such. Thinking is real and if we are not > aware of it we shall continue > taking it for self. <...> 57803 From: "indriyabala" Date: Thu Apr 13, 2006 3:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's ..? A Typical DSG Discussion indriyabala Dear Howard and Sarah - I appreciate the following discussion between you two: it encompasses the key issues that are quite typical to this unique group. (1) > >Sarah: > I would say, forget about all these rules and methods >and instead just understand what is really meant when >we say all namas and rupas are anatta. > > Howard: > What do you mean by "just understand"? Understand the sentences in the Tipitaka? So, you would say to forget about all the many things the Buddha said to do, and "just understand"? For one thing, the Buddha didn't teach a doctrine of study only! He taught a complex process of mind training and purification to *enable* genuine understanding. Does "just understand" come down to a magic finger-snap approach? The ability to "just understand" is an impressive goal that calls for years, a lifetime, or many lifetimes of cultivation ... or a week of literally non-stop and literally perfect investigation of the four foundations of mindfulness, the doing of which, of course, already requires unbelievable prior cultivation. ............... (2) > >Sarah: >Without right understanding of dhammas, there can of course >be good sila or generosity according to our inclinations >and tendencies, but there cannot be any development of kusala >at all, not even samatha development. >Howard: Thus it would behoove us to engage in activities to cultivate understanding! ................. (3) > >Sarah: Attachment of any kind, such as to having any kind of result, having any kind of mental states arise or to being a better person, merely hinders and prevents metta and other wholesome states from arising. > > Howard: > Until we are arahants, attachments remain. So all are hindered except for arahants. What of it? > ................. Tep : The difficulties in communication stem from the following issues. (1) "Understanding" is involved in all stages from the worlding level to the arahant level. There are terms such as clear understanding, right understanding, full understanding and so on. (2) If right understanding here means samma-ditthi, then it is clear why development of kusala results from it. "When, friends, a noble disciple understands the unwholesome, the root of the unwholesome, the wholesome, and the root of the wholesome, in that way he is one of right view, whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence in the Dhamma, and has arrived at this true Dhamma. [MN 9 Sammaditthi Sutta] (3) Since clinging/attachment remains (with decreasing intensity) with us while we're practicing the noble eigthfold path until we eventually become arahants, then it makes sense for us to accept "metta and other wholesome states" that are less than perfect along the way. But I don't see why the attachment (to sila and to being a better person, as we become better) "hinders and prevents metta and other wholesome states from arising". Because if it does, then it means we are going to be buried in the akusala states forever. Warm regards, Tep ===== -- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Sarah - > > In a message dated 4/13/06 4:08:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > > > Hi Howard &all in this thread, > > > > --- upasaka@... wrote: > > > > >>S: What do you mean by 'practice 'metta' '? When there is some > > >>understanding that all dhammas are anatta, we can also see that metta is also anatta, a conditioned dhamma that cannot be made to arise at will. > > >======================== (snipped) 57804 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:46pm Subject: Re: The place of "meditation" ... Viharati (corrected) scottduncan2 Dear James, Hello again! James: "Well, if you know that my example was an anecdote, you must be something of an English buff- we will get along just fine. ;-))" Does reading The Lord of the Rings way too many times in a row in grade 7 create of one an "English buff?" James: ";-)) I am really proud of you for speaking of this outloud. So many in these spiritual circles would rather die than admit to such things- that is even if they could see them in the first place. I think that it is very good you have observed this and decided to do something about it. It is no small matter, and should be confronted sooner than later." Well, its risky in a way, isn't it? Writing about one's hesitant and tremulous practise. I mean with you I was reciprocating. I appreciated your candour, it fit my experience, and so, in that way, I felt invited to write about it. I'm not really familiar enough, yet with all of you in DSG. Nor do I have much more than questions to add given how little I know. The meditation debate, as I see, is an old one and there are clearly two camps. I don't mind. I recall mentioning that I may have experienced the first jhaana and this was somewhat (I mean hardly at all) controversial. I suppose that if the culture of the DSG is not such that one writes about personal experiences, that's okay. As you can see, I will if you will. And I've made other little posts of a personally disclosive nature, shyly, a bit embarassed, but these were, I felt, extremely graciously received within the Group. James: "That's good. I'm really glad that I could help you. This isn't really much of a "support group" but some people, like myself, tend to wear our hearts on our sleave. We are the oddballs in this group- but it is nice to have the opportunity to reach out to each other once in a while (BTW, if you know of a Buddhist group that is more of a non-judgemental support group, which keeps the Buddha's teachings in mind but doesn't shove them down your throat, I would be interested to know. I am starting to feel rather lonely and out of place here in DSG.)" Well, I'll keep looking but if you know of a group of human beings anywhere who doesn't tend towards judgementalism let me know! The folks at DSG don't seem so bad too me. It is "religion" you know. Hard to talk about belief and stay cool. And it is the first place I've had to (mostly) read some good dhamma discussions about central concerns. I'm sorry to hear you feel lonely and out of place though. James: "This is a very diplomatic way to state thing. Better than you cut that stuff out. I am not so good in the diplomacy department- maybe you can teach me some things? I don't mean any harm, but I invariably cause it anyway." I don't know what I do, James, so it'll be hard to teach. Wait, I'll mess up sooner or later. In this case I didn't want to appear as if your comments had not even existed and that I was closing my eyes to that part of you. Nor did I feel a need to respond to them since I don't share them or feel them like you. I don't really cling to the DSG in such a way as to take offence to someone else's feelings about it (and I mean to suggest that had I jumped in to defend DSG from your comments, I would have had such a clinging). I don't mind that you have your opinions about it. I liked the response you gave to me. It was good for the moment. James: "I am glad to have helped you some. I don't claim to know everything and I am still learning day by day. But if you want a better perspective, that can only come with increased awareness. Good luck to you with your practice." Thanks again. Hopefully we can meet often in discussion. Maybe you'll even take me on some day (at which time I'll cry and take my ball and go home). Sincerely, Scott. 57805 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's not-self strategy bad? upasaka_howard Hi, Dan - In a message dated 4/13/06 4:59:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, onco111@... writes: > D: What should be engaged in is the sammas. That is the path to > wisdom. If the sammas arise in the course of your reading, wonderful! > If they arise in your sitting, wonderful! But suppose an upasaka (or > bhikkhu for that matter) resolves to do one hour of reading, one hour > of discussing, and two hours of sitting per day in order to bring > about sammas (or, even worse, suppose the upasaka does these things > because he thinks that doing these things really IS samma). That > upasaka is mired in a swamp because he is working from a deeply- > rooted assumption that the big "I" has the power to liberate through > ritual. Don't you think? > > ====================== Yes. The attitude you are describing sounds more like a superstitious faith in mere ritual than the more rational one that these activities are likely to help cultivate 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) 57806 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's not-self strategy bad? Root-condition. lbidd2 Nina: "Understanding root-condition and the other types of condition on which citta is dependent cures us of the conceit that "we" are master of kusala and can make it arise at will. Mettaa can be further developed if there is right understanding of its conditioned nature. It is right understanding that should be emphasized." Hi Nina and Han Tun, On the one hand the Buddha said paramattha dhammas are anatta because they are not subject to control (avasavattitaa). On the other hand there are prompted consciousnesses (sasankaarika citta) which play a major role in the preliminary stages of any practice (bhavana). I would say a prompted consciousness is not a controlled consciousness. But a prompted consciousness assumes a desire to control consciousness and therefore assumes a self even in the case of prompted kusala citta. So the question is, what to do about the desire to control? The question itself expresses a desire to control and 'doing nothing' is also a control strategy. There is really no answer insofar as an answer is a control. The commentaries say an UNprompted consciousness _may_ be conditioned by previous prompted consciousnesses. So what constitutes a prompt? A prompt isn't merely will and desire. It is also understanding. On the one hand will and desire are just an attempt to control. On the other hand, with understanding will and desire can condition the arising of a prompted kusala citta. So understanding is essential, and some would say it is enough. Larry 57807 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Apr 14, 2006 0:36am Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 422 - mindfulness/sati (d) 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;-) ========================================== (Ch26 - mindfulness/sati continued) There are different ways of kusala and in order to be more heedful of what is wholesome, it is helpful to know more in detail about them. Dåna, generosity, for example, is not only the giving away of useful things. There are also other ways of generosity included in dåna, such as expressing our appreciation of someone else’s kusala (anumodhanå dåna ). We may be stingy as to words of praise or we are lazy with regard to kusala and then we let opportunities for such a way of generosity go by. It is mindfulness which is non-forgetful of this way of generosity when the opportunity arises. Another form of generosity is to give someone else, no matter he lives in this world or in some other plane of existence, the opportunity to rejoice in our good deeds, so that he has kusala citta as well. It is mindfulness, not self, which is heedful of kusala. Without mindfulness it is impossible to perform any kind of kusala. Abstaining from ill deeds is a way of kusala included in síla. The Buddha explained in detail what is right and what is wrong. We should consider his words and test their meaning. Then we can verify ourselves the truth of his teachings. Before we studied the Dhamma we may not have known that also the killing of insects, for example, is akusala. Through the Dhamma we acquire more understanding of our different cittas, of kusala cittas and akusala cittas. We come to understand that killing is motivated by dosa and that the killing of any living being, insects included, is akusala kamma which can produce akusala vipåka. When we see the disadvantages of all kinds of akusala there are conditions for the arising of mindfulness which is heedful, non-forgetful of abstaining from akusala. Through the Dhamma we learn about different ways of kusala. Before we studied the Dhamma we may not have known that politeness and respect are ways of kusala kamma. Politeness and respect which are expressed by gestures or words are forms of síla. When there is an opportunity for such a way of kusala, mindfulness may arise and be non-forgetful of it, so that this opportunity is not wasted; that is the function of mindfulness. ***** (Ch26 - mindfulness/sati to be contd) Metta, Sarah ====== 57808 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Jhana Retreat sarahprocter... Hi Eric (Math and jhana atttainers), This thread is interesting and not easy.... --- ericlonline wrote: > S: Math said he also agreed 'with your idea of spreading > piti/rapture. As I understand it, piiti is a mental factor (which > can arise with wholesome or unwholesome kinds of consciousness) and > here you're talking about the jhana factor. So how can a mental > jhana factor ever be 'spread' or ever be 'mainly a physical > sensation'? > E:> Here is how our master explains > it with a similie.. > > "Just as if a skilled bathman or bathman's apprentice would pour > bath powder into a brass basin and knead it together, sprinkling it > again and again with water, so that his ball of bath powder — > saturated, moisture-laden, permeated within and without — would > nevertheless not drip; even so, the monk permeates, suffuses and > fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of > withdrawal. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by > rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal (of the senses)... > > Do you understand now? > If not, why not? :-) .... S: I thought you would provide this quote, thank you:-). Isn’t the sutta (MN39?) referring to the quality of a very, very high level of purity of the mind here? “Having abandoned these five hindrances, imperfections of mind that weaken wisdom, quite secluded from sensual pleasures......’ ‘Quite secluded from sensual pleasures...’ Doesn’t that mean that whilst in jhana there are no sense experiences at all? No sensations of the body experienced, no Qi gong type energy movement experiences and so on? In other words, in jhana, isn’t the mind just absorbed in its object with the jhana cittas accompanied by the jhana factors and other sobhana (good) mental states? ‘the rapture and pleasure born of seclusion’ (vivekajena piitisukhene) – doesn’t this refer to the meantal qualities of piiti and sukha arising as a result of being free from the hindrances etc? .... For a little support, I'd like to quote from Vism V111, 225, Nanamoli transl: “ ‘he trains thus: ‘I shall breathe in.....shall breathe out experiencing happiness (piiti)’, that is, making happiness known, making it plain. Herein the happiness is experienced in two ways: a) with the object, and b) with non-confusion.” .... S: So how is this piiti experienced with the object and with non-confusion? Is it as a sensation of the body? I don’t think so. “a) How is the happiness (piiti) experienced with the object? He attains the two jhanas in which happiness is present. At that time when he has actually entered upon them the happiness is experienced with the object owing to the obtaining of the jhana, because of the experiencing of the object. ..... S: In other words, let’s say breath is the object of jhana, then at that time, the jhana citta is accompanied by the jhana factors including piiti which experiences that object (breath) with happiness/rapture. There are no sensations experienced through the body-sense at all. Jhanas only arise in the mind-door experiences. .... “b) How with non-confusion? When, after entering upon and emerging from one of the two jhanas accompanied by happiness, he comprehends with insight that happiness associated with the jhana as liable to destruction and to fall, than at the actual time of the insight the happiness is experienced with non-confusion owing to the penetration of its characteristics [of impermanence, and so on]*. .... S: In other words, the characteristic of that piiti can only be known if insight has already been developed by being aware of it immediately after emerging from jhana. It is the mental quality, the jhana factor which is then known. Again, not anything experienced through the body-sense. [*And as a side-note, Nanamoli gives this extra note on the meaning of ‘by his penetration of its characteristics’: ‘by penetration of the specific and general characteristics of happiness. For when the specific and general characteristics of anything are experienced then that thing is experienced according to reality’ (Pm. 276)]S: Others, pls note 'according to reality':-) ... S: So any dhamma appearing, even if it is a jhana factor, can be known directly as impermanent and thereby not worth clinging to for an instant. So what about the lines you quoted?: “permeates, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of withdrawal." How does this fit in? Kaaya(body) can refer to the physical body or commonly, to the mental body. Could it refer here to some of the mental factors? From Nyantiloka’s dictionary: “Kaaya: (lit: accumulation): 'group', 'body', may either refer to the physical body (rûpa-kâya) or to the mental body (nâma-kâya). In the latter case it is either a collective name for the mental groups (feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness; s. khandha), or merely for feeling, perception and a few of the mental formations (s. nâma), e.g. in kâya-lahutâ, etc. (cf. Tab. II). "Kâya has this same meaning in the standard description of the 3rd absorption (jhâna, q.v.) "and he feels joy in his mind or his mental constitution (kâya)", and (e.g. Pug. 1-8) of the attainment of the 8 deliverances (vimokkha, q.v.); "having attained the 8 deliverances in his mind, or his person (kâya)." .... S: In other words, instead of using ‘body’ in translation, perhaps we could say ‘mental constitution or mental body’? To add further credence to this understanding of body as referring to the 'mental body' or mental khandhas, let me give another relevant quote from Sammohavinodanii, translated as ‘Dispeller of Delusion’ (PTS(, 1526: “ ‘Piitimanassa’ (‘Of one whose mind is held in rapture (piiti)”): of one whose consciousness is associated with rapture. ‘Kaayo pi passambhati’ (‘the body...becomes tranquillised’): the mental body called the trio of aggregates* becomes tranquillised through the tranquillisation of the distress due to defilements. ‘Cittam pi’ (‘and the mind’): also the consciousness aggregate becomes likewise tranquillised..” .... S: *The footnote gives the Pali for a similar description in the commentary to MN iv 143, with reference to the tranquillisation of the cetasikas (kaayika-cetasika) and cittas (cittam pi). By association condition(sahajata paccaya), cetasikas (mental factors) arising together condition and affect each other and the citta in this case, jhana citta) with which they are arising. .... E:> Sarah, why do you wish to split hairs? > I have already said that everything > happens with mind. But in the form jhanas, > body or form is still within awareness. .... S: But is it? Why do I wish to split hairs? I’d like people to question whether such experiences of ‘body’ as you, Math and many others have described can really be anything at all to do with jhana. Thanks for the rest of your detailed answers. I think this post is already too long, so I’ll leave it here for now. Metta, Sarah p.s I'm happy to have any mistakes corrected here. I'm really just thinking out loud. Thank you for giving me this chance to do so. =========== 57809 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Special thanks to Nina and Sarah sarahprocter... Hi James, I meant to thank you for your kind note and also for some apologies you sent later: --- buddhatrue wrote: > Hi Nina and Sarah, > > I wanted to write a special post to you both because of your > touching posts to me. I am so glad that you both understood my > message, and understood the special stresses I am presently going > through. Honestly, I feel awkward discussing this issue in this > group, because this group is so moderated and so formal, ... :-) I'll leave that to Scott's diplomatic touch... .... >but I don't > know a way to express myself otherwise. I hope that those > unaccustomed to such posts will forgive me. .... S: I'm sure most people who've been around for anytime take the comments you're referring to with a pinch of salt:-). I'm enjoying your discussion with Scott and especially your temple meditation anecdote I'd not heard before:). Yes, really who knows from the outer appearance what's going on when we see someone sitting on a cushion OR reading an Abhidhamma text in Pali?? I hope you're adjusting to your quiet household with Simon. No need to feel 'an outsider' here....I would have thought that after all this time you were as 'core' DSG as anyone else.... (Btw, Joop & all, we had a nice note from Herman today...I think we may see him around again soon......hopes and expectations here:-)). Metta, Sarah ========== 57810 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:02am Subject: Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 70 and Tiika. nilovg Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 70. Intro: As we have seen, sobhana hetus, beautiful roots are non-attachment (alobha) , non-averison (adosa) and understanding (amoha or paññaa). They arise with kusala citta, with vipaakacitta and with the kiriyacitta of the arahat. Akusala hetus are attachment (lobha), aversion (dosa) and ignorance (moha). They arise with akusala cittas. The roots are a firm foundation for the cittas they accompany, but they do not cause the citta to be kusala or akusala. Wholesomeness or unwholesomeness is not caused the hetus, but with the manner of attention to the object that is experienced, with wise attention or unwise attention as has been explained before. The roots condition not only the accompanying citta and cetasikas, but also the ruupa produced by the citta they accompany. As we have seen, ruupa originates from kamma, citta, nutrition or temperature. ****** Text Vis.: But when the root-causes' sense of root is taken as establishing stableness, rather than as establishing profitableness, etc., there is no contradiction. For states that have obtained a root-cause condition are firm, like trees, and stable; but those without root-cause are, like moss [with roots no bigger than] sesamum seeds, etc., unstable. So an assistantial state may be understood as a root-cause condition, since it establishes stableness through being of assistance in the sense of a root. --------- N: Seeing or hearing are ahetuka vipaakacittas, and these rootless cittas do not have the firmness and stableness of the cittas with roots; they are quite different from akusala cittas and kusala cittas which are stable and firm because of their roots. The Tiika refers to the Pa.t.thanaa text about root-condition, hetu- paccaya, which classifies root-condition as sevenfold (Conditional Relations, p. 141): The other ways are: kusala roots condition avyaakata (indeterminate) dhamma, that is mind-produced ruupa; kusala roots condition kusala dhamma and mind-produced ruupa; akusala roots condition their associated aggregates by root-condition; akusala roots condition avyaakata (indeterminate) dhamma, that is mind-produced ruupa; akusala roots condition kusala dhamma and mind-produced ruupa; indeterminate dhamma conditions indeterminate dhamma, that is, roots that are vipaaka or kiriya (inoperative, of the arahat) condition their associated dhammas and mind-produced ruupa; at the moment of rebirth-consciousness indeterminate roots, vipaaka roots, condition their associated khandhas and kamma-produced ruupa. At the moment of rebirth-consciousness, citta does not produce ruupa but kamma produces ruupa. If the rebirth-consciousness is sahetuka vipaaka, the accompanying roots condition kamma-produced ruupa by root-condition. The Tiika explains that in this way the function of roots is taught, as a support or assistance to the dhammas they condition by way of root-condition. ------ Conclusion: The roots are a firm and solid foundation for the citta and cetasikas that are rooted in them. Seeing is ahetuka vipakacitta that does not have a firm and solid foundation of roots. It is only a moment of vipaaka, but shortly afterwards javana-cittas arise that (in the case of non-arahats) are cittas rooted in akusala hetus or sobhana hetus. The roots make the cittas they accompany firm and stable, but only during the extremely short moment of their presence. They fall away immediately, but the inclination to kusala or akusala is accumulated from one moment of citta to the next moment, so that there are conditions for their arising again. Akusala citta rooted in lobha arises more often than we would ever think. Lobha clings to sense objects, to seeing and the other sense-cognitions and even to kusala. We may cling to progress in understanding or to our effort for kusala. Citta with attachment is rooted in lobha and moha, ignorance. Ignorance completely blinds us so that we do not notice that attachment arises instead of kusala citta. Kusala citta is always accompanied by the roots of non-attachment and non-aversion, and it may be accompanied by paññaa or unaccompanied by paññaa. When we have listened to the Dhamma and considered what we heard and studied, there are conditions for kusala citta with paññaa. When paññaa arises with kusala citta, it gives a firm support to the kusala citta, it assists the citta by way of root-condition. When paññaa is of the degree of right understanding of naama and ruupa it leads to the eradication of all defilements. ****** Nina. 57811 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Marisa's questions.Lessons in Dhamma, no 3. nilovg Dear Khun Jiw, thank you for your post. No, Acharn made it clear that she did not like any attention to be drawn to her personally. Betty wrote a beautiful post about this which I quoted. It clearly conveyed to us all that it is not the person that matters, but the Dhamma itself. I can learn Dhamma also from a child, like Rob K's children who are on tape (Sarah and Jon's audio). We can learn so much by listening with an open mind. I can send it again if you did not get it. But it all has a happy ending, now we are posting what we wrote to dsg. Nina. op 13-04-2006 16:35 schreef Trasvin op trasvin@...: > Dear Khun Nina, > > What you wrote made me almost hear Than Achan's > voice. Thank you for sharing. But what happen to > the book? Was it published? 57812 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's not-self strategy bad? Root-condition. nilovg Dear Han (and Scott), thank you for your kind words. As to conceit: it is so common to all of us, and only the arahat has eradicated it. You know, whatever kusala we do, there is likely to be some quick notion of, I did that very well. Scott wrote: I can kick myself, and this made me laugh. It is so common, and also having dislike of 'our conceit' is conditioned by conceit. We do not want to be such a person, and that is conceit. But we can learn that whatever arises does so because it has been accumulated. It is only a conditioned element. Our life consists of nama-elements and rupa-elements. Element, dhaatu, is practically the same as the word dhamma: it bears its own characteristic. means to bear. I remember elements was one of your points. The term element helps us to understand that it does not belong to us. Understanding has to realize also akusala as a type of nama, that has its own specific characteristic. That is the Application of Mindfulness of citta and of Dhammas. Understanding can gradually be accumulated and we should have confidence in paññaa that performs its own function of understanding whatever object appears and of leading to detachment. Nina. op 13-04-2006 23:39 schreef han tun op hantun1@...: > Understanding root-condition and the other types of > condition on which citta is dependent cures us of the > conceit that "we" are master of kusala and can make it > arise at will. But for me, I think it will take some > more time to do away with that conceit. 57813 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:03am Subject: What is kusala? (Re: [dsg] Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's not-self strategy bad?) buddhatrue Hi Dan, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > > Hi Howard, > H: Where we disagree is in the matter of conventional actions that > have useful and wholesome consequences. > > D: Useful and "wholesome" consequences to be sure (conventionally > speaking, of course). But kusala? Never! You are making some interesting points, but I am having a hard time following your train of thought because you keep using the nebulous term "kusala"? What is kusala? What EXACTLY is it? Could you provide an explanation and examples? Thanx. Metta, James 57814 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's not-self strategy bad? buddhatrue Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" wrote: > detail. So I visited the source at ATI and, not surprisingly, found > the following short passage, that I think, may contradict to Sarah's > and Dan's belief. > > "Monks, for one whose awareness-release through good will is > cultivated, developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, > given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, and well-undertaken, eleven > benefits can be expected. Which eleven? [endquote] > > Tep: This sutta clearly states that awareness-release(ceto- vimutti), a > paramattha-dhamma, can be "made to arise at will". How should such > wrong understanding of mine be corrected? {:>) I don't believe you do have wrong understanding. Metta can be made to arise at will (But, goodness, I have argued this subject so extensively in the past in this group, before your arrival Tep, that I could hardly feel any metta about it! ;-)). In practice, if you do something enough you become good at it. If you practice baseball, you become good at it; if you practice the piano, you become good at it; if you practice metta, you become good at it. The mind will incline toward what it does the most. Conversely, if you practice dosa (anger, hatred, irritation, etc.), then the mind will become good at that also. Not only can a person train the mind to make metta arise at will, he/she can also train the mind to make hatred arise at will. The Buddha could make metta arise at will, and he could radiate that metta to others to influence their behavior. He even radiated metta at a charging elephant- set on killing him- so that the elephant stopped dead in his tracks. Tep, you are not mistaken. I think you are right on target. Metta, James 57815 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's not-self strategy okay, or bad? buddhatrue Hi Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > > Hi a b, > > Thanissaro's idea is that "no self" is a metaphysical view > (opinion) but "not self" is a characteristic of dhammas that can be > experienced. To think there is no self is one thing, but to see that > that thought is not me or mine is another. > > Regarding metta, my guess is that arahants don't actually practice > metta. James: But the Buddha himself practiced metta. He would practice metta every morning. He would extend metta into the universe and search for those who he could assist that day. I believe that arahants practice metta also. As a benefit for oneself it would be unnecessary for them. As a > benefit for others, whatever their interactions with others they are > naturally metta. James: I don't believe that this is the proper understanding of the practice of metta. Radiating metta, as taught by the Buddha, is a psychic power and benefits beings who one doesn't necessarily directly come into contact with. Of course arahants would act with politeness toward others, but metta would only occur because of its intentional cultivation and radiation. The Buddha taught the practice of metta to ordinary > people so they wouldn't be so hateful and ignorant. James: I agree with this. Because whatever the mind practices that it what it inclines toward. If you find yourself > stumbling over your 'self' in the practice of metta, you might look into > what exactly there is to trip over. James: I'm not sure what this means. The pracice of metta begins with radiating metta to oneself. See the Vism. for details. > > Larry > Metta, James 57816 From: "indriyabala" Date: Fri Apr 14, 2006 5:32am Subject: Re: Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's ...? Made to arise at will indriyabala Hi James (Sarah, Howard, and others) - Thank you for your thoughtful remark that is very convincing. >James: >> In practice, if you do something enough you become good at it. If > you practice baseball, you become good at it; if you practice the > piano, you become good at it; if you practice metta, you become good > at it. The mind will incline toward what it does the most. > Conversely, if you practice dosa (anger, hatred, irritation, etc.), > then the mind will become good at that also. Not only can a person > train the mind to make metta arise at will, he/she can also train > the mind to make hatred arise at will. > > The Buddha could make metta arise at will, and he could radiate that > metta to others to influence their behavior. He even radiated metta > at a charging elephant- set on killing him- so that the elephant > stopped dead in his tracks. Tep: Other conditioned dhammas can be made to arise at will too: for example, concentration based on the perception of light(alokasaññaa) and manifold supranormal powers (using the four iddhipada or kayagatasati). "When a monk has thus developed & pursued the four bases of power, he experiences manifold supranormal powers. Having been one he becomes many; having been many he becomes one. He appears. He vanishes. He goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, & mountains as if through space. He dives in & out of the earth as if it were water. He walks on water without sinking as if it were dry land. Sitting crosslegged he flies through the air like a winged bird. With his hand he touches & strokes even the sun & moon, so mighty & powerful. He exercises influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds.[SN LI.20 Iddhipada-vibhanga Sutta] "Monks, for one in whom mindfulness immersed in the body is cultivated, developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, & well-undertaken, ten benefits can be expected. Which ten? [1] "He conquers displeasure & delight, and displeasure does not conquer him. He remains victorious over any displeasure that has arisen. .... [4] "He can attain at will, without trouble or difficulty, the four jhanas — heightened mental states providing a pleasant abiding in the here & now. [5] "He wields manifold supranormal powers. Having been one he becomes many; having been many he becomes one. He appears. He vanishes. He goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, & mountains as if through space. He dives in & out of the earth as if it were water. He walks on water without sinking as if it were dry land. Sitting crosslegged he flies through the air like a winged bird. With his hand he touches & strokes even the sun & moon, so mighty & powerful. He exercises influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds. [MN 119 Kayagata-sati Sutta] Best wishes, Tep, your friend. =========== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" > wrote: > > > > Tep: This sutta clearly states that awareness-release(ceto- > vimutti), a > > paramattha-dhamma, can be "made to arise at will". How should such > > wrong understanding of mine be corrected? {:>) > > I don't believe you do have wrong understanding. Metta can be made > to arise at will (But, goodness, I have argued this subject so > extensively in the past in this group, before your arrival Tep, that > I could hardly feel any metta about it! ;-)). > (snipped) > > Tep, you are not mistaken. I think you are right on target. > > Metta, > James > 57817 From: han tun Date: Fri Apr 14, 2006 6:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's not-self strategy bad? Root-condition. hantun1 Dear Nina, Thank you very much for your kind advice. I like what you said about conceit: “having dislike of 'our conceit' is conditioned by conceit; and we do not want to be such a person, and that is conceit.” And you said: “But we can learn that whatever arises does so because it has been accumulated.” That is also true. My conceit must have been the result of accumulation over the years. When I was younger, I was a “no-nonsense”, “go-getter” person. I would not like to take “No” from anyone, not even from my superiors. I must get what I want, and I got most of what I wanted. Besides, in Burma, we are always pushed by the motto: “if you try hard enough you can become a Buddha.” Now, that was “history”, and the age and the dhamma has mellowed me considerably. Finally, I take heed of your advice: “Understanding can gradually be accumulated and we should have confidence in paññaa that performs its own function of understanding whatever object appears and of leading to detachment.” Thank you very much. With metta and deepest respect, Han --- nina van gorkom wrote: > It is so common, and also having dislike of > 'our conceit' is > conditioned by conceit. We do not want to be such a > person, and that is > conceit. > > But we can learn that whatever arises does so > because it has been > accumulated. > Understanding can gradually be > accumulated and we should > have confidence in paññaa that performs its own > function of understanding > whatever object appears and of leading to > detachment. > > Nina. 57818 From: "indriyabala" Date: Fri Apr 14, 2006 6:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Is ..not-self strategy bad? Confusing Terms !! indriyabala Hi Dan D. , Howard, and James (and Han) - I think James has made a good point that some words may be clear to some but not to the others. >James: You are making some interesting points, but I am having a hard time following your train of thought because you keep using the nebulous term "kusala"? What is kusala? What EXACTLY is it? Could you provide an explanation and examples? Thanx. James, dear Dan has confused me too when he talked about "conventional effort". Is there a "non-conventional" effort? What is the Pali for "conventional effort"? Well, one big reason why I have often troubled myself adding a Pali term in the parentheses behind a confusing English word is (not because I wanted to show off my limited knowledge of the Pali, but) because I wanted to make it precise. {:>)) ................................... >Dan D. : >There are at least two possibilies besides "you can cause kusala to arise via such-and-such conventional effort". First, there are useful and (conventionally) wholesome actions that are to be encouraged because they make for a more civil and pleasant culture. Second, in some cases the more conventional effort is put into generating kusala, the more clear it becomes that conventional effort is not kusala. In other words, intensive conventional effort can illuminate the futility of conventional effort. Tep: Your words flew over my head! Why is the "conventional effort" not kusala even when the expected result is kusala ? [Please do not explain using the lobha and the self demon again. I have already heard it at least a thousand times!] Is the following trying to abandon wrong view a conventional effort? [Of course, that "trying" is kusala, according to the Buddha.] Or, is it just "conventional wholesome" but not kusala yet? "One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort, & right mindfulness — run & circle around right view." [MN 117] ............. Tep: Is the following effort (viriya) a "conventional effort"? Why or why not? Notice that the effort here is a real trying to stop all kinds of 'akusala' from arising and to cause new kusalas to arise ! Also, note that "skillful qualities" are kusala dhammas. "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen... for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen ..." Thank you in advance for your clarification. Best wishes, Tep ==== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > > Hi Howard, > H: Where we disagree is in the matter of conventional actions that > have useful and wholesome consequences. > > D: Useful and "wholesome" consequences to be sure (conventionally > speaking, of course). But kusala? Never! > > > the Buddha repeatedly urged such conventional > > action - the four aspects of right effort, acting morally, > meditating, and so on, being examples. > > Two issues: > 1. Was he really exhorting us to conventional notions of "right > effort", etc.? > (snipped) 57819 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Apr 14, 2006 9:07am Subject: Re: Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's not-self strategy bad? scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, All, See below for a sophomoric attempt at joining in. I've been following these discussions with interest. S: "What is this `extended and serious work' if it's not a combination of various cittas, cetasikas and rupas? It seems that however much we say that all dhammas are anatta, we still try to have a rule or special way to help us have more awareness, more metta, more good of all kinds. "I would say, forget about all these rules and methods and instead just understand what is really meant when we say all namas and rupas are anatta. Each moment of seeing or hearing now, each moment of thinking, of intention, of effort, of metta, of attachment – all are conditioned. "When we think, `I'm opening my heart' or `I will try to make an effort or special intention', all the cetasikas are already doing their jobs at that moment of thinking. They are arising together, performing their functions and then falling away immediately. There's no time or place for anything else to be done at all, because thinking is already thinking like this. "So, no, we cannot practice anything. But, yes, understanding can develop and develop and eventually even experience nibbana. Without right understanding of dhammas, there can of course be good sila or generosity according to our inclinations and tendencies, but there cannot be any development of kusala at all, not even samatha development. And without understanding cittas, cetasikas and rupas as being `the world', there will always be an idea of doing something or setting a rule for ourselves to follow with an idea of `Someone'. "Attachment of any kind, such as to having any kind of result, having any kind of mental states arise or to being a better person, merely hinders and prevents metta and other wholesome states from arising." I (sophomorically) looked up two words in the PTS PED which relate to "practise." Please swoop in to correct this attempt. Pa.tipanna: "[F]olowed or following up, reaching, going along or by (i.e. practising), entering or obtaining. . ." Bhaaveti: "[T]o beget, produce, in-crease, cultivate, develop (by means of thought and meditation). . ." The argument put forward by Sarah, I condense to be: One cannot consider practise to be equivalent to willing something to be by action since the "action" has already occured. If this is incorrect please clarify. Going on from that, and taking from the definitions, I would suggest that practise follows from, that is, is conditioned by, that which has arisen. In the definition of pa.tipanna I would focus on the sense that this implies a "following up" or a "going along or by." Then, with bhaaveti, I would point to the notion of "cultivate" which was inserted. Although beget and produce seem to imply "by intention," "cultivate" modifies that implication. I see this is so by thinking of cultivation in relation to a seed. And this analogy has been given many times, as you know, so excuse my pedantry. The cultivator does not create or beget the seed, nor the earth, nor the sun, nor the combination of elements and conditions which allow for the growth of the seed. The cultivator can weed, water, and wait. She cannot, by will, force the growth of the seed, or alter it such that a pea seed suddenly grows a tomatoe plant. Sarah states: "When we think 'I'm opening my heart' . . . all the cetasikas are already doing their jobs at that moment of thinking." This doesn't preclude "practise," in my opinion. Would it be fair to suggest that the cultivation, following up, or going along with an awareness which culminates in a thought like "I'm opening my heart," is "practise?" If so, one doesn't need to argue, in my opinion, for the existence of a concept named "practise" in the sense that to do so does seem like clinging to self, or control, or some conceptual notion of will which doesn't correspond to the functioning of the cetasika said to be related to will. Going along or cultivating as practise means to me to be letting go, and seems to require a host of conditions to be in place. Since cultivation aids in the growth of healthy plants without assuming the grandiose status of creation, this seems enough for me. Please correct any wrong views I may be indulging in. Sincerely, Scott. 57820 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Apr 14, 2006 5:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's ...? Made to arise at will upasaka_howard Hi, Tep [and James and Sarah (especially in the postscript)] - Tep, I think the following is excellent, as is James' post to which you are replying. I would only add, for purely technical purposes, and to avoid objections by others in this regard, that having cultivated a proficiency to the point that one can "make an event occur at will," something which certainly *can* be accomplished with regard to a multitude of matters, that making an event occur at will does involve other conditions in addition to cetana, though they are conditions that are either quite common or are easily brought about. I think for example of attention, concentration, and energy/effort, plus, of course, "external" conditions. In the latter regard, to use a trivial conventional example, one cannot hit a home run if one hasn't a bat. ;-) With metta, Howard P.S. Sarah, it occurs to me that I, and others, having been expressing our perspectives rather strongly and uncompromisingly on this issue. Speaking for myself, though I have no doubt that this applies to the others as well, I want you to know that there is no acrimony involved in my writing about this material to you at all! In particular, as regards metta, you are one of the kindest people I know, and one of the truest friends. I don't think metta bhavana would serve you very well, as it would be a case of "carrying coals to Newcastle"! ;-) In a message dated 4/14/06 8:34:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time, indriyabala@... writes: > > Hi James (Sarah, Howard, and others) - > > Thank you for your thoughtful remark that is very convincing. > > >James: > >>In practice, if you do something enough you become good at it. If > >you practice baseball, you become good at it; if you practice the > >piano, you become good at it; if you practice metta, you become good > >at it. The mind will incline toward what it does the most. > >Conversely, if you practice dosa (anger, hatred, irritation, etc.), > >then the mind will become good at that also. Not only can a person > >train the mind to make metta arise at will, he/she can also train > >the mind to make hatred arise at will. > > > >The Buddha could make metta arise at will, and he could radiate that > >metta to others to influence their behavior. He even radiated metta > >at a charging elephant- set on killing him- so that the elephant > >stopped dead in his tracks. > > Tep: > > Other conditioned dhammas can be made to arise at will too: for > example, concentration based on the perception of light(alokasaññaa) > and manifold supranormal powers (using the four iddhipada or > kayagatasati). > > "When a monk has thus developed &pursued the four bases of power, he > experiences manifold supranormal powers. Having been one he becomes > many; having been many he becomes one. He appears. He vanishes. He > goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, &mountains as if through > space. He dives in &out of the earth as if it were water. He walks on > water without sinking as if it were dry land. Sitting crosslegged he > flies through the air like a winged bird. With his hand he touches & > strokes even the sun &moon, so mighty &powerful. He exercises > influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds.[SN LI.20 > Iddhipada-vibhanga Sutta] > > "Monks, for one in whom mindfulness immersed in the body is > cultivated, developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, > given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, &well-undertaken, ten > benefits can be expected. Which ten? > > [1] "He conquers displeasure &delight, and displeasure does not > conquer him. He remains victorious over any displeasure that has arisen. > > .... > > [4] "He can attain at will, without trouble or difficulty, the four > jhanas — heightened mental states providing a pleasant abiding in the > here &now. > > [5] "He wields manifold supranormal powers. Having been one he becomes > many; having been many he becomes one. He appears. He vanishes. He > goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, &mountains as if through > space. He dives in &out of the earth as if it were water. He walks on > water without sinking as if it were dry land. Sitting crosslegged he > flies through the air like a winged bird. With his hand he touches & > strokes even the sun &moon, so mighty &powerful. He exercises > influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds. > [MN 119 Kayagata-sati Sutta] > > Best wishes, > > > Tep, > your friend. /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) 57821 From: "ericlonline" Date: Fri Apr 14, 2006 9:58am Subject: [dsg] Re: Jhana Retreat ericlonline Hi Sarah (Math and jhana atttainers), >This thread is interesting and not easy.... Why? I have no problems with it? --- ericlonline wrote: > S: Math said he also agreed 'with your idea of spreading > piti/rapture. As I understand it, piiti is a mental factor (which > can arise with wholesome or unwholesome kinds of consciousness) and > here you're talking about the jhana factor. So how can a mental > jhana factor ever be 'spread' or ever be 'mainly a physical > sensation'? > E:> Here is how our master explains > it with a similie.. > > "Just as if a skilled bathman or bathman's apprentice would pour > bath powder into a brass basin and knead it together, sprinkling it > again and again with water, so that his ball of bath powder — > saturated, moisture-laden, permeated within and without — would > nevertheless not drip; even so, the monk permeates, suffuses and > fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of > withdrawal. