58201 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 2:16pm Subject: Re: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? buddhatrue Hi Tep (and Dan), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" wrote: > > So, how is it possible for you to admire and respect this "not > particularly" Buddhist monk, whose ideas are not in the Buddha's > Teaching domain? Doesn't he sound like a faked monk to you? You have touched on something that doesn't make much sense to me. I can't understand how all of these different respected Buddhist leaders could be considered to have wrong view: Thanissaro Bhikkhu = Wrong View Bhikkhu Bodhi = Wrong View Dali Lama = Wrong View Ajahn Chah = Wrong View Ajahn Sumedho = Wrong View Buddhadasa Bhikkhu = Wrong View Chogyam Trungpa = Wrong View D.T. Suzuki = Wrong View Milarepa = Wrong View Nagarjuna = Wrong View Thich Nhat Hanh = Wrong View AND THE ONLY EXCEPTION: Khun Sujin = Right View What is the likelihood of that?? Metta, James 58202 From: "icarofranca" Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 2:22pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Dhaatukathaa, Elements icarofranca Hi Nina! -------------------------------------------------------------------- >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > > Hi Icaro, > Could you post something from this work, to our benefit? --------------------------------------------------------------------- With pleasure! Avec Plaisir! The Dhaatukathaa is the third volume of Abhidhamma and covers many aspects that are only slightly touched on by Dhammasangani. I love it almost I love the own Dhammasangani: I will cover first the beginning for now, the Dhaatukathaa Maatikaa: 1. Nayamatika a. Sangaho asangaho, sangahitena asangahitam, asangahitena sangahitam sangahitena sangahitam, asangahitena asangahitan. ( This reaches all aspects of what is left registered on books and what isnt). b. Sampayogo vippayogo, sampayuttena vipayyuttam, vipayuttena sampayuttam, sampayuttena sampayuttam, vipayuttena vipayuttam. ( And this, what is connected or not with that is respectively interconnected...or not) c. Sangahitena sampayuttam vipayuttam,sampayuttena sangahatam asangahitam,asangahitena sampayuttam vippayuttam, vipayuttena sangahitam asangahitam. ( And this, what one can deduce about interconnection - or not - from what is left on books...or not!). 2. Abbhantaramaatikaa. Pacakkhanda dvadasaayatanaani atthaarasadhatuyo. Caattari Saccani, Baavisatindriyaani.Paticcasammupado. Caattaro Saatipatthaanaa, caattaro Sammapaadhaana, caattaro iddhipaadaa. Caattari jhaanaani. Caattasso Appamanayo. Pacindryani.Pacabalaani. Sattabojjhangaa. Aryio atthangiko maggo. Phasso, vedana, saa, cetana, citta, adhimokkho, manasikaro. ( The more complete and all reaching list of the more vital points on Buddhistic doctrine, chained in a perfectly structured, organizated flow of Dhammas one will never see on buddhistic texts! If someone here is interested, I can provide more details about its basic components...heheheh!). 3.Nayamukhamaatikaa. Tihi Sangaho, tihi asangaho,catuuhi sampayogo, catuuhi vippayogo. ( as above, with details) 4.Lakkhanamaatikaa. Sabhaago, vibhaago. 5. Baahiramaatikaa. Sabbaapi dhammasangani dhaatukathaaya maatikaati. ( The verse that first called my attention on Dhaatukathaa: all our knowledge of external world - out of our own senses, Bien entend - are encompassed by these two Abhidhamma books: Dhammasangani and Dhaatukhataa). And the next fourteen chapters are written on Abhidhamma style of studying details about the Maatikaa - answers and questions!!! Mettaya caro 58203 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 10:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? upasaka_howard Hi, James (and Tep & Dan) - In a message dated 4/22/06 5:17:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > Thanissaro Bhikkhu = Wrong View > Bhikkhu Bodhi = Wrong View > Dali Lama = Wrong View > Ajahn Chah = Wrong View > Ajahn Sumedho = Wrong View > Buddhadasa Bhikkhu = Wrong View > Chogyam Trungpa = Wrong View > D.T. Suzuki = Wrong View > Milarepa = Wrong View > Nagarjuna = Wrong View > Thich Nhat Hanh = Wrong View > > AND THE ONLY EXCEPTION: > Khun Sujin = Right View > > What is the likelihood of that?? > > ============================ Of your list of alleged "wrong view" teachers, I like some but not all teachings of some of them, close