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by > rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal (of the senses)... > > Do you understand now? > If not, why not? :-) .... S: I thought you would provide this quote, thank you:-). S>Isn't the sutta (MN39?) referring to the quality of a very, very high level of purity of the mind here? "Having abandoned these five hindrances, imperfections of mind that weaken wisdom, quite secluded from sensual pleasures......' Yes! This cannot happen if: sensual desire >> desire for sense objects ill will sloth & torpor restless & remorse skeptical doubt are present. You wish to focus on sensual desire. OK >`Quite secluded from sensual pleasures...' Doesn't that mean that whilst in jhana there are no sense experiences at all? No sensations of the body experienced, no Qi gong type energy movement experiences and so on? To my understanding and experience, no. It means the desire for gratification thru the sense doors has stopped. The 'looking' for gratifying 'things' thru the sense doors has been terminated. When concentration reaches one pointedness, piti is there of its own accord, you dont have to go looking for it. This is very difficult to learn as a meditator. When first encountering this, the minds inclined reaction is to grasp at it like a sensual object. This grasping breaks concentration and the piti disappears. So, to be able to see piti and leave it alone is quite a skill to learn. It takes a high degree of equanimity to not grasp at it and 'destroy' it. S>In other words, in jhana, isn't the mind just absorbed in its object with the jhana cittas accompanied by the jhana factors and other sobhana (good) mental states? It is absorbed into the object but that object can be piti. Piti and sukha are present. S> `the rapture and pleasure born of seclusion' (vivekajena piitisukhene) – doesn't this refer to the meantal qualities of piiti and sukha arising as a result of being free from the hindrances etc? Yes! .... S:For a little support, I'd like to quote from Vism V111, 225, Nanamoli transl: E: This is a problem with this abtracted approach to dhamma. You are searching for meanings for abstractions. And so instead of developing wholesome mental qualities you have quotes floating around your head. This is why you are looking for 'reality'. You know deep down that this approach is not moving you along the path. But old habits die hard, so you continue in a habituated way. Sarah, you will never know what Math and I are talking about until you develope a bhavana practice and even then it is not assured. Now you are a very nice person and maybe no one will talk to you this directly and so I dont mean to harm you in any way Sarah!! " `he trains thus: `I shall breathe in.....shall breathe out experiencing happiness (piiti)', that is, making happiness known, making it plain. Herein the happiness is experienced in two ways: a) with the object, and b) with non-confusion." .... S: So how is this piiti experienced with the object and with non-confusion? Is it as a sensation of the body? I don't think so. The object in this case is breath. When concentration reaches a certain point, piti and sukha are there. The breath is still there, it does not "disappear". It may get very refined and begin to fade but it is there nonetheless. This quote seems to come from the Anapanasati sutta and is not necessarily about jhana. "a) How is the happiness (piiti) experienced with the object? He attains the two jhanas in which happiness is present. At that time when he has actually entered upon them the happiness is experienced with the object owing to the obtaining of the jhana, because of the experiencing of the object. ..... S: In other words, let's say breath is the object of jhana, then at that time, the jhana citta is accompanied by the jhana factors including piiti which experiences that object (breath) with happiness/rapture. There are no sensations experienced through the body-sense at all. Jhanas only arise in the mind-door experiences. Huh? If breath is there, then there is a body sense. It is a FORM jhana not a FORMLESS one. If this is what you believe, then explain the Buddha's words: "There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal" If there is an entire body, then there is a body sense. You cant have body without a sensing of it. .... "b) How with non-confusion? When, after entering upon and emerging from one of the two jhanas accompanied by happiness, he comprehends with insight that happiness associated with the jhana as liable to destruction and to fall, than at the actual time of the insight the happiness is experienced with non-confusion owing to the penetration of its characteristics [of impermanence, and so on]*. .... S: In other words, the characteristic of that piiti can only be known if insight has already been developed by being aware of it immediately after emerging from jhana. It is the mental quality, the jhana factor which is then known. Again, not anything experienced through the body-sense. Oh my lord you are getting yourself tied up into mental knots. Yes that was my point about 'stabalizing' the piti and sukha. If it cannot be stabalized, then you cannot view it with insight, it is to fleeting. Again Sarah, I dont have a qualm with you saying it is a mental factor. No problem. Change all my leanings of "physical sensation" to "mental sensation" and do you understand and feel better about my experince now! LOL S: [*And as a side-note, Nanamoli gives this extra note on the meaning of `by his penetration of its characteristics': `by penetration of the specific and general characteristics of happiness. For when the specific and general characteristics of anything are experienced then that thing is experienced according to reality' (Pm. 276)]S: Others, pls note 'according to reality':-) LOL Still holding out for a reality to exist in forever and ever huh!? :-) 'If only I can experince nibbana and remain with my collection of 52 paramatha dhammas. I can play a game of solitare for ever and ever.....blissfully' .... E:> Sarah, why do you wish to split hairs? > I have already said that everything > happens with mind. But in the form jhanas, > body or form is still within awareness. .... S: But is it? Why do I wish to split hairs? I'd like people to question whether such experiences of `body' as you, Math and many others have described can really be anything at all to do with jhana. Sarah, one can only know sugar by its taste. I know a hindered mind from an unhindered mind. I know the hindrances. I have sat many an hour assailed by them listening to their story, telling me I cannot progress, to give up, it is too hard, you have to be a monk, blah blah blah. When they are gone, there is no mistaking it. There is a qualitative shift in the mind like the difference between night and day. It is like Halleluiah but in a serene sort of way. Jhana practice begins from this point and yes there is further to go!!! metta 57822 From: "Dan D." Date: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Is ..not-self strategy bad? Confusing Terms !! onco111 Hi James and Tep, Good questions. REALLY good questions. I'll give you my take on them and see what you think. James: You are making some interesting points, but I am having a hard time following your train of thought because you keep using the nebulous term "kusala"? What is kusala? What EXACTLY is it? Could you provide an explanation and examples? Thanx. --> I'd say 'kusala' refers a state of mind that is free from greed/craving/clinging/attachment (lobha) and from hatred/aversion/irritation/anxiety (dosa). Things like "helping out a suffering person" or "tailgating a slow driver" are complex, extended series of events and are not states of mind and would not be classed as either kusala or akusala. Buddha taught about states of mind and the purification of states of mind to make them not only free from lobha and dosa, but also from the delusion that there is such a precious entity we call "self". The states of mind change rapidly from moment to moment. Most of the time, the current state of mind includes some degree of attachment, such as craving for or clinging to a particular sensation or idea or state of affairs, but the attachment may just be a vague craving for something new, something better to arise. Such attachment or craving or clinging is not "kusala". An example: Several years ago my PhD advisor was stricken with pancreatic cancer, which is typically fatal within a few months after diagnosis. A side effect of the chemotherapy was that it greatly dampened taste sensations and depressed the appetite. Knowing this, my wife Lisa made a large batch of spicy, rich Thai food in little bags that he could take out of the freezer and eat (after microwaving, of course) whenever it was convenient. The spiciness made it so he could enjoy the flavor and the richness provided a tremendous amount of calories so that even his compromised digestive system could still glean some energy. He loved the food and said it was the only thing he enjoyed eating in those days. So she made another batch for him. Kusala? Well, Lisa says that the entire time she was making the food she was patting herself on the back for being so good and doing such a nice thing, polishing her Self-image, and delighting in the Self- satisfaction that a well-polished Self-image can bring. I told her that there must have been some kusala moments with a purer compassion, but she assures me that the whole thing was strictly done for selfish reasons. I still think there must have been a few kusala moments that pushed her to begin the work, but according to Lisa, there was no kusala at all in her good, charitable, commendable work. ... Tep: James, dear Dan has confused me too when he talked about "conventional effort". Is there a "non-conventional" effort? What is the Pali for "conventional effort"? Well, one big reason why I have often troubled myself adding a Pali term in the parentheses behind a confusing English word is (not because I wanted to show off my limited knowledge of the Pali, but) because I wanted to make it precise. {:>)) --> There is a "non-conventional effort" and the Pali is samma- vayama. I call it "non-conventional" because it is not the sort of effort that we conventionally think about when we think of effort. Samma-vayama is tough to put finger on. Any time you try to encompass or grasp it with words or description or instructions, it slips away. Have you ever been in a situation when the "right thing to do" was so clear and obvious that you found yourself just doing it without even thinking about it? At such times it seems like the actions are so easy and natural that they're automatic and effortless. That effortless effort (wu-wei?) is markedly different from the conventional effort of resolving to do something and pushing the body or mind into some contortion other that seems to better than some other contortion. Samma-vayama seems "effortless" because it lacks the sense of self and attachment that we normally associate with "effort". Really, though, it is the attachment that is missing, not the effort. For now, though, I need to skip over the rest of your comments and return to them as time permits. I apologize and I do intend to respond more satisfactorily within the next few days. Metta, Dan > ................................... > > >Dan D. : > >There are at least two possibilies besides "you can cause kusala to > arise via such-and-such conventional effort". First, there are useful > and (conventionally) wholesome actions that are to be encouraged > because they make for a more civil and pleasant culture. Second, in > some cases the more conventional effort is put into generating kusala, > the more clear it becomes that conventional effort is not kusala. In > other words, intensive conventional effort can illuminate the futility > of conventional effort. > > Tep: Your words flew over my head! Why is the "conventional effort" > not kusala even when the expected result is kusala ? [Please do not > explain using the lobha and the self demon again. I have already heard > it at least a thousand times!] > > Is the following trying to abandon wrong view a conventional effort? > [Of course, that "trying" is kusala, according to the Buddha.] Or, is > it just "conventional wholesome" but not kusala yet? > > "One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is > one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & > remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these > three qualities ? right view, right effort, & right mindfulness ? run > & circle around right view." [MN 117] > ............. > > Tep: Is the following effort (viriya) a "conventional effort"? Why or > why not? Notice that the effort here is a real trying to stop all > kinds of 'akusala' from arising and to cause new kusalas to arise ! > Also, note that "skillful qualities" are kusala dhammas. > > "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, arouses > persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the > non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen... > for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet > arisen ..." > > Thank you in advance for your clarification. > > > Best wishes, > > Tep > ==== > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > > > > Hi Howard, > > H: Where we disagree is in the matter of conventional actions that > > have useful and wholesome consequences. > > > > D: Useful and "wholesome" consequences to be sure (conventionally > > speaking, of course). But kusala? Never! > > > > > the Buddha repeatedly urged such conventional > > > action - the four aspects of right effort, acting morally, > > meditating, and so on, being examples. > > > > Two issues: > > 1. Was he really exhorting us to conventional notions of "right > > effort", etc.? > > > (snipped) > 57823 From: "indriyabala" Date: Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:12am Subject: Re: Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's ...? Made to arise at will indriyabala Hi, Howard (James, Sarah) - Thank you for the addition : >Howard: I would only add, for purely technical purposes, and to avoid objections by others in this regard, that having cultivated a proficiency to the point that one can "make an event occur at will," something which certainly *can* be accomplished with regard to a multitude of matters, that making an event occur at will does involve other conditions in addition to cetana, though they are conditions that are either quite common or are easily brought about. Tep: Yes. The internal and external conditions, can influence the outcome of any dynamic system. Its dynamical behavior at a given time is what we call "event" or "reponse" -- using the terminology of the widely known Systems Theory. Have you seen the Japanese robots lately? Their behaviors (or responses to an external stimulus) are amazingly complex, yet quite predictable (if you play with them long enough). There is , of course, no cetana (intention) by the robots to move and respond to an external stimulus. By the way, there is no self either ! Yours truly, Tep ==== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Tep [and James and Sarah (especially in the postscript)] - > > Tep, I think the following is excellent, as is James' post to which you are replying. I would only add, for purely technical purposes, and to avoid objections by others in this regard, that having cultivated a proficiency to the point that one can "make an event occur at will," something which certainly *can* be accomplished with regard to a multitude of matters, that making an event occur at will does involve other conditions in addition to cetana, though > they are conditions that are either quite common or are easily brought about. > I think for example of attention, concentration, and energy/effort, plus, of course, "external" conditions. In the latter regard, to use a trivial conventional example, one cannot hit a home run if one hasn't a bat. ;-) > > (snipped) 57824 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:30am Subject: Re: Jhana Retreat scottduncan2 Dear Discussants (pretty formal, eh?), How is one to understand the following given the points of view thus far expressed? "Piiti is zest, joy, or pleasurable interest. . .It is not a kind of feeling (Vedanaa) like Sukha. It is so to say, its precursor. Like the first two jhaana factors,(Piiti) is also a mental state found in both moral and immoral consciousness . . .There are five kinds of Piiti: 1. Khuddaka Piiti, the thrill or joy that causes 'the flesh to creep'. 2. Khanika Piiti, instantaneous joy like a flash of lightning. 3. Okkantika Piiti, the flood of joy like the breakers on a seashore. 4. Ubbega Piiti, transporting joy which enables one to float in air as a lump of cotton carried by the wind. 5. Pharana Piiti, suffusing joy which pervades the whole body like a full blown bladder or a flood that over flows small tanks and ponds," (Abhidhammattha Sangaha, Naarada Mahaa Thera, pp. 70-71). What does one take as literal? What as simile? How does one understand the term "ruupa jhaana?" Is "material" not material? There is a process described, just prior to the quotation, which goes through the process of thought moments occuring intantaneously that are jhaana, and this seems to include an instantaneous experience of joy. These above noted descriptions seem to imply some longer lasting experience involving the actual material elements of the body. Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, Scott 57825 From: "indriyabala" Date: Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:05pm Subject: Attention to Conditions and Refinement in Skillful Action indriyabala Hi, Dan D., Howard, James (and all others) - I have found the following extract from 'The Wings to Awakening' very relevant to the on-going discussion on developing kusala. Thanks to Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu. "The fact of skillfulness also implies that some results are preferable to others, for otherwise there would be no point in trying to develop skills. In addition, the fact that it is possible to learn from mistakes in the course of developing a skill, so that one's future actions may be more skillful, implies that the cycle of action, result, and reaction is not entirely deterministic, and that acts of perception, attention, and intention can actually provide new input as the cycle goes through successive turns. "The important element in this input is attention. Anyone who has mastered a skill will realize that the process of attaining mastery requires attention to three things: (1) to pre-existing conditions, (2) to what one is doing in relation to those conditions, and (3) to the results that come from one's actions. This threefold focus enables one to monitor one's actions and adjust them accordingly. In this way, one's attention to conditions, actions, and effects allows the results of an action to feed back into future action, thus allowing for refinement in one's skill. "These implications of the fact of skillfulness account for the main framework of the Buddha's doctrine as expressed in the teachings on the four noble truths, dependent co-arising, and this/that conditionality. Other facets of skillful action also account for more detailed points within this framework. For instance, the Buddha's exploration of stress and its origination, in the light of skillful action, provided the analysis of mental and physical events ("name-and-form," nama-rupa) that plays a central role in the second noble truth as expressed in terms of dependent co-arising. The first lesson of skillfulness is that the essence of an action lies in the intention motivating it: an act motivated by the intention for greater skillfulness will give results different from those of an act motivated by greed, aversion, or delusion. Intention, in turn, is influenced by the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the act of attention to one's circumstances. [end of extract] .......................... What is your thought? Warm regards, Tep ====== 57826 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:22pm Subject: Re: Is ..not-self strategy bad? Confusing Terms !! buddhatrue Hi Dan, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > > --> I'd say 'kusala' refers a state of mind that is free from > greed/craving/clinging/attachment (lobha) and from > hatred/aversion/irritation/anxiety (dosa). Thanks for your extensive answer. I thought that kusala was translated as "wholesome", but you seem to be defining kusala as "perfection". According to your definition, the only type of person who would experience kusala would be an arahant. Interesting definition, but limiting I would say. Metta, James 57827 From: LBIDD@... Date: Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's not-self strategy okay, or bad? lbidd2 Hi James, If the Buddha practiced metta, sobeit. Regarding your question: L: "If you find yourself stumbling over your 'self' in the practice of metta, you might look into what exactly there is to trip over." James: "I'm not sure what this means. The practice of metta begins with radiating metta to oneself. See the Vism. for details." L: In a b's note he said he needed to practice metta with the belief there is no self and he found it hard to practice metta in the light of Thanisarro Bhikkhu's ideas on 'no self' 'not self' which say, in my words, don't waste your time on beliefs. So I said if a belief in self or a belief in no self arises, look at that belief and see if it is truly mine. Maybe not the best advice in the world, but it's what came to mind at the time. Larry 57828 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri Apr 14, 2006 8:44pm Subject: Re: Jhana Retreat rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Discussants (pretty formal, eh?), > > How is one to understand the following given the points of view thus > far expressed? > > "Piiti is zest, joy, or pleasurable interest. . .It is not a kind of > feeling (Vedanaa) like Sukha. It is so to say, its precursor. Like > the first two jhaana factors,(Piiti) is also a mental state found in > both moral and immoral consciousness . . .There are five kinds of Piiti: > > 1. Khuddaka Piiti, the thrill or joy that causes 'the flesh to creep'. > > 2. Khanika Piiti, instantaneous joy like a flash of lightning. > > 3. Okkantika Piiti, the flood of joy like the breakers on a seashore. > > 4. Ubbega Piiti, transporting joy which enables one to float in air > as a lump of cotton carried by the wind. > > 5. Pharana Piiti, suffusing joy which pervades the whole body like a > full blown bladder or a flood that over flows small tanks and ponds," > (Abhidhammattha Sangaha, Naarada Mahaa Thera, pp. 70-71). > > What does one take as literal? What as simile? How does one > understand the term "ruupa jhaana?" Is "material" not material? > There is a process described, just prior to the quotation, which goes > through the process of thought moments occuring intantaneously that > are jhaana, and this seems to include an instantaneous experience of > joy. These above noted descriptions seem to imply some longer lasting > experience involving the actual material elements of the body. > > Thanks for your consideration. > > Sincerely, > > Scott ___________ Dear Scott, The four conditions for rupa(matter), rupa-samutthana-paccaya, are citta, kamma, utu and ahara. Thus certainly jhana factors condition rupa. However, jhana factors arise also before full jhana is attained. As I understand it once genuine jhana is attained the rupa is conditioned to be very fine, but the person who attained the jhana cannot experience any of the sense doors including the body door while in jhana, only before and after. Factors like piti are common to akusala and kusala citta. From the Dhammasangani(first book of the Abhidhamma). p90-93 of PTS translation . PartII BAD States of consciousness "What on that occasion is zest (piti)The zest which on that occasion is joy, rejoiciung at, rejoicing over.felicity, exultation..this is the zest that there then is. What on that occasion is ease(sukkham) the mental pleasure, the mental ease which on that occasion is pleasant, easeful experience born of contact ... What on that occasion is ekaggatta. The stability, solidity, absorbed steadfastness of thought which on that occasion is absence of distraction, balance, unperturbed mental procedure, quiet, the faculty and the power of concentration WRONG concentartion. Robertk 57829 From: LBIDD@... Date: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Jhana Retreat lbidd2 Robert K: "The four conditions for rupa(matter), rupa-samutthana-paccaya, are citta, kamma, utu and ahara. Thus certainly jhana factors condition rupa. However, jhana factors arise also before full jhana is attained. As I understand it once genuine jhana is attained the rupa is conditioned to be very fine, but the person who attained the jhana cannot experience any of the sense doors including the body door while in jhana, only before and after. Factors like piti are common to akusala and kusala citta." Hi Robert and Scott, I thought rupa and arupa jhana referred to the object of jhana, 'rupa' being translated as 'fine-material': in rupa jhana the object is a mental image, similar to visual image and so called 'fine material' (rupa); in arupa jhana the object is immaterial (boundless space, boundless consciousness, nothingness, neither-perception-nor-nonperception). I agree that piti conditions the arising of sensations through the body door, that these are very subtle, and aren't experienced at the same time as the object, there being only one experience at a time. As for levitation, it is meant literally but obviously is a matter of many moments. Even though it sounds rather exotic and exciting, the piti of right concentration is an expression of profound peacefulness and is eventually abandoned in favor of an even more peaceful state. Larry 57830 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:30pm Subject: It isn't me! /was: Re: Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's not-self strategy bad? ken_aitch Hi all, Over the past couple of months, a hacker has been using other people's email accounts to send spam to Yahoo group members. Some I have seen have headings along the lines of, "Be with me tonight," and, "Thinking of you." I haven't opened them, but I assume they are promoting porn sites. Two of my accounts have been hacked into for this purpose. So, if you are receiving amorous messages from ken_aitch or kenhowardau, rest assured they are not from me. :-) That's enough off-topic: now for some Dhamma content: --------------- Tep: > > How should such wrong understanding of mine be corrected? {:>) James: > I don't believe you do have wrong understanding. Metta can be made to arise at will --------------- This is conventional teaching, not the Buddha's teaching. ----------------- J: > (But, goodness, I have argued this subject so extensively in the past in this group, before your arrival Tep, that I could hardly feel any metta about it! ;-)). In practice, if you do something enough you become good at it. If you practice baseball, you become good at it; if you practice the piano, you become good at it; if you practice metta, you become good at it. The mind will incline toward what it does the most. ----------------- The trouble is, if you practise self-deception (for example, convincing yourself you have metta when you don't) you become good at that too. The metta taught by the Buddha was a paramattha dhamma. A dhamma arises according to conditions and it has its own nature (sabhava). On the other hand, conventional metta (taught by other teachers) is a mere concept, and its nature is whatever we want it to be. --------------------------- J: > Conversely, if you practice dosa (anger, hatred, irritation, etc.), then the mind will become good at that also. Not only can a person train the mind to make metta arise at will, he/she can also train the mind to make hatred arise at will. --------------------------- This was the prevailing philosophy before the Dhamma became known. I imagine there were people, even in the Buddha's day, who refused to see a middle way. They would have reacted in much the same manner as we see people reacting on DSG: "So what? So what?" "Why are you telling me this?" "Just get to the instructions!" "I've learnt baseball and piano. Dhamma practice can't be any different." But it is! Ken H 57831 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:56pm Subject: Joys beyond this World ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: The Joys that are not of this world and even Beyond!!! The Blessed Buddha once said: And what, Bhikkhus, is the joy not of this world? Aloof and above sensual lust, quite secluded from any sense desire, protected from any disadvantageous mental state, one enters and dwells in the 1st jhana mental absorption; full of joy & pleasure born of solitude, joined with directed & sustained thought... With the stilling of directed & sustained thought, one later enters & dwells in the 2nd jhana of calmed assurance & unification of mind devoid of any thought, yet joined with joy & pleasure born of concentration. These are called the joys not of this world! And what, Bhikkhus, is the joy beyond that joy, which is not of this world? When a bhikkhu, whose mental fermentations are eliminated, reviews his mind liberated from lust, freed from hatred, and released from confusion, there arises a transcendental joy. This is called joy beyond that joy, that is not of this world... Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book IV [235-7] section 36:11 On Feeling: Vedana. Joys beyond this world ... http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html 57832 From: "robmoult" Date: Sat Apr 15, 2006 0:16am Subject: Breakfast with Sukin robmoult Hi All, Sukin and his family were on vacation in Kuala Lumpur. We met up for breakfast this morning and before we knew it, two and a half hours were gone. Lots of Dhamma discussions; so nice to have kalyana-mitta. Sukin and I have much in common. Sukin passed to me a number of copies of K. Sujin's "A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas" for distribution to my class and various Buddhist libraries in Kuala Lumpur. I have had a chance to thumb through this hard cover book - it is excellent! As I was driving home (with the radio off), I was reflecting on the pleasant and stimulating discussions with Sukin. Suddenly the car in front of me swerved. I slammed on my breaks and instinctively looked in the rear-view mirror to see if I had to brace myself for a rear- end impact. Fortunately, I was able to avoid any accident. I was overcome with a sense of spiritual urgency (samvega). We never know how much longer we have in this lifetime available to us for practice; let us not delay any further. Metta, Rob M :-) 57833 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Apr 15, 2006 0:33am Subject: Re: Attention to Conditions and Refinement in Skillful Action buddhatrue Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" wrote: > .......................... > > What is your thought? > > > Warm regards, > > > Tep > ====== > Very nice quote. He is saying what I believe: that we must progress step-by-step (or drop by drop as the Buddha said) to greater and great kusala. I'm getting the impression that some in this group see kusala as an all or nothing proposition- and that isn't the case. In order to perfect anything, one must make mistakes and go down blind alleys sometimes - which is what Siddhartha did. As long as the intention is wholesome, then one will be making progress, even if every mindstate isn't perfect. Metta, James 57834 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Apr 15, 2006 0:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's not-self strategy okay, or bad? buddhatrue Hi Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > > L: In a b's note he said he needed to practice metta with the belief > there is no self and he found it hard to practice metta in the light of > Thanisarro Bhikkhu's ideas on 'no self' 'not self' which say, in my > words, don't waste your time on beliefs. So I said if a belief in self > or a belief in no self arises, look at that belief and see if it is > truly mine. Okay, now I understand. Sorry, I came into the middle of the thread and I didn't understand the context of your comment. > > Maybe not the best advice in the world, but it's what came to mind at > the time. I think it's good advice. Don't get hung up on beliefs or other's ideas, test things for yourself and decide. > > Larry > Metta, James 57835 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Apr 15, 2006 0:55am Subject: It isn't me! /was: Re: Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's not-self strategy bad? buddhatrue Hi Ken H., --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" wrote: > > Hi all, > > Over the past couple of months, a hacker has been using other > people's email accounts to send spam to Yahoo group members. Some I > have seen have headings along the lines of, "Be with me tonight," > and, "Thinking of you." I haven't opened them, but I assume they > are promoting porn sites. Two of my accounts have been hacked into > for this purpose. So, if you are receiving amorous messages from > ken_aitch or kenhowardau, rest assured they are not from me. :-) James: LOL! And I had my hopes up! lol ;-)) > > That's enough off-topic: now for some Dhamma content: > > --------------- > Tep: > > How should such wrong understanding of mine be corrected? > {:>) > > James: > I don't believe you do have wrong understanding. Metta can > be made to arise at will > --------------- > > This is conventional teaching, not the Buddha's teaching. James: The Buddha did teach conventionally. Ken H., I'm afraid that we will reach an insurmountable impasse with this line of discussion because I don't believe the Buddha taught the Abhidhamma while you most clearly do. Therefore, we are going to approach this matter from entirely different directions. I would like to discuss with you but I don't see how that would be possible. You would just be saying "The Buddha taught this, the Buddha taught that" and I would be saying "No he didn't, no he didn't". Doesn't make for a very productive conversation does it?? ;- ) But, don't get me wrong, I don't have any grudges against the Abhidhamma, I just believe it comes secondary to the suttas and should be seen in it's proper light- not a teaching of the Buddha but an elaboration of the Buddha's teaching. Therefore, I can embrace both conventional and ultimate perspectives, while you give priority to the ultimate perspective. > > ----------------- > J: > (But, goodness, I have argued this subject so extensively in > the past in this group, before your arrival Tep, that I could hardly > feel any metta about it! ;-)). In practice, if you do something > enough you become good at it. If you practice baseball, you become > good at it; if you practice the piano, you become good at it; if you > practice metta, you become good at it. The mind will incline toward > what it does the most. > ----------------- > > The trouble is, if you practise self-deception (for example, > convincing yourself you have metta when you don't) you become good > at that too. James: Yes, I agree with this part. But it is better to try the practice, and make some mistakes along the way, than to not try at all. > > The metta taught by the Buddha was a paramattha dhamma. A dhamma > arises according to conditions and it has its own nature (sabhava). > On the other hand, conventional metta (taught by other teachers) is > a mere concept, and its nature is whatever we want it to be. James: See first comment. > > --------------------------- > J: > Conversely, if you practice dosa (anger, hatred, irritation, > etc.), then the mind will become good at that also. Not only can a > person train the mind to make metta arise at will, he/she can also > train the mind to make hatred arise at will. > --------------------------- > > This was the prevailing philosophy before the Dhamma became known. I > imagine there were people, even in the Buddha's day, who refused to > see a middle way. They would have reacted in much the same manner as > we see people reacting on DSG: "So what? So what?" "Why are you > telling me this?" "Just get to the instructions!" "I've learnt > baseball and piano. Dhamma practice can't be any different." > > But it is! James: See first comment. > > Ken H > Metta, James 57836 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Special thanks to Nina and Sarah buddhatrue Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi James, > > I meant to thank you for your kind note and also for some apologies you > sent later: James: Yeah, that seems to be my modus operandi: vent then apologize, vent then apologize. It's awfully tired. > --- buddhatrue wrote: > > > Hi Nina and Sarah, > > > > I wanted to write a special post to you both because of your > > touching posts to me. I am so glad that you both understood my > > message, and understood the special stresses I am presently going > > through. Honestly, I feel awkward discussing this issue in this > > group, because this group is so moderated and so formal, > ... > :-) I'll leave that to Scott's diplomatic touch... James: Yes, he is very good at diplomacy; so is Howard. I, however, am at the back of the class. ;-) > .... > >but I don't > > know a way to express myself otherwise. I hope that those > > unaccustomed to such posts will forgive me. > .... > S: I'm sure most people who've been around for anytime take the comments > you're referring to with a pinch of salt:-). James: Don't be so sure. Nina has been around since I have been here and yet my comments can upset her- STILL! That is what I don't like. > > I'm enjoying your discussion with Scott and especially your temple > meditation anecdote I'd not heard before:). James: ;-)) I have lots of ancedotes I haven't shared yet. I just wait for the right moment. Yes, really who knows from the > outer appearance what's going on when we see someone sitting on a cushion > OR reading an Abhidhamma text in Pali?? James: Thanks for the balanced comment. Yeah, we don't know. > > I hope you're adjusting to your quiet household with Simon. James: Well, believe it or not, there is now a female dalmation puppy in my apartment who I am watching temporarily. Again, Amr found her living on the street in someone's car, wanted to rescue her, and I agreed. I guess I am now in the animal rescue business!! ;-)) But, she is much younger than the other dalmation, and much more quiet and subdued- so I'm not freaking out as much, and Simon is better also. No need to > feel 'an outsider' here....I would have thought that after all this time > you were as 'core' DSG as anyone else.... James: Thank you for your kind comments, but I do still consider myself an outsider in this group. Even Phil recognized my outsider status when he continually referred to me as "the challenger". I like this group because it is the most intelligent and dedicated to the dhamma group I have found- but I don't think I belong here (after all I am anti-Abhidhamma, anti-KS, and anti-Nina...I definitely don't belong here). But, as the song goes, I'm always "looking for love in all the wrong places..." ;-)) > > (Btw, Joop & all, we had a nice note from Herman today...I think we may > see him around again soon......hopes and expectations here:-)). > > Metta, > > Sarah > ========== > Metta, James 57837 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's not-self strategy bad? sarahprocter... Dear Scott, (Howard & all), I like all your deep reflections, like on this topic. Just briefly, --- Scott Duncan wrote: > The argument put forward by Sarah, I condense to be: One cannot > consider practise to be equivalent to willing something to be by > action since the "action" has already occured. If this is incorrect > please clarify. ... S: Pretty good. If it is right practice (pariyatti or patipatti when satipatthana develops), it is referring to the momentary arising of right understanding of a reality (dhamma), accompanied by right awareness, right effort and so on. Any idea of an action to take with regard to such pariyatti or patipatti indicates a thinking of future states rather than any awareness of what is appearing at that moment of thinking. ..... S: Lots of good reflections snipped for now - .... > Going along or cultivating as practise means to me to be letting go, > and seems to require a host of conditions to be in place. Since > cultivation aids in the growth of healthy plants without assuming the > grandiose status of creation, this seems enough for me. .... S: Yes. Again, bhaavana or cultivation refers to the momentary arising (and development) or right understanding, whether at the level of samatha or satipatthana or their pre-cursors, such as moments of wise reflecting. Even when we think in terms of 'going along' or 'letting go', it can be with a subtle idea of self or of doing/not doing something, rather than just understanding the present reality appearing now. So we don't need to do any cultivating at all. When the conditions are right, pa~n~naa will do the cultivating. Even now, reflecting on dhammas )(rather than any self) as performing such actions can be a condition for such pa~n~naa to develop and know seeing, visible object, tacticle objects and so on, one at a time,-- but not by trying to have them arise. Slowly, such bhaavana will take us closer and closer to really understanding namas as namas and rupas as rupas, conditioned already. Then there will be less and less idea of performing any special actions to condition awareness or other noble states to arise. Thanks for all your kind support and very helpful comments. Metta, Sarah ======= 57838 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's ...? Made to arise at will sarahprocter... Hi Howard (Dan & all), --- upasaka@... wrote: > P.S. Sarah, it occurs to me that I, and others, having been expressing > our > perspectives rather strongly and uncompromisingly on this issue. > Speaking for > myself, though I have no doubt that this applies to the others as well, > I want > you to know that there is no acrimony involved in my writing about this > material to you at all! .... S: Thank you for this and the rest of your sweet note. I know there's no acrimony at all and I think that when I (or anyone else) makes comments which we know are likely to be controversial in a discussion group (especially on 'religion' as Scott would say), we can't expect to not have them challenged, often in strong language:-)) For my part, I welcome such responses and exhanges -- I much prefer it to a silent response, because then one has no idea if the other person even read the message.... Usually, the only reason I'm slow in responding is lack of time - at any time I have a pile of posts marked to reply to and it's often just a question of which is on top of the pile when I get round to writing:-). With regard to your other longer post to me with all the 'Yes, So?' responses, a few brief comments: 1. I know you appreciate there are only cittas, cetasikas and rupas. My post was also addressed to others who may not have your same confidence in this 'all'. 2. We may have to leave this 'engaging in special actions' such as 'graveyard contemplations' or pervading metta to all etc. As I read the suttas, we are not being told to be like the one who has developed jhana already, is used to certain kinds of contemplation or who pervades metta without any distinctions. He is describing particular states of mind, encouraging awareness and giving us an opportunity to check whether we really have such accumulations right now. I respect your understanding is different on such points. 3. 'Just understand' - no, not 'the sentences in the Tipitaka'. Understand the present dhammas appearing whilst looking at those sentences, whilst involved in graveyard contemplations, whilst anxiously waiting for news from the hospital or whilst involved in other daily life activities. As you rightly say, the Buddha 'taught a complex process of mind training....'. This is bhaavana and it too is conditioned. 'Just understand' is a short-hand reminder that only when pa~n~naa arises and performs its functions can there be any bhaavana. As you say, it involves many lifetimes of cultivation. Appreciating that it is pa~n~naa rather than you or me or any action that performs the function of development is a very important condition for it to arise more often. 4. Planning - yes, it's important. I'm a big planner -- I always have lots of lists lying around the place:). But such planning accumulations have nothing to do with the path as I see it. Planning is just thinking. There can be wise and unwise thinking -- nearly always the latter. As Dan has been stressing in his own wonderful style (love them, Dan!!), we can't even tell whether a person's 'good works' are good or bad and it's not our business anyway. I also loved his post on the sammas vs ritual (#57798) and I think you mostly agreed with it too. Also, his 'Ai-yo' post (#57756) on planning etc. As I see it, the more understanding develops, the more akusala is apparent. Also, Dan, it was a very touching story about Lisa and her cooking for your sick colleague. Like you, I'd say there must have been generosity and kindness involved to perform the acts, but it shows a real depth of sincerity and truthfulness (sacca) on Lisa's part to appreciate that even at such times, there's even more akusala arising. Very comendable. (Pls share my appreciation with her). 5, You refer to the wrong view of 'actions have no consequences'. Yes, this is the most serious wrong view that there is no kamma and no kamma-result. Understanding dhammas as conditioned in multiple ways (inc. of course kamma) and appreciating that no one, not even a Buddha, can stop kamma and other conditions bringing their results, is right view. 6. On knowing Abhidhamma as a sine qua non or essential....If you haven't heard or read about cittas, cetasikas and rupas as being the 'all', would you have any idea? If you just read suttas without knowing anything about paramattha dhammas, would you not take the conventional truths for being absolute truths? Perhaps I am generalising here from my experience:-). 7. On attachments to being better people, to getting results and so on as preventing metta and other wholesome states arising, you rightly stated that we're not arahants. True, but the point was that if we see such attachments and desires as being good in anyway, we're likely to follow the wrong path. If they're known for what they are, no hindrance or problem. I'd like to just use this post to you as an excuse to repeat for others the last para of Nina's letter to Han: "Understanding root-condition and the other types of condition on which citta is dependent cures us of the conceit that "we" are master of kusala and can make it arise at will. Mettaa can be further developed if there is right understanding of its conditioned nature. It is right understanding that should be emphasized." And that was going to be a short note, lol Metta, Sarah p.s I'm assuming Sophie is thriving at home these days with a very happy family.....:-)). ========= 57839 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The place of "meditation" .concentration. nimitta, nibbaana. jonoabb Hi Nina nina van gorkom wrote: >My question to Jon: I do not quite understand that the charactertistic of a >reality is the nimitta of it. But perhaps I am reasoning too much. > >A. Sujin explained that we can only really understand nimitta through >insight. At the stage of the first principal insight the arising and falling >away of realities is realized. Then paññaa understands that there is a >reality without nimitta and that is nibbaana. > I am not going to be able to add much (if anything). What I gather from our recent discussions is that unless and until panna is sufficiently developed, there can be no direct experience of the characteristic of a presently arising dhamma. What is normally perceived when dhammas are experienced (for example, when rupas are experienced through the 5 sense-doors), is merely an impression based on [the experiencing of] those dhammas. This impression can be likened to a veil or curtain. At moments of awareness, there is a partial and temporary lifting of the veil or curtain. As I understand it, there is nothing to be known about the nimitta itself. As in the case of concepts, what is important is that it not be taken for something it isn't. Jon 57840 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Special thanks to Nina and Sarah sarahprocter... Hi James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > James: Yeah, that seems to be my modus operandi: vent then > apologize, vent then apologize. It's awfully tired. .... S: But at least you see the akusala (the vent) for what it is and have the courtesy and lack of conceit to be able to apologize. I respect this a lot. .... > > --- buddhatrue wrote: >> > :-) I'll leave that to Scott's diplomatic touch... > > James: Yes, he is very good at diplomacy; so is Howard. I, however, > am at the back of the class. ;-) .... S: ;-) Oh well, we all have our strengths and weaknesses. I know you're a very loyal and kind friend and have a very deep appreciation of the importance of really understanding the truths, the Buddha's teachings. It's also good you can appreciate others' good qualities. No need to compare:-). .... > James: Don't be so sure. Nina has been around since I have been > here and yet my comments can upset her- STILL! That is what I don't > like. .... S: Well, she lets you know as a friend and always wishes you well. Actually, she only ever has kind words to say about you and your participation here. We're all bound to get upset over different silly things for a long, long time to come:-). .... > James: ;-)) I have lots of ancedotes I haven't shared yet. I just > wait for the right moment. ... S: Look forward to more.... you and Dan both have a real knack for telling them and showing good humour about your own experiences. ... > > I hope you're adjusting to your quiet household with Simon. > > James: Well, believe it or not, there is now a female dalmation > puppy in my apartment who I am watching temporarily. Again, Amr > found her living on the street in someone's car, ... S: AS I said, you have many good qualities...:-) ... > James: Thank you for your kind comments, but I do still consider > myself an outsider in this group. .... S: We only think like this when we think and find ourselves important...:-). ... >Even Phil recognized my outsider > status when he continually referred to me as "the challenger". I > like this group because it is the most intelligent and dedicated to > the dhamma group I have found- but I don't think I belong here > (after all I am anti-Abhidhamma, anti-KS, and anti-Nina...I > definitely don't belong here). .... S: Perhaps you just like being the rebel....I don't think it's so black and white otherwise you wouldn't even bother to disagree or challenge:-). .... > But, as the song goes, I'm always "looking for love in all the wrong > places..." ;-)) ... Or as I heard on the radio this morning "why do fools fa-a-ll in love?, da da da" Metta, Sarah ======== 57841 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:59am Subject: It isn't me! /was: Re: Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's not-self strategy bad? rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Ken H., > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" > wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > Over the past couple of months, a hacker has been using other > > people's email accounts to send spam to Yahoo group members. Some > I > > have seen have headings along the lines of, "Be with me tonight," > > and, "Thinking of you." I haven't opened them, but I assume they > > are promoting porn sites. Two of my accounts have been hacked into > > for this purpose. So, if you are receiving amorous messages from > > ken_aitch or kenhowardau, rest assured they are not from me. :-) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > James: LOL! And I had my hopes up! lol ;-)) > > > > +++++++++++ Haha! What gives, I didn't get any.. 57842 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana -- The term "Reality" jonoabb Hi TG Thanks for the detailed reply. Let me extract the main point (as I see it) for discussion first. [Jon: What then to your understanding is the development of insight that leads to enlightenment? I don't mean what are your views on *how* insight is to be developed, but what is actually happening when insight is being developed. What is going on at such moments that happens at no other time?] TG: Insight is clear about impermanence, suffering, and or no-self. Awareness of the present moment is a means to an end. The point of the issue is not to know the present moment, that is just the "exercise." The point is to know impermanence, suffering, and or no-self to the extent necessary to detach the mind from all conditions INCLUDING THE PRESENT MOMENT. You see a clear distinction between insight into impermanence, suffering and no-self (as the goal) and awareness of the present moment (as the means to that goal). I am in general agreement with you there, in that I also understand that those 3 characteristics (as I consider them to be) are not fully penetrated until enlightenment. I think that 'enlightenment' would be a better statement of the goal, however. And the means to the attainment of that goal is the development of awareness. However, I'm not sure if we are using the terms 'impermanence, suffering and no-self' in quite the same way. To me, they are the 3 characteristics of presently arising dhammas (aka the khandhas, ayatanas, dhatus spoken of in the suttas). I'd be interested to hear what they mean to you. Likewise, I'd be interested to hear more about the 'conditions' from which the mind is to become detached. Are these something other than dhammas? Is there a reason you have avoided the term 'dhammas' in your description of the development of insight? I add some further comments in the text of your post below. TGrand458@... wrote: >[J: Speak for yourself! In the context of what are the dhammas/'realities' >of the present moment -- for example, seeing consciousness, visible >object, thinking, feeling, hardness, etc. -- I just don't see where the >'entity' thing comes into it.] > >TG: It's a very subtle thing. When the mind 'identifies' things, it seeks >to establish an 'identity.' The root of identity is "entity"!!! > > I can agree with the statement you have just made, but I'm having difficulty seeing why that means that anyone who uses the label 'reality' as a translation of the Pali term 'dhamma' is bound to have wrong view on that account. Are you sure such a generalisation holds true for everyone? What about the actual underlying view of the person? >TG: ... What I have a problem with is >claiming that the "interpretation" IS the Buddha's teaching. > >To the best of our understanding the Suttas (for the most part) are the >closest representations to the Buddha's teaching. The Abhidhamma is an analysis >of the Buddha's teaching. Commentaries and other secondary materials are >interpretations (mixed with analysis) of the Buddha's teachings. > >The teachings should be called -- "the teachings" >The analysis should be called -- "the analysis" >The interpretations should be called -- "the interpretations" > >Distortions begin as soon as these get mixed up. In this group, several >folks regularly call "interpretations" --> "teachings." This is convenient for >defending their point of view, but it is not accurate. It leads to >confusion. > I don't quite understand your concern here. The distinction you correctly make here between the suttas ("the teachings") and the commentaries ("the interpretation") is universally accepted as far as I know. The suttas form part of the Tipitaka while the commentaries don't. The term 'commentaries' itself acknowledges that there is a 'parent' text of higher standing. It's true that in discussions such as the one we are now having people do not always indicate which material is from the Tipitaka and which is from the commentaries, but in the Theravadin tradition that is a common thing, I believe; the texts that are the commentaries properly so called have a special standing by virtue of their approval at one or other of the Great Councils. >TG: This is the crux of the difference of opinion I think. To me... seeing >things as having "their own characteristics" is a conventional way of >thinking. I believe that insight is the understanding that transcends this >viewpoint and replaces it with the knowledge that nothing has anything of its own. > The statement that 'nothing has anything of its own' is not one that I recognise as coming from the texts. I think that whenever the Buddha spoke about not-self, conditionality, insubstantiality, and the like he did so in the context of dhammas (or perhaps some other specified 'thing'); but not as general, abstract concepts. But I'm sure you have a basis for your statement. By the way, I would not describe the development of awareness as "seeing things as having their own characteristics". I can see how that could suggest one is looking for something of substance. I would describe the development of awareness as "the seeing of any presently arising dhamma as it truly is" (for example, seeing namas as nama, rupas as rupa). Jon 57843 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Jhana Retreat.lay jhana jonoabb Hi Eric (and Matheesha) ericlonline wrote: >Dear Mateesha & Jon, > >Thanks for this Matheesha. Jon and I were >discussing the Anapanasati Sutta awhile >back and he dogmatically kept saying that >jhana was a Monks and Nuns practice >*exclusively*. I begged to differ and >this sutta "proves it"!! > >Jon? > It has never been my view that 'jhana was a Monks and Nuns practice exclusively', so I doubt I'd have said that. What I may have said in a previous exchange, when you first joined the list (before Matheesha joined), is that the Anapanasti Sutta was addressed to a certain audience and describes the attainment of enlightenment by a particular class of person (a person with highly developed samatha and vipassana), and so should not be taken as supporting an 'anapanasati for all' approach to the development of insight. It's quite clear from the suttas that there were lay folk who had attained jhana. But the important question for us all to consider, I believe, is not whether jhana (or anything else) is *possible*, but rather what the Buddha said were the *necessary and indispensable* conditions for the development of insight. To my understanding, jhana is not among those necessary and indispensable conditions (see the suttas I quoted in my post to you a short time ago). Jon >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "matheesha" > wrote: > > >>The sutta below, where the Buddha names his female lay devotees of >>distinction, shows development of metta bhavana and jhana practice >>amongst them. >> >>"Bhikkhus, out of my lay female disciples the first to take the >>three refuges is Sujàta the daughter of Seniya. Visakhà the >>mother of Migàra is the foremost female devotee. Kujjuttarà >>the most learned. Samawathie for developing loving kindness. >>Uttaranandamàtà for jhanas. " >> >> http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara- >>Nikaya/Anguttara1/1-ekanipata/014-Etadaggapali-e.htm >> 57844 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: arahat and D.O., Larry jonoabb Hi James buddhatrue wrote: >James: Well, you do have something here. I guess I think of the >quality of dukkha as different in nature than anicca and anatta. I >think of anicca and anatta as objective- they aren't going to >change. Impermanence and Non-self are facts. But I see the quality >of dukkha as subjective- it depends on one's perspective. I see >dukkha as a quality that isn't inherent but rather comes about >through clinging. Interesting. > Yes, that view is sometimes advanced, based on a line of reasoning, but I'm not aware of anything in the texts to that effect. >Perhaps I am mistaken in my perspective. If you could provide me >with a sutta quote of any kind (and of course you already know I >won't accept anyting from the Abhidhamma or Vism.) then I would >appreciate it. If my prespective is in error, I would like to be >corrected as soon as possible. > As I said before, I think almost any sutta that mentions dukkha as one of the 3 characteristics of dhammas would do, since they all seem to treat dukkha as an inherent aspect of dhammas. Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary gives 3 sutta quotes under the entry for 'tilakkhana' (3 characteristics): ********* Ti-lakkhana The '3 characteristics of existence', or signata, are impermanency (anicca), suffering or misery (dukkha), not-self (anattÄ?). "Whether Perfect Ones appear in the world, or whether Perfect Ones do not appear in the world, it still remains a firm condition, an immutable fact and fixed law: that all formations are impermanent, that all formations are subject to suffering, that everything is without a self'' (A. III, 134). "What do you think, o monks: Is corporeality (rÅ«pa) permanent or impermanent? - Impermanent, o Venerable One. - Are feeling (vedanÄ?), perception (saññÄ?), mental formations (sankhÄ?ra) and consciousness (viññÄ?na), permanent or impermanent? - Impermanent, o Venerable One. "But that which is impermanent, is it something pleasant or painful? - It is painful, o Venerable One. "But, of what is impermanent, painful and subject to change, could it be rightly said, 'This belongs to me, this am I, this is my ego'? - No, Venerable One. "Therefore, whatever there is of corporeality, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness, whether past, present or future, one's own or external, gross or subtle, lofty or low, far or near, of all these things one should understand, according to reality and true wisdom: 'This does not belong to me, this am I not, this is not my ego' " (S. XXII, 59). "In one who understands eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and all the remaining formations as impermanent, painful and not-self, in him the fetters (samyojana) are dissolved" (S. XXXV, 53). Jon 57845 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Jhana Retreat sarahprocter... Hi Eric, (Scott & all), Thanks to both your post and Scott’s. I’d like to start off with a couple of corrections to my other ones. Firstly, a typo in one where I used apo instead of vayo for wind/movement. Secondly, in my last one, I think I went off on a wrong tangent with the Nyantiloka and other quote. Kaaya does have the two meanings of physical and mental body, but in the quote we were discussing from MN (on ‘permeates, suffuses and fills this very body’ etc), I’m reminded by Scott’s quote that here I think it refers to the physical body. (We discussed before some references of ‘luminous’ which refer to rupas conditioned by highly developed cittas and of course the ‘levitation’ and other similar examples too. We only have to think of the many examples of the powers of the great arahants like Mahamoggallana to have no doubt about the effect of such jhanic states on the body.) So piiti is definitely able to condition (bodily) rupas. Even unwholesome piiti, such as when we’re enthusiastic about something enjoyable, conditions rupas. Having said that, I think in the following sections, such as in the quotes about when mind is associated with piiti, the body becomes tranquillised etc which I gave, that here the references are all to the ‘mental body’ of mental aggregates only, not to rupas of the body. Also, as I stressed, the quality of piiti is in the experiencing of the object ‘as in the seeing of an oasis of water by one who is exhausted in a desert’ as it says in the commentary to the Ab.Sangaha. Also it says here with regard to the first jhaana, that: “it is jhaana because of contemplating the object and burning up (jhaapena) the enemies [i.e the hindrances]. For the designation ‘jhaana’ refers simply to the arising together of the factors of jhaana, just as the designation ‘chariot’ refers to the arising together of the parts such as the wheel, rim, etc.” So, yes, piiti and the other jhaana factors will condition ruupas, but, no, whilst in jhaana, there are no sense experiences at all. It is not the breath which is experienced even, it is a nimitta (a sign) of breath (or other object) which is experienced, only in the mind door process, never in a sense door process. So no body suffusions, sensations or tingles are experienced whilst in any jhaana. You suggested I could just change all your references to bodily sensations to mental ones (I’ll add your quote after signing off) if that makes me feel better. All, I’ll say is that this was the whole point of the discussion – that all those Qi gong, reiki and other touchy experiences couldn’t have anything to do with jhaana as taught by the Buddha. If we just change all your descriptions to match the texts to give credibility to your jhaana experiences, well.......I’ll leave it there:-/ With regard to the Vism quote I gave concerning object and non-confusion, you thought it might not be about jhaana, but the text makes it clear that it is referring to first and second jhaanas. (I won’t repeat it all). Eric, there’s much more, but I need to take a break here. I’d just like to say that I love your good humour – even the one about the 52 paramattha dhammas and solitaire...blissfully....lol. It really is fun to discuss dhamma with you,even when I get tangled up in words as you say:). Thanks again to both of you for helping me in this thead – as I said, not an easy topic for me to discuss and I’m glad to have a chance to add corrections and reflect further. [Scott, I know the refs are different in the PTS Vism, but there’s much more on the five kinds/levels of piiti you kindly raise in Vism, ch 1V. under the ‘First Jhaana’. #94f in the Nanamoli tansl. Thanks again for the reminder of these.] Metta and best wishes for a blissful weekend, Sarah p.s I’ve just kept a couple of your gems below....lol ======= --- ericlonline wrote: > Oh my lord you are getting yourself > tied up into mental knots. Yes that > was my point about 'stabalizing' the > piti and sukha. If it cannot be > stabalized, then you cannot view > it with insight, it is to fleeting. > Again Sarah, I dont have a qualm > with you saying it is a mental > factor. No problem. Change all > my leanings of "physical sensation" > to "mental sensation" and do you > understand and feel better about > my experince now! LOL > > S: [*And as a side-note, Nanamoli gives this extra note on the > meaning of `by his penetration of its characteristics': `by > penetration of the specific and general characteristics of > happiness. For when the specific and general characteristics of > anything are experienced then that thing is experienced according to > reality' (Pm. 276)]S: Others, pls note 'according to reality':-) > > LOL Still holding out for a reality > to exist in forever and ever huh!? :-) > > 'If only I can experince nibbana and > remain with my collection of 52 paramatha > dhammas. I can play a game of solitare for > ever and ever.....blissfully' ======================= 57846 From: "Phil" Date: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:16am Subject: Re: Marisa's questions.Lessons in Dhamma, no 3. philofillet Hi Nina > Throughout all these years with Acharn Sujin we discussed again and again > what seeing is: the experience of what appears through eyesense. Such a fascinating, stirring topic. Sometimes I think my interest in it is just another form of clinging to Dhamma, the way I used to cling to metta (or to be accurate, cling to thinking about metta.) But there do seem to be conditions for appreciating this topic, and this gives me confidence. It is at the heart of the Buddha's teaching, defined as the purpose of the holy life in one of my favourite suttas. The other day I had a helpful realization when reading Surver of PDs. The rupa of visible object is never separate from other rupas, 8 all together, I think. This shows that I (safe to say "we") don't really understand visible object. What we think we see is inded what we *think* we see! It's so groovy, I find. > We > discussed what hearing is: the experience of what appears through the > earsense. We are always forgetful of seeing and hearing, because we are more > interested in concepts such as people, things and events. The interest we have has been accumulated and will play out, naturally enough. There is no need to try to lose such interest. Perhaps the interest will fade a little, or become transparent a little, as I posted before. Does in my case. The interest becomes purified because it is accumpanied more often by right understanding. > However, also > thinking which thinks of concepts is a type of naama which can be realized > as such. Thinking is real and if we are not aware of it we shall continue > taking it for self. I like what Mike Nease says in one of the talks. It is easy to think about the reality of thinking - "I do it all the time" - but to really know it, to really be aware of it is another matter. He points out that the huge Satipatthana industry, so many books and what not, so many people spending their days trying to be aware of all their actions - all thinking. > We can never be reminded enough of nåma and rúpa, because these are ultimate > realities paññ?Ehas to understand. In my notebooks there are many good reminders. I could go and get some of them now, but no. The reminders arise when they arise, due to conditions. Often at very helpful times, usually not. Wanting to remember all the time about nama and rupa would be counter- productive - nothing but wanting to be a person who is mindful all the time. And that is not the Buddha's teaching. > We were reminded that awareness is not self, that it cannot be induced. Right. If it is, it is no longer awareness, it is lobha. It is akusala. It might give us a sense of emotional balance, but this will be a delusion, bound to crumble upon contact with conditioned reality arising as it does, beyond our control. I found a passage in SPD that made me think of you, Nina. Well, I can't find it, and have to run. The gist was that it is only panna (understanding) that can allow people to know kusala from akusal. It is only panna that will allow people to see how much lobha there is involved in their practive. You explain so patiently, again and again and again and again and it falls on deaf ears. I hope you don't feel frustrated by this, as you suggested once in a talk that you were. It is not your way of explaining that is at fault, not in any way. There have to be conditions for understanding on the part of the person you are talking to, that's all. I'm finding it hard to post these days, but am still reading your posts with great interest, Nina. Phil 57847 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Apr 15, 2006 5:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The place of "meditation" ... Viharati (corrected) jonoabb [This is a re-sending. The original was the first of the 4 or 5 posts I sent about 3 hours ago, but so far has not shown up on the list] Hi Eric Using the Easter weekend to catch up on some overdue replies. A couple of points from this post of yours that I didn't cover in my earlier reply. ericlonline wrote: >>But since you ask: >>(a) What is jhana? >>Jhana refers to kusala absorption in an object to such a degree >>that consciousness of a different plane arises (different to the >>sensuous plane of consciousness in which we all live). >> > >Rupa jhanas are on this plane. >Arupas are non-material but >you are not transported >anywhere as far as I can tell. > > I was referring to plane of consciousness (cittas), not plane of existence (but I may not have made that clear). The jhana citta is of a different plane of citta than the kamavacara citta that is the norm for beings born into the sensuous planes of existence (as we are). But it is possible for cittas other than the kamavacara citta (namely, jhana citta and lokuttara citta) to arise in the sensuous pane of existence. Actually, there are 2 planes of jhana citta, one for the rupa-jhanas and one for the arupa jhanas. >>It [jhana citta] is kusala kamma of a high degree. >>Like all kamma, it conditions vipaka: the vipaka of >>jhana is rebirth in the rupa-brahama or >>arupa-brahama plane. >> > >So they say. Let us know thru >a medium and I promise to try >and do the same if I die first. > I believe it is mentioned in the suttas that the fruit of rupa jhana is rebirth in the rupa brahma planes of existence, and of arupa jhana rebirth in the arupa brahma plane of existence. >>But the development of insight has its own necessary >>factors (as you mention above) and, to my understanding, these do >>not include jhana. If insight is our aim, we need to know more about those >>necessary factors. >> > >We need to 1) know, 2)experience all >the factors and 3)know that we have >experienced. I am all ears. > > The clearest and most concise statement of the factors is in SN 55. There is a series of suttas there giving the same 4 factors as the basis for the different stages of insight and enlightenment: “Bhikkhus, these four things, when developed and cultivated, lead to the obtaining of wisdom,…to the growth of wisdom,….to the expansion of wisdom,…to the realization of the fruit of stream-entry,…to the realization of the fruit of arahantship. What four? Association with superior persons, hearing the true Dhamma, careful attention, practice in accordance with the Dhamma…….” SN 55, 55-61 The Kii.taagiri Sutta (M.70) that Nina and others were discussing recently also gives the factors by means of which 'final knowledge is achieved by gradual training, by gradual practice, by gradual progress'. >>Jhana consciousness can form the basis for enlightenment, in >>certain very exceptional circumstances. We find some description of >>this in the suttas (e.g., the anapanasati section of the >>kayanupassana division of the Satipatthana Sutta). But jhana can only >>form the basis for enlightenment if insight has already been >>developed to a high degree. >> >> >Wow, that sounds like a lion's roar Jon! >Do you or anyone you know directly have >experience in this? Do any of your teachers >or teachers teachers? :-) > Again, this is material that is in the suttas. From the Soma Thera translation of the Satipatthana Sutta (the text of the Anapanasati Sutta is similar): "Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu, gone to the forest, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty place, sits down, bends in his legs crosswise on his lap, keeps his body erect, and arouses mindfulness in the object of meditation, namely, the breath which is in front of him. Mindful, he breathes in, and mindful, he breathes out." Mindfulness cannot be 'aroused' in the manner described here, I believe, unless it has been developed to a high degree (for example, has become a power (bala)). >>So it is not a case of jhana somehow making insight 'easier' (at >>least, I'm not aware of anything in the texts to that effect). >> > >You talking about my Manjushri >comment in our sidetrack? By >easier, I mean it helps get the >dust out of our eyes so we can >see more clearly i.e. the >hindrances are severely diminished >with jhana. That is why vipassana >like in the Upanisa Sutta will not >arise. If there are hindrances, >there is no "knowledge and vision". > Eric, you seem to be suggesting here that there can be no insight if the hindrances have not been suppressed. Is that how you see it? To my understanding, insight may take any presently arising dhamma as its object, and that includes akusala mental states. Consider the following from the Satipatthana Sutta: "And how, O bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu live contemplating consciousness in consciousness? "Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu understands the consciousness with lust, as with lust; the consciousness without lust, as without lust; the consciousness with hate, as with hate; the consciousness without hate, as without hate; the consciousness with ignorance, as with ignorance; the consciousness without ignorance, as without ignorance;" No distinction is drawn between awareness of kusala mind-states and of aksuala mind-states. >You are thinking "knowledge" is the >key. It is a key but alone it is >without a lock. You need "vision" also. >And if you cannot see clearly (jhana) >there is no vipassana like the Upanissa >points out as clear as the light of day. > You give 'seeing clearly' as the meaning or function of jhana. However, 'seeing clearly, is the literal meaning of vipassana (the literal meaning of jhana is to 'burn up'). A moment of vipassana occurs whenever there is panna of the level that directly experiences the true nature of a presently arising dhamma. So yes, I do think that panna is the key ;-)) I would also say that a form of seeing clearly that arises only in association with jhana is limited in its scope, as compared to a form of seeing clearly that may arise at other times also, including in daily life. Jon 57848 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Special thanks to Nina and Sarah upasaka_howard Hi, James (and Sarah, Nina, and Phil) - In a message dated 4/15/06 4:32:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > James: Thank you for your kind comments, but I do still consider > myself an outsider in this group. Even Phil recognized my outsider > status when he continually referred to me as "the challenger". ===================== LOLOL! This makes me think of "The Adversary," a meaning for Mara/Satan! ;-) BTW, in mystical Judaism, which doesn't conceive of anything independent of "The one" [which is also pointed to using 'YHVH', meaning "Was, is, and will be"], one perspective on Satan is not that of an opposition to "that", but rather that of the aspect of the one reality which, so to speak, raises the bar. That is, the adversary is very much "in service" and not truly in opposition. (My apologies to Sarah and Jon in raising non-Buddhist notions and terminology.) 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) 57849 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's ...? Made to arise at will upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 4/15/06 5:29:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > 6. On knowing Abhidhamma as a sine qua non or essential....If you haven't > heard or read about cittas, cetasikas and rupas as being the 'all', would > you have any idea? If you just read suttas without knowing anything about > paramattha dhammas, would you not take the conventional truths for being > absolute truths? Perhaps I am generalising here from my experience:-). > > ====================== I adopted the view of emptiness before ever having read anything from or about the Abhidhamma. I believe that the matter of distinguishing mere conventionality from experiential reality is well detailed in the Sutta Pitaka, especially in the SN and in the Sutta Nipata, but generally throughout all the Sutta Pitaka. The "paramattha dhamma" terminology is absent in the suttas, but the idea of "the all", not only in the sutta by that name, but throughout, is evident, and the ideas of anatta, dependent origination, and delusiveness of concept lie in the core of the Sutta Pitaka. Of course, folks who grasp at atta will proceed through the suttas with blinders on at critical places. But such folks will do this with Abhidhamma as well, subtly ignoring the no-self aspect of paramattha dhammas, and giving short shrift to the Patthana, or misreading it with an atta flavor. That last is hard to do, but where there is a will, there is a way! Atta-view can appear to be enlightened view for those sufficiently confused. When a hungry ghost is determined to satisfy his craving, even the most foul fluids will taste like nectar! LOLOL! Sarah, thank you for the warmth of your reply, and particularly, thank you for expressing your kind thoughts about Sophie and her folks! And, yes, she seems to be doing well now, putting on weight and looking wonderful. She is sweet as sugar, and, helpful for her, socially, for the future, she is very beautiful! :-) 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) 57850 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:49am Subject: It isn't me! /was: Re: Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's ... the Abhidhamma indriyabala Dear James & KenH (Nina & Sarah)- Although you two are again debating the same old issues, you have become more proficient at it. But, wait a minute, are you getting closer to (or converging toward) a conclusion? No way, I don't think so! James, you are an excellent debater if you don't get angry first. KenH, your tactic of straddling over both the paramattha-desanaa (explanation true in the highest sense) and the vohaara-desanaa (conventional exposition) at the same time can only cause confusion (an intended smoke screen to hide your avijja?), not clarification. KenH: The metta taught by the Buddha was a paramattha dhamma. A dhamma arises according to conditions and it has its own nature (sabhava). On the other hand, conventional metta (taught by other teachers) is a mere concept, and its nature is whatever we want it to be. Tep: The truth is : there is only one metta that the Buddha taught (that leads to 'ceto-vimutti'), not a "conventional metta" AND a "paramattha metta" ! Ask Nina and Sarah. Ken, so you think that Dhamma practice is different from practicing baseball and piano. But even the practice of baseball is not the same as the mundane practice of piano, then why should you think the Dhamma practice is the same as those mundane, worldly practices? .................. >James: >..I don't believe the Buddha taught the Abhidhamma .. Tep: I don't think he taught the Abhidhamma in the Abhidhamma Pitaka per se. Why? The Abhidhamma Pitaka is not a collection of discourses/lectures made by the Buddha; yet, the dhammas in the Abhidhamma Pitaka can be found in the Suttanta Pitaka. These dhammas are, for example, citta; vutthaana; vivattana; hetu; paccaya; vatthu; aarammana etc. The following paragraph #30 is taken from The Path of Discrimination (a discourse of the great Arahant Sariputta whose wisdom and knowledges of the Abhidhamma is second only to the Buddha). How can you understand these $64,000 dhammas without some help from the Abhidhamma Pitaka and the commentaries? I cannot. 30. Cognizance(citta) as a meaning is to be directly known. Cognizance's immediate succession(cittaanantariya) ... Emergence of cognizance(cittassa vutthaana) ... Turning away of cognizance(cittassa vivattana) ... Causes of cognizance(cittassa hetu) ... Conditions for cognizance(cittassa paccaya) ... Physical bases of cognizance(cittassa vatthu) ... Supporting object of cognizance(cittassa aarammana) ... Behavior of cognizance(cittassa cariya) ... Guiding of cognizance(cittassa abhiniihaara) ... Escape of cognizance(cittassa nissarana) as a meaning is to be directly known. Sincerely, Tep ===== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Ken H., > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" > wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > Over the past couple of months, a hacker has been using other > > people's email accounts to send spam to Yahoo group members. Some > I > > have seen have headings along the lines of, "Be with me tonight," > > and, "Thinking of you." I haven't opened them, but I assume they > > are promoting porn sites. Two of my accounts have been hacked into > > for this purpose. So, if you are receiving amorous messages from > > ken_aitch or kenhowardau, rest assured they are not from me. :-) > > James: LOL! And I had my hopes up! lol ;-)) > > > > > That's enough off-topic: now for some Dhamma content: > > > > --------------- > > Tep: > > How should such wrong understanding of mine be > corrected? > > {:>) > > > > James: > I don't believe you do have wrong understanding. Metta > can > > be made to arise at will > > --------------- > > > > This is conventional teaching, not the Buddha's teaching. > > James: The Buddha did teach conventionally. Ken H., I'm afraid that > we will reach an insurmountable impasse with this line of discussion > because I don't believe the Buddha taught the Abhidhamma while you > most clearly do. Therefore, we are going to approach this matter > from entirely different directions. > > I would like to discuss with you but I don't see how that would be > possible. You would just be saying "The Buddha taught this, the > Buddha taught that" and I would be saying "No he didn't, no he > didn't". Doesn't make for a very productive conversation does it?? ;- > ) > > But, don't get me wrong, I don't have any grudges against the > Abhidhamma, I just believe it comes secondary to the suttas and > should be seen in it's proper light- not a teaching of the Buddha > but an elaboration of the Buddha's teaching. Therefore, I can > embrace both conventional and ultimate perspectives, while you give > priority to the ultimate perspective. > > > > (snipped) 57851 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat Apr 15, 2006 7:18am Subject: It isn't me! /was: Re: Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's not-self strategy bad? indriyabala Hi KenH, James, RobK and Eric - Thank you Ken for letting us know about the "Be with me tonight," and, "Thinking of you" emails you had received. I had 10 similar emails from someone who faked to be Eric. They were placed in my Bulk Folder because they were bulky files of dirty movies and songs -- all about "love" (tanha)!! No, I did not play any of them, just looking at the titles and the megabites. Yours truly, Tep ==== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" > wrote: > > > > Hi Ken H., > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Over the past couple of months, a hacker has been using other > > > people's email accounts to send spam to Yahoo group members. > Some > > I > > > have seen have headings along the lines of, "Be with me > tonight," > > > and, "Thinking of you." I haven't opened them, but I assume > they > > > are promoting porn sites. Two of my accounts have been hacked > into > > > for this purpose. So, if you are receiving amorous messages > from > > > ken_aitch or kenhowardau, rest assured they are not from me. :-) > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > James: LOL! And I had my hopes up! lol ;-)) > > > > > > > +++++++++++ > Haha! What gives, I didn't get any.. > 57852 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat Apr 15, 2006 8:35am Subject: [dsg] Re: The place of "meditation" ... Kamma as Taught by the Buddha indriyabala Hi Jon (& Eric )- The on-going discussion on the Noble Eightfold Path at the very beginning is practical, and it should be useful if we know that the kamma as taught by the Buddha is very special. >Jon: >The first is that the the individual factors of the Noble Eightfold Path are not qualities to be developed in isolation. If that were the case, then people who had never heard the teachings, but who believe in kamma, lead a life of good sila, make an effort to avoid aksuala, and develop jhaana, would be developing the path (even though they might also believe in a soul ;-)). Tep: Wait a second, Jon! How come the Buddhist's correct belief in kamma can co-exist with the belief in a soul? Clearly, the belief in kamma is a right view, while the belief in souls is a wrong view. By the way, do other religions (Christianity & Islam for example) teach the same law of kamma as taught by the Buddha? I don't think so. 1) "Kamma should be known. The cause by which kamma comes into play should be known. The diversity in kamma should be known. The result of kamma should be known. The cessation of kamma should be known. The path of practice for the cessation of kamma should be known. [AN VI.63 Nibbedhika Sutta] 2) "Now what, monks, is old kamma? The eye is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. This is called old kamma. "And what is new kamma? Whatever kamma one does now with the body, with speech, or with the intellect: This is called new kamma. "And what is the cessation of kamma? Whoever touches the release that comes from the cessation of bodily kamma, verbal kamma, & mental kamma: This is called the cessation of kamma. "And what is the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is called the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma. [SN XXXV.145, Kamma Sutta] Tep: These two suttas should make it VERY clear that practicing/developing the path naturally follows the clear knowledge of kamma and its cessation. Yours truly, Tep ===== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Eric > > ericlonline wrote: > > >>[J:] But the development of insight has its own necessary > >>factors (as you mention above) and, to my understanding, these do > >>not include jhana. > >> > > > > > >Really?! You walking a 7 fold path? > >8 factors too much for you? :-) > > > > > >... > > > > > >>[J:] Jhana consciousness can form the basis for enlightenment, in > >>certain very exceptional circumstances. We find some description of > >>this in the suttas (e.g., the anapanasati section of the > >>kayanupassana division of the Satipatthana Sutta). > >> > > > >Surely it is in many many suttas, yes? > >Besides, Right Concentration is jhana. > >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma- > >samadhi/index.html > > > > (snipped) 57853 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Apr 15, 2006 11:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Special thanks to Nina and Sarah, a pinch of salt. nilovg Hi James, op 15-04-2006 10:31 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@...: > (after all I am anti-Abhidhamma, anti-KS, and anti-Nina...I > definitely don't belong here). :-)) LOL. You cannot be anti-Abhidhamma, because Abhidhamma is within you and around you, you cannot escape it, even if you want to. You contrary remarks also inspire me at times, like now, on Abhidhamma. But I just see that you do not have any grudges against the Abhidhamma. I am not all that upset, not too bad, not all the time. This last time happened to be the eve of my birthday. I talked things over with Lodewijk and he said the expression you used was allowable in a discussion. I should not take it the bad way. But it is O.K. if you express your disagreement with Kh. Sujin or me or anybody else. The tone is important though, because people will not listen when the tone is unpleasant. Then you will not reach what you want to reach. Looking forward to more anecdotes. Like to hear about your new dog, how kind to take it in after all you have been through. Nina. 57854 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Apr 15, 2006 11:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Special thanks to Nina and Sarah, the adversary. nilovg Hi Howard, That is how I feel it. In the Commentary texts especially now in the Tiika, there are objectors who propose impossible things. And then the proposal is refuted. Like we had on roots not being the real cause of kusala and akusala, but wise or unwise attention.That is why I said to James that he inspires me, giving me the opportunity to explain a few things. I love it when you bring in Judaeism, so much wisdom in it. I was also very glad to hear good news about Marie Sophie, and hope that she continues to be well. Nina. op 15-04-2006 14:59 schreef upasaka@... op upasaka@...: > BTW, in mystical Judaism, which doesn't conceive of anything > independent of "The one" [which is also pointed to using 'YHVH', meaning "Was, > is, and > will be"], one perspective on Satan is not that of an opposition to "that", > but rather that of the aspect of the one reality which, so to speak, raises > the > bar. That is, the adversary is very much "in service" and not truly in > opposition. 57855 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Apr 15, 2006 11:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] It isn't me! /was: Re: Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's not-self strategy bad? nilovg Hi Ken H, he uses yahoo groups customer care , making a mistake in this address, and then for two weeks each day sends me an unsollicited request to leave the list if I answer this Email. My anti Spam and Yhaoo do not help me here. Nina. op 15-04-2006 07:30 schreef ken_aitch op ken_aitch@...: > Over the past couple of months, a hacker has been using other > people's email accounts to send spam to Yahoo group members. 57856 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 15, 2006 8:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Special thanks to Nina and Sarah, the adversary. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 4/15/06 2:55:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > That is how I feel it. > In the Commentary texts especially now in the Tiika, there are objectors who > propose impossible things. And then the proposal is refuted. Like we had on > roots not being the real cause of kusala and akusala, but wise or unwise > attention.That is why I said to James that he inspires me, giving me the > opportunity to explain a few things. > I love it when you bring in Judaeism, so much wisdom in it. --------------------------------- Howard: :-) -------------------------------- > I was also very glad to hear good news about Sophie Emma, and hope that she > continues to be well. ------------------------------ Howard: Thanks, Nina! :-) ----------------------------- > Nina. > ================ With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 57857 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:21pm Subject: Re: Attention to Conditions and Refinement in Skillful Action -- Without Ariyans indriyabala --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Very nice quote. He is saying what I believe: that we must progress > step-by-step (or drop by drop as the Buddha said) to greater and great > kusala. I'm getting the impression that some in this group see kusala > as an all or nothing proposition- and that isn't the case. In order > to perfect anything, one must make mistakes and go down blind alleys > sometimes - which is what Siddhartha did. As long as the intention is > wholesome, then one will be making progress, even if every mindstate > isn't perfect. Thank you for saying what you are seeing. Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu writes very well. His comments that accompany the suttas he translated are very valuable too. However, you may consider my praises of him as an outsider's view -- from one who does not belong to this group(DSG). What you describe -- making mistakes and correcting afterward - is part of the learning process in order to progress. If people could not make effort to replace akusala with kusala and to perfect kusalas that have already arisen, then the world would always be without ariyans. "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen... for the sake of the abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen... for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen... (and) for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This is called right effort. DN 22. Warm regards, Tep ===== 57858 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Special thanks to Nina and Sarah buddhatrue Hi Howard and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, James (and Sarah, Nina, and Phil) - > > In a message dated 4/15/06 4:32:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > buddhatrue@... writes: > > > James: Thank you for your kind comments, but I do still consider > > myself an outsider in this group. Even Phil recognized my outsider > > status when he continually referred to me as "the challenger". > ===================== > LOLOL! This makes me think of "The Adversary," a meaning for > Mara/Satan! ;-) BTW, in mystical Judaism, which doesn't conceive of anything > independent of "The one" [which is also pointed to using 'YHVH', meaning "Was, is, and > will be"], one perspective on Satan is not that of an opposition to "that", > but rather that of the aspect of the one reality which, so to speak, raises the > bar. That is, the adversary is very much "in service" and not truly in > opposition. (My apologies to Sarah and Jon in raising non-Buddhist notions and > terminology.) Thank you very much for your different perspective. It's ironic because my spiritual friend here in Cairo (Susan) told me that this morning that she was focusing on some of the 72 Names of God- from Kabbalah- for my benefit. That was very sweet of her, and it seemed to have some benefit. I took a nap this afternoon and had a symbolic dream about where I am going wrong in my life. In short, I am letting desire get the better hand. I think I have a lot of inner work to do. I have been reading all of the sweet e-mails to me lately (from Sarah, Tep, and Nina) and they mean a lot. I may remain quiet for a while until I think I have some things straightened out. Everyone, if you think of me, please think kind thoughts. Metta, James 57859 From: "ericlonline" Date: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:03pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Jhana Retreat ericlonline Hi Sarah, > Having said that, I think in the following sections, such as in the quotes about when mind is associated with piiti, the body becomes tranquillised etc which I gave, that here the references are all to the `mental body' of mental aggregates only, not to rupas of the body. It is just the shifting of attention from breath to vedana like in the shift from the 1st tetrad to the second in Anapanasati. The breath body does not disappear! It can and does grow faint. > So, yes, piiti and the other jhaana factors will condition ruupas, but, no, whilst in jhaana, there are no sense experiences at all. How do you know? I know the body is there, the piti is just not dependent upon any exteral touch (tangible object). The piti arises of its own accord due to calming. If you have never experienced this you will not know what I am talking about. >It is not the breath which is experienced even, it is a nimitta (a sign) of breath (or other object) which is experienced, only in the mind door process, never in a sense door process. Do you know how we learn? 1) hearing 2) thinking 3) experiencing Similar to this modern understanding here http://www.ldpride.net/learningstyles.MI.htm#What%20are (See learning styles explained) What you are trying to do is create a virtual dhamma world based on #2. Even the interpretators and commentators who did and do not have a fathom long bhavana practice and EXPERIENCE will UNDERSTAND everything with regards to virtual dhamma world #2. Now it is understandable. You think about things and it APPEARS to make sense and so you stay in the safe cozy virtual world. Dukkha does not have to be experienced and investigated and hey have a chai latte and lets chit chat about the finer points of Buddhist psychology while waiting for Matreyya to appear like the second coming of Christ. >So no body suffusions, sensations or tingles are > experienced whilst in any jhaana. You suggested I could just change all your references to bodily sensations to mental ones (I'll add your quote after signing off) if that makes me feel better. All, I'll say is that this was the whole point of the discussion – that all those Qi gong, reiki and other touchy experiences couldn't have anything to do with jhaana as taught by the Buddha. You keep missing the point. Piti can be experienced naturally. I never said that piti was jhana!! S>If we just change all your descriptions to match the > texts to give credibility to your jhaana experiences, well.......I'll leave it there:-/ I dont need any validation or credibility granted from any authority, nor am I looking for it. I know the sweet taste of sugar directly. > Eric, there's much more, but I need to take a break here. I'd just like to say that I love your good humour – Good I am glad you took it that way as that was how it was meant. metta 57860 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 15, 2006 11:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Special thanks to Nina and Sarah upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 4/15/06 5:20:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > Thank you very much for your different perspective. It's ironic > because my spiritual friend here in Cairo (Susan) told me that this > morning that she was focusing on some of the 72 Names of God- from > Kabbalah- for my benefit. > ------------------------------------------- Howard: In the Judaic assigning of numerical values to Hebrew words, the number of the word for life, is 18, and so all multiples of 18 are considered auspicious. (Evidently Islam borrowed 72 for a somewhat different purpose! ;-) -------------------------------------------- That was very sweet of her, and it seemed > > to have some benefit. ------------------------------------------- Howard: To be the recipient of compassionate thought, whatever the mechanism, is to be fortunate, and being aware of it will surely lift one's spirits! And, yes, I agree - that was sweet of her. ------------------------------------------ I took a nap this afternoon and had a > > symbolic dream about where I am going wrong in my life. In short, I > am letting desire get the better hand. ----------------------------------------- Howard: Well, that sure doesn't make you unique! :-) ----------------------------------------- > > I think I have a lot of inner work to do. I have been reading all > of the sweet e-mails to me lately (from Sarah, Tep, and Nina) and > they mean a lot. I may remain quiet for a while until I think I > have some things straightened out. Everyone, if you think of me, > please think kind thoughts. ------------------------------------------- Howard: Be well, James, and take it easy on yourself! And you needn't worry - our thoughts are kind!! :-) ------------------------------------------- > > 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) 57861 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sat Apr 15, 2006 5:11pm Subject: Vism.XVII,71 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII 71. (2) As to the others that follow, a state that assists by being an object is an 'object condition'. Now there are no states that are not object conditions; for the passage beginning 'The visible-data base [is a condition, as object condition,] for the eye-consciousness element' concludes thus: 'When any states, as states of consciousness and consciousness-concomitants, arise contingent upon any states, these [latter] states are conditions, as object condition, for those [former] states' (P.tn.1,1).11 For just as a weak man both gets up and stands by hanging on to (aalambitvaa) a stick or rope, so states of consciousness and consciousness-concomitants always arise and are present contingent upon visible data, etc., as their object (aaramma.na = aalambana). Therefore all states that are objects of consciousness and consciousness-concomitants should be understood as object condition. ---------------------- Note 11. ' "Which are contingent upon other such states": because it is said without distinction of all visible-data bases ... and of all mental-data bases, there is consequently no dhamma (state) among the formed, unformed, and conceptual dhammas, classed as sixfold under visible data, etc., that does not become an object condition' (Pm. 584). ****************** 71. tato paresu aaramma.nabhaavena upakaarako dhammo aaramma.napaccayo. so ``ruupaayatana.m cakkhuvi~n~naa.nadhaatuyaa´´ti (pa.t.thaa0 1.1.2) aarabhitvaapi ``ya.m ya.m dhamma.m aarabbha ye ye dhammaa uppajjanti cittacetasikaa dhammaa, te te dhammaa tesa.m tesa.m dhammaana.m aaramma.napaccayena paccayo´´ti (pa.t.thaa0 1.1.2) osaapitattaa na koci dhammo na hoti. yathaa hi dubbalo puriso da.n.da.m vaa rajju.m vaa aalambitvaava u.t.thahati ceva ti.t.thati ca, eva.m cittacetasikaa dhammaa ruupaadiaaramma.na.m aarabbheva uppajjanti ceva ti.t.thanti ca. tasmaa sabbepi cittacetasikaana.m aaramma.nabhuutaa dhammaa aaramma.napaccayoti veditabbaa. 57862 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Sat Apr 15, 2006 11:33pm Subject: It isn't me! /was: Re: Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's ... the Abhidhamma ken_aitch Hi Tep (and James), ------------ T: > Although you two are again debating the same old issues, you have become more proficient at it. But, wait a minute, are you getting closer to (or converging toward) a conclusion? No way, I don't think so! ------------ Those "same old issues" include THE primary issue of Dhamma study. That is, 'Does the Dhamma describe an ultimate reality totally different from conventional reality, or does it teach more of the same?' If we can't settle that issue, and if we can't agree that the Dhamma is describing a previously unknown world of conditioned dhammas, then our discussions will lead nowhere (or worse than nowhere). ------------------- T: > James, you are an excellent debater <. .> ---------------------- I won't say there are two sides at DSG, but there are two perspectives. There is the "anatta means no control" perspective, and there is the "anatta doesn't mean very much at all" perspective. James favours the latter and I think you agree with him. In my humble opinion, this means neither of you is studying the true Dhamma. ---------------------------------- . . . T: > KenH, your tactic of straddling over both the paramattha- desanaa (explanation true in the highest sense) and the vohaara- desanaa (conventional exposition) at the same time can only cause confusion (an intended smoke screen to hide your avijja?), not clarification. ---------------------------------- I don't know what you mean about 'straddling the two dessanas.' However, I do know what you mean about smokescreens because I often suspect you and James, among others, of the same thing. I suspect that you purposely sabotage the debate. Why you would do this I do not know. Perhaps you are acting on behalf of the meditation industry. :-) Or perhaps I am being paranoid. That is more likely. And if you think I am deliberately putting up smokescreens then perhaps you are being paranoid too. :-) ----------------------------------------------- KH: > > The metta taught by the Buddha was a paramattha dhamma. A dhamma arises according to conditions and it has its own nature (sabhava). On the other hand, conventional metta (taught by other teachers) is a mere concept, and its nature is whatever we want it to be. > > > T: > The truth is : there is only one metta that the Buddha taught (that leads to 'ceto-vimutti'), not a conventional metta" AND a "paramattha metta" ! Ask Nina and Sarah. ------------------------------------------------- The point I was making was; there is the ultimately real metta as taught by the Buddha, and there is the conventionally real (ultimately illusory) metta as taught by other teachers. I have read your response several times but can't see the point you are making. ---------------------------------------- T: > Ken, so you think that Dhamma practice is different from practicing baseball and piano. But even the practice of baseball is not the same as the mundane practice of piano, then why should you think the Dhamma practice is the same as those mundane, worldly practices? ----------------------------------------- Here, the differences between baseball practice and piano practice are immaterial. Basically, both practices involve a set of instructions to be followed. James was arguing that the Dhamma was no different, and I was arguing it was totally different. This brings me back to the subject of smokescreens and sabotage. Surely you are familiar by now with the arguments against the efficacy of formal practice. Surely you are just pretending you don't know what I am talking about. (?) The Dhamma is not like a course in baseball or piano. It is not a list of things to do. That sort of teaching belongs in the conventional, conceptual, world. In the ultimately real world described by the Buddha, there are only dhammas. Obviously, there can be no pianos and baseballs in a world of conditioned dhammas. Just as obviously, there can be no conventional Path (way of getting to enlightenment). All there can ever be is just a few, momentarily existing, namas and rupas. Ken H 57863 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:01am Subject: Is Morality Too Difficult for the Lay Buddhist ??? !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: What is Sufficient Morality for the Lay Buddhist ? A: Good Bodily Behaviour: 1: No Killing! 2: No Stealing! 3: No Adultery! B: Good Verbal Behaviour: 1: No Lying! 2: No Scolding! 3: No Slandering! 4: No Gossiping! C: Right Livelihood: 1: No trading with live beings. 2: No trading with dead meat. 3: No trading with weapons. 4: No trading with poison. 5: No trading with alcohol or drugs. D: Mental Purification: 1: Daily meditation minimum ~ 45 min! 2: Daily Dhamma-study and reflection... Friendship is the Greatest Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. <...> 57864 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The place of "meditation" .concentration. nimitta, nibbaana. nilovg Hi Jon, thank you for your answer. I find the simile of the veil good. You say: As I understand it, there is nothing to be known about the nimitta itself. But when we asked, Kh Sujin said: it is now. Thus I think we shall better understand if there can be direct awareness. After more reflection I think that characteristics appear and can be known and that that is the nimitta of visible object, sound, etc. Nina. op 15-04-2006 11:34 schreef Jonothan Abbott op jonabbott@...: > At moments of awareness, there is a partial and temporary lifting of the > veil or curtain. > > As I understand it, there is nothing to be known about the nimitta > itself. As in the case of concepts, what is important is that it not be > taken for something it isn't. 57865 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Marisa's questions.Lessons in Dhamma, no 3. nilovg Hi Phil, op 15-04-2006 12:16 schreef Phil op philco777@...: The other day I had a helpful realization when reading Surver of > PDs. The rupa of visible object is never separate from other rupas, > 8 all together, I think. This shows that I (safe to say "we") don't > really understand visible object. What we think we see is inded what > we *think* we see! It's so groovy, I find. ------ Visible object is always together with the other eight inseparable ruupas, but only visible object can impinge on the eyesense and can be seen. Amazing, as Kh Sujin said. ------- Ph: I like what Mike Nease says in one of the talks. It is easy to > think about the reality of thinking - "I do it all the time" - but > to really know it, to really be aware of it is another matter. He > points out that the huge Satipatthana industry, so many books and > what not, so many people spending their days trying to be aware of > all their actions - all thinking. ------- N: The first stage of insight first, knowing the difference between naama and ruupa, before thinking can be truly understood as a kind of naama. --------- Nina. 57866 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's not-self strategy bad? prompted. nilovg Hi Larry (Han, Dan, Phil), You are right, even doing nothing could be with a desire to control. The answer is: it all depends on the citta arising at that moment, and only sati sampajañña can tell. This goes for Han's examples of conceit in childhood, it may not have been conceit, only lobha without conceit or dosa, it is all so subtle. Only paññaa can tell, and only when it arises now. The same for Dan's very good example about Lisa's cooking for your sick friend. There are always many moments of lobha, anyway, even after seeing or hearing now. But when she bought the ingredients she was thinking of the sick friend, not of herself. Kusala cittas moved her hands while cooking. She could instead have relaxed with a book, but she did not. Phil often speaks about clinging to Dhamma, it is the same, many moments of lobha, anyway. But why do we study Dhamma? To have more understanding, also of lobha. Returning to prompted, unprompted, see below. op 14-04-2006 08:39 schreef LBIDD@... op LBIDD@...: > > The commentaries say an UNprompted consciousness _may_ be conditioned by > previous prompted consciousnesses. So what constitutes a prompt? A > prompt isn't merely will and desire. It is also understanding. On the > one hand will and desire are just an attempt to control. On the other > hand, with understanding will and desire can condition the arising of a > prompted kusala citta. > > So understanding is essential, and some would say it is enough. ------ N: The words prompted sasa"nkhaarika, and unprompted, asa"nkhaarika, should not mislead us. They do not have the same meaning as in conventional sense. Going to Vis. 84 and Tiika: Thus, when there is greater confidence the kusala citta arises spontaneously, it is stronger. Tiika on prompted: < With a mind that looks at the gifts that are to be given with restricted generosity. By the word (through restricted generosity,) etc., he deals with lack of determination in the undertaking of morality and so on... As to the expression, for in this sense, this means: a citta which is hesitant is called connected with urging on.