to most teachings of some others of them, and very few of the teachings of yet other ones of them. And, as you know, there are certain teachings by Ajahn Sujin, based on what her admirers put, that I am very unhappy about and take strong exception to. However, teachings need to be judged on their own merits or demerits and not on being in the minority or majority. The Buddha at his time was a minority of one, and it is he we follow and not the others. So while I most assuredly share your lack of enthusiasm, to put it mildly, for some of Khun Sujin's teachings, I think your argument here is a weak one. (Sorry! ;-) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 58204 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 3:37pm Subject: Re: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? buddhatrue Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, James (and Tep & Dan) - > However, teachings need to be judged on their own merits or demerits > and not on being in the minority or majority. The Buddha at his time was a > minority of one, and it is he we follow and not the others. So while I most > assuredly share your lack of enthusiasm, to put it mildly, for some of Khun Sujin's > teachings, I think your argument here is a weak one. (Sorry! ;-) > > With metta, > Howard That's okay, Howard, I think you misunderstood my point. I was not saying that majority rules when it comes to wisdom, I was saying to look more closely at the dynamics at play here. I also agree and disagree with certain teachings of all of those different Buddhist leaders- that isn't my point. My point is that those who follow KS dismiss these other teachers out of hand simply because they aren't KS. Have you ever heard anyone of the KS camp say that they disagree with something KS teaches? I haven't. Is it possible that everything KS teaches is Right View and that all these other teachers suffer from Wrong View in one way or another? I don't think that that is possible. It smacks to me of a %^&^%&^& (something I promised Sarah off-list to not talk about again). Metta, James 58205 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 3:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? egberdina Hi James, I'm glad you posted this list, because my answer doesn't apply to you or your thinking. But it gives me an opportunity to make a point without needing to point at specific people. On 23/04/06, buddhatrue wrote: > > Hi Tep (and Dan), > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" > wrote: > > > > > So, how is it possible for you to admire and respect this "not > > particularly" Buddhist monk, whose ideas are not in the Buddha's > > Teaching domain? Doesn't he sound like a faked monk to you? > > > You have touched on something that doesn't make much sense to me. I > can't understand how all of these different respected Buddhist > leaders could be considered to have wrong view: > > Thanissaro Bhikkhu = Wrong View > Bhikkhu Bodhi = Wrong View > Dali Lama = Wrong View > Ajahn Chah = Wrong View > Ajahn Sumedho = Wrong View > Buddhadasa Bhikkhu = Wrong View > Chogyam Trungpa = Wrong View > D.T. Suzuki = Wrong View > Milarepa = Wrong View > Nagarjuna = Wrong View > Thich Nhat Hanh = Wrong View > > AND THE ONLY EXCEPTION: > Khun Sujin = Right View > > What is the likelihood of that?? In some ways it is just funny, but in other ways quite symptomatic of how delusion works, that people who claim they are only infants in Buddhism, and restrict themselves to only tiny steps, can and regularly do spot wrong view at 20 paces. -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58206 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:15pm Subject: Vism.XVII,72 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII 72. (3) A state that assists in the sense of being foremost is a 'predominance condition'. It is of two kinds as conascent and as object. Herein, because of the passage beginning 'Predominance of zeal is a condition, as predominance condition, for states associated with zeal and for the kinds of materiality originated thereby' (P.tn.1,2), it is the four states called zeal, [purity of] consciousness, energy, and inquiry, that should be understood as predominance condition; but not simultaneously, for when consciousness occurs with emphasis on zeal and putting zeal foremost, then it is zeal and not the others that is predominant. So