> This is explained in conventional terms. It explains the quality of the citta arising at a given moment. Sometimes kusala (or akusala) is unprompted sometimes prompted. Only awareness at that moment can know for sure. We should not try to find out or guess about it, that is thinking of what is past already. Nina. 57867 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The place of "meditation" ... Viharati (corrected) jonoabb Hi Eric ericlonline wrote: >>There are 2 important implications of this: >> >>a/. The first is that the the individual factors of the Noble >>Eightfold Path are not qualities to be developed in isolation. >> > >yes of course, you can >look at them individualy >for study and clarification. >To learn about the dynamic. > >But while in jhana you have Right >View as you are practicing >in accordance with the 4 NT's. >Right thought, speech, action and >livlihood by abstenation. And >of course the 3 samadhi factors >are firing away. So you are firing >away on all 8 cylinders. > Eric, you seem to be saying that a person who attains jhana is thereby developing the Noble Eightfold Path. Is that your view? Jhana is a kusala state, but is is not the development of insight. A person may attain jhana without ever having heard the teachings. On the other hand, the development of insight involves the development of right concentration also. And for one who attains enlightenment, that right concentration occurs with an intensity corresponding to that of the mundane jhanas. >>If that were the >>case, then people who had never heard the teachings, but who >>believe in kamma, lead a life of good sila, make an effort to avid >>aksuala, and develop jhaana, would be developing the path (even >>though they might also believe in a soul ;-)). >> > >They would probably be farther >along the path then many who >think they are! For the conceit >'I am' is not let go of until >arahantship, so who cares about >a silly little belief in soul? ;-) > ;-)), ;-)) Eric, for someone who sees the 5 hindrances as such an obstacle to the arising of awareness/insight, how come you're so unconcerned about wrong view? ;-)) Seriously though, for the development of samatha, belief in a soul is not a hindrance; for the development of insight it would be. That is the difference. >>As regards the path factor of samma samadhi in particluar, I >>believe that the description of this factor in terms of the 4 jhanas >>means that, at the moment of actual path consciousness, the >>concentration factor accompanying the path consciousness is >>equivalent to the concentration factor that accompanies a moment of >>jhana consciousness. Here is how itis explained in CMA (Ch I, >>Guide to #30, 31): >> >>"[F]or bare insight meditator and jhana meditator alike, all path >>and fruition cittas are considered types of jhana consciousness. >>They are so considered because they occur in the mode of closely >>contemplating their object with full absorption, like the mundane >>jhanas, and because they possess the jhana factors with an intensity >>corresponding to their counterparts in the mundane jhanas." >> >>Thus, they are *like* the mundane jhanas, although they are not >>actually so. >> >What is the sutta >reference for this above? > The quoted passage in my earlier post is from the commentary material to the Abhidhammattha Sangaha, as summarised by Bh Bodhi in his "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma' at the reference given. Jon 57868 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The place of "meditation" ... Kamma as Taught by the Buddha jonoabb Hi Tep indriyabala wrote: >Tep: Wait a second, Jon! How come the Buddhist's correct belief in >kamma can co-exist with the belief in a soul? > >Clearly, the belief in kamma is a right view, while the belief in >souls is a wrong view. By the way, do other religions (Christianity & >Islam for example) teach the same law of kamma as taught by the >Buddha? I don't think so. > Well just speaking in general terms, evey individual will have accumulations of both right and wrong view (although they cannot of course arise at exactly the same time). As regardsd kamma and the belief in a soul, I have always assumed this to have been the general belief of people in India before the Buddha's enlightenmetn: they believed in kamma, but had no idea about no-slef. It is also whta I understand current-day Hinduism to teach. Whether the kamma that others believe in is exactly the same as that taught by the Budha I really have no idea, but I would assume there are certain similarities. My point was really that if one took the path factosr singley and in isolatoin, then folks who had never heard the teachings could be saind to be develoing the Noble Eightfold Path. Thanks for the 2 sutta quotes that you gave. >1) "Kamma should be known. The cause by which kamma comes into play >should be known. The diversity in kamma should be known. The result of >kamma should be known. The cessation of kamma should be known. The >path of practice for the cessation of kamma should be known. [AN VI.63 >Nibbedhika Sutta] > >2) "Now what, monks, is old kamma? The eye is to be seen as old kamma ... >"And what is new kamma? Whatever kamma one does now with the body ... >"And what is the cessation of kamma? Whoever touches the release that >comes from the cessation of bodily kamma ... >"And what is the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma? >Just this noble eightfold path ... >[SN XXXV.145, Kamma Sutta] > >Tep: These two suttas should make it VERY clear that >practicing/developing the path naturally follows the clear knowledge >of kamma and its cessation. > Agreed, except that I would say that clear knowledge [panna] of kamma and its cessation *is* the practice/developing of the path. Jon 57869 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:45 am Subject: Re: The place of "meditation" ... Kamma as Taught by the Buddha indriyabala Hi, Jon ( Han, and others) - Long time no debate! Thank you for replying to my remarks. Let's just discuss one die-hard issue below. > >"And what is the cessation of kamma? Whoever touches the release > >that comes from the cessation of bodily kamma ... > >"And what is the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma? > >Just this noble eightfold path ... > >[SN XXXV.145, Kamma Sutta] > > > >Tep: These two suttas should make it VERY clear that > >practicing/developing the path naturally follows the clear > >knowledge of kamma and its cessation. > > > > Agreed, except that I would say that clear knowledge [panna] of kamma and its cessation *is* the practice/developing of the path. > > Jon > Tep: Not to be nitpicking with your familiar remark above, but your emphasized *is* is indeed the spark that lit the fire. The sutta SN XXXV.145 just defines the 'cessation of kamma' and 'the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma' (the 3rd and 4th noble truths). Definitions are part of the 'pariyatti'; so they must come before the actual practice(patipatti, patipada) -- unless you are a Dhamma-matured genious whose 'panna' is rapidly developed while listening/reading/considering/reflecting/contemplating and can attain stream-entry (or higher) afterward. Here I use 'clear knowledge' as English words, not a translation from the Pali 'parinna' or panna that penetrates the noble truths. The following questions indicate my confusion (thanks for that):<) What does "clear knowledge [panna] of kamma and its cessation" mean to you? How would you 'develop' such panna, or is it automatic as in the genious with Dhamma Eye? Why *is* such panna "the practice/developing of the path"? Is your 'panna' the combination of the third and the fourth noble truths? Is your 'panna' same as 'pariyatti' + 'patipatti' ? These 5 questions are enough raw material for future debates (that may never, never end). {:>)) Warm regards, Tep ====== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Tep > (snipped) My point was really that if one took the path > factosr singley and in isolatoin, then folks who had never heard the > teachings could be saind to be develoing the Noble Eightfold Path. > > Thanks for the 2 sutta quotes that you gave. > > >1) "Kamma should be known. The cause by which kamma comes into play > >should be known. The diversity in kamma should be known. The result of > >kamma should be known. The cessation of kamma should be known. The > >path of practice for the cessation of kamma should be known. [AN VI.63 > >Nibbedhika Sutta] > > > >2) "Now what, monks, is old kamma? The eye is to be seen as old kamma ... > >"And what is new kamma? Whatever kamma one does now with the body ... 57870 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Apr 16, 2006 8:33am Subject: Re: Jhana Retreat scottduncan2 Dear Robert, Thank you very much. R: "The four conditions for rupa(matter), rupa-samutthana-paccaya, are citta, kamma, utu and ahara. Thus certainly jhana factors condition rupa. However, jhana factors arise also before full jhana is attained. As I understand it once genuine jhana is attained the rupa is conditioned to be very fine, but the person who attained the jhana cannot experience any of the sense doors including the body door while in jhana, only before and after. "Factors like piti are common to akusala and kusala citta. From the Dhammasangani(first book of the Abhidhamma). p90-93 of PTS translation . PartII BAD States of consciousness 'What on that occasion is zest (piti)The zest which on that occasion is joy, rejoicing at, rejoicing over.felicity, exultation..this is the zest that there then is. What on that occasion is ease(sukkham) the mental pleasure, the mental ease which on that occasion is pleasant, easeful experience born of contact ... What on that occasion is ekaggatta. The stability, solidity, absorbed steadfastness of thought which on that occasion is absence of distraction, balance, unperturbed mental procedure, quiet, the faculty and the power of concentration WRONG concentration.'" This is important for me. In the welter of descriptions of jhaana within the plethora of instructions for samdhi, one such as I can easily become lost. I understand you to clarify that jhaana factors do indeed condition ruupa. You distinguish between these jhaana factors and "genuine jhaana." Where might I read more about this important distinction? It is clear that jhaana factors can arise whether one is becoming absorbed in, say, anapanasati or in remembering a meaningful event long past. The latter (and perhaps the former) are not to be considered "jhaana" in the sense perhaps meant by "genuine jhaana." These can merely result in "mundane" experiences of piiti and need not in any way suggest any attainment of any worth. As you note, these are common to both akusula and kusula cittas. Can you suggest where I might read more related to RIGHT concentration, in relation to jhaana? Why, in your opinion, was so much taught by the Buddha in relation to jhaana? How can one understand the correct place accorded to jhaana? Enough for now. Thanks again for your kind correspondence. Sincerely, Scott. 57871 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun Apr 16, 2006 9:56am Subject: Re: Jhana Retreat rjkjp1 Dear Scott, Very good questions as always. I give some brief answers but there is always much more to say. I used the word genuine because these days, and no doubt even in past millenia, it is not uncommon for Buddhist and non-Buddhist to mistake states of concentration for an actual attainment of higher a plane of consciousness. As the Dhammasangani makes clear such factors as sukkham (mental ease) and samadhi do not neccesarily indicate anything auspicious- it may in fact be only purified lobha: ""What on that occasion is ease (sukkham) the mental pleasure, the mental ease which on that occasion is pleasant, easeful experience born of contact ...What on that occasion is ekaggatta. The stability, solidity, absorbed steadfastness of thought which on that occasion is absence of distraction, balance, unperturbed mental procedure, quiet, the faculty and the power of concentration WRONG concentration.'" ------------ However, because these concentration states are much less distracting and concentrated than normal daily life they are naturally attractive and deceiving. ____________ There is so much jhana teaching in the suttas becuase the Buddha taught a complete path from the lowest to the highest. In the Budda's time there were many arahants of the highest order- those with complete mastery of jhana, like sariputta or rahula. It is different now. Saraha gave this sutta recently I think: AN, Bk of 4s, X1V, iii(133) Quick-Witted (PTS) "Monks, these four persons are found existing in the world. What four? He who learns by taking hints [uggha.tita~n~nu= (brief-learner)= sankhepa~n~nu]: he who learns by full details [vipa~ncit~n~nu (diffuse-learner)= vitthaarita~n~nu]: he who has to be led on (by instruction)[neyyo=netabba]: he who has just the word (of the text) at most [padaparamo=vya~njana- padam eva parama.n assa, one who learns by heart, is word-perfect but without understanding it]. These are the four." At this time (acording to the texts) there are only padaparama and neyya. The extremely wise types with high accumulations of parami called Ugghatitannu and Vipancitannu are now extinct. Padaparama cannot attain in this life, although they can in future lives.. We, at this time, - so the Theravada commentaries say- are either padaparama or neyya and we need many details so we have to study and consider a great deal as a condition for understanding. From Ledi sayadaw http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/individu.htm ""(1) A Ugghatitannu : an individual who· encounters a Buddha in person, and who is capable of attaining the Holy Paths and the Holy Fruits through the mere hearing of a short concise discourse. (2) A Vipancitannu: an individual who · encounters a Buddha in person, but · who is capable of attaining the Paths and the Fruits only when the short discourse is expounded to him at some length. At the present day, only the following Neyya and Padaparama classes of individuals remain. (3) A Neyya : an individual who needs · to study the sermon and the exposition, and then · to practise the provisions contained therein for 7 days to 60 years, to attain the Paths and the Fruits during this lifetime if he tries hard with guidance from the right teacher. (4) A Padaparama : is an individual who cannot attain the Paths and the Fruits within this lifetime can attain release from worldly ills in his next existence if he dies while practising samatha or vipassana and attains rebirth either as a human being or a deva within the present Buddha Sasana. ""endquote Ledi sayadaw. -- According to the texts there are 3 ways by which nibbana is attained: that is by samathayanika (the one who has mastery of jhana); By samatha and vipassana combined ; and by vipassana alone. The Netti-pakarana (587) "Tattha Bhagava tikkhindriyassa samatham upadassati, majjhindriyassa Bhagava samathavipassanam upadissati, mudindriyassa Bhagava vipassanam upadassati. Herein the Blessed one teaches samatha to one of keen faculties; The blessed one teaches samatha and insight to one of medium faculties and the blessed one teaches insight [alone] to one of blunt faculties. Again in the Netti (746)it says that the Buddha teaches insight [alone] to one who is guidable (neyya) and teaches in detail to neyya. -- Relating this to the earlier quotes the only path now available is that of pure vipassana, as we are all mudindriyassa (blunt or dull facultied). This doesn't totaly rule out the possibilty of someone attaining genuine jhana - but even if they did they could not use it as a basis for insight, because for that mastery of jhana is needed. It would nevertheless be advantageous becuase of giving a respite from sense desire. But anyway what is most urgent is the development of vipassana. Robert In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Robert, > > Thank you very much. > > R: "The four conditions for rupa(matter), rupa-samutthana-paccaya, > are citta, kamma, utu and ahara. Thus certainly jhana factors > condition rupa. However, jhana factors arise also before full jhana is > attained. As I understand it once genuine jhana is attained the rupa > is conditioned to be very fine, but the person who attained the > jhana cannot experience any of the sense doors including the body > door while in jhana, only before and after. > > "Factors like piti are common to akusala and kusala citta. > From the Dhammasangani(first book of the Abhidhamma). > p90-93 of PTS translation . PartII BAD States of consciousness > 'What on that occasion is zest (piti)The zest which on that occasion > is joy, rejoicing at, rejoicing over.felicity, exultation..this is > the zest that there then is. > What on that occasion is ease(sukkham) the mental pleasure, the > mental ease which on that occasion is pleasant, easeful experience > born of contact ... > What on that occasion is ekaggatta. The stability, solidity, > absorbed steadfastness of thought which on that occasion is absence > of distraction, balance, unperturbed mental procedure, quiet, the > faculty and the power of concentration WRONG concentration.'" > > This is important for me. In the welter of descriptions of jhaana > within the plethora of instructions for samdhi, one such as I can > easily become lost. I understand you to clarify that jhaana factors > do indeed condition ruupa. You distinguish between these jhaana > factors and "genuine jhaana." Where might I read more about this > important distinction? > > It is clear that jhaana factors can arise whether one is becoming > absorbed in, say, anapanasati or in remembering a meaningful event > long past. The latter (and perhaps the former) are not to be > considered "jhaana" in the sense perhaps meant by "genuine jhaana." > These can merely result in "mundane" experiences of piiti and need not > in any way suggest any attainment of any worth. As you note, these > are common to both akusula and kusula cittas. > > Can you suggest where I might read more related to RIGHT > concentration, in relation to jhaana? Why, in your opinion, was so > much taught by the Buddha in relation to jhaana? How can one > understand the correct place accorded to jhaana? > > Enough for now. Thanks again for your kind correspondence. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > 57872 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:46am Subject: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence indriyabala Hi Ken H (Sarah, and anyone interested in a good debate)- There are several problematic issues I found in your post (#57862). I believe these issues stem from our "failure to communicate". Being "paranoid" might be one consequence of that. This failure is a perception problem, you know. Perception of what? Perception of each other as being on the opposite sides of the ultimate-reality fence!! (Equivalently, 'anatta fence', since all ultimate realities are anatta.) Well, "that perception" is caused by avijja (e.g. not knowing each other well enough), and we should remove it by true understanding. According to Nina (and you too?), understanding is a paramattha dhamma that only arises when right conditions are present, and that we can't do anything to make those not-self conditions present the way we wish them. If that hypothesis makes sense, then we will remain deluded with ignorance forever. But I am more optimistic. Here is what I suggest us to do: let's find out (by listening to each other and "considering" with lots of patience) what conditions need to be developed such that the right kind of understanding may arise in order to remove our wrong perceptions and, as the consequence, we MAY not be on the opposite sides anymore! Make sense? No? "Ignorance, monk, is the one thing with whose abandoning in a monk ignorance is abandoned and clear knowing arises." [SN XXXV.80, Avijja Sutta] "Clear knowing is the leader in the attainment of skillful qualities, followed by conscience & concern. [SN XLV.1, Avijja Sutta] ................................ Issue #1: >KenH: 'Does the Dhamma describe an ultimate reality totally different from conventional reality, or does it teach more of the same?' If we can't settle that issue, and if we can't agree that the Dhamma is describing a previously unknown world of conditioned dhammas, then our discussions will lead nowhere (or worse than nowhere). Tep: I think this issue is a non-issue. There is only one Dhamma that the Buddha taught : dukkha and the cessation of dukkha. "Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress." [SN XXII.86 Anuradha Sutta] He did not say 'I teach ultimate reality', nor did he ever say 'I teach conventional reality'. That was a non-issue to him. Tep: Knowing dukkha, its origination, its cessation, and the practice leading to dukkha cessation WILL lead the practitioner 'somewhere' as a Stream-winner [See MN 2: "He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by seeing.] Tep: Just drop the labels, Ken, just drop the labels that you are carrying everywhere. I don't care about ultimate vs. conventional realities; why should I, when my Lord Buddha did not? ................................... Issue #2 : >KenH: I won't say there are two sides at DSG, but there are two perspectives. There is the "anatta means no control" perspective, and there is the "anatta doesn't mean very much at all" perspective. James favours the latter and I think you agree with him. In my humble opinion, this means neither of you is studying the true Dhamma. Tep: Your humble opinion is wrong. The true Dhamma about 'anatta' is summarized as follows: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self'. This seeing 'anatta' in 'dhatus' and 'khandhas' helps us to eradicate wrong views(sakkhaya-ditthi) that cause the clinging to the five aggregates. It also helps us abandon other wrong views about the worlds. The main goal is in eradication of dukkha, not about what kind of realities things are. "Cunda, as to those several views that arise in the world concerning self-doctrines and world-doctrines, if [the object] in which these views arise, in which they underlie and become active, is seen with right wisdom as it actually is, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self' — then the abandoning of these views, their discarding, takes place in him [who thus sees]. [MN 8 Sallekha Sutta] "By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.[SN XII.15, Kaccayanagotta Sutta] Tep: Yes, indeed, it is a right view that 'just dukkha that arises, and it is dukkha that passes away' -- i.e. the most important understanding is about dukkha and its cessation. See the Anurudha Sutta again. ................................... Issue #3: >KH: I don't know what you mean about 'straddling the two dessanas.' However, I do know what you mean about smokescreens because I often suspect you and James, among others, of the same thing. I suspect that you purposely sabotage the debate. Why you would do this I do not know. Perhaps you are acting on behalf of the meditation industry. :-) >KH: Or perhaps I am being paranoid. That is more likely. And if you think I am deliberately putting up smokescreens then perhaps you are being paranoid too. :-) Tep: When your conversation involves the two dessanas at the same time, then you are straddling it. For example, you have created two kinds of metta by the following remark. KenH: "The metta taught by the Buddha was a paramattha dhamma. A dhamma arises according to conditions and it has its own nature (sabhava). On the other hand, conventional metta (taught by other teachers) is a mere concept, and its nature is whatever we want it to be." ......................... Issue #4: >KH: The point I was making was; there is the ultimately real metta as taught by the Buddha, and there is the conventionally real (ultimately illusory) metta as taught by other teachers. I have read your response several times but can't see the point you are making. Tep: Metta is metta and only metta is metta, there is no "other metta". Are there "conventional khandhas" and "ultimately real khandhas"? Does that make sense? Khandhas are khandhas whichever way you look at them. When you have attachment to khandhas, then there is a person being seen. When you look at khandhas with the right view, you see dukkha, and you see the arising and the passing away of dukkha. You don't see dukkha as a person or an 'atta'. And you realize 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self'. ......................... Issue #5: >KH: Surely you are just pretending you don't know what I am talking about. (?) The Dhamma is not like a course in baseball or piano. It is not a list of things to do. That sort of teaching belongs in the conventional, conceptual, world. In the ultimately real world described by the Buddha, there are only dhammas. >KH: Obviously, there can be no pianos and baseballs in a world of conditioned dhammas. Just as obviously, there can be no conventional Path (way of getting to enlightenment). All there can ever be is just a few, momentarily existing, namas and rupas. Tep: Yes. Anatta means thre are only dhammas. Yes. Nama and rupas in the past, future or prsent are impermanent, dukkha, and anatta. Best wishes, Tep ====== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" wrote: > > Hi Tep (and James), > > ------------ > T: > Although you two are again debating the same old issues, you > have become more proficient at it. But, wait a minute, are you > getting closer to (or converging toward) a conclusion? No way, I > don't think so! > ------------ > (snipped) 57873 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Apr 16, 2006 11:34am Subject: Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence buddhatrue Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" wrote: > > > Hi Ken H (Sarah, and anyone interested in a good debate)- > > There are several problematic issues I found in your post (#57862). I > believe these issues stem from our "failure to communicate". Very good post. Thanks. Metta, James 57874 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 16, 2006 11:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Jhana Retreat nilovg Dear Scott and Rob K, I enjoyed the interesting dialogue between the two of you. I heard that even Raahula was a neyyapuggala, one to be guided. You can read more about jhaanafactors in a wider sense in the Patthanaa of the Abhidhamma, the Conditional Relations. These factors are a condition by way of jhaana-condition. There is a 'Guide to Conditional Relations' by U Naarada (it is very readable). See p. 65: Thus, these factors perform their functions, with regard to kusala or akusala. We shall come to this condition also in the Visuddhimagga study and Tiika. Nina. op 16-04-2006 17:33 schreef Scott Duncan op scduncan@...: > You distinguish between these jhaana > factors and "genuine jhaana." Where might I read more about this > important distinction? 57875 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 16, 2006 11:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence nilovg Hi Tep and Ken H, I cannot enter a debate, since I am off on Tuesday for three days. Just a remark: Tep, with this last sentence you catch the essence. We have to ask ourselves: what is dukkha and which realities are dukkha. Nama and rupa, as you say, are dukkha. They are arising and falling away and thus they are no real refuge. That is the meaning of sankhaara dukkha. After the Buddha spoke about dukkha-dukkha, parinaama dukkha (dukkha in change), he spoke about sankhaara dukkha, saiying: in short, the five khandhas are dukkha. The five khandhas are all conditioned naamas and ruupas, they are not concepts of persons, events or things. Nama and rupa are paramattha dhammas and dukkha (in the sense above) is inherent in paramattha dhammas. All this has nothing to do with stress as Ven. Thanissaro likes to translate dukkha. Perhaps some time later we could talk about it, why paramattha dhammas have to be distinguished from concepts, or do you find this important too? Nina. op 16-04-2006 19:46 schreef indriyabala op indriyabala@...: > Tep: Yes. Anatta means there are only dhammas. Yes. Nama and rupas in > the past, future or prsent are impermanent, dukkha, and anatta. 57876 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sun Apr 16, 2006 0:28pm Subject: Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence indriyabala Dear James - It is very kind of you to write me a feedback! With appreciation, Tep ======= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Ken H (Sarah, and anyone interested in a good debate)- > > > > There are several problematic issues I found in your post (#57862). I > > believe these issues stem from our "failure to communicate". > > Very good post. Thanks. > > Metta, > James > 57877 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sun Apr 16, 2006 0:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence indriyabala Dear Nina - You and Sarah always impress me on being alertness with flowing energy. You are exactly right about the rising & falling-away charateristic of namas & rupas and dukkha: due to such impermanency they are no real refuge -- dukkham. I also like to be reminded about the sankhara dukkha : 'sankhittena pancupaadaanakkhandhaa dukkhaa'. > Perhaps some time later we could talk about it, why paramattha dhammas have to be distinguished from concepts, or do you find this important too? > > Nina. Yes. That is an interesting topic at the border line between the suttas and the Abhidhamma. It is important in the sense that many people(including myself) are still debating that issue; so it is time to put it to rest while we can. Warm regards, Tep ========= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > > Hi Tep and Ken H, > I cannot enter a debate, since I am off on Tuesday for three days. > > Just a remark: Tep, with this last sentence you catch the essence. > > We have to ask ourselves: what is dukkha and which realities are dukkha. > Nama and rupa, as you say, are dukkha. They are arising and falling away and thus they are no real refuge. That is the meaning of sankhaara dukkha. > After the Buddha spoke about dukkha-dukkha, parinaama dukkha (dukkha in change), he spoke about sankhaara dukkha, saiying: in short, the five khandhas are dukkha. > The five khandhas are all conditioned naamas and ruupas, they are not concepts of persons, events or things. > Nama and rupa are paramattha dhammas and dukkha (in the sense above) is inherent in paramattha dhammas. All this has nothing to do with stress as Ven. Thanissaro likes to translate dukkha. 57878 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence upasaka_howard Hi, Tep (and Nina) - In a message dated 4/16/06 3:57:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, indriyabala@... writes: > Yes. That is an interesting topic at the border line between the > suttas and the Abhidhamma. > It is important in the sense that many people(including myself) are > still debating that issue; so it is time to put it to rest while we can. > ===================== The Tibetans argue for the emptiness of every phenomenon, by which they mean its lack of self-existence or lack of "existence from it's own side", by pointing out the utter dependence a phenomenon has on other equally empty phenomena. But for a conventional object, they argue further for its actual unreality by pointing out its dependence on its parts/constituents, something not applicable to paramattha dhammas. Paramattha dhammas, of course, are anatta, because, after all, they lack own being inasmuch as their existence is a borrowed existence, depending as it does on the coming together on other equally empty conditions. But the Tibetans go further with their analysis of conventional objects as lacking true existence when they emphasize the dependence on parts. They point out that these conventional entities are dependent on mental construction, or, as they would say, "dependent on mind". Relatedly, they point out a kind of ungraspability that doesn't apply to paramattha dhammas, namely the inherent "fuzziness" of conventional entities. Where for example does a tree, or a human body, for that matter, begin or end in time or in space? Does the tree include leaves fallen to the ground or chipped-off bark? Does the body include lost hairs and sloughed-off skin cells? Actually, this fuzziness aspect of the unreality of conventional objects is closely related to their depending on mind. What constitues the object, what is included and what is excluded, is a matter of opinion and definition; it is a matter of mental imputation. In fact, all that is directly experienced are the paramattha dhammas, and the mind then imputes upon a collection of them a conventional object. I think that if we take a lead from the Tibetans on this, we can see that there is less "reality" to conventional objects than to paramattha dhammas. Their reality is *only* conventional! The paramattha dhammas, on the other hand, while lacking own-being, identity, and self, yet do have an experiential basis that requires no mental imputation or construction. Ultimately, emptiness applies throughout, but the unreality of conventional phenomena goes beyond that of paramattha dhammas. The paramattha dhammas are empty, having no separate self-existence. Their apparent separate self-existence is merely conventional, and believing in their self- existence is part of our ignorance, but *conventional* phenomena like people and trees and buildings actually have no existence of any sort. It is mere convention that there are such things. 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) 57881 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Apr 16, 2006 3:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Jhana Retreat sarahprocter... Dear Scott, A couple more suggestions: --- Scott Duncan wrote: >You distinguish between these jhaana > factors and "genuine jhaana." Where might I read more about this > important distinction? .... S: Read under 'jhana condition' in Nina's book 'Conditions', ch14 (see Zolag website or RobK's website, http://www.abhidhamma.org/) Also, a wealth of helpful posts from the archives under 'jhana' in U.P. (see files section, 'useful posts'). Here are a couple. (I believe the second is a summary of the ch above in Nina's book) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/28479 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/51423 Metta, Sarah ========= 57882 From: "icarofranca" Date: Sun Apr 16, 2006 4:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence icarofranca Hi Howard! --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Ultimately, emptiness applies throughout, but the unreality >of > conventional phenomena goes beyond that of paramattha dhammas. The >paramattha dhammas > are empty, having no separate self-existence. Their apparent >separate > self-existence is merely conventional, and believing in their self- >existence is part > of our ignorance, but *conventional* phenomena like people and >trees and > buildings actually have no existence of any sort. It is mere >convention that there > are such things. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Excellent, Howard!!!!!! Your post has to be put on the blue ribbon roll of the best quote about " What leads a putthujjana to conceive an idea as "Paramattha Dhamma"Or "the undogmatically eternal questioning about how much an ultimate reality is really ultimate?". But it´s really a good chain of reasoning about this always present theme on DSG! Keep boostin´ man! Mettaya Ícaro 57883 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Apr 16, 2006 0:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence upasaka_howard Hi, Icaro - In a message dated 4/16/06 6:33:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, icarofranca@... writes: > Hi Howard! > ====================== Thanks! :-) I always get a "kick" out of your enthusiasm. You were so enthusiastic this time that I rec'd three copies of your post! LOL! 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) 57884 From: "ericlonline" Date: Sun Apr 16, 2006 4:28pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The place of "meditation" ... Viharati (corrected) ericlonline Hi Jon, > Eric, you seem to be saying that a person who attains jhana is thereby developing the Noble Eightfold Path. Is that your view? Yes. I am sure you have the Tipitaka in Pali on CD or something. Can you do me a huge favor. Look up insight and see if jhana or samatha is within 2 or 3 sentences. How often does this occur i.e. never, sometimes, often, always. I would be much obliged!! > Jhana is a kusala state, but is is not the development of insight. Depends on the person. But to me insight cannot be developed. It is the fruit of a process of investigation. You can't 'DO' insight. >A > person may attain jhana without ever having heard the teachings. Indeed. Like our master as a child. > On the other hand, the development of insight involves the development > of right concentration also. And for one who attains enlightenment, > that right concentration occurs with an intensity corresponding to that > of the mundane jhanas. Sounds good. > J >>If that were the > >>case, then people who had never heard the teachings, but who > >>believe in kamma, lead a life of good sila, make an effort to avid > >>aksuala, and develop jhaana, would be developing the path (even > >>though they might also believe in a soul ;-)). E >They would probably be farther > >along the path then many who > >think they are! For the conceit > >'I am' is not let go of until > >arahantship, so who cares about > >a silly little belief in soul? ;-) > > > > ;-)), ;-)) > Eric, for someone who sees the 5 hindrances as such an obstacle to the arising of awareness/insight, how come you're so unconcerned about wrong view? ;-)) :-) Because I dont have it. And if others have it, well since it is Easter, it is not my cross to bear. > Seriously though, for the development of samatha, belief in a soul is not a hindrance; for the development of insight it would be. That is the difference. If someone is capable of samatha, a silly little belief is not much of a hindrance. For someone without a belief and the inability of samatha, now that is a hindrance (5 to be exact) i.e. a belief (thought) is much easier to overcome. Look at yourself, you are a true believer and yet...why aren't you enlightened? What are you lacking? What path factors are you ignoring? > (Jon long quote snipped) E >What is the sutta > >reference for this above? J> The quoted passage in my earlier post is from the commentary material to > the Abhidhammattha Sangaha, as summarised by Bh Bodhi in his > "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma' at the reference given. I am sorry Jon, I dont do Abhidhamma or its commentaries. The Buddhas words are good enough for me. metta 57885 From: "ericlonline" Date: Sun Apr 16, 2006 4:32pm Subject: Re: Breakfast with Sukin ericlonline Hi Rob, > I have had a chance to thumb through this > hard cover book - it is excellent! >We never know how much longer we have in this lifetime available to >us for practice; let us not delay any further. Practice? 57886 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sun Apr 16, 2006 4:34pm Subject: Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma .. The Anatta Fence indriyabala Hi Howard (Nina, Icaro) - I am trying to understand your post (#57878) since there are some terms that are unfamiliar to me. One way to help is to answer the following questions. I. Concerning the basic descriptions of 'conventional objects' & the 'Paramattha dhammas', do you agree with the following statements (partly extracted from your post)? Please give an example for each case. Thank you. 1. A conventional object lacks true identity or existence because it depends on parts. 2. A paramttha dhamma is 'anatta' since it depends on other "empty" conditions (rather than parts). 3. The fuzziness property results from unclear/uncertain/inconsistent opinion or definition. 4. A conventional object is a collection of paramattha dhammas which the mind imputes upon, or constructs from. II. Questions 1. Is the fuzziness property applicable to both man-made things and natural substances (e.g. iron ores)? 2. Where is fuzziness in a piece of pure gold? Does gold lack true identity? 3. Why is Nibbana 'anatta', even though it is not a conditioned dhamma that depends on empty conditions? In other words, where does the anatta emptiness property come from? 4. Could you please give a few examples to show that the paramattha dhammas have an experiential basis that requires no mental imputation or construction ? Sincerely, Tep ====== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Tep (and Nina) - > > In a message dated 4/16/06 3:57:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > indriyabala@... writes: > (snipped) > I think that if we take a lead from the Tibetans on this, we can see that there is less "reality" to conventional objects than to paramattha dhammas. Their reality is *only* conventional! The paramattha dhammas, on the other hand, while lacking own-being, identity, and self, yet do have an experiential basis that requires no mental imputation or construction. > Ultimately, emptiness applies throughout, but the unreality of conventional phenomena goes beyond that of paramattha dhammas. The paramattha dhammas are empty, having no separate self-existence. Their apparent separate self-existence is merely conventional, and believing in their self-existence is part of our ignorance, but *conventional* phenomena like people and trees and buildings actually have no existence of any sort. It is mere convention that there > are such things. > 57887 From: "icarofranca" Date: Sun Apr 16, 2006 4:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence icarofranca Hi Howard!! --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks! :-) I always get a "kick" out of your enthusiasm. >You were so > enthusiastic this time that I rec'd three copies of your post! LOL! --------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh yeah! The questioning about the Paramattha Dhammas are one of my favourite recurrent themes here at DSG. It´s one of the best further (?) developments on classical buddhismn- the Abhidhamma Sangaha states at Chapter 1,2 "Tattha vutt´Abhidhammatthaa Catudhaa paramatthato Cittam cetasikam ruupam Nibbanam iti sabbathaa" Once stated that the Paramattha Dhammas are Citta, cetasika , rupa and Nibbana, the philosophical war begins around the true definitions of this four ideas!!!!!! And your quote, taking hand of the Tibetan Buddhism idea of "Empty" as a good clarification, was one of your best kicks, Howard! Keep Boostin´... but mind your cholestherol!!!!! Mettaya Ícaro 57888 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun Apr 16, 2006 5:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's not-self strategy bad? prompted. lbidd2 Nina: "The words prompted sasa"nkhaarika, and unprompted, asa"nkhaarika, should not mislead us. They do not have the same meaning as in conventional sense." Hi Nina, I disagree. The meaning seems to me to be pretty much the same as the conventional meaning. It is true that a prompted consciousness is characterized as "weak", but the distinguishing characteristic is that a prompted consciousness is conditioned by "I should" and "I should" is often conditioned by "you should". I agree that we needn't analyze this too closely. Notice in the example below that kusala prompted and unprompted consciousness is recognized by actions as well as mind states. CMA (Guide), p.48: "The eight types of wholesome sense-sphere consciousness may be illustrated by the following examples: "1. Someone joyfully performs a generous deed, understanding that this is a wholesome deed, spontaneously without prompting. "2. Someone performs the same deed, with understanding, after deliberation or prompting by another. "3. Someone joyfully performs a generous deed, without prompting, but without understanding that this is a wholesome deed. "4. Someone joyfully performs a generous deed, without understanding, after deliberation or prompting by another. "5-8 These types of consciousness should be understood in the same way as the preceding four, but with neutral feeling instead of joyful feeling. "These eight types of consciousness are called wholesome (kusala) or meritorious (pu~n~na) because they inhibit the defilements and produce good results. They arise in worldings (puthujjana) and trainees (sekkha)--noble disciples at the three lower stages of stream-entry, once-returner, and non-returner--whenever they perform wholesome bodily deeds and verbal deeds and whenever they generate wholesome states of mind pertaining to the sense sphere.These cittas do not arise in Arahants, whose actions are without kammic potency." L: I think a "joyfully" should be inserted into #2 above. Also the word "inhibit" is particularly significant. This is not necessarily a huge deal. Larry 57889 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence lbidd2 Hi Howard, I think you made a very good and comprehensive representation of the Tibetan view, but I would like to add a couple of notes on that view: H: "Paramattha dhammas, of course, are anatta, because, after all, they lack own being inasmuch as their existence is a borrowed existence, depending as it does on the coming together on other equally empty conditions. But the Tibetans go further with their analysis of conventional objects as lacking true existence when they emphasize the dependence on parts. They point out that these conventional entities are dependent on mental construction, or, as they would say, "dependent on mind"." L: The Theravada view is of course that paramattha dhammas do not lack own being (sabhava) but they are dependently arisen. The usual reason given for their anatta characteristic is their impermanence. An object without own being (i.e., a concept) is technically not impermanent. There is no impermanence ultimately in the Tibetan system. Also, regarding "dependent on mind", this is a very interesting concept which is unknown but not incompatible with the Theravada view, imo. What it boils down to is that all apparently external objects are consciousnesses. An appearance is a consciousness. What this means is that the pride of "I am" is on the same ground as the blue lamp shade over there. There is no internal/external, just phenomena arising and ceasing. There may be the appearance of a 'me' but it is not cut off from the appearance of 'you'. One can find this in Theravada in the simile of the mirror. Five-door consciousness is said to be like a mirror image. _This_ is what it is like to be a mirror image. Larry 57890 From: "robmoult" Date: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:45pm Subject: Re: Breakfast with Sukin robmoult Hi Eric, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ericlonline" wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > > I have had a chance to thumb through this > > hard cover book - it is excellent! > > >We never know how much longer we have in this lifetime available to > >us for practice; let us not delay any further. > > Practice? > ===== Absolutely! No results without proper practice. Snippets from the Bhumija Sutta (MN126): If one follows the holy life inappropriately, even when having made a wish [for results], one is incapable of obtaining results. If one follows the holy life inappropriately, even when having made no wish... both having made a wish and having made no wish... neither having made a wish nor having made no wish, one is incapable of obtaining results. [But] if one follows the holy life appropriately, even when having made a wish, one is capable of obtaining results. If one follows the holy life appropriately, even when having made no wish... both having made a wish and having made no wish... neither having made a wish nor having made no wish, one is capable of obtaining results. Suppose a man in need of oil, looking for oil, wandering in search of oil, would pile gravel in a tub and press it, sprinkling it again & again with water. If he were to pile gravel in a tub and press it, sprinkling it again & again with water even when having made a wish [for results]... having made no wish... both having made a wish and having made no wish... neither having made a wish nor having made no wish, he would be incapable of obtaining results. Why is that? Because it is an inappropriate way of obtaining results. Suppose a man in need of oil, looking for oil, wandering in search of oil, would pile sesame seeds in a tub and press them, sprinkling them again & again with water. If he were to pile sesame seeds in a tub and press them, sprinkling them again & again with water, even when having made a wish [for results]... having made no wish... both having made a wish and having made no wish... neither having made a wish nor having made no wish, he would be capable of obtaining results. Why is that? Because it is an appropriate way of obtaining results. Do we disagree on this point, or is the issue really "what I define as practice" versus "what you define as practice"? Metta, Rob M :-) 57891 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Apr 16, 2006 7:40pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Jhana Retreat scottduncan2 Dear Nina, Thank you, as usual, for your kindly reply. N: "You can read more about jhaanafactors in a wider sense in the Patthanaa of the Abhidhamma, the Conditional Relations. . . There is a 'Guide to Conditional Relations' by U Naarada (it is very readable)." I have the Conditional Relations. I don't yet have the Guide, but will order it in the next few weeks. There is your own work on conditionality, of which I have a pdf version, and which I am reading. How should one go about studying the Conditional Relations in order to get the most out of it? It is a most complex work, yet something that I'd really like to understand. Any suggestions as to the best way to go through the work? Sincerely, Scott. 57892 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Apr 16, 2006 3:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/16/06 9:04:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I think you made a very good and comprehensive representation of the > Tibetan view, but I would like to add a couple of notes on that view ====================== Thank you for the commendation and for your additions. The vijnanavada perspective is, indeed, an aspect of Tibetan thought, though not so strong in the gelugpa school, which is predominent. I, myself, as you know, have a phenomenalist perspective that shares much with the vijnanavadins. 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) 57893 From: "Dan D." Date: Sun Apr 16, 2006 9:13pm Subject: Re: Is ..not-self strategy bad? Confusing Terms !! onco111 Hi James, Sometimes ya' gotta' go beyond a simple gloss of a foreign word to get a good idea of what it means. Earlier: > > Dan: I'd say 'kusala' refers a state of mind that is free from > > greed/craving/clinging/attachment (lobha) and from > > hatred/aversion/irritation/anxiety (dosa). > > James: Thanks for your extensive answer. I thought that kusala was > translated as "wholesome", but you seem to be defining kusala > as "perfection". According to your definition, the only type of > person who would experience kusala would be an arahant. Interesting > definition, but limiting I would say. > The definition I gave is perfectly standard Theravada usage. For example, in his "Buddhist Dictionary", Nyanatiloka writes of "kusala": "It is defined in M. 9 and 10 as the wholesome courses of action (kammapatha). In psychological terms, 'karmically wholesome' are all those karmical volitions (kamma-cetana) and the consciousness and mental factors associated therewith, which are accompanied by 2 or 3 wholesome roots (mula), i.e. by greedlessness (alobha), and hatelessness (adosa), and in some cases by non-delusion (amoha: wisdom, understanding). Such states of consciousness are regarded as 'karmically wholesome' as they are causes of favorable karma results and contain the seeds of a happy destiny or rebirth. From this explanation, two facts should be noted: (1) it is volition that makes a state of consciousness, or an act, 'good' or 'bad'; (2) the moral criterion in Buddhism is the presence or absence of the 3 wholesome or moral roots (mula)." This is not perfection. A moment of kusala is indeed beautiful and precious, but it arises and passes away with great rapidity. Are you confusing a state of consciousness with a "person"? A "person" for whom akusala was abolished and kusala reigned supreme would indeed have attained a type of perfection (but not in the Buddhist sense). And no matter how great and wonderful we think we are, kusala is still a fairly rare occurrence, and we need to be sure not to confuse the many pleasant but akusala states with the truly kusala. Otherwise, we can spend so much energy consciously cultivating akusala (attachment) while under the mistaken impression that we are really cultivating kusala (e.g., metta or jhana). Really, without clearly distinguishing between kusala and akusala, there is no advancing on the path. At all. Metta, Dan 57894 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Apr 16, 2006 9:31pm Subject: Re: Is ..not-self strategy bad? Confusing Terms !! buddhatrue Hi Dan, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: Really, without > clearly distinguishing between kusala and akusala, there is no > advancing on the path. At all. But do you REALLY know? Can you REALLY distinguish? Sounds like you have just a lot of book knowledge, and I was speaking in practical terms. After all, talk is cheap. > > Metta, > > Dan > Metta, James 57895 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence lbidd2 Howard: "The vijnanavada perspective is, indeed, an aspect of Tibetan thought, though not so strong in the gelugpa school, which is predominant." Hi Howard, Quite right. The Gelugpa (the Dalai Lama's sect) wrote extensive commentaries on vijnanavada but didn't philosophically embrace it, although the other three main sects did, incorporating it with madhyamaka and views on 'Buddha Nature' which some characterize as 'empty of other', in opposition to 'empty of self'. 'Empty of other' means empty of conditional phenomena and can be seen as nibbana, but can also be seen as the Vedanta view of 'Self'. Because of this latter consequence the Gelugpa flatly rejected 'empty of other' views, while the other sects maintain a discrete inscrutability, though it is clearly there. These are the three main topics of Tibetan debate, which is part of the monastic formal education. Both Hopkins and Garfield have written extensively on these matters if anyone is interested. By the way, vijnanavada has a considerable history in western philosophy under the name 'idealism'. Larry 57896 From: "Egbert" Date: Sun Apr 16, 2006 4:00pm Subject: Beliefs egberdina Hi all, Back again. For those who know me, a big wave and a big hug. For those who don't know me, my name is Herman, I live in Australia, married, five kids and five cars. The driveway is a real mess. I have been a member of this list at various times, going back to the early days. During this most recent absence from the list, it has become more clearly and strongly apparent that the holding of views is counter-productive to an appreciation of what is real, otherwise know as the present moment. I have also seen the value of phenomenal reduction, which is basically the abhidhamma method, as a means of discerning views of any kind at twenty paces or less. I look forward to unlearning even more than what I have already unlearnt. Kind Regards Herman 57897 From: Trasvin Date: Sun Apr 16, 2006 8:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Marisa's questions.Lessons in Dhamma, no 3. trasvin Dear Khun Nina, Thank you. I checked through the previous messages and saw Mom Betty's message. Best wishes, Jiw --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Khun Jiw, > thank you for your post. > No, Acharn made it clear that she did not like > any attention to be drawn to > her personally. > Betty wrote a beautiful post about this which I > quoted. It clearly conveyed > to us all that it is not the person that > matters, but the Dhamma itself. <...> 57898 From: "robmoult" Date: Sun Apr 16, 2006 11:27pm Subject: Re: Beliefs robmoult Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" wrote: > > Hi all, > > Back again. For those who know me, a big wave and a big hug. > > For those who don't know me, my name is Herman, I live in Australia, > married, five kids and five cars. The driveway is a real mess. I have > been a member of this list at various times, going back to the early days. > > During this most recent absence from the list, it has become more > clearly and strongly apparent that the holding of views is > counter-productive to an appreciation of what is real, otherwise know > as the present moment. I have also seen the value of phenomenal > reduction, which is basically the abhidhamma method, as a means of > discerning views of any kind at twenty paces or less. > > I look forward to unlearning even more than what I have already unlearnt. > ===== I too have recently returned (prompted by a meeting with Sukin). From a distance, a beach looks like a contiguous white band. When we get closer, we can see that the beach is made up of an uncountable number of grains of sand. As we move even closer (perhaps with a magnifing glass), we can see that each grain of sand is unique. In this analogy, the "from a distance" perspective is our normal viewpoint and putting the grain of sand under the magnifying glass is the Abhidhamma perspective. We can remain at the "from a distance" perspective and read about the "under the magnifying glass" perspective in a textbook, but the "under the magnifying glass" perspective doesn't really drive our views until we have experienced it first hand. Two questions for you: 1. Do you agree with this analogy? 2. How do you suggest that we "move closer" to change our perspective? Metta, Rob M :-) 57899 From: "robmoult" Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 0:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence robmoult Hi Icaro, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "icarofranca" wrote: > The questioning about the Paramattha Dhammas are one of my > favourite recurrent themes here at DSG. It´s one of the best further > (?) developments on classical buddhismn- the Abhidhamma Sangaha > states at Chapter 1,2 > > "Tattha vutt´Abhidhammatthaa > Catudhaa paramatthato > Cittam cetasikam ruupam > Nibbanam iti sabbathaa" > > Once stated that the Paramattha Dhammas are Citta, cetasika , > rupa and Nibbana, the philosophical war begins around the true > definitions of this four ideas!!!!!! ===== Not sure if it is relevant to this discussion, but I recently read that this structure (four paramattha dhammas) originated with Buddhadatta (a contemporary of Buddhaghosa) in his Abhidhammavatara, an early summary of the Abhidhamma. I also understand that the Abhidhammavatara was the source of the list of 52 cetasikas. The list of seventeen thought moments was taken from Upatissa's Vimuttimagga. Metta, Rob M :-) 57900 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 0:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Beliefs egberdina Hi Rob M, Thank you for the questions. > > In this analogy, the "from a distance" perspective is our normal > viewpoint and putting the grain of sand under the magnifying glass is > the Abhidhamma perspective. > We can remain at the "from a distance" perspective and read about > the "under the magnifying glass" perspective in a textbook, but > the "under the magnifying glass" perspective doesn't really drive our > views until we have experienced it first hand. > > Two questions for you: > 1. Do you agree with this analogy? > 2. How do you suggest that we "move closer" to change our perspective? 1. Yes, I agree with your analogy. 2. I don't think an unwilling audience is likely to have a change of mind. But the hearing of a consistent suggestion that it is possible to have a different perspective may well be enough of a trigger in an open-minded audience. Or an open-minded person may well question the validity of an assumed perspective on the arising of some contradiction. Kind Regards Herman -- There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 57901 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 0:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Jhana Retreat nilovg Dear Scott, I think it is good to first know more about the realities involved, thus about rupa, citta, cetasikas, the different types. The Conditional Relations should be studied little by little, one at a time. You could ask questions about each item, why not? With the Visuddhimagga we are now at object-condition, the second type of condition, after root-condition. We go through all of them. I add a little to each of them, also using my Conditionality. Your questions are useful anyway for everybody here. I enjoy answering them, because I learn from questions. (But tomorrow just going away). Nina. op 17-04-2006 04:40 schreef Scott Duncan op scduncan@...: > How should one go about studying the Conditional Relations in order to > get the most out of it? It is a most complex work, yet something that > I'd really like to understand. Any suggestions as to the best way to > go through the work? 57902 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 0:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence nilovg Hi Tep, op 16-04-2006 21:57 schreef indriyabala op indriyabala@...: > That is an interesting topic at the border line between the > suttas and the Abhidhamma. > It is important in the sense that many people(including myself) are > still debating that issue ______ N: yes, understandable. Only by being directly aware and understanding directly characteristics of paramattha dhammas we can really know what they are and also know that they are different from concepts. So, we are all in the same boat. It is not easy to directly know characteristics of realities at the moment they appear, without the need to name them. You agree, I think, that the Buddha used conventional terms to explain dhammas depending on the audiance, but that he also explained them in a straightforward way if the listeners could grasp it. I cannot resist quoting a good sutta about citta: We read in the ³Kindred Sayings² (II, Nidåna-vagga, XII, the Kindred Sayings on Cause, 7, the Great Chapter § 61, The Untaught) that the Buddha, while he was staying near Såvatthí at Jeta Grove in Anåthapiùèika¹s Park, said to the monks: Here the Buddha taught directly about citta, about the fact that each citta is succeeded by the next citta. I do not mind about the name paramattha dhamma, or wonder why paramattha is not used in the suttas (I think this word is once mentioned in connection with truth). I mind about what this term represents. The Buddha also used the term dhammas or dhaatus, elements, or khandhas. These represent realities that can be directly known when they appear, realities with characteristics. Nina. 57903 From: "robmoult" Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 0:38am Subject: [dsg] Re: Beliefs robmoult Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Rob M, > > Thank you for the questions. > > > > > In this analogy, the "from a distance" perspective is our normal > > viewpoint and putting the grain of sand under the magnifying glass is > > the Abhidhamma perspective. > > > We can remain at the "from a distance" perspective and read about > > the "under the magnifying glass" perspective in a textbook, but > > the "under the magnifying glass" perspective doesn't really drive our > > views until we have experienced it first hand. > > > > Two questions for you: > > 1. Do you agree with this analogy? > > 2. How do you suggest that we "move closer" to change our perspective? > > > > 1. Yes, I agree with your analogy. > > 2. I don't think an unwilling audience is likely to have a change of mind. > But the hearing of a consistent suggestion that it is possible to have a > different perspective may well be enough of a trigger in an open- minded > audience. Or an open-minded person may well question the validity of an > assumed perspective on the arising of some contradiction. > ===== Can I summarize your approach as follows? 1. Study the Abhidhamma 2. Look for contradictions between actual experience and "from a distance" perspective 3. Be very open to re-evaluate "from a distance" perspective using an Abidhamma perspective to see if it matches with actual experience Apologies if I have grossly simplified or misrepresented your approach. I am keen to understand the "practice" aspect. Metta, Rob M :-) 57904 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Apr 16, 2006 11:45pm Subject: Happiness of the Flesh and Beyond ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: Happiness of the Flesh, Not of this World and Beyond!!! The Blessed Buddha once said: And what, Bhikkhus, are then this simple happiness of the flesh ? There are these five strings of sense-pleasure. What five ? Visible forms experiencable by the eye ... Hearable sounds experiencable by the ear ... Smellable odours experiencable by the nose ... Tastable flavours experiencable by the tongue ... Touchable objects experiencable by the body ... Recognizable mental states experiencable by the mind ... That all are attractive, captivating, desirable, irresistible, lovely, agreeable, tempting, pleasing, sensually enticing, seductive, alluring, and tantalizing...!!! These are the five strings of sense-pleasure. The happiness, that arises from these five strings of sense-pleasure: this is simply the happiness of the flesh … And what, Bhikkhus, is then the happiness, that is not of this world ? Having eliminated the 5 mental hindrances, mental defects that obstruct understanding, quite secluded from sensual desires, protected from any detrimental mental state, one enters & dwells in the 1st jhana; full of joy & pleasure born of solitude, joined with directed & sustained thought. Again, friends, with the stilling of directed & sustained thought, one enters & dwells in the 2nd jhana, calmed assurance & unification of mind with joy & pleasure now born of concentration, devoid of any thought! Again, friends, with the fading away of joy, the friend dwells in equanimity, aware & clearly comprehending, still feeling pleasure in the body, he enters upon & remains in the 3rd jhana, regarding which the Noble Ones declare: 'In aware equanimity one dwells in Happiness!'... This is the happiness ,that is not of this world! What, Bhikkhus, is then the happiness beyond that bliss, which is not of this world? When a bhikkhu, whose mental fermentations are eliminated, reviews his mind liberated from lust, freed from hatred, and released from confusion, there arises a transcendental happiness. This is called happiness which is beyond even that bliss, that is not of this world... Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book IV [235-7] section 36:11 On Feeling: Vedana. Joys beyond this world ... http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html Friendship is the Greatest ... Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. <...> 57905 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 1:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Beliefs egberdina Hi Rob M, I am glad you asked some more questions, because my position isn't quite like your summary. == > Can I summarize your approach as follows? > > 1. Study the Abhidhamma > 2. Look for contradictions between actual experience and "from a > distance" perspective > 3. Be very open to re-evaluate "from a distance" perspective using an > Abidhamma perspective to see if it matches with actual experience > > Apologies if I have grossly simplified or misrepresented your > approach. I am keen to understand the "practice" aspect. > == I did deliberately use abhidhamma in lower case in my opening post, because I was referring to the abhidhamma method, not the book Abhidhamma. That book is an instance of the application of the method, but use of the method need not be limited to the book. The abhidhamma method is basically reducing phenomena towards an irreducible, atomic form. This can be practiced in daily life, by disecting what comes to mind into constituent parts. Or it can happen spontaneously that phenomena already appear in a non-conceptual, non-aggregated way. I would not necessarily advise folks to read the Abhidhamma or use the matika specific to it, but I would certainly advise people to practice the abhidhamma method of reducing phenomena into constituent parts. Looking for, or being open to finding contradictions between thought/concept/belief and reality is no more than applying the scientific method, and I would certainly advocate that. Kind Regards Herman -- There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 57906 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:23am Subject: [dsg] Re: Beliefs christine_fo... Hello Herman, all, Just passing through, noticed a familiar name, and a familiar style - and thought I'd wave back ... nice to read you again, my friend. Missed seeing you around the place. metta Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- 57907 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:28am Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 423 - mindfulness/sati (e) 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;-) ========================================== (Ch26 - mindfulness/sati continued) There is not only mindfulness which is non-forgetful of dåna or of síla, there is also mindfulness with mental development. The development of calm, samatha, is one way of mental development. There is mindfulness with the kusala citta which develops calm. There are many degrees of calm. Jhåna, absorption, is a high level of calm and it is extremely difficult to attain this level; one can only attain jhåna if one has accumulations for it and if there is right understanding of its way of development. One may have no accumulations for jhåna, but there can be moments of calm in daily life. For example, if there is right understanding of the characteristic of loving kindness, which is one of the meditation subjects of samatha, this quality can be developed in daily life and then there is calm conditioned by loving kindness. When there is calm, no matter of what degree, there is also mindfulness of the object of calm, be it loving kindness, compassion, the recollection of the Buddha or any other object of samatha. ***** (Ch26 - mindfulness/sati to be contd) Metta, Sarah ====== 57908 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:23am Subject: Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence ken_aitch Hi Tep, I will take just one of your "issues" at a time. ---------- T: > Issue #1: KenH: > > 'Does the Dhamma describe an ultimate reality totally different from conventional reality, or does it teach more of the same?' Tep: > I think this issue is a non-issue. There is only one Dhamma that the Buddha taught : dukkha and the cessation of dukkha. "Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress." [SN XXII.86 Anuradha Sutta] --------------- Pardon me if I digress for a moment, Tep: The use of "stress" as a translation for "dukkha" supports Ven. Thanissaro's heterodoxy. Thanissaro teaches that anatta is not a fact but a mere strategy for relaxing the mind (freeing it from stress). I don't object to your use of 'stress' if that is the translation you prefer, but I hope you won't mind my correcting you from time to time. :-) ------------------------ T: > He did not say 'I teach ultimate reality', nor did he ever say 'I teach conventional reality'. That was a non-issue to him. ------------------------ All of his words necessarily imply, "I teach ultimate reality." Take as just one example, "All conditioned dhammas are anicca." My father lived to 93. Some rocks are more than a billion years old and likely to last several more billion years. If that was the Buddha's idea of fleeting, then he wasn't telling us much, was he? Obviously, he was speaking of a reality other than people and rocks etc. Obviously, he was saying, "I teach ultimate reality, and ultimate realities are fleeting." What other interpretation could there be? Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" wrote: > > > Hi Ken H (Sarah, and anyone interested in a good debate)- > > There are several problematic issues I found in your post (#57862). 57909 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:47am Subject: Some thoughts about Buddhism jonoabb Dear Neil Sarah passed your messages to me some time ago, but I've only just had a chance to read and consider them. Sorry for the delay. I thought the best approach would be to reply to your message on the discussion list (of course, preserving your identity), as others may be interested to read your observations or may have comments to make which you could follow at this link: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup (For the group: Neil is an old friend whom we got to know when we were neighbours during the early part of our stay in Hong Kong. Neil now lives in New York, having lived in London for most of the past 10 years or so.) Turning now to your remarks. I like your summary and especially the ‘fact of life’ parts (joys and sorrows; attachments/longings are bound to lead to disappointments). These are indeed very common-sense, and are capable of being readily understood by anyone. You mention the sense-door experiences (seeing, hearing, etc.), and these are important for the obvious reason that they are the means by which the world as we know it is experienced. In terms of what is real, Theravada Buddhism teaches that both the consciousness that experiences (i.e., that sees, hears, etc.) and also the ‘object’ of that experience (the visible object, audible object, etc) are real. All these ‘realities’ (Pali term: dhammas) are momentary, that is to say, arising and falling away continuously. According to TB, these brief moments of (mere) sense-door experience are followed by other moments of consciousness that ‘think about’ the objects just experienced and give them meaning and, in brief, form up the world of people and things as we know it. However, it goes deeper than that and that’s where it starts to get, as you put it, a bit more tricky. TB explains that the realities that are the object of the (mere) sense-door consciousnesses are not the same as the ‘objects’ (people and things) that constitute the world as we know or perceive it. The people and things that constitute the world as we know it are formed up by thinking processes, based on these multitudinous and continuously occurring sense-door experiences and aided by past experience (memory). An example. The ‘reality’ that is experienced by (i.e., is the object of) seeing consciousness at this moment is not (the conventional object of) a computer screen on which you are reading this message, nor an aspect of it. It is something else altogether, something in the nature of light or colour (although neither of these terms accurately states it). It is that which is common to all moments of seeing. And the same applies to the other sense-doors. The significance of this is that if there is to be a better understanding of the way things are, it is these underlying realities (dhammas) that are to be better understood rather than anything about the conventional objects that constitute the world as we know it. I have covered a lot of ground here, but have tried to keep it brief and simple. I hope the general picture is clear. Jon ********************************************************** Neil wrote: Just a brief note to tell you I've finished van Gorkom's book "The Buddha's Path", for the sending of which I thank you again. It is a more readable effort, and deals with those universal problems that follow us all everywhere and all the time. (I believe ,again, that she would still be better advised to use the more familiar (Sanskrit) usages "dharma", "nirvana", and "karma", rather than their Pali equivalents-they are much more familiar for an outside audience.) Anyway, it is refreshing to return to the subject, and relearn its essences. The basic essences, it seems to me, again, can be absorbed in a secular (I am not now talking about Lamaism, which has semi-deified the Buddha), tragic, but common-sense way: first of all, that life is full of joy and full of sorrow, and that that is just the way it is. (I like the story of the Buddha's saying to the grieving woman; "Bring me back a jar of oil from a house that has never seen death and sadness". She returned empty-handed, surprise surprise.) And then, that too much hanging-on and longing and aversion and falsely-motivated benignity can also bring nothing but regret is also probably a fact of life, whether we like it or not. What is a bit more tricky (and it is not congruent in many ways with a world of striving and change and such) is the notion that although seeing, hearing, etc., are quite real, the objects that are seen, heard, etc.., including the self (which is itself largely a misapprehension) are not real, arising and falling away all the time. Much is to be learned from every tradition. 57910 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 0:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Beliefs upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 4/17/06 1:25:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > > Hi all, > > Back again. For those who know me, a big wave and a big hug. > > For those who don't know me, my name is Herman, I live in Australia, > married, five kids and five cars. The driveway is a real mess. I have > been a member of this list at various times, going back to the early days. > > During this most recent absence from the list, it has become more > clearly and strongly apparent that the holding of views is > counter-productive to an appreciation of what is real, otherwise know > as the present moment. I have also seen the value of phenomenal > reduction, which is basically the abhidhamma method, as a means of > discerning views of any kind at twenty paces or less. > > I look forward to unlearning even more than what I have already unlearnt. > > Kind Regards > > > > Herman ========================== Welcome back, my friend! It's been a long time! I'm very happy to "see" you. If I may, I'd like to request that when you do take such a long break you consider touching base on occasion so that friends don't worry. :-) Your introductory remarks on the abhidhammic method are interesting but a trifle succinct! ;-) I look forward to reading more! 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) 57911 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 0:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Beliefs upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and Rob) - In a message dated 4/17/06 4:52:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > I did deliberately use abhidhamma in lower case in my opening post, because > I was referring to the abhidhamma method, not the book Abhidhamma. That book > is an instance of the application of the method, but use of the method need > not be limited to the book. The abhidhamma method is basically reducing > phenomena towards an irreducible, atomic form. This can be practiced in > daily life, by disecting what comes to mind into constituent parts. Or it > can happen spontaneously that phenomena already appear in a non-conceptual, > non-aggregated way. > > I would not necessarily advise folks to read the Abhidhamma or use the > matika specific to it, but I would certainly advise people to practice the > abhidhamma method of reducing phenomena into constituent parts. > > ====================== I agree with you on this, Herman, provided that one doesn't throw out the synthetic approach when adopting the analytic one. (The Patthana is the "great book" of the Abhidhamma, don't forget, and conditionality is the core 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) 57912 From: "Joop" Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 6:36am Subject: Re: Beliefs jwromeijn Hallo Herman Good to 'read you back'. Sarah already wrote that you still existed. Unlearning is much more difficult than learning, I agree. 'Emptiness' had to start with emptiness in my head. The DSG continued; not only many messages of it belong (as ever, in my opinion) more in a 'Pali Study Group' and also a growing number belong more in a 'Sujin Study Group' then the 'Dhamma Study Group'. I'm now nearly decided to stop with DSG: most messages don't inspire me and I have the idea that my messages don't inpire other participants. In my most recent one for excample I tried to convince Sarah that Dhamma also means living with paradoxes, but she has not (yet) answered. But I know, you are the example, it's always possible to return to DSG. With metta Joop BTW: Five cars, and old ones, I think: doesn't that give much air pollution or is the environment not a problem in Australia? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" wrote: > > Hi all, > > Back again. For those who know me, a big wave and a big hug. > > For those who don't know me, my name is Herman, I live in Australia, > married, five kids and five cars. The driveway is a real mess. I have > been a member of this list at various times, going back to the early days. > > During this most recent absence from the list, it has become more > clearly and strongly apparent that the holding of views is > counter-productive to an appreciation of what is real, otherwise know > as the present moment. I have also seen the value of phenomenal > reduction, which is basically the abhidhamma method, as a means of > discerning views of any kind at twenty paces or less. > > I look forward to unlearning even more than what I have already unlearnt. > > Kind Regards > > > > Herman > 57913 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:05am Subject: Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 71 and Tiika. nilovg Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 71. Intro: Citta is the reality that knows or cognizes, it knows an object. Colour or sound could not appear if there were no citta that cognizes them, they are the objects of citta. One citta arises at a time and it experiences only one object at a time. Seeing sees only visible object or colour, hearing hears only sound. On account of what is experienced through the senses we think of people, events or things. These are concepts which are the object of citta that thinks. There is no citta that does not experience an object. The cetasikas that accompany the citta experience the same object. The object conditions the citta by being its object, it is object-condition for citta that experiences it. ____ Text Vis.: (2) As to others that follow, a state that assists by being an object is an 'object condition'. ------ N: As to Œothers that follow¹, here the Vis. refers to the following conditions after the first mentioned condition, the root-condition. The Tiika uses, with regard to object-condition, the expression, by its nature of having to be hanging on (aalambitabba). Citta and cetasikas must hang on to an object, they are dependent on an object, otherwise they could not arise. The Pali aaramma.na and aalamba.na (hanging on) are terms for object. ------- Text Vis. Now there are no states that are not object conditions; for the passage beginning 'The visible-data base [is a condition, as object condition,] for the eye-consciousness element' concludes thus: 'When any states, as states of consciousness and consciousness-concomitants, arise contingent upon any states, these [latter] states are conditions, as object condition, for those [former] states' (P.tn.1,1). [11] ------ N: Note 11 taken from the Tiika: ' "Which are contingent upon other such states": because it is said without distinction of all visible-data bases ... and of all mental-data bases, there is consequently no dhamma (state) among the formed, unformed, and conceptual dhammas, classed as sixfold under visible data, etc., that does not become an object condition' (Pm. 584). _____ N: Conditioned dhammas and the unconditioned dhamma, nibbaana, and also concepts can be objects of citta and cetasikas, thus they condition citta and cetasikas by being their object. The ruupas that are sense objects are experienced through the relevant sense-doors and through the mind-door. Citta, cetasika, nibbana and concepts are experienced only through the mind-door. The citta that has fallen away can be the object of another citta, arising in a following process. ------ Text Vis.: For just as a weak man both gets up and stands by hanging on to (aalambitvaa) a stick or rope, so states of consciousness and consciousness-concomitants always arise and are present contingent upon visible data, etc., as their object (aaramma.na = aalambana). Therefore all states that are objects of consciousness and consciousness-concomitants should be understood as object condition. ---------------------- N: The Tiika emphasizes that it is not possible that citta and cetasikas arise without experiencing an object. The Tiika then refers to the Pa.t.thanaa text which enumerates the oject-condition as ninefold (Conditional Relations, Investigation Chapter, p. 142-146). As object-condition kusala dhamma can condition kusala dhamma, akusala dhamma and indeterminate dhamma (avyaakata, being kiriya, vipaaka, ruupa or nibbaana), and so on for the object that is akusala or indeterminate which can condition kusala dhamma, akusala dhamma and indeterminate dhamma. The Pa.t.thanaa gives examples of these different ways. We read in the "Paììhåna''(Faultless Triplet,Kusala-ttika,VII,Investigation Chapter,Pañha-våra, Object,§ 404)): When we generously give a gift we may recollect our generosity afterwards with kusala citta. We may come to realize that while giving a gift, there is citta that experiences an object and that motivates gestures and speech. Kusala can also be the object of akusala citta.We read in § 405: After a deed of generosity we may have have expectations, hoping for something in return. Or we may have conceit about it, we may take it for my generosity, or we may regret our gift when it is not well received. We read in the same section of the "Paììhåna''(§ 407)) that akusala can be the object of akusala citta: Don't we like lobha and enjoy having it? We want to have as many moments of enjoyment as possible. Then more lobha arises. If we do not realize lobha as a conditioned reality we take it for "my lobha''. Lobha can also be object of dosa. We may feel guilty about lobha, we may have aversion towards it and we may worry about it. Any kind of defilement can be object of akusala citta. Akusala can also be object of kusala citta, for example, when we consider defilements with right understanding and realize them as conditioned realities which are not self. When we utter angry speech we may realize that there is citta that experiences an object and that motivates such speech. It arises because of conditions and then falls away immediately. The ruupas that are sense objects are indeterminate dhamma, avyaakata dhamma. They are neither kusala nor akusala. Some sense objects are pleasant and others are unpleasant. The sense-cognitions that experience them are vipaakacuttas conditioned by kamma. The following javana-cittas are akusala cittas or kusala cittas, and this depends on the fact whether there is unwise attention to the object or wise attention. Conclusion: Object-condition is never lacking, and it depends on many different conditions what particular kind of object citta experiences. Also at this moment there is citta that experiences an object. We are used to thinking of a self who experiences an object, but in reality there is citta that arises and experiences one object at a time. Citta cannot prepare the kind of object it experiences, as soon as it arises it experiences an object. Nobody can prevent citta from experiencing that object. As soon as seeing arises it experiences visible object or colour. Seeing is quite different from the object it experiences. Through satipa.t.thaana paññaa can come to understand the true nature of citta that experiences and object as different from ruupa that does not know anything. ****** Nina. 57914 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:05am Subject: FW: question on Acharn Neb. nilovg ---------- Van: nina van gorkom Datum: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:28:19 +0200 Aan: Marisa Caroline Westheimer Onderwerp: Re: question on Acharn Neb. Dear Marisa, I copy your question for dsg, since others may find it interesting. op 16-04-2006 22:37 schreef Marisa Caroline Westheimer op mwesthei@...: > I had a quick question for you that I was hoping you might be able to > answer in regards to some biographical information about Ajaan Sujin. > When it comes to her education in abhidhamma, she credits Ajaan Neb > greatly. I was wondering if you had any information on who Ajaan Neb > was. ------ N: This lady was a greatly respected Abhidhamma teacher. She asked Acharn Sujin to also teach Abhidhamma to a group. As for the practice, Acharn Neb thought that it was important to go into retreat for the practice of vipassanaa and between Pataya and Bangkok she had a vipassana center. Acharn Sujin once pointed it out to us. Also Rob K used to go there as I understood. Acharn Sujin went there every year for a retreat, but once, while she was taking a rest in that center, she came to the conclusion and it was not necessary to go to a specific place. Realities are the same everywhere and they can be objects of mindfulness no matter where one is. Satipa.t.thaana should be developed naturally in daily life, she concluded. This happened shortly before I met her. She gave me a book by Acharn Neb, but I found that there were things in it I found unclear. Acharn Sujin continued visiting Acharn Neb until she was on her deathbed. She was always grateful for the Abhidhamma that Acharn Neb had taught her. Lodewijk said that he would be delighted if you could come to India Oct. 2007, together with your parents. Nina. 57915 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's not-self strategy bad? prompted. nilovg Hi Larry, There is no time for 'I should'. The unprompted kusala citta arises already, due to conditions. The way all this is explained is in conventional terms. As to induced, it is said, by oneself or someone else. Take the example of dosa-muulacitta that is induced because someone else tells one how bad another person is. At first he had no dosa and then he has. I take this as an example to illustrate the notion of induced. But at a given moment it is hard to tell how a citta is induced or whether it is induced. The word inhibit: yes, at the moment of kusala citta there is no opportunity for akusala citta. But when we consider this subject, it is to be remembered that cittas arise and fall away extremely rapidly. There is no time to do anything about the citta that has arisen already. It is hard to pinpoint when a citta is induced and when spontaneous. Nina. op 17-04-2006 02:15 schreef LBIDD@... op LBIDD@...: > Nina: "The words prompted sasa"nkhaarika, and unprompted, asa"nkhaarika, > should > not mislead us. They do not have the same meaning as in conventional > sense." > L: I disagree. The meaning seems to me to be pretty much the same as the > conventional meaning. It is true that a prompted consciousness is > characterized as "weak", but the distinguishing characteristic is that a > prompted consciousness is conditioned by "I should" and "I should" is > often conditioned by "you should". I agree that we needn't analyze this > too closely. Notice in the example below that kusala prompted and > unprompted consciousness is recognized by actions as well as mind > states. > > CMA (Guide), p.48: "The eight types of wholesome sense-sphere > consciousness may be illustrated by the following examples: > > "1. Someone joyfully performs a generous deed, understanding that this > is a wholesome deed, spontaneously without prompting. > > "2. Someone performs the same deed, with understanding, after > deliberation or prompting by another. L: I think a "joyfully" should be inserted into #2 above. Also the word > "inhibit" is particularly significant. This is not necessarily a huge > deal. 57916 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 8:01am Subject: Re: FW: question on Acharn Neb. rjkjp1 Dear Nina, Christine asked me about this recently too: " Acharn Naeb studied under the Burmese monk, Pathunta U Vilasa at wat Prog in Bangkok, and he later asked her to help promote Dhamma in thailand. I know a number of Acharn Naeb's students as I stayed for a few months at Wat Boonkanjanaram in Chonburi (where Achaen Naeb lived for many years and died there in 1983).' I think also Khun sujin had another women teacher -who maybe went blind later in life- but I forget the name? with respect Robert In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > > > ---------- > Van: nina van gorkom > Datum: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:28:19 +0200 > Aan: Marisa Caroline Westheimer > Onderwerp: Re: question on Acharn Neb. > > Dear Marisa, > I copy your question for dsg, since others may find it interesting. > op 16-04-2006 22:37 schreef Marisa Caroline Westheimer op mwesthei@...: > > > I had a quick question for you that I was hoping you might be able to > > answer in regards to some biographical information about Ajaan Sujin. > > When it comes to her education in abhidhamma, she credits Ajaan Neb > > greatly. I was wondering if you had any information on who Ajaan Neb > > was. > ------ > N: This lady was a greatly respected Abhidhamma teacher. She asked Acharn > Sujin to also teach Abhidhamma to a group. > As for the practice, Acharn Neb thought that it was important to go into > retreat for the practice of vipassanaa and between Pataya and Bangkok she > had a vipassana center. Acharn Sujin once pointed it out to us. Also Rob K > used to go there as I understood. > Acharn Sujin went there every year for a retreat, but once, while she was > taking a rest in that center, she came to the conclusion and it was not > necessary to go to a specific place. Realities are the same everywhere and > they can be objects of mindfulness no matter where one is. Satipa.t.thaana > should be developed naturally in daily life, she concluded. > This happened shortly before I met her. She gave me a book by Acharn Neb, > but I found that there were things in it I found unclear. > Acharn Sujin continued visiting Acharn Neb until she was on her deathbed. > She was always grateful for the Abhidhamma that Acharn Neb had taught her. > > Lodewijk said that he would be delighted if you could come to India Oct. > 2007, together with your parents. > Nina. > 57917 From: "ericlonline" Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 8:38am Subject: Re: Breakfast with Sukin ericlonline Hi Rob, R> > I have had a chance to thumb through this > > > hard cover book - it is excellent! > > > > >We never know how much longer we have in this lifetime available to us for practice; let us not delay any further. E> > Practice? R> Absolutely! No results without proper practice. Snippets from the > Bhumija Sutta (MN126): (Snipped) R> Do we disagree on this point, or is the issue really "what I define as practice" versus "what you define as practice"? :-) No we dont disagree. Is Buddhist practice reading? What practices do you engage in? How have you been btw? Good health and spirits, I hope!! metta 57918 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:59am Subject: Re: Beliefs buddhatrue Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" wrote: > > Hi all, > > Back again. For those who know me, a big wave and a big hug. > > For those who don't know me, my name is Herman, I live in Australia, > married, five kids and five cars. The driveway is a real mess. I have > been a member of this list at various times, going back to the early days. > > During this most recent absence from the list, it has become more > clearly and strongly apparent that the holding of views is > counter-productive to an appreciation of what is real, otherwise know > as the present moment. I have also seen the value of phenomenal > reduction, which is basically the abhidhamma method, as a means of > discerning views of any kind at twenty paces or less. > > I look forward to unlearning even more than what I have already unlearnt. James: Glad to see another message of yours. Your first message has the tone of Taoism/Zen; that is a fantastic start! ;-)) I hope that everything is going well with you. Take it easy and take it slow. > > Kind Regards > > > > Herman > Metta, James 57919 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 6:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: question on Acharn Neb. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Marisa) - In a message dated 4/17/06 10:07:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > > Dear Marisa, > I copy your question for dsg, since others may find it interesting. > op 16-04-2006 22:37 schreef Marisa Caroline Westheimer op mwesthei@...: > > >I had a quick question for you that I was hoping you might be able to > >answer in regards to some biographical information about Ajaan Sujin. > >When it comes to her education in abhidhamma, she credits Ajaan Neb > >greatly. I was wondering if you had any information on who Ajaan Neb > >was. > ------ > N: This lady was a greatly respected Abhidhamma teacher. She asked Acharn > Sujin to also teach Abhidhamma to a group. > As for the practice, Acharn Neb thought that it was important to go into > retreat for the practice of vipassanaa and between Pataya and Bangkok she > had a vipassana center. Acharn Sujin once pointed it out to us. Also Rob K > used to go there as I understood. > Acharn Sujin went there every year for a retreat, but once, while she was > taking a rest in that center, she came to the conclusion and it was not > necessary to go to a specific place. Realities are the same everywhere and > they can be objects of mindfulness no matter where one is. Satipa.t.thaana > should be developed naturally in daily life, she concluded. > This happened shortly before I met her. She gave me a book by Acharn Neb, > but I found that there were things in it I found unclear. > Acharn Sujin continued visiting Acharn Neb until she was on her deathbed. > She was always grateful for the Abhidhamma that Acharn Neb had taught her. > > Lodewijk said that he would be delighted if you could come to India Oct. > 2007, together with your parents. > Nina. > ======================== If Acharn Neb is the same person I have read of as Ajahn Naeb, she is also a renowned meditation teacher who has the meditator refrain from any body movement in order to see unpleasant bodily sensations arise (informally, pain) and the aversion that follows. 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) 57920 From: "robmoult" Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 10:23am Subject: Re: Breakfast with Sukin robmoult Hi Eric, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ericlonline" wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > R> > I have had a chance to thumb through this > > > > hard cover book - it is excellent! > > > > > > >We never know how much longer we have in this lifetime > available to us for practice; let us not delay any further. > > E> > Practice? > > R> Absolutely! No results without proper practice. Snippets from the > > Bhumija Sutta (MN126): (Snipped) > > > R> Do we disagree on this point, or is the issue really "what I > define as practice" versus "what you define as practice"? > > :-) No we dont disagree. Is Buddhist practice > reading? What practices do you engage in? ===== The Bhumija Sutta defines "practice" as the Noble Eightfold Path and I guess if your target is Nibbana, this is the only option. Actually, I when I wrote the message, I was thinking more along the lines of the three bases of meritorious deeds (dana, sila, bhavana) as listed in the Sangiti Sutta (DN33). The commentary (Atthasalini) expands this list into ten: - Generosity - Transferring of merits - Rejoicing in other's merits - Virtue (keeping precepts) - Reverence - Service - Mental cultivation (some people translate this as "meditation") - Teaching the Dhamma - Studying the Dhamma - Straightening out one's views How does this list compare to yours? ===== > > How have you been btw? Good > health and spirits, I hope!! > ===== Life has been busier than usual :-) Metta, Rob M :-) 57921 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 10:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Some thoughts about Buddhism nilovg Dear Neil (and Jon), I was just talking about this subjkect with my husband Lodewijk, the other day. Lodewijk remarked that through the Dhamma you acquire more understanding of the joys and sorrows of life. We especially talked about sorrow and losses. More understanding that kamma is the cause of sorrowful experiences can be a consolation. Whatever we experience is conditioned already. We can react in a negative or positive way. We can come to know consciousness at this very moment and we learn not to cling to the past nor long for the future. It is the present moment that matters. How much learning is there, we can ask ourselves. We may be so much engaged with understanding the present moment that we think less of past sorrows and this can make life lighter. As to the Pali terms, I use these because I am following the Tipitaka in Pali, and also the Commentaries written in Pali. It is the language of the Theravada tradition. Nina. op 17-04-2006 12:47 schreef Jonothan Abbott op jonabbott@...: > The basic essences, it seems to me, again, can be absorbed in > a secular , tragic, but common-sense way: first of all, that life is > full of joy and full of sorrow, and that that is just the way it is. 57922 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: question on Acharn Neb. nilovg Hi Howard, she must be the same. I remember seeing her book, and something about sitting rupa, and this did not agree with me. There is no rupa that sits among the twentyeight rupas. Nina. op 17-04-2006 19:13 schreef upasaka@... op upasaka@...: > If Acharn Neb is the same person I have read of as Ajahn Naeb, she is > also a renowned meditation teacher who has the meditator refrain from any body > movement in order to see unpleasant bodily sensations arise (informally, > pain) and the aversion that follows. > > With metta, > Howard > 57923 From: "ericlonline" Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:12am Subject: Re: Breakfast with Sukin ericlonline Hi Rob, > > R> Do we disagree on this point, or is the issue really "what I > > define as practice" versus "what you define as practice"? > > E > :-) No we dont disagree. Is Buddhist practice > > reading? What practices do you engage in? > > ===== > > The Bhumija Sutta defines "practice" as the Noble Eightfold Path and > I guess if your target is Nibbana, this is the only option. > > Actually, I when I wrote the message, I was thinking more along the > lines of the three bases of meritorious deeds (dana, sila, bhavana) > as listed in the Sangiti Sutta (DN33). The commentary (Atthasalini) > expands this list into ten: > - Generosity Offer requisites to monks and to the needy. > - Transferring of merits After every sit. > - Rejoicing in other's merits Always glad when others are well and happy. > - Virtue (keeping precepts) Pretty easy. > - Reverence To those deserving. > - Service Volunteer time to the community at large and the Sangha. > - Mental cultivation (some people translate this as "meditation") Regulary and 1-10 retreats during the year. > - Teaching the Dhamma Not really qualified but I introduce ideas to those around me who are open to it. > - Studying the Dhamma Of course. > - Straightening out one's views Deconstuction in progress! > How does this list compare to yours? I inserted above. > ===== > > E> > How have you been btw? Good > > health and spirits, I hope!! > > > ===== > R> Life has been busier than usual :-) Hopfully it will slow down to allow you to be at ease and see more clearly. :-) Take it easy Rob!! 57924 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: question on Acharn Neb. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 4/17/06 2:11:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > she must be the same. > I remember seeing her book, and something about sitting rupa, and this did > not agree with me. There is no rupa that sits among the twentyeight rupas. > Nina. > ==================== I don't recall anything about a "sitting rupa," but I didn't read a book by her. 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) 57925 From: "ericlonline" Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:26am Subject: Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence ericlonline Hi Ken H & Tep, > Obviously, he was speaking of a reality other than people and rocks > etc. Obviously, he was saying, "I teach ultimate reality, and > ultimate realities are fleeting." What other interpretation could > there be? http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-015.html Replace "Everything" with "Ultimate Reality" and you will find one interpretation worth considering. "'Ultimate Reality exists': That is one extreme. 'Ultimate Reality doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle:... 57926 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Beliefs egberdina Hi Howard, Yes, I'm sorry I let some things slip through the cracks. There was an email from you, left unanswered for a few days, and then a computer crash in which all my data was lost. I get frustrated with my kids sometimes, when they won't let me know that they are caught up in the stuff of their lives, and just leave me to infer it :-) On 17/04/06, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Herman (and Rob) - > > > > > I would not necessarily advise folks to read the Abhidhamma or use the > > matika specific to it, but I would certainly advise people to practice > the > > abhidhamma method of reducing phenomena into constituent parts. > > > > > ====================== > I agree with you on this, Herman, provided that one doesn't throw > out > the synthetic approach when adopting the analytic one. (The Patthana is > the > "great book" of the Abhidhamma, don't forget, and conditionality is the > core of > the Dhamma.) === Yes, you are quite right. To call phenomenal reduction the abhidhamma method ignores all the other conceptual systems of the Abhidhamma. Perhaps it is better referred to as the dhammasangani method. Or just phenomenal reduction. Kind Regards Herman -- There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 57927 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Beliefs egberdina Hi Christine and everyone, Thank you for your kind words. Kind Regards Herman On 17/04/06, Christine Forsyth wrote: > > Hello Herman, all, > > Just passing through, noticed a familiar name, and a familiar style - > and thought I'd wave back ... nice to read you again, my friend. > Missed seeing you around the place. -- There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 57928 From: "mwesthei8" Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:43pm Subject: More questions about Ajaan Sujin mwesthei8 Dear Dhamma Friends, First of all I would like to thank all of you that have already taken the time to answer the questions that I have posted, all the information has been very helpful! As I continue to work on my thesis I have thought of more questions which I am unable to answer, but now I know this is the place to turn to! So with that said... One thing that I noticed in the responses of many was the de-emphasized role of meditation, whether one agrees or disagrees with this. I was hoping to get a bit more clarification on this, is there anywhere where Ajaan Sujin specifically addresses the role of meditation, and if so, what is her stance? Secondly, does Ajaan Sujin ever articulate the goal of Buddhism as being Nirvana? Thirdly, does Ajaan Sujin ever hold discussion on the idea of rebirth? While I feel I have an overall strong idea of the basic work of Ajaan Sujin, I am still trying to figure out how her work stands on its own and in comparison to others. This may be due to my inability to phrase the questions the way I hope to, but once again I greatly appreciate any answers. Thank you all! Marisa 57929 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Beliefs egberdina Hi Joop, Thank you for your kind "welcome back". On 17/04/06, Joop wrote: > > Hallo Herman > > Good to 'read you back'. Sarah already wrote that you still existed. > Unlearning is much more difficult than learning, I agree. 