with the rest. But the state, by giving importance to which, immaterial states occur, is their 'object-predominance'. Hence it is said: 'When any states, as states of consciousness and consciousness-concomitants, arise by giving importance to any states, these [latter] states are a condition, as predominance condition, for those [former] states' (P.tn.1,2). ************************ 72. je.t.thaka.t.thena upakaarako dhammo adhipatipaccayo, so sahajaataaramma.navasena duvidho. tattha ``chandaadhipati chandasampayuttakaana.m dhammaana.m ta.msamu.t.thaanaana~nca ruupaana.m adhipatipaccayena paccayotiaadivacanato (pa.t.thaa0 1.3.3) chandaviiriyacittaviima.msaasa"nkhaataa cattaaro dhammaa adhipatipaccayoti veditabbaa, no ca kho ekato. yadaa hi chanda.m dhura.m chanda.m je.t.thaka.m katvaa citta.m pavattati, tadaa chandova adhipati, na itare. esa nayo sesesupi. ya.m pana dhamma.m garu.m katvaa aruupadhammaa pavattanti, so nesa.m aaramma.naadhipati. tena vutta.m ``ya.m ya.m dhamma.m garu.m katvaa ye ye dhammaa uppajjanti cittacetasikaa dhammaa, te te dhammaa tesa.m tesa.m dhammaana.m adhipatipaccayena paccayo''ti. 58207 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:37pm Subject: Re: A great debate on Scholars & Meditators ? [was: [dsg] Re: How to radiate metta egberdina Hi Sukinder, On 23/04/06, sukinder wrote: > > Hi Herman and Sarah, > > Welcome back Herman, hope you don't mind my butting in. I actually wanted > to > respond to a similar point you made in another post, but felt too lazy at > that time. It was a reference to your listening to Bach's St. Matthews's > Passion I think, which I remember liking very much the one time I heard it > 20 years ago, and how you decided to shift your attention to other > 'concepts', resulting in an experience you then seemed to be so excited > about. :-) It is very nice to hear from you again. Please butt in as often as you want. I remember before my last departure there were some challenging posts from you waiting for a reply, and then, well, stuff happens. Anyway, I am glad to see you make some jokes as well, that way I don't have to feel like I must walk on eggshells in discussing. If ever you ordain I recommend your name be "Lazy Eye" (in Pali of course) because it was the St John's Passion :-) More comments below. > ================================ > > > If meditation is the same as mental development, which I don't have a > > > problem with, and mental develpment is a learning of some kind (or > > > unlearning as the case may be) you are saying that there can be no > > > learning > > > while trying to learn. Is it your intention to say that? > > .... > > S: Yes. As soon as there is a trying to have mental development at any > > time, it's indicative of a wish for results (often with an idea of > self). > > Such wishing is lobha (attachment) not learning or mental devlopment. > > > > Hope that's cleared up:). > > > Herman: > Not quite, but all the signs are hopeful :-) > > What would clear it up is if you were prepared to say that the intention > to > learn prevents learning, or that the intention to learn doesn't prevent > learning. Would you be prepared to say either? > > Sukin: > Intention arises with all cittas, so I think the more important point to > consider is whether there is understanding or not. Lobha is clearly > akusala > and accompanied by ignorance. So yes, to any intention accompanied by > panna, > but no, to one that is accompanied by lobha. So you are saying that learning is possible only in the absence of lobha? OK, that clears it up. Now I must go and see if it really is that way :-) On the face of it, I think we learn all sort of stuff, with oodles and oodles of lobha. And we unlearn all sorts of stuff with lobha too. Just think of trying to give up smoking. If there is great lobha with the intention of being smokefree, perhaps the chances of success are even better then if there was no lobha at all. But of course we are talking about the Dhamma. Which leads me to another point. About kusala and akusala. I feel very uncomfortable with the definitions of these words that are in common use, because they tend to be used in such a way as to bolster a particular view. For me, Buddhism is about nibbana, and if kusala or akusala has no bearing on that, then it is trivial to busy yourself with it. With that in mind, kusala leads to cessation, and akusala leads to becoming. And