'Emptiness' > had to start with emptiness in my head. > The DSG continued; not only many messages of it belong (as ever, in > my opinion) more in a 'Pali Study Group' and also a growing number > belong more in a 'Sujin Study Group' then the 'Dhamma Study Group'. > I'm now nearly decided to stop with DSG: most messages don't inspire > me and I have the idea that my messages don't inpire other > participants. In my most recent one for excample I tried to convince > Sarah that Dhamma also means living with paradoxes, but she has not > (yet) answered. > But I know, you are the example, it's always possible to return to > DSG. == I understand what you are saying. From time to time I felt these things as well, not necessarily only in relation to dsg. Then I found it useful to bring out the old phenomenal reduction. I analysed those feelings into components, and it turns out I want to have influence, and to be stimulated. In effect, all communication is an attempt at influencing, controlling the course of events. Realising this, one can stop communicating, or continue. == > > BTW: Five cars, and old ones, I think: doesn't that give much air > pollution or is the environment not a problem in Australia? > > == At a government level, the environment is an unacknowledged problem in Australia. Australia, with the USA, will not sign the Kyoto protocol, because it will impact negatively on the economy. Better to be rich today and poisoned tomorrow, then not so rich today :-) Kind Regards Herman -- There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 57930 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Beliefs upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 4/17/06 5:51:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Yes, I'm sorry I let some things slip through the cracks. There was an email > from you, left unanswered for a few days, and then a computer crash in which > all my data was lost. ------------------------------------ Howard: "Stuff" happens, as they say! ;-) In any case, I'm glad to see that all is well. ------------------------------------ I get frustrated with my kids sometimes, when they> > won't let me know that they are caught up in the stuff of their lives, and > just leave me to infer it :-) ------------------------------------ Howard: LOL! ------------------------------------ > > On 17/04/06, upasaka@... wrote: > > > >Hi, Herman (and Rob) - > > > >> > >>I would not necessarily advise folks to read the Abhidhamma or use the > >>matika specific to it, but I would certainly advise people to practice > >the > >>abhidhamma method of reducing phenomena into constituent parts. > >> > >> > >====================== > > I agree with you on this, Herman, provided that one doesn't throw > >out > >the synthetic approach when adopting the analytic one. (The Patthana is > >the > >"great book" of the Abhidhamma, don't forget, and conditionality is the > >core of > >the Dhamma.) > > > === > > Yes, you are quite right. To call phenomenal reduction the abhidhamma method > ignores all the other conceptual systems of the Abhidhamma. Perhaps it is > better referred to as the dhammasangani method. Or just phenomenal > reduction. ------------------------------------- Howard: In any case, it is, indeed, important! :-) ------------------------------------ > > Kind Regards > > > Herman > > =================== 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) 57931 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Beliefs egberdina Hey James, > > James: Glad to see another message of yours. Your first message has > the tone of Taoism/Zen; that is a fantastic start! ;-)) I hope that > everything is going well with you. Take it easy and take it slow. > == Isn't it interesting that people all over the world are interested in the present moment, and that each appreciation of it has it's own emphasis? Cheers, big ears :-) Kind Regards Herman -- There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 57932 From: "indriyabala" Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:37pm Subject: Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence indriyabala Hi, KenH (also, Nina, Eric and others) - One issue at a time is fine with me. >KH: The use of "stress" as a translation for "dukkha" supports Ven. Thanissaro's heterodoxy. Thanissaro teaches that anatta is not a fact but a mere strategy for relaxing the mind (freeing it from stress). I don't object to your use of 'stress' if that is the translation you prefer, but I hope you won't mind my correcting you from time to time. :-) Tep: My use of 'dukkha' conforms with the original sutta (>Tep: I think this issue is a non-issue. There is only one Dhamma that the Buddha taught : dukkha and the cessation of dukkha...) No, I did not use "stress" as the translation of 'dukkha' like Ven. Thanissaro did. BTW With regard to correcting my errors, please feel free to do so whenever you find any. ============ >KH: All of his words necessarily imply, "I teach ultimate reality." Take as just one example, "All conditioned dhammas are anicca." My father lived to 93. Some rocks are more than a billion years old and likely to last several more billion years. If that was the Buddha's idea of fleeting, then he wasn't telling us much, was he? Obviously, he was speaking of a reality other than people and rocks etc. Obviously, he was saying, "I teach ultimate reality, and ultimate realities are fleeting." What other interpretation could there be? Tep: To avoid the tendency to digress, let's once again take a careful look at the Buddha's words you are referring to (please note that I have replaced "stress" by 'dukkha' in the translation below) : SN XXII.86 : "Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only dukkha that I describe, and the cessation of dukkha." SN XII.15 : "He has no uncertainty or doubt that just dukkha, when arising, is arising; dukkha, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view." Tep: We all know that without the "right view" no Buddhist could truly understand the Four Noble Truths (i.e. with no uncertainty, no grasping at precepts and practices, and no self-identity views). That's why the Lord Buddha taught "only" dukkha, its arising(samudhaya) and its cessation(dukkha nirodha). I acknowledge that conditioned ultimate realities (nama and rupa) are dukkha and that they are to be directly known(abhinnaata). But "ultimate realities" is just a label for 'nama and rupa' (sankhata dhammas), and that label was invented after the the Buddha's parinibbaana. The proof in in the pudding : search the whole Suttanta-pitaka for 'paramattha-dhamma', your effort will be in vain. Sincerely, Tep, your friend. ============ --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" wrote: > > > Hi Tep, > > I will take just one of your "issues" at a time. > > ---------- (snipped) 57933 From: "robmoult" Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 4:12pm Subject: Are concepts impermanent? robmoult Hi All, I was reading "The Buddhist Philosophy of Relations" (Patthanudessa Dipani) by Ledi Sayadaw's, Wheel Publication No. 331/333. The opening sentence of the translator's preface is, "Buddhism views the world, with the exception of Nibbana and pannatti, as impermanent, liable to suffering and without soul-essence." There is an interesting footnote to this sentence added by the BPS Editor (I assume that it was Bhikkhu Bodhi at the time, 1986), "Pannatti means concept or idea. The Venerable Author's and the Translator's view that concepts are not subject to impermanence is not supported by the canonical texts nor by the ancient commentaries." Metta, Rob M :-) 57934 From: LBIDD@... Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 4:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's not-self strategy bad? prompted. lbidd2 Hi Nina, I don't know what you mean by "induced". Not all cittas conditioned by words are prompted. A prompted citta is conditioned by a "should" but that actual word doesn't have to be spoken or thought, just the sense of it is enough. Many times words condition unprompted cittas. Your words were a condition for my response, but my response wasn't prompted. It can also happen that words can condition lokuttara cittas which are not classified as prompted or unprompted. I believe that was the case for Saariputta. Larry --------------------- Nina: "Hi Larry, There is no time for 'I should'. The unprompted kusala citta arises already, due to conditions. The way all this is explained is in conventional terms. As to induced, it is said, by oneself or someone else. Take the example of dosa-muulacitta that is induced because someone else tells one how bad another person is. At first he had no dosa and then he has. I take this as an example to illustrate the notion of induced. But at a given moment it is hard to tell how a citta is induced or whether it is induced. The word inhibit: yes, at the moment of kusala citta there is no opportunity for akusala citta. But when we consider this subject, it is to be remembered that cittas arise and fall away extremely rapidly. There is no time to do anything about the citta that has arisen already. It is hard to pinpoint when a citta is induced and when spontaneous. Nina." 57935 From: "indriyabala" Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 5:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence indriyabala Hi, Nina (KenH and others)- Thank you for the beautiful sutta quote and your fine comments. > N: .. Only by being directly aware and understanding > directly characteristics of paramattha dhammas we can really know what they are and also know that they are different from concepts. So, we are all in the same boat. It is not easy to directly know characteristics of realities at the moment they appear, without the need to name them. > You agree, I think, that the Buddha used conventional terms to explain dhammas depending on the audiance, but that he also explained them in a straightforward way if the listeners could grasp it. Tep: Indeed, naming a reality by means of "conventional terms" creates a label that is useful for the specific purpose. But because situations are different, that's why there are so many, uncountable labels in existence-- yet people still keep on inventing new labels all the time. {:>) ................................... >Nina: > I cannot resist quoting a good sutta about citta: > > We read in the ³Kindred Sayings² (II, Nidåna-vagga, XII, the Kindred Sayings on Cause, 7, the Great Chapter § 61, The Untaught) that the Buddha, while he was staying near Såvatthí at Jeta Grove in Anåthapiùèika¹s Park, said to the monks: > > Yet this, monks, what we call thought, what we call mind, what we call consciousness (citta), by this the untaught manyfolk are not able to feel repelled, they are not able to cease fancying it or to be freed from it. Why so? For many a long day, monks, has it been for the uninstructed many folk that to which they cling, that which they call ³mine², that which they wrongly conceive, thinking- that is mine, this I am, this is myself. Hence the untaught many folk are not able to feel repelled by it, are not able to cease fancying it, are not able to be freed from it.... But as to this, monks, what we call thought, what we call mind, what we call consciousness: > one citta arises when another perishes, day and night....> > Tep: Yes. Some folk who are instructed (with right kind of knowledge and understanding of 'anatta') can quickly feel repelled by 'this body', and cease to cherish it merely from seeing that it is conditioned by the four great elements that "come together" .... This sutta is another proof that the "thinking that is mine, this I am, this is myself" is caused by clinging to nama and rupa -- importantly, such clinging results from a wrong view ("they wrongly conceive ..."). This is the only sutta I have found which states that 'consciousness', 'mind' and 'thought' are interchangeable. ....................................... >Nina: > Here the Buddha taught directly about citta, about the fact that each citta is succeeded by the next citta. > I do not mind about the name paramattha dhamma, or wonder why paramattha is not used in the suttas (I think this word is once mentioned in connection with truth). I mind about what this term represents. The Buddha also used the term dhammas or dhaatus, elements, or khandhas. These represent realities that can be directly known when they appear, realities with characteristics. Tep: Yes, he stated that there were cittas, arising and perishing sequentially, may I say: this process is like a continuous flow of events. Can you recall where you have seen 'paramattha' in the suttanta-pitaka? It will be a great favor for me. Neither do I worry about the label 'paramattha' for these dhammas that are known in the suttas as khandhas, dhatus, ayatanas, etc.. As long as I know that they are dukkha, and that they are to be "directly known", then I am happy enough. Warm regards, Tep ==== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Hi Tep, op 16-04-2006 21:57 schreef indriyabala op indriyabala@...: > That is an interesting topic at the border line between the > suttas and the Abhidhamma. > It is important in the sense that many people(including myself) are > still debating that issue ______ N: yes, understandable. 57936 From: "indriyabala" Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 5:16pm Subject: Re: Beliefs indriyabala Hi, my friend Herman - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" wrote: > > Hi all, > > Back again. For those who know me, a big wave and a big hug. > I certainly "know" you as a very good writer who has plenty of good ideas and lots of enthusiasm. Do I deserve a big wave or a big hug? {:>) Best wishes, Tep ======== 57937 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 8:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Beliefs sarahprocter... Dear Joop, --- Joop wrote: > I'm now nearly decided to stop with DSG: most messages don't inspire > me and I have the idea that my messages don't inspire other > participants. In my most recent one for example I tried to convince > Sarah that Dhamma also means living with paradoxes, but she has not > (yet) answered. ... S: Hang in there, Joop. You make a very important contribution here – challenging and questioning what everyone says and giving your own fresh perspective. Perhaps I didn’t realize that you were waiting for an answer or your post got buried with many others which I intend to respond to when I can. When friends ask me for my comments or response to qus, I tend to respond more than when someone is just trying to ‘convince’ me of something which I’m not convinced of:-). Anyway, let me fish it out from the pile and take another look: > --- Joop wrote: >First a typo in my message 54779: "I'm afraid what you think 'volition' is, is something what I think of it." had to be: "I'm afraid what you think 'volition' is, is something else as what I think of it."< .... S: When I refer to volition, I’m referring to cetana cetasika. When we refer to volition in common language, we’re referring to various different dhammas, sometimes including self-view. What’s your idea? .... J: >I know you are somebody with much metta, karuna and mudidat (and more); so my answer is "no" But I'm afraid that you don't analyse your "experience of living and spending time with these friends has been the complete opposite" correct. Forget everything mrs. Sujin told you and contemplate this experience afterwards: it has volition: you feel metta and then you behave with metta.< .... S: I’m not clear of your point. I don’t see much point in post-experience analysis and what's the point in trying to forget anything when any such thinking is conditioned to arise? .... J: >Accept that you have "ethical standards", as you say: accept that thse 'concepts' exist because you want that they exist in you. OK; it are paradoxes, because "you" don't exist, so the next exercise I give you is: accept that paradoxes.< ... S: I still can’t see any questions in your post or anything you asked me to comment on:-). Let’s talk about sila or ethical standards then. There is sila whenever there are ‘good’ mental states and these come about because of a) our natural tendencies or inclinations for such and/or b) because of an understanding of the value. I don’t see any paradox at all – there are no ethical standards in anyone – merely conditioned good and bad tendencies arising and falling as well other dhammas. I probably didn’t rush to respond because I knew you wouldn’t like my answer:-) Just speaking for myself, if I’m writing to friends like you or James, I generally try to avoid using much Pali or mentioning A.Sujin. If I’m writing to other friends who appearing the Pali terms (like Nina, Han, Tep, the Robs & Htoo to name just a few) or Sujin’s reminders (like Marisa recently specifically asked for such and many others too), then I use them. Isn't that fair? I apologise that we cannot run the list in a way that pleases everyone, but I do urge you to start your own threads with others or join in these ones anytime. We do all hear you:-). (I think we've had this conversation before). Was there anything else I’ve missed? Metta, Sarah p.s I know you travel around in Europe – if you are in Denmark anytime, I think you and Charles D would enjoy meeting up – I’m meeting him on the Peak tomorrow for another discussion/walk/b’fast before he flies back. He’s very pleasant company and also wishes to discuss some social issues with me. ========== 57938 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How to radiate metta sarahprocter... Dear Joop, Let me buy into a couple of your other discussions while I have you in mind: --- Joop wrote: > When studying Bhikkhu Bodhi's Guide to §16 of chapter III of the > Abhidhammata Sangaha I read: > "It should be noted that a citta in its immediacy cannot become an > object, for the cognizer cannot cognize itself; but A CITTA in an > individual mental continuum CAN EXPERIENCE earlier cittas in that > same continuum as well as THE CITTAS OF OTHER BEINGS." (p.136; > capitals me) Q.E.D. ! ... S: I agree with Tep that we need to consider these comments carefully. A citta can experience the characteristic of a citta (or other dhamma) that has just fallen away. To all purposes, it is still considered as the 'present' reality. For example, seeing consciousness only arises and experiences visible object in the eye-door process, but the characterisitc of seeing consciousness can be experienced and known immediately afterwards in the mind-door process. Cittas arise and fall away so quickly. Unless we're talking about the abhi~n~nas or supernormal knowledges, it's impossible to know the cittas of other beings. I think people misunderstand the meaning of 'external' or 'external cittas'. It doesn't mean we can know the others' cittas, but whilst thinking of others, there can be awareness of our own cittas at such times. For example, we see someone suffering. We never experience that person's cittas, but (our) seeing sees visible object, thinking with memory marks it, compassion may arise. Awareness cannot be aware of the other, but it can be aware of the seeing, visible object, thinking or compassion at such a time, all conditioned by the 'other'. In the commentary to the part of the Ab. Sangaha which the note above was based on, it says 'a dhamma as object is a mind object' and then 'But mind object comprises six kinds: the sensitive materialities, subtle materialities, consciousness, mentalities, nibbana, and concepts. Later the commentary does mention the inclusion of 'higher knowledge impulsions, which occur by way of the divine eye' and further details are given in ch9. There it goes into detail about the emergence from 5th jhana as the basis for the abhi~n~naas. Lots of detail is given. Metta, Sarah p.s Your post #56626 - anicca is a characteristic of realities. Accumulations are realities, such as compassion or anger now. D.O. also refers to realities. Avijja (ignorance) is a reality which arises, accumulates and conditions other dhammas in many ways. ============== 57939 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 10:04pm Subject: Re: Wasted time (Was:[dsg] Re: Lodewijk's post on the long way. sarahprocter... Hi Joop, This is the last for now:-) --- Joop wrote: > For Nina and James and everybody whom it concerns, the Mahacunda > Sutta below: we need both Dhamma-study and meditation! <...> > MAHACUNDA SUTTA (Anguttara Nikaya VI.46) > Thus I have heard -- On one occasion the Venerable Mahacunda was > living in Ceti at Sayamjati. At that time, the Venerable Mahacunda > aðressed the monks: "Monks!" > "Yes, friend." > "Here, friends, there are monks who are dedicated to the Dhamma that > harass and disparage the meditation monks by saying: 'Those > meditators, they meditate, premeditate, out-meditate, and > mismeditate. Of what do they meditate upon? On account of what do > they meditate? What is their motivation?' Here, neither the monks who > are dedicated to the Dhamma, nor the meditation monks find > contentment. Moreover, they do not practice for the good and well- > being of the multitude, nor for the welfare, the good, and the well- > being of gods and men. > "Likewise, friends, there are meditation monks that harass and > disparage the monks who are dedicated to the Dhamma by saying: 'Those > monks who are dedicated to the Dhamma are conceited, arrogant, and > unsteady, talkative and scattered in speech, absent-minded and > unmindful, with minds wandering and faculties unrestrained. Of what > are they dedicated to the Dhamma for? On account of what are they > dedicated to the Dhamma? What is their motivation?' <....> S: Thanks for reminding me of this sutta again. As usual, we have to consider what is meant by 'meditation' and 'meditator' in the context. I'd be grateful if you'd read the following posts on this topic and sutta and give me your feedback: 'Scholars & Meditators, Scholarship' 33934, 37262, 37330, 48551 *************************** Metta, Sarah ====== 57940 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 10:34pm Subject: Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence ken_aitch Hi Tep, I have seen your comments on my previous post, thank you. We seem to be drifting off the subject: the exact wording found in the suttas (and whether or not the term "paramattha dhamma" was used) is of no consequence as far as I am concerned. My point was that the way we see the world changes massively when we understand the Buddha's teaching of 'no self.' Some Buddhists (including some DSG members) disagree. ---------------------------------- Tep: > Issue #2 : >KenH: I won't say there are two sides at DSG, but there are two perspectives. There is the "anatta means no control" perspective, and there is the "anatta doesn't mean very much at all" perspective. ---------------------------------- I am sure all DSG members will agree that the teaching of anatta was an important event of cosmos-shaking proportions, however, some of us think it becomes relevant after enlightenment, not before. Those people argue, for example, that anatta has no bearing on how we practise satipatthana. Needless to say, it is not just at DSG that this way of thinking predominates. All around the world, Buddhism has become indistinguishable from countless forms of religious escapism. People are using mind-altering techniques to attain gee-wiz experiences and telling us, "This is what the Buddha taught!" It is a lamentable gross trivialisation of the Dhamma and an inevitable consequence of 'putting anatta aside until later.' -------------------------------- T: > The true Dhamma about 'anatta' is summarized as follows: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self'. This seeing 'anatta' in 'dhatus' and 'khandhas' helps us to eradicate wrong views(sakkhaya-ditthi) that cause the clinging to the five aggregates. It also helps us abandon other wrong views about the worlds. The main goal is in eradication of dukkha, not about what kind of realities things are. -------------------------------- Here again, you are bringing in strange arguments that only break down communication. You say, "The main goal is in eradication of dukkha, not about what kind of realities things are." What does that statement mean? Does it help our discussion, or does it just confuse the issues? Enlightenment and the consequential release from dukkha (at parinibbana), come about by our seeing the conditioned world as it really is - mere mental and physical phenomena bearing the three characteristics anicca, dukkha and anatta. Therefore, the purpose of Dhamma study is to learn all we can about those mental and physical phenomena (the five khandhas, the elements, the paramattha dhammas). Ken H 57941 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 10:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Please don't run away yet, DAN 1.ii sarahprocter... Hi Dan, As I said in another post, I’ve been enjoying (& am grateful for) your recent flurry of posts as usual. Le t me try to reply to a post from your last flurry (#54662) to me, before you disappear again:). --- "Dan D." wrote: > Sarah: "2. On Yoniso, javanas and fruit (#54175)... > 3...I think when it?s suggested that the yoniso manasikara only > refers to manodvaravajjana citta, it gives this citta undue > importance and it's quite illogical" > > D:--> I don't think the logic and details of a conceptual framework > are so critical. The question is whether the words are aiding the > development of panya/satipatthana/vipassana or whether they are > acting as a stumbling block, facilitating papanca, functioning as > objects of lobha. One attractive aspect of the "manodvaravajjana as > yoniso manasikara" model is that, by decidedly and unambiguously > putting yoniso manasikara outside of javanas, it presents such a > strong challenge to the sakayaditthi of "I will now pay wise > attention to cittas and cetasikas" because the idea of control over > dhammas is so wrapped up with common conceptions about javana. .... S: I think the conceptual framework and development have to be in accord. When people put the yoniso manasikara outside the javanas and just think of the manodvaravajjana, it seems to me that they inevitably think in terms of somehow steering the course of javanas which follow. They give the manodvaravajjana undue importance and think that it is this (rather than past accumulations, past javanas) which condition the present javanas. In fact, the manodvaravajjana is just one citta, one ahetuka citta which precedes the javanas. .... >The > model "vithi as yoniso manasikara" is more intellectually satisfying > (logical) to be sure, but is there clinging to a model right now? > Let's not let craving for the perfect model lead us away from > understanding reality as it is. .... S: Agreed. From memory, it was you who brought up the thread and I was just pointing out a useful point as I saw it:-). .... > > Sarah: "6. Back to (#54175) and whether the theory has to be exactly > right in order to observe reality. It depends:-). In some cases it?s > obvious that if the theory is wrong, the practice will be wrong." > > D:--> My contention is that all theories are wrong. What I mean is > that no description of reality is a perfect match for reality as it > is. .... S: No – there is right theory (pariyatti) and wrong theory based on wrong view. There is right path and wrong path. Right theory is an important condition for the right path and wrong theory for the wrong path. Part of the right theory would be the appreciation that theory is only theory, quite different from the reality which is described or understood. .... >But the purpose constructing a verbal formulation of Dhamma > (or "dhammas") is not to provide a perfect match for reality but to > illuminate a particular aspect of reality to the listener or talker. ..... S: Yes, as a condition for understanding to develop. Not for anything else. <...> > Sarah: "8. Gratitude for life and lovely sunsets and showing one?s > appreciation. It came up in Bangkok too ? pure lobha!!" > > D:--> It's not so simple, Sarah. Sometimes it might be lobha for the > beauty; other times it might be that joy and appreciation arise when > there just happens to be a sunset going on, and then the mind seeks > for an object to cling to. Not PURE lobha. .... S: So what is the object of the joy and appreciation when it arises? If it’s not dana, sila or bhavana, then it’s going to be joy accompanying lobha. Of course there may be bhavana at such times, but I think in the example given, it was ‘gratitude for life and sunsets....’ I agree we can easily over-generalise. .... <...> > > D:--Vedana accompanies all > cittas. Another way to say it is: A characteristic of all cittas is > they are accompanied by vedana. How is that any different from saying > that vedana is a characteristic of citta? ..... >S: The characteristic of citta is not vedana. Citta doesn’t feel pleasant or unpleasant or neutral, it just takes the lead in experiencing its object. Seeing consciousness (citta) sees visible object, vedana feels the object in a neutral way. Different functions. ........ > And how can you say something like "seeing sees" and then > say "[citta] doesn't ...perceive at all"? Isn't the "seeing" you > refer to 'citta'? And the "sees", perceiving? .... S: Sa~n~naa perceives – marks and remembers the object seen. Seeing doesn’t remember or mark at all. It just sees it. Remember the analogy of the child, the old woman and the money-lender experiencing the coins, referring to the different functions of citta, sa~n~naa and pa~n~naa. Vi~n~naa.na, sa~n~naa and pa~n~naa all come from the same root as I recall – ‘to know’, but they know or experience in different ways. ..... <...> > D:--> I was thinking of "remembering" as the sense that one finds the > object familiarity. This sense of familiarity is "flavoring" I was > referrring to. .... S: I think the sense of familiarity we have when we see a familiar face or taste a kind of food is due to the role of sa~n~naa. The flavor of the object associated with the feeling experienced is the role of vedana, surely? But maybe we’re just tripping over words here. .... > > Sarah: "11. In a post on ?Reading commentaries and Abhidhamma? > (#54044), you refer to how ?Seeing sharp, clear beginnings and > endings of cittas is an essential first step of development of > insight? and how ?Insight into conditionality only comes with clear > discernment of rise and fall and rise-and-fall.? Could you give me > one or some of the references to this which you have in mind? What > happened to the clear understanding and knowledge of the distinction > between namas and rupas as a first stage and insight into > conditionality as a second stage?" > > D:--> Just depends on where you start the counting. Vism discusses > knowledge of rise and fall as the first of eight insight knowledges. > If you want to take namarupaparicchedanyana as the first step in > development of insight, that's fine. .... S: OK, you’re talking about the maha or great insight knowledges. I wouldn’t call these any ‘essential first step in the development of insight’, but a very high degree of developed insight. ..... <...> S: On the comments about cittas experiencing objects etc – > D:--> Is there clinging to a particular formulation at the present > moment? ... S: I believe this part of the thread started with Howard’s and your objects to such phrases: > > BB weighs in (CMA I:3): "The Pali word 'citta' is derived from the > verbal root 'citi', to cognize, to know. The commentators define > citta in three ways: as agent, as instrument, and as activity. As the > agent, citta is that which cognizes an object (arammanam cinteti ti > cittam). As the instrument, citta is that by mean of which the > accompanying mental factors cognize the object (etena cintenti ti > cittam). As an activity, citta is itself nothing other than the > process of cognizing the object (cintanamattam cittam). The third > definition, in terms of sheer activity, is regarded as the most > adequate of the three: that is, citta is fundamentally an activity or > process of cognizing or knowing an object. ..... S: I don’t think the use of ‘activity’ or ‘process’ to refer to a single citta is very helpful. I know Howard and others like to use activity. The commentary (which this is based on) says (PTS transl): “Alternatively, consciousness is the mere act of being conscious (citana). For it is its mere occurrence in accordance with conditions that is called ‘a dhamma with its own particular nature’ (sabhaava-dhamma). In consideration of this, it is the definition of the particular natures of ultimate dhammas that is taken as absolute; the explanation by way of agent (kattar) and instrument (kara.na) should be seen as a relative manner of speaking.....The explanation in these terms should be understood as for the purpose of indicating the non-existence of an agent, etc, apart from the particular nature of a dhamma.” .... S: Just as you also quoted here: .... >It is not an agent or > instrument possessing actual being in itself apart from the activity > of cognizing. The definitions in terms of agent and instrument are > proposed to refute the wrong view of those who hold that a permanent > self or ego is the agent and instrument of cognition. ...This citta > is nothing other than the act of cognizing, and that act is > necessarily impermanent, marked by rise and fall." > > None of the three models/formulations/definitions are perfect, but > each highlights a different aspect. It is good to consider citta in > each of the three ways. .... S: Yes. We can use whichever formulation we find helpful. .... > > Sarah: "As I quoted recently from the commentary to the Abhidhamattha > Sangaha: > ..... > ? ?Consciousness (citta) is that which is conscious; the meaning is > that it knows (vijaanaati) an object. So it is said: ?Consciousness > has the characteristic of knowing objects.?? ?That which exists in > the mind (cetasi) by occurring in dependence upon it is mentality > (cetasika). For it is unable to take an object without > consciousness;?" > > D:--> Yes, Sarah. I find it curious that you would only cite the > first two formulations (agent, instrumentality) and leave out the > third (activity). Is the third not mentioned, or did you just > overlook it? I don't have the copy of the commentary that you are > referring to, but I bet the third is in there. ... S: I’ve quoted it now. I quoted the earlier ones only because it was my language along those lines only that Howard was objecting to as I recall. I was showing that such use is common in the texts. I agree that for the sake of ‘completeness’ I could have quoted another paragraph , but I expect I was quoting what I thought was most relevant at the time. ..... S:> If we say that ?citta IS the experience? as you would prefer, is > there not a merging or blending of citta and its object?" > > D:--> I see how carrying the formulation "citta IS the experience" > too far or clinging to it mightily or taking it out of the context in > which it was used could lead to such confusion. Better is "citta is > the experiencing." .... S: I have no objection to that of course. I also think it’s very common in the texts to refer to citta experiencing objects without there being any mis-understanding at all and in fact a stress on there being no self, mere dhammas, mere elements which perform their functions when they arise momentarily. Always good to talk to you, Dan (and never easy:-)). Metta, Sarah =========== 57942 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:what is sati. sarahprocter... Dear Kom, I was going to add a few more comments to your posts but waited til you returned from Sri Lanka. Any special impressions there? I liked your post to James very much which was full of good reminders: --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > The teaching is simple (I know you love this beginning already). > Anything can be an object of lobha (attachment), mana (conceit), and > dithi (wrong view), except for the supramundate realities (paths, > fruits, > and nirvana), not excluding mindfulness, wisdom, and the rest of the > stuffs that we perceive as good. > > From my experience (which I urge anyone to be careful with!), you > don't need to be a monk to realize that mindfulness is a good object for > lobha, mana, and ditthi. When you think of mindfulness that it is > yours, > it's lobha, when you think I have mindfulness, it's mana, and when you > think that (probably not as often, if you take the Buddha's teachings > well > enough) it is you, then it's dithi. I think there are always plenty of > conceit to go around, not barring any dhamma forum/group. It's easy > to think, I am practicing mindfulness while other people are doing > something else. Anything good is great object for lobha, mana, and > dithi. .... S: So true and true regardless of the environment as a result of our for such built up over countless lifetimes. I was reflecting on a reminder I heard about the difference between pa~n~naa (wisdom) as an indriya (faculty) and pa~n~naa as a bala (power) in the context of satipatthana. Usually we are very disturbed by our akusala (unwholesome) tendencies, but when pa~n~naa is a bala it’s different in that no matter what the degree of akusala, it can be the object of understanding. I think as we often discussed before, the more sati and pa~n~naa develop, the more akusala becomes apparent. There is more sacca parami (truthfulness) to see it for one thing. Would you agree? ... > > In the commentaries to the Satipatthana suttra, when the commentator > summarized the "practice" into the 4 noble truths, he inevitably pointed > out mindfulness as the truth of suffering. This may seem strange at > first, as we are more prone to be aware of the more serious states like > anger, jealousy, and strong lobha, while in fact, even mindfulness of > those strong states must be known as nama-rupa, as conditioned > dhamma, as something that is impermanent, suffering, and non-self. > Because without this knowledge, then we would cling to the mindfulness > as mine, me, and self as well, and liberation stays impossible. .... S: Very well said. In another post, you were referring to having heard A.Sujin (I assume) say that phassa couldn’t be known and this didn’t seem to be in accordance with the texts. On a tape I heard a few days ago, this point came up in the context of a discussion on sa~n~naa: “...Talking about realities when there’s no awareness of any reality – that’s why there’s doubt all the time about this or that. We can know our ability (as to) whether we can be aware of sa~n~naa and phassa or other cetasikas (now) or leave it to sati and accumulations without any expectation at all of what will appear to be the object of right awareness when it’s developed. Just study in order to let go – not clinging to any realities as we do when we don’t understand anything about realities at all. “After that, when sati arises it has to do so together with detachment. Otherwise it cannot really see reality as it is because lobha is there to hinder all the time. That’s why it’s said the 4NT are subtle. Even the path is subtle too.” ..... S: This was similar to the comments I think I mentioned I’d heard before. We can just test out what awareness there is now and see how useless it is to have any expectations about what will be known and when in the future. Btw, thank you for recounting the story of Tissa Samanera so nicely. ‘Have only happiness!’, I also liked your reminders (#56865) bout applying the four great principles to the teachings of what we hear from people and checking whether they really are in accord with the Dhamma. Again, I don’t think it’s just a matter of being in accord with the ‘words’ or ‘books’, but in accord with the subtle path of satipatthana. Pariyatti after all, is about firm understanding of what the path is, rather than having great textual knowledge. One can jiggle models forever and never quite appreciate what the teachings are about, don’t you think? I came across another good AN sutta in this regard about understanding the meaning rather than the word, but it’s not at hand. Thanks again for your posts which many of us appreciated a lot. I'd be interested to hear any more of your comments on different models and so on. Good for discussion here. Metta, Sarah ======= 57943 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Are concepts impermanent? egberdina Hi Rob M, This is interesting for at least two reasons. Can anything unreal be subject to change? seems an obvious question to ask. The second question would be, why go to a book to find the answer? Kind Regards Herman On 18/04/06, robmoult wrote: > > Hi All, > > I was reading "The Buddhist Philosophy of Relations" (Patthanudessa > Dipani) by Ledi Sayadaw's, Wheel Publication No. 331/333. > > The opening sentence of the translator's preface is, "Buddhism views > the world, with the exception of Nibbana and pannatti, as impermanent, > liable to suffering and without soul-essence." > > There is an interesting footnote to this sentence added by the BPS > Editor (I assume that it was Bhikkhu Bodhi at the time, > 1986), "Pannatti means concept or idea. The Venerable Author's and the > Translator's view that concepts are not subject to impermanence is not > supported by the canonical texts nor by the ancient commentaries." > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > -- There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 57944 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Beliefs egberdina Dear Tep, Two big hugs and a medium sized wave for you :-) Kind Regards Herman On 18/04/06, indriyabala wrote: > > > Hi, my friend Herman - > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > Back again. For those who know me, a big wave and a big hug. > > > > I certainly "know" you as a very good writer who has plenty of good > ideas and lots of enthusiasm. > > Do I deserve a big wave or a big hug? {:>) -- There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 57945 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The place of "meditation" .concentration. nimitta, nibbaana. sarahprocter... Dear Nina & Scott (& Jon), butting in here..... --- nina van gorkom wrote: > My question to Jon: I do not quite understand that the charactertistic > of a > reality is the nimitta of it. But perhaps I am reasoning too much. ... S: As I understand, the nimitta is the characteristic. Gradually as understanding develops, it gets closer and closer to directly knowing the realities themselves rather than the nimittas of them. As she said, we understand and talk about there being concepts and realities only. Usually we live in the world of concepts and take these for being realities. Slowly, as we learn about realities, the understanding gets closer and closer to knowing the realities. So there are degrees or levels of ‘nimitta’. .... N:> A. Sujin explained that we can only really understand nimitta through > insight. At the stage of the first principal insight the arising and > falling > away of realities is realized. Then paññaa understands that there is a > reality without nimitta and that is nibbaana. ..... S: I understood her to be saying something that realities are only clearly known as realities when there is this knowledge of the arising and falling away of dhammas. Before that, it is the nimittas of realities which are known. .... N:> Nibbaana does not arise and fall, and thus it is without nimitta. ... S: True. > --------- > Scott: > I was thinking, as you help me to > > clarify, of what you have referred to above as "reviewing pa.n.na > > after the lokuttara cittas that experience nibbaana have fallen away." > > I'm assuming that these lokuttara cittas which experience nibbaana do > > so with the rapidity that is their nature and so the traces of this > > experience which are there to be caught up with by the subsequent > > cittas and cetasikas. I was wondering whether the "memory" of the > > experience is "nimitta." What is "reviewing pa.n.na?" .... S: Just to add to Nina’s comments on this – I don’t think it’s anything to do with nimitta. The reality (whether nibbana, lokuttara citta or other dhamma) is clearly known just as it was by this ‘reviewing pa~n~naa’. It’s like the way visible object or seeing consciousness can be clearly experienced and known in the subsequent mind-door process. See ‘navattabam’ in U.P. Metta, Sarah p.s Nina, have a good trip and good discussion nutrition:) ======== --- nina van gorkom wrote: > After more reflection I think that characteristics appear and can be > known > and that that is the nimitta of visible object, sound, etc. > Nina. 57946 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 0:07am Subject: Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence ken_aitch --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ericlonline" wrote: > > Hi Ken H & Tep, > > > Obviously, he was speaking of a reality other than people and > rocks > > etc. Obviously, he was saying, "I teach ultimate reality, and > > ultimate realities are fleeting." What other interpretation could > > there be? > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-015.html > > Replace "Everything" with > "Ultimate Reality" and you > will find one interpretation > worth considering. > > "'Ultimate Reality exists': That is one extreme. 'Ultimate Reality > doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two > extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle:... Hi Eric, Thanks for joining in. I am all in favour of learning Dhamma via the middle. I think that means understanding that only namas and rupas exist: there are no people, no rocks, no Ken H, no Eric. Is that how you see it? Ken H 57947 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 0:13am Subject: Re: Are concepts impermanent? ken_aitch Hi Rob M, Isn't it self evident that concepts don't really exist? In what way could it be said that non-existent things are anicca? Is eternity anicca? Ken H 57948 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 0:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] James' Long Response (Re:what is sati.) sarahprocter... Hi James, Thanks for all your considered comments in your long response to several of us. Pls excuse the snipping: --- buddhatrue wrote: > Well, to break it down, again from the Nidanasamyutta Sutta: > > "And what, bhikkhus, is craving? There are these six classes of > craving: craving for forms, craving for sounds, craving for odours, > craving for tastes, craving for tactile objects, craving for mental > phenomena. This is called craving." > > Is sati a form? > Is sati a sound? > Is sati an odour? > Is sati a taste? > Is sati a tatile object? > Is sati a mental phenomena (like a thought, feeling, or emotion)? ... S: The last. Sati is a mental phenomena. Here, I believe, mental phenomena refers to anything experienced through the mind-door. Like feeling, awareness is a mental factor which not only accompanies consciousness, but can also be experienced. When it's experienced, it can be with wise or unwise attention. Do you not agree? ..... > "And what, bhikkhus, is clinging? There are these four kinds of > clinging: clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, clinging > to rules and vows, clinging to a doctrine of self. This is called > clinging." > > Is sati a sensual pleasure? > Is sati a view? > Is sati a rule or vow? > Is sati a doctrine of self? ... S: Clinging to sensual objects (kaamupaadaana) includes all objects of clinging that are not accompanied by the others with wrong view. So all the 'mental phenomena' above are included. (Only exceptions as others have said are supramundane dhammas). .... <...> > So, why is all of this important? This is important because it > isn't helpful to believe that sati can be the object of craving or > clinging. Unlike what Sarah has said above, the doctrine of self > doesn't cause clinging to everything except the paths, the fruits, > and nibbana- clinging is what causes the doctrine of self! .... S: And yet it is only when the wrong idea of self is eradicated that other kinds of wrong view are also eradicated and the release from samsara is assured. I agree with you that craving (and ignorance) are what leads to the cycle, but it is particularly craving with wrong view. Even when it doesn't arise, the latent tendency is still there. .... > What I have also hoped to point out with this post is that the KS > philosophy places the wrong emphasis on the doctrine of self because > it doesn't rightly see the doctrine of self in terms of dependent > origination. .... S: The first link is avijja - it is especially the ignorance of the 4NT. While there is a wrong idea of self having mastery over states, there cannot be any removal of avijja. It's the wisdom which sees the dhammas for what they are that removes avijja, making it possible for the 4NT to be known. .... > I hope this post hasn't been too long, but this is a complicated > issue. ... S: I agree it's complicated and I was glad you wrote a long, detailed and well-reasoned post. Can we agree that all aspects need to be stressed - i.e ignorance, craving and wrong view? I also agree with you (I think), that it's usually clinging to an idea (or fantasy) of sati, rather than sati itself.... Thanks for helping me to reflect more on this. Metta, Sarah ======== 57949 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 0:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence egberdina Hey, Ken, My not make it a foursome. Hi Eric, > > Thanks for joining in. I am all in favour of learning Dhamma via the > middle. I think that means understanding that only namas and rupas > exist: there are no people, no rocks, no Ken H, no Eric. Is that how > you see it? > > Ken H > > > Actually namas and rupas don't exist either. Namas and rupas are are no less concepts / categories then rocks and people. Once you start saying "this is / was a nama, that is / was a rupa" you may as well be talking about rocks and people. It is not a characteristic of any phenomenon that it properly is a nama or a rupa. The question "What is / was ........ is always loaded, and will always lead on a self-fulfilling goose chase. Because it aims to capture what is already gone. No phenomenon propely belongs in a category. What is a characteristic of any phenomenon is anicca. What say you? Kind Regards Herman -- There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 57950 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 0:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:what is sati. sarahprocter... Hi Eric, Thx for coming in on this thread too - --- ericlonline wrote: > S: After you show some generosity to someone or have metta, is there > never any attachment to that kindness afterwards? Do you never > think `ah, that was a good deed I did' with some satisfaction or > clinging to being a kind person at such a time? > > I NEVER think that Sarah. I just try and > help where and when I can. Simple as that. .... S: OK - wrong example for you. It was just an indication of how kusala and akusala states follow each other. We're all different of course. There may even be clinging to the fact that such thoughts never arise:-). .... > > 1. Sappurisa Sutta, 113 > > "Moreover, an untrue man who is learned...who is expert in the > Discipline...who is a preacher of the Dhamma...who is a forest > dweller...who is a refuse-rag earer...an almsfood eater...a tree-root > dweller.... a charnel-ground dweller..an open-air dweller.... a > continual > sitter....an any-bed user....a one-session eater considers thus: `I > am a > one-session eater; but these other bhikkhus are not one-session > eaters.' > So he lauds himself and disparages others....... > > `Moreover, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from > unwholesome states, an untrue man enters upon and abides in the first > jhana [later 2nd jhana and so on up to `enters and abides in the > base of > neither-perception-nor-non-perception'].....He considers thus: `I > have > gained the attainment of the first jhana [and later for all the other > attainments repeated]; but these other bhikkhus have not gained the > attainment of the first jhana.' So he lauds himself and disparages > others because of his attainment of the first jhana......" .... E:> Those thoughts do not arise > while in jhana but only after. > The problem here is not with jhana > but with self view. .... S: Yes!! (With self view and self clinging). ..... S:> 2.Uddesavibhanga Sutta, MN138: > > "He regards feeling as > self....perception...formations...consciousness as > self, or self as possessed of consciousness, or consciousness as in > self, > or self as in consciousness. That consciousness of his changes and > becomes > otherwise. With the change and becoming otherwise of that > consciousness, > his consciousness is preoccupied with the change of consciousness. > Agitated states of mind born of preoccupation with the change of > consciousness arise together and remain obsessing his mind. Because > his > mind is obsessed, he is anxious, distressed, and concerned, and due > to > clinging he becomes agitated. That is how there is agitation due to > clinging." .... E:> Again, this is not > a problem with jhana. > Jhana is not the cause > of this. Clinging to > being is. .... S: Yes. The cause of akusala is never the jhana or other kusala states. the suttas were just to show how there can be clinging as soon as those pure states have fallen away. .... S:> 3. Gopakamoggallaana Sutta, MN 108: > > (Ananda speaking): > "The Blessed One, Brahmin, did not praise every type of meditation > (jhaana.m), nor did he condemn every type of meditation. What kind of > meditation did the Blessed One not praise? Here, Brahmin, someone > abides with his mind obsessed by sensual lust > (kaamaraagapariyu.t.thitena cetasaa > viharati), a prey to sensual lust, and he does not understand as it > actually is the escape from arisen sensual lust. > > "While he harbours sensual lust within, he meditates, premeditates, > out-meditates, and mismeditates (jhaayanti pajjhaayanti nijjhaayanti > apajjhaayanti). He abides with his mind obsessed by sloth and > torpor, a prey to sloth and torpor....with his mind obsessed by > restlessness and remorse......obsessed by doubt, a prey to doubt, > and he does not understand as it actually is the escape from arisen > doubt. While he harbours doubt within, he meditates, premeditates, > out-meditates, and mismeditates. The Blessed One did not praise that > kind of meditation." .... E:> This is a great snippet here. > Clearly showing that if you > are meditating and the 5 > hindrances are there and you > are doing nothing about them, > then you are mismeditating. > The 5 hindrances are abandoned > in jhana. .... S: Right - lots of agreement in this thread. Can 'you' really do anything about them?? .... thx for all the good feedback. Metta, Sarah =========== 57951 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 0:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:what is sati. sarahprocter... Hi Tep (& Eric), --- indriyabala wrote: > >S: The point I'm stressing is that one can be anywhere following any > activity, even sitting quietly in the Bamboo Grove (Veluvana) as in > the example above [MN 108], but akusala (unwholesome) states such as > attachment, are bound to follow kusala (wholesome) states all the time > until wisdom and detachment are highly developed. It's so natural to > cling to sati (awareness) and other kinds of kusala, but such clinging > has to be seen for what it is – a very, very common mental factor not > belonging to anyone! > > >E: > Indeed > > Tep: Yes, indeed ! .... S: I was very glad to see your comment at the end as well and to know that we're all in agreement in this thread at least:). Tep, I am also following all your other threads and there are several outstanding posts to me I wish to get back to you on. Thanks as usual for your patience and kind comments, but actually I'm also very far behind and most impressed by your efficiency in responding to everyone and in such detail:). Thank you for the friendship which I value a lot. Metta, Sarah ====== 57952 From: "Joop" Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 1:48am Subject: [dsg] Re: Beliefs jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Joop, ... Dear Sarah Thanks for your reactions (partly answers) to several of my posts. My remark to Herman was not a 'I'm neglected' but a description of two facts (I don't get inspired And I don't inspire) without much 'self- view". It's a result of the fact that I perceive myself less and less as a Theravadin. You said not liking it to be convinced. The same to me. But why are you so many times trying to convince us (me) especially with Sujin- thought, like "read her book!" or "listen to her tapes?" ? It's okay that you and others find Sujin important, but the number of messages that take her as a object of study, is increasing. That's already a big percentage of the DSG-messages that don't interest me: it's 'SSG' Of course it's fair when you talk about Sujin with some friends; only the number increases; that's not an accusation, it's only mentioning a fact. And about Pali-use. I'm not sure if there has ever been a good, a fundamentally discussion about Pali-usage in DSG. I think: everything is expressable in every language; language is only a means of communication. I prefer to communicate in dutch but accept that in this international forum we communicate with each other in english. Pali use can be excluding, I prefer including language. ====================================== S: When I refer to volition, I'm referring to cetana cetasika. When we refer to volition in common language, we're referring to various different dhammas, sometimes including self-view. What's your idea? J: I don't make the distinguishment between 'volition' as a cetasika and in common language. Oh no, not the mantra of "self view" again. The cetasika 'cetana' is a very good (perhaps a perfect) label of volition. ========================================= S: I'm not clear of your point. I don't see much point in post- experience analysis and what's the point in trying to forget anything when any such thinking is conditioned to arise? J: The fact that you like it, is one of the conditions. Nobody is innocent. And I accept the fact that you don't like post-experience analysis. I do because it are the only data I have. =========================================== S: I don't see any paradox at all – there are no ethical standards in anyone – merely conditioned good and bad tendencies arising and falling as well other dhammas. J: That's a strange remark, because I responded to you, you were talking about 'ethical standards' in #54783. And I agreed: yes, you have ethical standards. And of course 'ethical standards' exist or can exist: there are realities in the mind of human beings, conventional realities are realities too (and illusions on the same moment: a paradox) I agree that I made my remarks without questions. I don't have question (to you) now. I will react on your other messages to me seperately (to 57938 later) My remarks about leaving DSG I made before. But repetition is the power of DSG. Metta Joop 57953 From: "Joop" Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 1:50am Subject: [dsg] Re: How to radiate metta jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Joop, > > Let me buy into a couple of your other discussions while I have you in > mind: > Dear Sarah I thought to have found a source in the Abhidhamma for my convincement that there exists a "social citta" called "intuition" in conventinal language. A human being can experience the citta of another human being (especially on moments without self view), a horse can experience the citta of another horse, etc. 'Higher knowledge' can make the functioning of this 'social citta' perfect but it's also possible without much (everybody has some higher knowledge in him of her). That's my conviction and I still hope that's a buddhistic conviction. If not: so be it, it's still my conviction. If it is not according Theravada but according Mahayana: than I'm partly a Mahayanist. When some commentators say it's not possible then they are autistic. Your remark S: " p.s Your post #56626 - anicca is a characteristic of realities. Accumulations are realities, such as compassion or anger now. D.O. also refers to realities. Avijja (ignorance) is a reality which arises, accumulates and conditions other dhammas in many ways." J: This is about another topic. I think it's a good to say "conventional realities" or say 'ultimate realities" when using the word "realities" About "accumulations" we (also Nina) have had more discussions. It does not belong to the list of ultimate realities (89/121 cittas +52 cetasikas +29 ruppas +1 nibbina). Or can ultimate realities be added to that list, in that case I have one too? Metta Joop > --- Joop wrote: > > When studying Bhikkhu Bodhi's Guide to §16 of chapter III of the > > Abhidhammata Sangaha I read: > > "It should be noted that a citta in its immediacy cannot become an > > object, for the cognizer cannot cognize itself; but A CITTA in an > > individual mental continuum CAN EXPERIENCE earlier cittas in that > > same continuum as well as THE CITTAS OF OTHER BEINGS." (p.136; > > capitals me) Q.E.D. ! > ... > S: I agree with Tep that we need to consider these comments carefully. > > A citta can experience the characteristic of a citta (or other dhamma) > that has just fallen away. To all purposes, it is still considered as the > 'present' reality. For example, seeing consciousness only arises and > experiences visible object in the eye-door process, but the characterisitc > of seeing consciousness can be experienced and known immediately > afterwards in the mind-door process. Cittas arise and fall away so > quickly. > > Unless we're talking about the abhi~n~nas or supernormal knowledges, it's > impossible to know the cittas of other beings. I think people > misunderstand the meaning of 'external' or 'external cittas'. It doesn't > mean we can know the others' cittas, but whilst thinking of others, there > can be awareness of our own cittas at such times. For example, we see > someone suffering. We never experience that person's cittas, but (our) > seeing sees visible object, thinking with memory marks it, compassion may > arise. Awareness cannot be aware of the other, but it can be aware of the > seeing, visible object, thinking or compassion at such a time, all > conditioned by the 'other'. > > In the commentary to the part of the Ab. Sangaha which the note above was > based on, it says 'a dhamma as object is a mind object' and then 'But mind > object comprises six kinds: the sensitive materialities, subtle > materialities, consciousness, mentalities, nibbana, and concepts. > > Later the commentary does mention the inclusion of 'higher knowledge > impulsions, which occur by way of the divine eye' and further details are > given in ch9. There it goes into detail about the emergence from 5th jhana > as the basis for the abhi~n~naas. Lots of detail is given. > > Metta, > > Sarah > p.s Your post #56626 - anicca is a characteristic of realities. > Accumulations are realities, such as compassion or anger now. D.O. also > refers to realities. Avijja (ignorance) is a reality which arises, > accumulates and conditions other dhammas in many ways. > ============== > 57954 From: "Joop" Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 2:02am Subject: Re: Are concepts impermanent? jwromeijn Hallo Ken Is't it self evident that paramatthas don't really exist? Joop --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" wrote: > > Hi Rob M, > > Isn't it self evident that concepts don't really exist? In what way > could it be said that non-existent things are anicca? > > Is eternity anicca? > > Ken H > 57955 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 2:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Beliefs sarahprocter... Dear Joop, (waves to Herman at the end), --- Joop wrote: > Thanks for your reactions (partly answers) to several of my posts. My > remark to Herman was not a 'I'm neglected' but a description of two > facts (I don't get inspired And I don't inspire) without much 'self- > view". It's a result of the fact that I perceive myself less and less > as a Theravadin. .... S: Understood - no problem. Maybe no need to call yourself any name at all? Just consider, reflect, develop your own understanding..... ... S: With regard to SSG(;-)) - l won't mention her name in any posts to you anyway:). Tapes, books - I think we all just like to share what we find helpful. If others find other things helpful - fine as far as I'm concerned, they're most welcome to share these too. No one has to agree:). .... > And about Pali-use. I'm not sure if there has ever been a good, a > fundamentally discussion about Pali-usage in DSG. I think: everything > is expressable in every language; language is only a means of > communication. I prefer to communicate in dutch but accept that in > this international forum we communicate with each other in english. > Pali use can be excluding, I prefer including language. .... S: I agree that language is just for communication. Sometimes, however, one Pali word communicates much better than a dozen English words. I thought it was interesting that it came up in a thread of yours about the translation of Ab Sangaha into Dutch.For my part, I would find it much more useful to have the Pali alongside. Many translations like that of Patisabhidamagga (Path of Discrimination) would be greatly improved witht he Pali included for key terms imho. .... > J: I don't make the distinguishment between 'volition' as a cetasika > and in common language. > Oh no, not the mantra of "self view" again. The cetasika 'cetana' is > a very good (perhaps a perfect) label of volition. ... S: I think my point was that when we talk normally about volition or intention to do something in English, it has nothing to do with cetana. For you it may be different. ... > S: I'm not clear of your point. I don't see much point in post- > experience analysis and what's the point in trying to forget anything > when any such thinking is conditioned to arise? > > J: The fact that you like it, is one of the conditions. Nobody is > innocent. ... S: I don't think it makes any difference if one likes or dislikes whatever it was. If it's conditioned like that at this moment, it cannot be forgotten by will. .... > And I accept the fact that you don't like post-experience analysis. I > do because it are the only data I have. .... S: OK, but it is only thinking of what has gone already- not any awareness. .... > S: I don't see any paradox at all – there are no ethical standards in > anyone – merely conditioned good and bad tendencies arising and > falling as well other dhammas. > > J: That's a strange remark, because I responded to you, you were > talking about 'ethical standards' in #54783. And I agreed: yes, you > have ethical standards. ... S: yes, you responded kindly. Thank you. I meant that in an ultimate sense, there are just good and bad states, not a person. ... > And of course 'ethical standards' exist or can exist: there are > realities in the mind of human beings, conventional realities are > realities too (and illusions on the same moment: a paradox) .... S: This is where we disagree. Fortunately you like disagreements:-)). .... > > I agree that I made my remarks without questions. I don't have > question (to you) now. > I will react on your other messages to me seperately (to 57938 later) > My remarks about leaving DSG I made before. But repetition is the > power of DSG. .... S: Hope you find some spicy messages to disagree with and keep your interest. Pls just ignore those which are of no interest to you.... Now Herman's back, you shouldn't get bored:-). A big wave, Herman. How was the surprise ballooning for (your wife), Vicki? Metta, Sarah ======== 57956 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 3:30am Subject: [dsg] Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence ken_aitch Hi Herman, ----- H: > My not make it a foursome. ----- My not indeed! Be why guest! :-) -------------- <. . .> KH: > > I think that means understanding that only namas and rupas > exist: there are no people, no rocks, no Ken H, no Eric. H: > Actually namas and rupas don't exist either. Namas and rupas are no less concepts / categories then rocks and people. Once you start saying "this is / was a nama, that is / was a rupa" you may as well be talking about rocks and people. It is not a characteristic of any phenomenon that it properly is a nama or a rupa. The question "What is / was ........ is always loaded, and will always lead on a self-fulfilling goose chase. Because it aims to capture what is already gone. No phenomenon properly belongs in a category. What is a characteristic of any phenomenon is anicca. What say you? ---------------- I say yes and no. Yes, "nama" is the name we give to a mental phenomenon, and "rupa" is the name we give to a physical phenomenon, and therefore those names are concepts. But the mental and physical phenomena they refer to are realities. The realities (the real nama and rupa) exist regardless of whether or not someone refers to them by name. "People" and "rocks" are concepts that refer to concepts. Neither the concept that refers to a concept, nor the concept the concept refers to, is real. And no, you are wrong when you say, "It is not a characteristic of any phenomenon that it properly is a nama or a rupa." Nama has inherent nama characteristics and rupa has inherent rupa characteristics. The first stage of insight knowledge is the direct knowledge that nama is nama and rupa is rupa. Ken H 57957 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 4:21am Subject: Re: Are concepts impermanent? ken_aitch Hi Joop, --------- J: > Is't it self evident that paramatthas don't really exist? --------- I am glad you mentioned this. You and I were discussing this exact question a couple of weeks ago when you suddenly lost interest. I have never been attracted to the notion that nothing really exists, but I am interested to learn how you find it a satisfactory answer to life's meaningful questions. A concept is, by definition, not real. The Dhamma explains that many things conventionally thought to be real are, ultimately, mere concepts. On the other hand, a paramattha dhamma is not only real, but is real in the ultimate sense taught by the Buddha. So I can't see how it is self evident that paramattha dhammas don't really exist. Ken H 57958 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 4:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence egberdina Hi Ken, > My not indeed! Be why guest! > :-) > > -------------- Oh, you are awful :-) > > I say yes and no. > > Yes, "nama" is the name we give to a mental phenomenon, and "rupa" > is the name we give to a physical phenomenon, and therefore those > names are concepts. But the mental and physical phenomena they refer > to are realities. The realities (the real nama and rupa) exist > regardless of whether or not someone refers to them by > name. "People" and "rocks" are concepts that refer to concepts. > Neither the concept that refers to a concept, nor the concept the > concept refers to, is real. > > And no, you are wrong when you say, "It is not a characteristic of > any phenomenon that it properly is a nama or a rupa." Nama has > inherent nama characteristics and rupa has inherent rupa > characteristics. The first stage of insight knowledge is the direct > knowledge that nama is nama and rupa is rupa. == I accept your yes answer without hesitation, and I agree that your no answer is how the matter is treated in Theravadin Buddhism. So is it just me that realises that the division between knowing and what is known is the root of all concepts? To me it is self-evident that knowing and its object are not-two, and that treating one separately from the other is not so much a matter of insight, but a matter of abstraction. Without thinking / papanca-ing / conceptualisation, there is only knowing, and the knowing of anicca at that. What is wrong with me ? :-) Kind Regards Herman PS And if discerning between knowing/nama and the known/rupa is insight, and not abstraction, why is the knower disallowed? -- There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 57959 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 5:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Beliefs egberdina Hey Sarah and Joop, . > .... > S: Hope you find some spicy messages to disagree with and keep your > interest. Pls just ignore those which are of no interest to you.... > > Now Herman's back, you shouldn't get bored:-). > > A big wave, Herman. How was the surprise ballooning for (your wife), > Vicki? > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======== Ballooning was great!!! For a while, you become the wind. Vicki loved it too. Back to Buddhism. The unfortunate thing is that without interest, ballooning would be boring. Ballooning in itself isn't interesting, nothing is interesting. I did a horrible experiment the night before, as we listened to Bach's St John's Passion in the Opera House. If I let myself go with that sort of stuff, I become a heaving, emotional mess/mass. My skin breaks out in goosebumps, I cry, I sigh deep, involuntary sighs, I quiver. The horrible experiment was withdrawing interest from the performance. With awareness that that is possible, it becomes possible to do so. Of course it can happen without participation as well, spontaneously, so to speak. Anyway, I withdrew interest, and the whole thing became uninteresting. Quite soul destroying to realise that nothing is interesting, really. Not even Bach or Buddha are interesting. You too could, if you wanted to, withdraw interest in K. Sujin, in Pali, in Tiikas, in Jon, in surf, in conversing with friends in the flesh and on dsg and so on. I'm not suggesting you should. But when you do, all these things you do are seen as they really are, quite uninteresting. Oh, the things we do to mask dukkha :-) Kind Regards Herman -- There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 57960 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 1:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Tep) - In a message dated 4/18/06 1:35:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > Enlightenment and the consequential release from dukkha (at > parinibbana), come about by our seeing the conditioned world as it > really is - mere mental and physical phenomena bearing the three > characteristics anicca, dukkha and anatta. --------------------------------------- Howard: Correct! -------------------------------------- Therefore, the purpose > > of Dhamma study is to learn all we can about those mental and > physical phenomena (the five khandhas, the elements, the paramattha > dhammas). > --------------------------------------- Howard: But that is a non-sequitur. On that basis there must then be scads of enlightened chemists, physicists, and psychologists! I would sooner say that the purpose of Dhamma study is to learn from the teachings how to purify and train the mind to eventually come to directly see, first-hand, "the conditioned world as it really is - mere mental and physical phenomena bearing the three characteristics anicca, dukkha and anatta," and, most of all, to come to see dependent origination, in a direct and throughgoing way, not as an abstraction but as the actual and sole mode of existence that phenomena have. We do not need to learn, nor should we learn, "all we can" about mental and physical phenomena. First of all, most of the simsapa leaves would be well left on the forest floor prior to awakening, and, secondly, it is not a matter about learning all one can even about those in the Buddha's hand as formal knowledge, but in coming to see them directly for oneself and holding them in one's own hand. 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) 57961 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 5:39am Subject: Some thoughts about Buddhism (2) jonoabb [This is a reply to a follow-up message sent by Neil before he received my commnets on his first message] Dear Neil Thanks for sharing these thoughts and observations about Theravada Buddhism. I know you are very widely read in matters of philosophy and the like, and it is interesting to see how you approach this subject. Just a comment on the general subject of what we are inclined to accept or reject, what makes sense to us and what doesn’t. The problem here is that our judgment in these matters will always be influenced by our existing biases, many of which are subtle and deeply rooted and hence not apparent to us. I think you can see where this leads: the less our inherent views accord with the way things really are, the less likely it is when we come across the truth about the way things are that it will appeal to us, and the more we will be convinced that we are right to follow our judgment in the matter. Is there a way out of this conundrum? The Buddha said that the truths he had discovered could be verified by each person for themselves. Which brings me to the present moment. Just to clarify a point from your message, TB does not hold that the present moment is illusory in any sense. Indeed it holds that the only sense in which there can be direct knowledge of the way things truly are is by an understanding of the ‘realities’ presently appearing. However, because that understanding has not yet been sufficiently developed, our existing perception of those realties is flawed and we in fact have many serious misconceptions about them. Yes, at one level the present moment is constantly changing, but the ‘realties’ such as the seeing and visible object, hearing and sound we spoke of earlier are the same in essence now as in previous moments. These are the ‘dhammas’ that TB says are to be known and seen as they truly are. In short, the "answer" lies in an understanding of the dhammas of the presnt momoent. TB does not ask us to make any leap of faith, in fact it cautions against taking anything ‘on faith’. It suggests we test for ourselves the validity of the truths proclaimed in the teachings, taking a starting point appropriate to our present level of understanding (obviously, something like the law of kamma would be beyond our ability to asses right now) Again, difficult areas, so trying to keep things as straightforward as possible. Jon ******************************** Neil wrote: Anyway, as I continue to muse about Theravada Buddhism, inter alia, it seems to me that both theism and Theravada ask us to make leaps into the unlikely. For me, the theistic leap that there is someone (some power) out there who created and cares, etc., is beyond my ability to stretch my (I hope) sensible mind. While I also cannot buy the Eastern (including the Buddhist) notion of karma and reincarnation (even with the Buddhist hope of getting off the wheel of samsara into a nirvana that is everything-in-nothing and nothing-in-everything), and while the notion that the past is-really-past, the future is still to be built (and may never come), and the present is in a sense an illusion (because it arises and falls away all the time, even as I'm hammering away at this, my reality is changing (Thales said we never step into the same river twice)).the fact that the "answer" (whatever the question is) is in me rather than in the heavens is easier to live with. ********************************** 57962 From: "indriyabala" Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:28am Subject: [dsg] Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence indriyabala Dear Howard - Thank you for the very good post, Friend. Sincerely, Tep ==== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Ken (and Tep) - > > In a message dated 4/18/06 1:35:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > ken_aitch@... writes: > > > Enlightenment and the consequential release from dukkha (at > > parinibbana), come about by our seeing the conditioned world as it > > really is - mere mental and physical phenomena bearing the three > > characteristics anicca, dukkha and anatta. > --------------------------------------- > Howard: > Correct! > -------------------------------------- > Therefore, the purpose > > > of Dhamma study is to learn all we can about those mental and > > physical phenomena (the five khandhas, the elements, the paramattha > > dhammas). > > > --------------------------------------- > Howard: > But that is a non-sequitur. On that basis there must then be scads of enlightened chemists, physicists, and psychologists! > I would sooner say that the purpose of Dhamma study is to learn from the teachings how to purify and train the mind to eventually come to directly see, first-hand, "the conditioned world as it really is - mere mental and physical phenomena bearing the three characteristics anicca, dukkha and anatta," and, most of all, to come to see dependent origination, in a direct and throughgoing way, not as an abstraction but as the actual and sole mode of existence that phenomena have. We do not need to learn, nor should we learn, "all we can" about mental and physical phenomena. First of all, most of the simsapa leaves would be well left on the forest floor prior to awakening, and, secondly, it is not a matter about learning all one can even about those in the Buddha's hand as formal knowledge, but in coming to see them directly for oneself and holding them in one's own hand. > 57963 From: "Joop" Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:40am Subject: A great debate on Scholars & Meditators ? [was: [dsg] Re: How to radiate metta jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Joop, > > Let me buy into a couple of your other discussions while I have you in mind:.... Hallo Sarah, Nina, James, all (including the moderators) This message is a proposal to have a systematically structured debate in DSG about the usefulness or uselessness (never know how many "s" I have to write in english words) of meditation. This is not the start of the debate itself, only the start of a discussion if enough participants do want it. Every time again there are exchanges of opinions, but always with open ends and nearly always the discussion is only a exchange between two participants. I prefer a discussion on forum-level, with active moderators who define what is on-topic and what is off-topic; and this for every topic apart. And of course first with a decision what are the topics. And a decision of what is the frame of reference of the debate: - must it be within the framework of the Sutta Pitaka OR - the Sutta + the Abhidhamma Pitaka OR - the Sutta + Abhidhamma + commentaries? The inducement of this proposal was that Sarah reminded me of a message #57044 of me to Nina and James in which I quoted the MAHACUNDA SUTTA (Anguttara Nikaya VI.46) Sarah responded to me with: S: Thanks for reminding me of this sutta again. As usual, we have to consider what is meant by 'meditation' and 'meditator' in the context. I'd be grateful if you'd read the following posts on this topic and sutta and give me your feedback: 'Scholars & Meditators, Scholarship' 33934, 37262, 37330, 48551 Although I do not like the question "what is meant by meditation", I did read. I'm grateful to Sarah that she made me read again the funny messages of and to somebody with the nickname " Dighanakha Nutcracker". The only message however was #33934 in which Sarah commented and quoted commentaries on this Sutta. But this commentaries are not about worldlings like us but about arahants or bhikkhus who got arahants. I prefer a discussion on this Sutta about the question: what to do as a worldling. And I cannot imagine that it's possible on a logical way the (in my eyes) intention of this Sutta: both paths are possible: study (of course not superficial but contemplative) AND meditation. What is meant by meditation? Asked Sarah. I can give no definition but give some conceptual characteristrics: Sitting with the legs crossed and the eyes closed (alternated in some forms by standing, lying, walking) for example during half an hour or an hour; every day, several times a day.. And doing several things in the the mind, depending what form of meditation is practiced: concentration or mindfulness, jhana, vipassana (school Mahasi or school Goenka) or metta-meditation. I adressed my original message to Nina and James because this two honorable DSG-participants are the most pure representatives of "dedicated to the Dhamma" c.q. (to) meditation". Remarks are welcome Metta Joop 57964 From: "Joop" Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:42am Subject: On spice and paradoxes [ was: [dsg] Re: Beliefs jwromeijn Dear Sarah, all S: Hope you find some spicy messages to disagree with and keep your interest. Pls just ignore those which are of no interest to you.... J: That's correct; but also I accept paradoxes; I'm not sure you do. And another example of messages of me that apparently don't inspire other participants, I repeat the core of my message of some weeks ago to which nobody responded (again that not a "I'm neglected" but more a "do I belong to DSG?" and not directed to you, Sarah so no critics) Metta Joop A paradox of desire in buddhism ? Hallo Nina, James, Tep, Jon, all Perhaps the discussion in DSG between those who state that the buddhistic Path had to be understood active (things to do) and those who state that for example 'formal meditation' as such is already craving and clinging ('passive' in the perception of the 'activists') can be brought to a higher level. In the journal 'Philosophy East and West' there has been a discussion in 1978-1980 about the question if "THERE IS OR THERE IS NOT A PARADOX OF DESIRE IN BUDDHISM ?" The (possible) paradox is the existence of the DESIRE TO GIVE UP DESIRES. Both positions are possible; everybody had to chose for himself/herself what fits best: some can live very well with paradoxes and some got mad of it. For me the existence of the desire id all right, and I think it does not work simply wait till 'conditions' make me without desires. The reason for me is that not only the root 'desire' had to decrease but also 'hatred' and 'delusion' and both imply to me: doing something not or doing something. Perhaps that's even possible without desire: living without illusions. Sources: http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/ew26810.htm http://www.buddhismtoday.com/english/philosophy/thera/013-desire.htm http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/john2.htm http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/herman2.htm http://www.buddhismtoday.com/english/philosophy/thera/010-desire.htm 57965 From: "Joop" Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:43am Subject: Re: Are concepts impermanent? jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" wrote: > > Hi Joop, > > --------- > J: > Is't it self evident that paramatthas don't really exist? > --------- > > I am glad you mentioned this. You and I were discussing this exact > question a couple of weeks ago when you suddenly lost interest. > I have never been attracted to the notion that nothing really > exists, but I am interested to learn how you find it a satisfactory > answer to life's meaningful questions. > > A concept is, by definition, not real. The Dhamma explains that > many things conventionally thought to be real are, ultimately, mere > concepts. On the other hand, a paramattha dhamma is not only real, > but is real in the ultimate sense taught by the Buddha. > > So I can't see how it is self evident that paramattha dhammas don't > really exist. > > Ken H > Hallo Ken H This morning I said to Sarah "nobody is innocent" and now I must confess that I "suddenly lost interest" in a discussion with you, that ended with your message #57372. Maybe your expression gave me a feeling being tired: KenH: "It is talking about emptiness (anatta-lakkhana). In emptiness there is no substance, no dhammas, no arising and falling away etc. But emptiness is just one characteristic of dhammas: in all other respects they do have absolute existence." combined with your question: KenH: "… but can you see there is a big difference between, 'All realities have emptiness as one of their characteristics,' and, 'There is only emptiness?' ". J: I know is usage in DSG to talk about characteristics of dhammas (and other realities). I do not think so: all I know from my own experience is the arising and falling away after some milliseconds of a consciousness, called "citta" in Abhidhamma. I can think that this experience has something to do with a reality outside me but perhaps this experience is a product of my mind, how can I know? In your message of today to me you say: " A concept is, by definition, not real." Yes, but what does that mean? To me a concept is a model of waht we think being the reality, a model used to "handle" world outside us. Without a model we get mad. So I agree that a model is not "real" itself because it is an abstraction; another word for "model" is "image", "theory", "picture". Only when somebody thinks that a model of reality is reality itself, then he/she is wrong, has an illusion. For example "God" is a concept. Metta Joop 57966 From: "ericlonline" Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:24am Subject: Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence ericlonline Hi Ken H, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-015.html > > > > > > "'Ultimate Reality exists': That is one extreme. 'Ultimate Reality > > doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two > > extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle:... K> I am all in favour of learning Dhamma via the > middle. I think that means understanding that only namas and rupas > exist: there are no people, no rocks, no Ken H, no Eric. Is that how > you see it? No. Rocks, people, Ken and Eric, namas and rupas (real or imagined) exist conditionally and conventionally. They all are impermanent, dukkha and not-self. Take any 'x' and place it below. > 'x' exists: That is one extreme. 'x' > doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two > extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle:... Read the sutta and let it roll around your mind. Duality of existence/non-existence. This is how the mind works and the Buddha was offering a way out via the middle. A way out of the suffering caused by this dualistic seeing & thinking. metta 57967 From: "ericlonline" Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38am Subject: [dsg] Re:what is sati. ericlonline Hi Sarah, > Thx for coming in on this thread too - Denada > > --- ericlonline wrote: > > > S: After you show some generosity to someone or have metta, is there > > never any attachment to that kindness afterwards? Do you never > > think `ah, that was a good deed I did' with some satisfaction or > > clinging to being a kind person at such a time? > > > > I NEVER think that Sarah. I just try and > > help where and when I can. Simple as that. > .... > S: OK - wrong example for you. It was just an indication of how kusala and akusala states follow each other. We're all different of course. There may even be clinging to the fact that such thoughts never arise:-). There may be but I cant speak for others. :-) > .... (agreements snipped) > S: Right - lots of agreement in this thread. Can 'you' really do anything about them?? http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part3.htm l#part3-e Thanissaro says (I think it is somewhere there above or linked) that 'he trains thus' in the Anapanasati Sutta means that this practice is willed. It seems to me that is what skillful means is. You learn about this/that causality in order to effect it for the better i.e. towards unification of mind. PS Also here he talks about Jhana in two ways and does indeed say it is spreading rapture throughout the body from head to toe. And he also mentions the creation of the visual nimitta as another way to jhana. BTW I know a monk (took over Bhikkhu Bodhi's kuti when he left Sri Lanka) here in Chicago who teaches by this method. So it seems we may not be that far off there also. > thx for all the good feedback. It does feel good to actually see eye to eye for a change! :-) metta 57968 From: "Dan D." Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:40am Subject: Re: Attention to Conditions and Refinement in Skillful Action onco111 Dear Tep, I also find the extract from Thanissaro's writing relevant to the ongoing discussion, but perhaps not in the same way you find it relevant. Let's start with the word 'kusala', which Thanissaro glosses as "skilful." I also used to use 'skilful' for kusala--well, at least I did so until I realized that the word is a lousy, misleading, and even subversive gloss for kusala. I wrote about it in Feb. 2002; excerpts below... ... [In early 2001] I explicitly used "skillful" when the conversation would steer uncomfortably close to anatta -- something that people are more loathe to accept than even the moral/immoral/amoral triplet! I confess my subversive intent in using "skillful" back then. I thought (and probably wrote) things like: "These guys talk about anatta too much and over-emphasize Right View instead of balancing it with talk about the other parts of the path, like Right Effort." Of course, much of the time I was thinking about conventional effort (despite the fact that I thought I was talking about "Right Effort"). I was delighted when I stumbled onto the "skillful" gloss for "kusala" because I could use it in my quest to steer the conversation back to the more comfortable realm of mistaking conventional effort for Right Effort and of making it easier to staying firmly rooted in sakaya-ditthi... How so? First, a quick question: How should I practice so that I can get good at (skillful) making desirable dhammas arise? Yeah, yeah, I know. You mean to apply "skillful" just to the dhammas themselves... But how would that work? When a citta rooted in alobha, adosa, amoha arises, is it "skillful"? I.e., does it have or demonstrate skill? The dictionary defines skill as "the ability to do something well, arising from talent, training, or practice." I'm curious. What talent, training, or practice has that citta engaged in to give it that ability to do what it does well? Obviously, it doesn't do any such thing; it is there for just a brief moment before passing away. It would be nice to just remove the "arising from talent, training, or practice" clause from the definition [to be able to justly apply the term to cittas], but it's not such an easy thing to do! The definition was skillfully constructed with the "arising from..." clause precisely because that's what naturally comes to mind when people think of the word. To ignore it or try to "remove" the clause is to shut one's eyes to the strong tendency of people to associate training and practice with the word "skillful." It is because of this tendency that the word "skillful" is (only?) applied to beings and their works (and is precisely why I used to use it to keep the conversation on dsg comfortable for sakayaditti). For example, skillful teachers, dancers, and liars or skillful lessons, performances, and deceptions. In both cases, the being is rather forcefully implied. To apply the word to [personality-free] objects has an awkward ring to it. For example, no one says the sun is skillful at warming the earth or the watch is skillful at measuring time. The reason these sound funny is that there is clearly no being for skillful to refer to. In thinking about dhammas, there is such a strong tendency to subconsciously look for Self in the dhammas that "skillful" can feel quite comfortable and preferable to less "animate" words. It is strange to hear of your [Sarah] preference for the comfort of the Self-validating "skillful" over other, less ditthi-inducing words. What do the commentaries say? Well, we briefly discussed Asl., but U Narada, in his Introduction to "Conditional Relations", [also weighs in]: "'Skilful'. ...it cannot apply to moral states, not even to the sensuous, leave alone the lofty and supramundane. The Commentary states that 'skilful' is not a suitable meaning....The meaning of 'kusala' is also given in the Commentaries on the Suttas..." He then goes on to list where the word is defined in some 14 places in sutta commentaries, and none of them include "skilful", and some explicitly say it doesn't work. Why do you think the commentaries, Ven. Nyanatiloka, and U Narada would so clearly reject 'skillful'? ... And the earlier post in which Asl. and Nyanatiloka were quoted: """""" In his "Buddhist Dictionary," Nyanatiloka defines "kusala" as: "'karmically wholesome' or 'profitable', salutary, morally good, (skilful). Connotations of the term, according to Com. (Asl), are: of good health, blameless, productive of favourable karma-result, skilful. It should be noted that Com. excludes the meaning 'skilful' when the term is applied to states of consciousness." Atthasalini indeed explicitly excludes the sense of 'skilful' when applied to dhammas: "...in the phrase 'moral states' [kusala dhamma], either 'wholesome,' or 'faultless,' or 'productive of happy results' is a suitable meaning." The sense of "skilful" is reserved for contexts such as "You are kusala at the different parts of a chariot," and "Graceful women who have been trained and are kusala in singing and dancing." Why on earth would Asl. make such a careful distinction and not apply 'skilful' to mental states? One obvious possibility is that 'skilful' could just as easily be applied to the abilities of accomplished murderers, butchers, misers, theives, mechanics, cooks, etc., which have nothing to do with the sense of 'kusala' of kusalacittani. Thus, the use of 'skilful' in reference to states of consciousness tends to blur the critical moral distinction between kusala and akusala. When applied to mental states, kusala is not "something well done" as opposed to the akusala "something poorly done," but this is precisely the sense given by skilful/unskilful. I'm going to stick with wholesome/unwholesome or faultless/faulty to help keep the moral distinction clear. After all, proper discernment of kusala vs. akusala is pivotal in the development of samma ditthi. """"" Do you see what I and Asl. and Nyanatiloka and U Narada are getting at? Metta, Dan --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" wrote: > > > Hi, Dan D., Howard, James (and all others) - > > I have found the following extract from 'The Wings to Awakening' very > relevant to the on-going discussion on developing kusala. Thanks to > Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu. > > "The fact of skillfulness also implies that some results are > preferable to others, for otherwise there would be no point in trying > to develop skills. In addition, the fact that it is possible to learn > from mistakes in the course of developing a skill, so that one's > future actions may be more skillful, implies that the cycle of action, > result, and reaction is not entirely deterministic, and that acts of > perception, attention, and intention can actually provide new input as > the cycle goes through successive turns. > > "The important element in this input is attention. Anyone who has > mastered a skill will realize that the process of attaining mastery > requires attention to three things: (1) to pre-existing conditions, > (2) to what one is doing in relation to those conditions, and (3) to > the results that come from one's actions. This threefold focus enables > one to monitor one's actions and adjust them accordingly. In this way, > one's attention to conditions, actions, and effects allows the results > of an action to feed back into future action, thus allowing for > refinement in one's skill. > > "These implications of the fact of skillfulness account for the main > framework of the Buddha's doctrine as expressed in the teachings on > the four noble truths, dependent co-arising, and this/that > conditionality. Other facets of skillful action also account for more > detailed points within this framework. For instance, the Buddha's > exploration of stress and its origination, in the light of skillful > action, provided the analysis of mental and physical events > ("name-and-form," nama-rupa) that plays a central role in the second > noble truth as expressed in terms of dependent co-arising. The first > lesson of skillfulness is that the essence of an action lies in the > intention motivating it: an act motivated by the intention for greater > skillfulness will give results different from those of an act > motivated by greed, aversion, or delusion. Intention, in turn, is > influenced by the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the act of > attention to one's circumstances. [end of extract] > .......................... > > What is your thought? > > > Warm regards, > > > Tep > ====== > 57969 From: "ericlonline" Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:46am Subject: Re: Some thoughts about Buddhism (2) ericlonline Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Yes, at one level the present moment is constantly changing, but the `realties' such as the seeing and visible object, hearing and sound we spoke of earlier are the same in essence now as in previous moments. same in essence = soul I know Jon it is a hard habit to kick!! Like the 12 step people say, one day at a time. :-) 57970 From: "icarofranca" Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 9:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence icarofranca Hi Rob!!! "This Unprobable thought on consider a Putthujjana´s mental convolutions so worthy as my own Parammatha Saccani" Post! --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Not sure if it is relevant to this discussion, but I recently read > that this structure (four paramattha dhammas) originated with > Buddhadatta (a contemporary of Buddhaghosa) in his >Abhidhammavatara, > an early summary of the Abhidhamma. I also understand that the > Abhidhammavatara was the source of the list of 52 cetasikas. The >list > of seventeen thought moments was taken from Upatissa's Vimuttimagga. --------------------------------------------------------------------- That´s a good questiong, Rob! At the original Abhidhamma´s main text, in so many times I read, at the Dhammasangani and the Dhatukathaa, a concordance more on suttanta frame than at the so called "Abhidhammata". In Ven. Anurudha´s Abhidhamma Sangaha, the author had put forth a straight definition of suttanta frame as the Paticca Samupadda and the Abhidhammata frame as the Patthanapali´s 24 Paccaya... but is such cetasikas´lists and so on a totally strange deviation out of the more classical texts, or a more complex elaboration of Sutta´s material ? If you consider a fourfold frame as a characteristic of Buddha´s discourse, so the Paramattha Dhamma´s scheme is inside context: Buddhadatta could had conceived it as a assemblage of many sutta´s passages. You are a deep thinker on these questions Rob...could you provide us more detalis on these matters ? Is there any Abhidhammavatara or Vimutthimagga printed copies on selling nowadays? Mettaya, Ícaro 57971 From: "icarofranca" Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 9:22am Subject: [dsg] Re: Jhana Retreat icarofranca Hi Nina! --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Your questions are useful anyway for everybody here. I enjoy >answering them, > because I learn from questions. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Yeah! At this real "Big spiritual supermarket" called Dhammasangani, you can pick out any answer you need...but if you think more clearly, it will be more wise look at the RIGHT Question! And now I am reading - well, I am surprised with myself, but I am reading this in Pali...and I am understanding it! - the Dhatukhatapali. A Great book, that owns nothing to any other big classic on Buddhism, Theravada, Mahayana or Vajrayana! And your book "Dhamma in Cambodia"...wonderful! []s Mettaya, Ícaro 57972 From: "Dan D." Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 0:41pm Subject: Re: Is ..not-self strategy bad? Confusing Terms !! onco111 What can we do with you, James! Yask what I mean when I use the word 'kusala'. I write a long, personal explanation of my understanding of the term, complete with anecdotes and colorful illustrations. You responded along the lines of: "Humph! That sounds pretty dang idiosyncratic. I don't want to have anything to do with THAT explanation." I then write back with the standard Theravada definition from Nyanatiloka, which accords very well with my prior explanation. You write back a nasty note, pointing an accusing finger: "...Sounds like you have just a lot of book knowledge, and I was speaking in practical terms. After all, talk is cheap." Sort of makes rational discourse rather difficult, wouldn't you agree? Metta, Dan 57973 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:25am Subject: Re: ADL ch 1 philofillet Hi all I've gone back to Abhidhamma in Daily Life so will be recycling the project that Larry so diligently led a few years back. I will add some of Nina and others' responses, and please feel free to add your own comments or questions, if you'd like. Phil p.s Moderators, sorry if this overlaps with the Cetasikas corner, but I just sense the need to get back to basics and perhaps others will feel the same way. LBIDD@... wrote: > > Here's the first little bit. > > Chapter 1 > > THE FOUR PARAMATTHA DHAMMAS > > There are two kinds of reality: mental phenomena (nama) and physical > phenomena (rupa). Nama experiences something; rupa does not experience > anything. Seeing is, for example, a type of nama; it experiences visible > object. Visible object itself is rupa; it does not experience anything. > What we take for self are only nama and rupa which arise and fall away. > The 'Visuddhimagga' ('Path of Purity', a commentary) explains (Ch. > XVIII, 25): > > For this has been said: . > 'As with the assembly of parts > The word "chariot" is countenanced, > So, When the khandhas are present, > 'A being' is said in common usage' > > (Kindred Sayings I, 135. The five khandhas (aggregates) are nothing else > but nama and rupa. See Ch.2.) > > ?Eo in many hundred suttas there is only > mentality-materiality which is illustrated, not a being, > not a person. Therefore, just as when the component > parts (of a chariot) such as axles, wheels, frame, poles... > are arranged in a certain way, there comes to be the > mere conventional term 'chariot', yet in the ultimate > sense, when each part is examined, there is no > chariot, ...so too,... there comes to be the mere > conventional term 'a being', 'a person', yet in the ultimate > sense, when each component is examined, there is > no being as a basis for the assumption ' I am' or ' I ' ; > in the ultimate sense there is only mentality-materiality. > The vision of one who sees in this way is called correct vision. > 57974 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] BEGINNERS ABHIDHAMMA - ADL ch 1 philofillet Hi all Some inspiring words from Sarah - I know what she means. The passage in question (see previous post) was also my introduction to Abhidhamma. A real turning point. Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote > Dear Larry, L.John and Victor, > > Larry, I think it's really helpful, as you did with the first extract, to > type out a one page segment at a time and leave it for a few days/a week > for discussion. As Lucy said..plenty of meat already and no point in > racing through. > > As I've mentioned (read:bored everyone) before, the one page you quote has > had more impact on my life and understanding of dhamma than any other page > of any text or book I've read before of since. It helped me to see > 'anatta' as the very key or cornerstone of the Teachings and of life > itself. 57975 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:02am Subject: Re: Beliefs philofillet Hi Herman Glad to see you're feeling chipper. You've almost always irritated the hell out of me and I suspect you always will (you're not alone in that department) but there have been fleeting moments during which I was worried about you as well. Kusala moments are always few and far between! :) Phil > Back again. For those who know me, a big wave and a big hug. 57977 From: "indriyabala" Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 3:09pm Subject: Re: Is ..not-self strategy bad? Confusing Terms !! indriyabala Dear Dan D. (and James) - [Please ignore an earlier deleted message that I had mistakenly posted. Thanks.] --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > > What can we do with you, James! > I would like to offer my explanation to you as to why the communication has broken down. The key question asked by James(#57822) was: "You are making some interesting points, but I am having a hard time following your train of thought because you keep using the nebulous term "kusala"? What is kusala? What EXACTLY is it? Could you provide an explanation and examples? Thanx. " In the message #57893 you answered him, using the Nyanatiloka Dictionary as follows. Nyanatiloka: In psychological terms, 'karmically wholesome' are all those karmical volitions (kamma-cetana) and the consciousness and mental factors associated therewith, which are accompanied by 2 or 3 wholesome roots (mula), i.e. by greedlessness (alobha), and hatelessness (adosa), and in some cases by non-delusion (amoha: wisdom, understanding). Such states of consciousness are regarded as 'karmically wholesome' as they are causes of favorable karma results and contain the seeds of a happy destiny or rebirth. [endquote] Tep: And you also gave a "conventional exposition" (vohaara-desanaa) that was intertwined with the "exposition true in the highest sense" (paramattha-desanaa)as follows: >Dan : A moment of kusala is indeed beautiful and precious, but it arises and passes away with great rapidity. Are you confusing a state of consciousness with a "person"? A "person" for whom akusala was abolished and kusala reigned supreme would indeed have attained a type of perfection (but not in the Buddhist sense). And no matter how great and wonderful we think we are, kusala is still a fairly rare occurrence, and we need to be sure not to confuse the many pleasant but akusala states with the truly kusala. Otherwise, we can spend so much energy consciously cultivating akusala (attachment) while under the mistaken impression that we are really cultivating kusala (e.g., metta or jhana). Really, without clearly distinguishing between kusala and akusala, there is no advancing on the path. At all. ................... Tep: IMHO "that" explanation is not helpful because the two expositions are not compatible and you seem to have shown some degree of superiority (that sounds like this : 'only my Paramattha perspective on kusala/akusala is right, any other view is not'). So it should not be a big surprise why James did not like your answer. {:>) >James: But do you REALLY know? Can you REALLY distinguish? Sounds like you have just a lot of book knowledge, and I was speaking in practical terms. But I might be wrong. Sincerely, Tep ==== (snipped) > > Yask what I mean when I use the word 'kusala'. I write a long, personal > explanation of my understanding of the term, complete with anecdotes > and colorful illustrations. You responded along the lines of: "Humph! > That sounds pretty dang idiosyncratic. I don't want to have anything to > do with THAT explanation." > (snipped) 57978 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 3:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Beliefs egberdina Hey, Phil, On 19/04/06, Phil wrote: > > > Hi Herman > > Glad to see you're feeling chipper. You've almost always irritated > the hell out of me and I suspect you always will (you're not alone in > that department) but there have been fleeting moments during which I > was worried about you as well. Kusala moments are always few and far > between! :) That makes me feel special. (The bit about me annoying the hell out of you :-)) Better sharpen your rapier, dear friend :-) Kind Regards Herman -- There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 57979 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 3:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ADL ch 1 egberdina Sounds like a good idea, Phil, > Here's the first little bit. > > > > Chapter 1 > > > > THE FOUR PARAMATTHA DHAMMAS > > > > There are two kinds of reality: mental phenomena (nama) and > physical > > phenomena (rupa). Nama experiences something; rupa does not > experience > > anything. Seeing is, for example, a type of nama; it experiences > visible > > object. Visible object itself is rupa; it does not experience > anything. > > What we take for self are only nama and rupa which arise and fall > away. Can you conceive of an undifferentiated stream of experience, or perhaps even the absence of such a thing? It seems to me that the exercise of establishing a taxonomy of mind states is entirely a conceptual exercise. What is the purpose of the exercise? -- There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 57980 From: "Dan D." Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 4:05pm Subject: Re: Is ..not-self strategy bad? Confusing Terms !! onco111 Dear Tep, You must have missed my response to James' question: > The key question asked by James(#57822) was: "You are making some > interesting points, but I am having a hard time following your train > of thought because you keep using the nebulous term "kusala"? What is > kusala? What EXACTLY is it? Could you provide an explanation and > examples? Thanx. " I gave him explanation and examples in post #57822. He essentially dismissed this as too personal. I then used texts to explain. He dismissed this as too bookish. I realize that I write in a confident, assertive style that rubs many people the wrong way, but it lends itself well to addressing difficult questions, lively discussion, and discovery of new ideas (on both sides of the conversation). But it does require a willingness to wrestle with real issues. Dhamma is difficult, and difficult questions need to be asked, difficult ideas need to be stated, and wrong notions need to be torn down. I write in order to clarify my own thoughts, air my understandings, and have others point out where I am wrong. At the same time, I hope that my comments will inspire others to wrestle with difficult questions as well. Your friend in Dhamma, Dan 57981 From: LBIDD@... Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 4:22pm Subject: Re: On spice and paradoxes [ was: [dsg] Re: Beliefs lbidd2 Joop: "And another example of messages of me that apparently don't inspire other participants, I repeat the core of my message of some weeks ago to which nobody responded (again that not a "I'm neglected" but more a "do I belong to DSG?" and not directed to you, Sarah so no critics)" Hi Joop, I wrote on the paradox of desire just last week. Why didn't YOU join in???? Larry -------------------- From: LBIDD@... Date: Fri Apr 14, 2006 12:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's not-self strategy bad? Root-condition. Nina: "Understanding root-condition and the other types of condition on which citta is dependent cures us of the conceit that "we" are master of kusala and can make it arise at will. Mettaa can be further developed if there is right understanding of its conditioned nature. It is right understanding that should be emphasized." Hi Nina and Han Tun, On the one hand the Buddha said paramattha dhammas are anatta because they are not subject to control (avasavattitaa). On the other hand there are prompted consciousnesses (sasankaarika citta) which play a major role in the preliminary stages of any practice (bhavana). I would say a prompted consciousness is not a controlled consciousness. But a prompted consciousness assumes a desire to control consciousness and therefore assumes a self even in the case of prompted kusala citta. So the question is, what to do about the desire to control? The question itself expresses a desire to control and 'doing nothing' is also a control strategy. There is really no answer insofar as an answer is a control. The commentaries say an UNprompted consciousness _may_ be conditioned by previous prompted consciousnesses. So what constitutes a prompt? A prompt isn't merely will and desire. It is also understanding. On the one hand will and desire are just an attempt to control. On the other hand, with understanding will and desire can condition the arising of a prompted kusala citta. So understanding is essential, and some would say it is enough. Larry 57982 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 0:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ADL ch 1 upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and Phil and Nina) - In a message dated 4/18/06 6:21:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > It seems to me that the exercise of > establishing a taxonomy of mind states is entirely a conceptual exercise. ====================== But can you not see something in common between sights, sounds, tastes, smells, and bodily sensations, i.e., the various material/physical contents of experience, that is not shared with the mental operations of awareness, feeling (as pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral), the various affective operations of fearing, craving, hating, being bored, being amused, the perceptual operations of recalling and recognizing, and the further cognitive-support operations of attention, concentration, and ideation which all seem to share a certain flavor that makes us call them "mental"? That is, doesn't the distinction of nama and rupa seem like a genuine distinction to you? There is a difference in kind, I think, between mental and physical, between namic and rupic. It is a separate issue, I believe, of whether so called rupas are merely content of consciousness or exist "externally" and independent of experience. Whether one adopts a phenomenalist perspective as I do that does not presume "external rupas" or adopts a realist perspective as Jon does that does presume (five) realms of "external rupas", there still seems to be a clear difference between mental and physical, don't you think? What was quoted so far from chapter 1 in Phil's post is certainly not yet worthy of the term 'taxonomy of mindstates'. It merely distinguishes mental from physical. Also, the notions of nama and rupa and namarupa were not Abhidhammic creations. They are ensconced in the suttas and, in fact, preceded the Buddha. But in any case, the Buddha himself in the suttas began a taxonomy that already went well beyond the nama/rupa breakdown. And there is a value in this, because by means of it, or rather, by the direct experiential knowledge of it, and not just scanning tables and perusing reportage, one is partly disabused of thinking of "the person" as an entity, where all that there are are impersonal mental and physical phenomena and operations. This experiential breakdown is a first step towards wisdom as I see it, to be followed by more deeply looking into these impersonal phenomena and grasping their radical impermanence, their utterly failing as sources of satisfaction, and their interdependence and utter emptiness of self/own-being. 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) 57983 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 5:34pm Subject: Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence ken_aitch Hi Tep, I am up to issue 3 from your post #57872. BTW, I hope my comments on issue 2 were acceptable. They were intended to sound a bit grumpy but not downright obnoxious. :-) ------------- T: > Issue #3: >KH: I don't know what you mean about 'straddling the two dessanas.' Tep: When your conversation involves the two dessanas at the same time, then you are straddling it. For example, you have created two kinds of metta by the following remark. KenH: "The metta taught by the Buddha was a paramattha dhamma. A dhamma arises according to conditions and it has its own nature (sabhava). On the other hand, conventional metta (taught by other teachers) is a mere concept, and its nature is whatever we want it to be." -------------------- I am not sure about this, although I do agree that we shouldn't use the higher exposition (paramattha desana) for conventional purposes. For example, it would be ridiculous to say, "You can't blame me for stealing the money because I don't exist." However, I think it is OK to use a conventional exposition in conjunction with a paramattha exposition. "The Buddha taught," for example, is conventional, while "All dhammas are anatta" is paramattha, and yet it is perfectly acceptable to say, "The Buddha taught all dhammas are anatta." If my little exposition did break the rules, I think it was only in using the term "conventional metta." As a Dhamma term, 'metta' refers to a cetasika, which is a paramattha dhamma - there is no conventional metta. However, metta is such a widely used term that it has probably become an exception to the rule. Even so, I might have done better to have used the term "kindness" or "the conventional equivalent of metta." Ken H 57984 From: "indriyabala" Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 5:48pm Subject: Re: Attention to Conditions and Refinement in Skillful Action indriyabala Dear Dan D. (other members are welcome!)- Boy, I only asked one naive question, "What is your thought?", and look at what you gave me -- a term paper on "Why Skillfulness is the Worst Translation of 'Kusala' and Must be Banned", or something like that !! {:>|) >Dan : >Why on earth would Asl. make such a careful distinction and not apply 'skilful' to mental states? One obvious possibility is that 'skilful' could just as easily be applied to the abilities of accomplished murderers, butchers, misers, theives, mechanics, cooks, etc., which have nothing to do with the sense of 'kusala' of kusalacittani. Thus, the use of 'skilful' in reference to states of consciousness tends to blur the critical moral distinction between kusala and akusala. Tep: I think Ven. Thanissaro Bhukkhu only talked about the process of attaining mastery that involved "the cycle of action, result, and reaction" in the course of developing "future skillful actions". He stated that an act (bodily, verbal or mental) that was motivated by the "attention for greater skillfulness" would lead to different results from "those of an act motivated by greed, aversion, or delusion". I don't think he used skilfulness "in reference to states of consciousness" as you have assumed. ............................ >Dan : >First, a quick question: How should I practice so that I can get good at (skillful) making desirable dhammas arise? Tep: This is another misunderstanding you have about Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu's wise idea on developing a skillful action! A skillful act arises as a result of one's attention for greater skillfulness. He did not say anything about getting "good at making desirable dhammas arise". .......................... >Dan: >You mean to apply "skillful" just to the dhammas themselves... But how would that work? When a citta rooted in alobha, adosa, amoha arises, is it "skillful"? I.e., does it have or demonstrate skill? Tep: No, skillful is a quality of "an act" ( bodily, verbal or mental) not to be "applied" to the dhammas. The other questions you asked are not meaningful. ............................ >Dan: >The dictionary defines skill as "the ability to do something well, arising from talent, training, or practice." I'm curious. What talent, training, or practice has that citta engaged in to give it that ability to do what it does well? Obviously, it doesn't do any such thing; it is there for just a brief moment before passing away. Tep: There you go again! Here the dictionary uses "conventional exposition"(vohaara desanaa) and you again jump to the "ultimate exposition"(paramattha-desanaa) about the citta as the ultimate reality. Look, your saññaa on ultimate realities has played a trick on you again. No doubt, you and I are "not seeing each other" because we are on the two different planes. I have a simple exposition to reconcile our opposing views ("seeing"). Think of the conventional reality as the world of non-ariyans who have the clinging on the khandhas as "me, mine, my-self", and think of the ultimate reality as the world of the ariyans who truly see the khandhas as 'this is not mine, this I am not, this not my self'. Then think of the Noble Eightfold Path as the way that connects the two worlds that appear separate to the eyes of the uninstructed worldlings. Once you are able to be on the Path you will see all sankhata dhammas as 'anatta', and when you get to the far-away end you will see Nibana as anatta. Please feel free to criticize or provide a constructive suggestion to improve this simple exposition further -- if you wish. Yours truly, Tep ==== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > > Dear Tep, > I also find the extract from Thanissaro's writing relevant to the > ongoing discussion, but perhaps not in the same way you find it > relevant. Let's start with the word 'kusala', which Thanissaro > glosses as "skilful." I also used to use 'skilful' for kusala--well, > at least I did so until I realized that the word is a lousy, > misleading, and even subversive gloss for kusala. I wrote about it in > Feb. 2002; excerpts below... > (snipped) > > Do you see what I and Asl. and Nyanatiloka and U Narada are getting > at? > (snipped) 57985 From: "indriyabala" Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:42pm Subject: Re: Is ..not-self strategy bad? Confusing Terms !! indriyabala Dear Dan (and James)- Thank you very much for sharing your honest thought with me. >Dan: > You must have missed my response to James' question: > > I gave him explanation and examples in post #57822. He essentially > dismissed this as too personal. I then used texts to explain. He > dismissed this as too bookish. > Tep: No, I did not miss that answer. > >Dan (#57822) > > --> I'd say 'kusala' refers a state of mind that is free from greed/craving/clinging/attachment (lobha) and from hatred/aversion/irritation/anxiety (dosa). ...Buddha taught about states of mind and the purification of states of mind to make them not only free from lobha and dosa, but also from the delusion that there is such a precious entity we call "self". Tep: Our understandings are different. According to my study, lobha, dosa and moha are 'roots' of akusala: they are not akusala. Further kusala is not a "state of mind" that is free from the three akusala mula (roots). MN 9 gives a clear definition of 'kusala' as follows: MN 9 : "And what is the wholesome? Abstention from killing living beings is wholesome; abstention from taking what is not given is wholesome; abstention from misconduct in sensual pleasures is wholesome; abstention from false speech is wholesome; abstention from malicious speech is wholesome; abstention from harsh speech is wholesome; abstention from gossip is wholesome; non-covetousness is wholesome; non-ill will is wholesome; right view is wholesome. This is called the wholesome." .................. >Dan: > I realize that I write in a confident, assertive style that rubs many people the wrong way, but it lends itself well to addressing difficult questions, lively discussion, and discovery of new ideas (on both sides of the conversation). But it does require a willingness to wrestle with real issues. Dhamma is difficult, and difficult questions need to be asked, difficult ideas need to be stated, and wrong notions need to be torn down. I write in order to clarify my own thoughts, air my understandings, and have others point out where I am wrong. At the same time, I hope that my comments will inspire others to wrestle with difficult questions as well. > Tep: I am glad to read the above clarification. I believe that James will like it too. Warm regards, Tep, your Dhamma friend. ======== > Your friend in Dhamma, > > Dan > 57986 From: "indriyabala" Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:55pm Subject: Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence indriyabala Hi, KenH - I like this post of yours very much. Thank you for the explanation that has helped me understand your thinking better than before. Please read the othe message that I posted earlier today -- it was an "exposition" about how the conventional and the ultimate domains might be connected. Tell me what you think of it, please. Warm regards, Tep ======== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > I am up to issue 3 from your post #57872. BTW, I hope my comments on > issue 2 were acceptable. They were intended to sound a bit grumpy > but not downright obnoxious. :-) > > ------------- > T: > > Issue #3: > >KH: I don't know what you mean about 'straddling the two dessanas.' > > > Tep: When your conversation involves the two dessanas at the same > time, then you are straddling it. For example, you have created two > kinds of metta by the following remark. KenH: "The metta taught by > the Buddha was a paramattha dhamma. A dhamma arises according to > conditions and it has its own nature (sabhava). On the other hand, > conventional metta (taught by other teachers) is a mere concept, and > its nature is whatever we want it to be." > -------------------- > > I am not sure about this, although I do agree that we shouldn't use > the higher exposition (paramattha desana) for conventional purposes. > For example, it would be ridiculous to say, "You can't blame me for > stealing the money because I don't exist." > > However, I think it is OK to use a conventional exposition in > conjunction with a paramattha exposition. "The Buddha taught," for > example, is conventional, while "All dhammas are anatta" is > paramattha, and yet it is perfectly acceptable to say, "The Buddha > taught all dhammas are anatta." > > If my little exposition did break the rules, I think it was only in > using the term "conventional metta." As a Dhamma term, 'metta' > refers to a cetasika, which is a paramattha dhamma - there is no > conventional metta. However, metta is such a widely used term that > it has probably become an exception to the rule. Even so, I might > have done better to have used the term "kindness" or "the > conventional equivalent of metta." > > Ken H > 57987 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:06pm Subject: Re: Beliefs philofillet Hi Herman > That makes me feel special. (The bit about me annoying the hell out of you > :-)) Don't get puffed up about it. Just about everyone here annoys the hell out of me. Even the people who don't annoy the hell out of me end up annoying the hell out of me because they are friendly with the people who *do* annoy the hell out of me! :) I find it very, very interesting - thanks to Dhamma (I assume) the things that used to cause me intense aversion "out there" in daily life and even drove me to drinnk no longer bother me whatsoever. But when I come to DSG, which you'd think would be a kind of refuge, I get pissed off almost immediately. This doesn't bother me because I can see it as a kind of confirmation of understanding Dhamma. All the dosa I have accumulated has to find an object, so it naturally floods to the area where I have the strongest clinging - Dhamma. I'm confident it will pass. I also feel a lot more peaceful now that I have gone back to the beginning. I think one reason I got irritated is that I sensed people were racing ahead too fast for their own and my own good. I will go nice and slow at my own pace now ...maybe. That can't be controlled. > Better sharpen your rapier, dear friend :-) Sorry Herman - I have been quite successfully keeping out of debate like threads - I think when we press to find points to use in debate we are trying to make use of understanding which isn't there. Understanding rises and falls away due to conditions - it can't be pulled out of one's pocket whenever one wants it, I sense. I may be wrong, but that's the way I'm feeling these days. Phil "In-text portions of this message have been removed" (Phil C. 2006) 57988 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:19pm Subject: [dsg] Re: ADL ch 1 philofillet Hi Herman and all (please see p.s) > Can you conceive of an undifferentiated stream of experience, or perhaps > even the absence of such a thing? I might be able to if I tried but I don't want to try. THe harder we think about things the further we get off the path, in my opinion. Understanding settles at unexpected moments. It seems to me that the exercise of > establishing a taxonomy of mind states is entirely a conceptual exercise. > What is the purpose of the exercise? Well, the Buddha does this in the suttas as well. Samyutta Nikaya (the only area of the suttanta I know to even a light degree) is all about classifying experience by khandas, by dhatus, by ayatanas etc. Abhidhamma is just more detailed or something, I don't know. I don't find much difference between Samyutta Nikaya and Abhidhamma, personally. Of course we start with conceptual understanding, and then to the degree that condition permits, deeper understanding arises, conditioned by various factors including the conceptual understanding, I guess. THe purpose of the exercise is to help us to understand what the Buddha understood. We can only understand it to an infinitesemally (sp?) degree, but that's ok. If we know our limits and are patient, we will begin to understand. If we are impatient and plough ahead trying to figure out everything by ourselves, we will wander off the path, in my opinion. Baby steps for baby minds! Phil p.s I've started this ADL review but will be going at a snail's pace, I suspect, probably taking several months to go through the first passage I've posted. Everyone feel free to go faster and post new passages or whatever. There can never be enough ADL at DSG. BTW, if there is anyone who isn't familiar with it, ADL is "Abhidhamma in Daily Life" by Nina Van Gorkom, which was published in 1975. If I'm not mistaken, it can be found online at abhidhamma.org. Could someone kindly post a link? Thanks. 57989 From: "indriyabala" Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:26pm Subject: Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence indriyabala Dear KenH - I am pleased that we have been able to sort out some of our differences in a nice and easy way. >Ken H: >I have seen your comments on my previous post, thank you. We seem to be drifting off the subject: the exact wording found in the suttas (and whether or not the term "paramattha dhamma" was used) is of no consequence as far as I am concerned. Tep: I take it to mean that you "agree" that the term "paramattha dhamma" is actually a label as I observed in the other posts. ................ >Ken H: >I am sure all DSG members will agree that the teaching of anatta was an important event of cosmos-shaking proportions, however, some of us think it becomes relevant after enlightenment, not before. ... People are using mind-altering techniques to attain gee-wiz experiences and telling us, "This is what the Buddha taught!" It is a lamentable gross trivialisation of the Dhamma and an inevitable consequence of 'putting anatta aside until later.' Tep: I am one of the members who believe that first of all the seeing 'anicca & dukkha' in the khandhas should be made clear by contemplation (because that works best for me). But if 'anatta' contemplation works best for you, then who am I to say that you are wrong? ............................ >KenH: >Here again, you are bringing in strange arguments that only break down communication. You say, "The main goal is in eradication of dukkha, not about what kind of realities things are." What does that statement mean? Does it help our discussion, or does it just confuse the issues? Tep: The main goal is the same as the Buddha's objective in teaching "only" dukkha and its cessation -- as discussed using the two suttas in the previous message. Sorry, if it does not help the discussion. Just skip it (i.e. let it go)! .............. >KenH: >Enlightenment and the consequential release from dukkha (at parinibbana), come about by our seeing the conditioned world as it really is - mere mental and physical phenomena bearing the three characteristics anicca, dukkha and anatta. Tep: The seeing of the conditioned "world" (of ayatanas, khandhas, and dhatus) as it is is an important 'visuddhi' along the Path. Sincerely, Tep ======= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > I have seen your comments on my previous post, thank you. We seem to > be drifting off the subject: the exact wording found in the suttas > (and whether or not the term "paramattha dhamma" was used) is of no > consequence as far as I am concerned. > > My point was that the way we see the world changes massively when we > understand the Buddha's teaching of 'no self.' Some Buddhists > (including some DSG members) disagree. > (snipped) Therefore, the purpose of Dhamma study is to learn all we can about those mental and physical phenomena (the five khandhas, the elements, the paramattha dhammas). > > Ken H > 57990 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:46pm Subject: [dsg] Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence ken_aitch Hi Herman, -------------- <. . .> H: > I agree that your no answer is how the matter is treated in Theravadin Buddhism. So is it just me that realises that the division between knowing and what is known is the root of all concepts? To me it is self-evident that knowing and its object are not-two, and that treating one separately from the other is not so much a matter of insight, but a matter of abstraction. -------------- First of all, thank you for making it clear that were introducing your own ideas as distinct from expressing your understanding of the Theravada texts. I was saying to Larry recently that I often get confused when people don't make this clear. According to the Dhamma, nama is definitely a separate reality from rupa. Also, according to the Dhamma, no two objects can ever be experienced together. So when, for example, seeing consciousness becomes the object of [mind door] consciousness, only seeing consciousness is experienced. No visible-object rupa, eye-door rupa, or cetasika nama is experienced at that moment. ---------------------------- H: > Without thinking / papanca-ing / conceptualisation, there is only knowing, and the knowing of anicca at that. ---------------------------- Now, you have confused me. But I know not to spend too much time on it because, after all, it is only Herman-dhamma. ------- H: > What is wrong with me? :-) ------- :-) Nothing that isn't wrong with all other uninstructed worldlings. If we know that our worldling ideas conflict with the Dhamma (as they are bound to do) then I say too bad - forget about them for the time being and try to figure out what the texts are saying. Ken H 57991 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:16pm Subject: Fou great References rjkjp1 Dear Sarah, Was it you who supplied teh commentary to this, some time back and do you have the link? 'And there the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Now, bhikkhus, I shall make known to you the four great references. Listen and pay heed to my words." And those bhikkhus answered, saying: "So be it, Lord." Then the Blessed One said: "In this fashion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu might speak: 'Face to face with the Blessed One, brethren, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a community with elders and a chief. Face to face with that community, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name live several bhikkhus who are elders, who are learned, who have accomplished their course, who are preservers of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with those elders, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a single bhikkhu who is an elder, who is learned, who has accomplished his course, who is a preserver of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with that elder, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation.' "In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu is neither to be received with approval nor with scorn. Without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying the sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and verify them by the Discipline. If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' In that way, bhikkhus, you should reject it. But if the sentences concerned are traceable in the Discourses and verifiable by the Discipline, then one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is the Blessed One's utterance; this has been well understood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' And in that way, bhikkhus, you may accept it on the first, second, third, or fourth reference. These, bhikkhus, are the four great references for you to preserve."' (DN 16: Maha-parinibbana Sutta Robert 57992 From: "Sukinder" Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:45pm Subject: Re: Breakfast with Sukin sukinderpal Hi Rob M., All, Slowly catching up. > Sukin and his family were on vacation in Kuala Lumpur. We met up for > breakfast this morning and before we knew it, two and a half hours > were gone. Lots of Dhamma discussions; so nice to have kalyana- mitta. > Sukin and I have much in common. I am very happy that we met, and yes it is always good to meet fellow Dhamma-enthusiasts, especially one like you who is so dedicated to studying the Abhidhamma. And yes, I was pleased that we have much in common, in particular our attitude towards the daily newspaper. ;-) > Sukin passed to me a number of copies of K. Sujin's "A Survey of > Paramattha Dhammas" for distribution to my class and various Buddhist > libraries in Kuala Lumpur. I have had a chance to thumb through this > hard cover book - it is excellent! Have you given a copy to Ven. Dhammananda? I wonder what he would think about it. And thanks for the copies of BDL and your Notes, I will pass them to the Foundation this Saturday. > As I was driving home (with the radio off), I was reflecting on the > pleasant and stimulating discussions with Sukin. Suddenly the car in > front of me swerved. I slammed on my breaks and instinctively looked > in the rear-view mirror to see if I had to brace myself for a rear- > end impact. Fortunately, I was able to avoid any accident. I was > overcome with a sense of spiritual urgency (samvega). We never know > how much longer we have in this lifetime available to us for > practice; let us not delay any further. Good reflex, I hope such a thing never happens again though. I must admit that in my case, the thought of death conditions very rarely any kusala, mostly there is dosa. But good for you that you experienced samvega. :-) Hope to be able to meet you again in the future. Metta, Sukin 57993 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 9:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ADL ch 1 egberdina Hey, Howard, (Jon and Neil) > > It seems to me that the exercise of > > establishing a taxonomy of mind states is entirely a conceptual > exercise. > ====================== > But can you not see something in common between sights, sounds, > tastes, smells, and bodily sensations, i.e., the various material/ physical > contents > of experience, that is not shared with the mental operations of awareness, > feeling (as pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral), the various affective > operations > of fearing, craving, hating, being bored, being amused, the perceptual > operations of recalling and recognizing, and the further cognitive- support > operations > of attention, concentration, and ideation which all seem to share a > certain > flavor that makes us call them "mental"? That is, doesn't the distinction > of > nama and rupa seem like a genuine distinction to you? There is a > difference in > kind, I think, between mental and physical, between namic and rupic. Yes, I can see all the differences and similarities you point out. But therein lies the crux of the biscuit. All these comparisons are unnecessary if you are intentionless towards the flow of experience. Neil quoted Thales with regards to being unable to step into the same river twice. But this depends on the river being a given, there being a what-it-is-like-to-step-in-a-river. At the most fundamental level, you cannot step into the same river once. Before comparisons, all phenomena are occuring for the first time. Every phenomenon is unique. Only after the first differentiation and categorisation does a phenomenon become an instance of this, or an instance of that. And that latter view of things is markedly different to the former. It is a separate issue, I believe, of whether so called rupas are > merely content of consciousness or exist "externally" and independent of > experience. Whether one adopts a phenomenalist perspective as I do that > does not > presume "external rupas" or adopts a realist perspective as Jon does that > does > presume (five) realms of "external rupas", there still seems to be a clear > difference between mental and physical, don't you think? Yes, certainly. When one looks for differences, they are to be found. All it requires is a mechanism of comparison to be in place. But what is pivotal in all of that is the intention. Without intention, phenomena are merely what they are, which does not include them being members of a class, or instances of a category. What was quoted so far from chapter 1 in Phil's post is certainly not > yet worthy of the term 'taxonomy of mindstates'. It merely distinguishes > mental from physical. Also, the notions of nama and rupa and namarupa were > not > Abhidhammic creations. They are ensconced in the suttas and, in fact, > preceded the > Buddha. But in any case, the Buddha himself in the suttas began a taxonomy > that already went well beyond the nama/rupa breakdown. And there is a > value in > this, because by means of it, or rather, by the direct experiential > knowledge > of it, and not just scanning tables and perusing reportage, one is partly > disabused of thinking of "the person" as an entity, where all that there > are are > impersonal mental and physical phenomena and operations. This experiential > breakdown is a first step towards wisdom as I see it, to be followed by > more deeply > looking into these impersonal phenomena and grasping their radical > impermanence, their utterly failing as sources of satisfaction, and their > interdependence and utter emptiness of self/own-being. Yes, I agree with all you say. But the Buddha has so many words attributed to him. Including Sn IV.5 Paramatthaka Sutta One who isn't inclined hasn't the least preconceived perception with regard to what's seen, heard, or sensed. By whom, with what, should he be pigeonholed here in the world? — this brahman who hasn't adopted views. — Such — doesn't fall back. Kind Regards Herman -- There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 57994 From: "Dan D." Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 9:43pm Subject: Re: Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's ...? Made to arise at will onco111 Dear Sarah, Thanks for the kind words for both me and Lisa. Lisa has heard very little Dhamma beyond the bits and pieces we have discussed over the years (or I guess I could say 'decades' by now since our occasional, usually brief Dhamma discussions have been going on for 18 years now), but she has keen perception and quick understanding. I still have a hard time believing there was no kusala at all in her cooking/giving activity-envelope. I watched her. I can readily see how a moment or two of kusala can prompt the initiation of a "good work" but have the work be immediately hijacked by selfish, self- image polishing. There could be a billion akusala moments following a small handful of kusala, and yet the reverberations of those kusala moments may still guide the (conventional) actions for quite some time--long enough to buy ingredients, cook, package, deliver. But if she says, "strictly akusala", who am I to argue? Metta, Dan P.S. I will share your appreciation with her. > As Dan has been stressing in his own wonderful style (love them, Dan!!), > we can't even tell whether a person's 'good works' are good or bad and > it's not our business anyway. I also loved his post on the sammas vs > ritual (#57798) and I think you mostly agreed with it too. Also, his > 'Ai-yo' post (#57756) on planning etc. As I see it, the more understanding > develops, the more akusala is apparent. Also, Dan, it was a very touching > story about Lisa and her cooking for your sick colleague. Like you, I'd > say there must have been generosity and kindness involved to perform the > acts, but it shows a real depth of sincerity and truthfulness (sacca) on > Lisa's part to appreciate that even at such times, there's even more > akusala arising. Very comendable. (Pls share my appreciation with her). 57995 From: "Dan D." Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 11:33pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Please don't run away yet, DAN 1.ii onco111 Hello again dear Sarah, I don't think I see anything to disagree with in your post, except for our old dispute about the importance of a theoretical understanding, which you seem to value much more than I do. A few comments interspersed (and some snipping)... > > D: "I don't think the logic and details of a conceptual framework > > are so critical. The question is whether the words are aiding the > > development of panya/satipatthana/vipassana or whether they are > > acting as a stumbling block, facilitating papanca, functioning as > > objects of lobha." > .... > S: "I think the conceptual framework and development have to be in accord." Certainly. But there may be many different formulations that can point to the same truths. Perception of the Truth at hand is fleeting and passes away before it can be grasped, corralled, and nailed down with words and concepts and cogitation. Then follows description. There may be many different ways to point to or describe the reality that was perceived. None of the descriptions ARE the reality; and none of them even describe it very well. But if a particular description helps to condition a clearer view the next time around, then it has served its purpose. Development proceeds in baby steps. And I don't think any of it (at least at my kindergarten-level understanding) demands an elaborate conceptual model. For example, some of the most helpful models for me have been (in no particular order): 1. cittas arise and pass away with great rapidity; 2. citta takes only one object at a time; 3. kusala describes namas, not activity envelopes or people; 4. akusala cetasikas and sobhana cetasikas cannot arise at the same time; 5. the distinction between Wrong effort and Right effort is in the quality (miccha or samma) of the citta, not the imagined goal of the effort (e.g., making special food for a sick friend ceratinly SOUNDS like a good thing to do, but that is irrelevant in the determination of the miccha or samma of any particular moment in the activity envelope that brings about the food); 6. applying the term "Right effort" to a prescribed activity (like meditation) is silabbataparamasa; 7. silabbataparamasa is a fetter; 8. paramattha dhammas are distinct from concepts; 9. paramattha dhammas have no handle to grasp; 10. right view is more akin to "clear viewing" of reality than to "right opinion" or "right theory"; 11. others that are not just on the tip of my tongue; I believe it takes years and years of patient and persistent work to get even a rudimentary understanding of any of these simple models. The difficulty in understanding them is not caused by lack of a theoretical understanding or a lack of details. The concepts and theory are easy. The difficulty is in lack of perception and superabundance of ego. > S: "When people put the yoniso manasikara outside the javanas and just think > of the manodvaravajjana, it seems to me that they inevitably think in > terms of somehow steering the course of javanas which follow. They give > the manodvaravajjana undue importance and think that it is this (rather > than past accumulations, past javanas) which condition the present > javanas. In fact, the manodvaravajjana is just one citta, one ahetuka > citta which precedes the javanas." I was thinking just the opposite. If yoniso manasikara is outside the javanas, then (so the theory of javana goes) it is outside those cittas that can be controlled. And if the nature of the javana process (e.g., akusala or kusala) is determined by the preceding character of the manodvaravajjana, then the coloring of the javana process is beyond atta's control. But such elaborate theorizing is not helpful for us kindergartners. Instead, it is more likely to act as a stumbling block, a facilitator of papanca. If you tell me, "no, yoniso manasikara is part of the javanas and not manodvaravajjana", that's fine with me. I don't think it matters very much one way or the other--as long as we don't get hung up on the theory. > > D: "My contention is that all theories are wrong. What I mean is > > that no description of reality is a perfect match for reality as it > > is." > .... > S: "No ? there is right theory (pariyatti) and wrong theory based on wrong > view." I would state it slightly different. Something more along the lines of "There is right theory based on right view and wrong theory based on wrong view." For example, if I read and study an enlightened person's description of nibbana so carefully that I can spout words that sound just like that enlightened person's, coming from me the words would be "wrong theory" and coming from the enlightened person they would be "right theory." My theory would HAVE to be wrong because I do not have any right view of nibbana, and my theory would be based on wrong view. It is my contention that wrong theories (i.e. speculations) are not helpful. The role of theory in advancing understanding? Prior perception of a Truth is put into a slightly more advanced conceptual framework (not necessarily more complex) by description and reflection, and this allows a slightly deeper penetration later. In this way, the theory comes later--as a description of what's passed. If you can tell me things that I can connect with some prior perception of a Truth, then there is pariyatti, which consolidates my understanding and allows for a clearer vision at some point in the future, at which point I'll be ready to hear something else that will help consolidate that later, slightly clearer vision. > S: "There is right path and wrong path. Right theory is an important > condition for the right path and wrong theory for the wrong path. Part of > the right theory would be the appreciation that theory is only theory, > quite different from the reality which is described or understood." The degree of "right theory" matches precisely the degree of prior understanding. They go back and forth, deepening each other by tiny increments over long periods of time with occasional (rare) leaps in perception and understanding. Theory that is not based on Right View is Wrong Theory and not helpful. > .... > >But the purpose constructing a verbal formulation of Dhamma > > (or "dhammas") is not to provide a perfect match for reality but to > > illuminate a particular aspect of reality to the listener or talker. > ..... > S: Yes, as a condition for understanding to develop. Not for anything > else. Right. But a formulation of Dhamma that is speculative for the hearer is not helpful. It has to be connected with reality (the hearer's, not the speaker's) or it is merely theory. And if the depth of insight in the hearer is not great (which would include me and 'most everyone else), there may be any number of formulations (some of them not very Buddhist-sounding) that could help consolidate the understanding to bring the hearer to a deeper understanding. > > D: Vedana accompanies all > > cittas. Another way to say it is: A characteristic of all cittas is > > they are accompanied by vedana. How is that any different from saying > > that vedana is a characteristic of citta? > ..... > >S: The characteristic of citta is not vedana. Citta doesn?t feel pleasant > or unpleasant or neutral, it just takes the lead in experiencing its > object. Seeing consciousness (citta) sees visible object, vedana feels the > object in a neutral way. Different functions. My goodness, Sarah, I'm not understanding. I can see that you are hitting at the distinction between citta and cetasika...but can you explain the problem with thinking of cetasikas as characteristics of cittas? After all, cetasikas accompany cittas, and they sure do read like characteristics. > ........ > > And how can you say something like "seeing sees" and then > > say "[citta] doesn't ...perceive at all"? Isn't the "seeing" you > > refer to 'citta'? And the "sees", perceiving? > .... > S: Sa~n~naa perceives ? marks and remembers the object seen. Seeing > doesn?t remember or mark at all. It just sees it. Remember the analogy of > the child, the old woman and the money-lender experiencing the coins, > referring to the different functions of citta, sa~n~naa and pa~n~naa. > Vi~n~naa.na, sa~n~naa and pa~n~naa all come from the same root as I recall > ? ?to know?, but they know or experience in different ways. I see. It looks like a vocabulary issue. I was thinking of "perceive" as sense perception (e.g., seeing), and you were using "perceive" in more of a "knowing" sense. > <...> > > D: I was thinking of "remembering" as the sense that one finds the > > object familiar. This sense of familiarity is "flavoring" I was > > referrring to. > .... > S: I think the sense of familiarity we have when we see a familiar face or > taste a kind of food is due to the role of sa~n~naa. The flavor of the > object associated with the feeling experienced is the role of vedana, > surely? But maybe we?re just tripping over words here. Yes, certainly we are just tripping over words. Since "flavor" is not a technical term with a definition we all agree on and understand, I defined what I was talking about in that particular context. The sense of familiarity is the "flavoring" that sanya gives. > S: I don?t think the use of ?activity? or ?process? to refer to a single > citta is very helpful. I know Howard and others like to use activity. The > commentary (which this is based on) says (PTS transl): > > S: Yes. We can use whichever formulation we find helpful. I find the "activity" description enormously helpful (and perhaps for the same reason that BB writes that the "activity" description is considered the most adequate). Metta, Dan 57996 From: "Joop" Date: Wed Apr 19, 2006 0:07am Subject: On spice and paradoxes [ was: [dsg] Re: Beliefs jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: >> Hi Joop, > ............ > I wrote on the paradox of desire just last week. Why didn't YOU join > in???? Hallo Larry Yes, I missed it, think I skipped it because at first glance it is to me a 'technical discussion' (Nina doesn't like that word) with much Pali. Larry: "On the one hand the Buddha said paramattha dhammas are anatta because they are not subject to control (avasavattitaa)." Joop: Has the Buddha really said that, where? I don't think that "dhammas ARE anatta"; here you use "anatta" as a property, a characteristic a (ultimate) reality can have. To me "anatta" is not a property/characteristic but a permanent warning. "Anatta" is onely relevant on the level of a (non-existing) person; on the level of a ultimate reality it's "anicca" "Anatta" ITSELF (that's a really paradox) is a concept: doesn't belong to the list of ultimate realities. For the rest: I don't understand everything of your message, I think I agree. But are things not more easy when we accept: volition=volition? Metta Joop > > Larry > -------------------- > From: LBIDD@... > Date: Fri Apr 14, 2006 12:39 am > Subject: Re: [dsg] Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's not-self strategy bad? > Root-condition. > > Nina: "Understanding root-condition and the other types of condition on > which citta is dependent cures us of the conceit that "we" are master of > kusala and can make it arise at will. Mettaa can be further developed if > there is right understanding of its conditioned nature. It is right > understanding that should be emphasized." > > Hi Nina and Han Tun, > > On the one hand the Buddha said paramattha dhammas are anatta because > they are not subject to control (avasavattitaa). On the other hand there > are prompted consciousnesses (sasankaarika citta) which play a major > role in the preliminary stages of any practice (bhavana). I would say a > prompted consciousness is not a controlled consciousness. But a prompted > consciousness assumes a desire to control consciousness and therefore > assumes a self even in the case of prompted kusala citta. > > So the question is, what to do about the desire to control? The question > itself expresses a desire to control and 'doing nothing' is also a > control strategy. There is really no answer insofar as an answer is a > control. > > The commentaries say an UNprompted consciousness _may_ be conditioned by > previous prompted consciousnesses. So what constitutes a prompt? A > prompt isn't merely will and desire. It is also understanding. On the > one hand will and desire are just an attempt to control. On the other > hand, with understanding will and desire can condition the arising of a > prompted kusala citta. > > So understanding is essential, and some would say it is enough. > > Larry > 57997 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Apr 19, 2006 0:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] More questions about Ajaan Sujin sarahprocter... Dear Marisa, I'll just give a few brief comments as no one else has yet: --- mwesthei8 wrote: > One thing that I noticed in the responses of many was the > de-emphasized role of meditation, whether one agrees or disagrees with > this. I was hoping to get a bit more clarification on this, is there > anywhere where Ajaan Sujin specifically addresses the role of > meditation, and if so, what is her stance? ... S: She’ll say it depends on what the meaning of ‘meditation’ is when someone uses the term. She’ll ask what is meant by bhaavanaa (mental development) instead. It’s not sitting still in a quiet room, but the development from the very beginning from hearing, considering and so on until awareness begins to develop. Gradually it will lead to more understanding if one keeps on the right path. (this is a summary of something I heard her reply to a similar question on a tape this morning just after I read your message:-)). .... > Secondly, does Ajaan Sujin ever articulate the goal of Buddhism as > being Nirvana? > Thirdly, does Ajaan Sujin ever hold discussion on the idea of rebirth? .... S: Usually she’ll bring all such questions back to the understanding of present realities. It is only by such development that the defilements will ever be eradicated and nibbana realized. Similarly, it’s only by understanding realities such as ignorance now that the cycle of births and deaths or rebirth can have any meaning. There’s also the momentary birth and death of dhammas now. This is how it’s always been and will continue to be at the end of life. She always stresses that it’s not her teaching or understanding but what the Buddha’s that we can read about for ourselves in the ancient texts. It is the Dhamma which is our refuge – not this or that teacher. If you listen to the Erik series cd, you will get more idea of how she responds to such questions about nibbana etc (www.dhammastudygroup.org). Please tell us more about your own interest and understanding when you have time, Marisa. Thanks for posting your questions here. Metta, Sarah ====== 57998 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Apr 19, 2006 0:34am Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 424 - mindfulness/sati (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;-) ========================================== (Ch26 - mindfulness/sati continued) The study of the Dhamma is included in mental development. When we study the Dhamma with the aim to have more understanding of realities there is mindfulness at that moment. When we study the Dhamma and consider it there is intellectual understanding of realities and this is different from direct understanding of the reality which appears at the present moment. Intellectual understanding is a necessary foundation for the development of direct understanding or insight, vipassanå. In order to understand what mindfulness of vipassanå is, we should know what its object is. The object of mindfulness in the development of vipassanå is the nåma or rúpa which appears at the present moment. Nåma and rúpa are ultimate realities, different from “conventional realities” or concepts, such as person, mind, body, animal or tree. Concepts are objects we can think of but they are not real in the absolute sense. ***** (Ch26 - mindfulness/sati to be contd) Metta, Sarah ====== 57999 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Apr 18, 2006 10:21pm Subject: The Best Protection ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: Morality is not a Prison but rather the only really Effective Protection!!! What is Morality? · Morality is the Root Cause of all Success and all what is Good… · Morality is the Intention behind all Avoidance of any Wrongdoing… · Morality is the Mental Qualities of Non-Envy, Goodwill & Right view… · Morality is the Self-Control produced by Awareness, Tolerance & Restraint… · Morality is the Non-Breaking of Rules one have once Accepted & Undertaken… What is the Meaning of Morality? · Morality means Consistency in and between all Mental, Verbal & Bodily Actions… · Morality means Upholding, since it is the Foundation of all Advantageous States… What is the Function of Morality? · To STOP Bad and Evil Behaviour & it’s painful effects is the Function of Morality… · To ATTAIN Blameless mental Purity & it’s blissful joy is the Function of Morality… What is the Manifestation of Morality? · The virtuous innocence of Mental Purity, Verbal Purity & Purity of Bodily behaviour… What is the Proximate Cause of Morality? · The scrupulous Shame within all Conscience is a Cause of any moral ethics… · The Fear of the painful results of all Wrongdoing is a Cause of any moral ethics… Source: The Path of Purification: Visuddhimagga. Written by 'the great explainer' Ven. Buddhaghosa on Ceylon in 5th century AC. http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=771100 Friendship is the Greatest ... Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. <...>