so, of course, lobha is akusala, because it drives becoming. =================================== > > Sarah: > > And on the ballooning -- to try not to have interest, to try not to have > > lobha whilst in the balloon, at the concert or in the surf would be > > equally indicative of a wrong view that this is the way to go or that a > > self really can stop lobha from arising. > > Herman: > We may be talking about different things here. Some examples might clear > up > what I mean. A person with cerebral palsy may have the intention to brush > their teeth, yet end up brushing their face. They lack the control, > despite > the intention. I might have the intention to slow my heart rate down, but > no > matter what I do, nothing has an effect. I don't know how to do it. But > with > the arising of the intention to stop projecting interest everywhere, that > is > entirely possible if it is known how to do that. An untrained/unguarded > mind > is like an incontinent mind, or a cerebral-palsied mind, but a > trained/guarded mind can do what it knows how to do. > > Sukin: > Yes, this is the point aspiring meditators ought to keep in mind. When the > Buddha's words conditioned in his audience satipatthana or even direct > insight, it was because the mind of those folks were ripe due to prior > development. We at this day and age are not like them, but like your > cerebral palsy patient, we 'think' one thing, i.e. all those idealistic > goals we project from hearing about the Dhamma and practice, but actually > end up going completely wrong, starting with the very idea of 'another > place, time and posture'. ;-) I agree in part. I think broadly speaking, people are quite different today than even a few hundred years ago. The St John's Passion is an example of that. It is 2 hours of music. It was written to replace the reading of the Gospel in a church service. To fit it into the normal schedule, the minister had to cut his sermon (dhamma talk) short. The service still lasted 4 hours. You would not find many people today that could muster 4 hours of paying attention / concentration, yet a few hundred years ago, ordinary village folk would go to church twice on Sundays and concentrate for 8 hours. So yes, I accept that in the time of the Buddha things were different. But it is broadly speaking only, and I think there are still pockets of resistance around, ie people quite able to concentrate and guard their minds. > The cerebral palsy patient of yours however, still 'knows' what went > wrong. > But in the case of the meditator, the mind is so tricky, re: the various > akusala factors, including desire and wrong view, that if there is no > understanding of the present moment, then invariably there is akusala > being > mistaken for kusala, lobha for sati and 'thinking differently' for panna. > > And this brings me to your own experience with the St. Matthew's Passion. > > Firstly no two persons in the audience will ever be listening or > not-listening to the music alike. Much of this is dependent on the > 'thinking > about' in between the actual perception of sounds. A devout Christian will > be listening with a different ear from one who is primarily interested in > Bach and his music. You with your knowledge of the Dhamma, happen to > decide > to 'think' differently that evening, the intention to do so was > conditioned > by various factors. The result was different from what otherwise was your > normal reaction, but I can assure you that it was still a form of > 'thinking' > nevertheless. And what you may have perceived and judged as being some > level > of detachment was more a matter of lobha taking on a different object and > supported by wrong view. Dear, oh dear, you can say all that from my few lines of description which you misremember blatantly :-) (St John's, remember) You may well have sound reasons for saying what you say, but they are not apparent to me here. Feel free to expand or clarify. The same process happens day in and day out for us putthujanas. There is a > thought, followed by another one, all day, and in between there are yet > other thoughts giving rise to the impression that there is a causal > relationship between them. Some thoughts seem to be different from others > and if we happen to judge the one as being undesirable, then another which > is not, may be seen as not only good, but even 'right' and wise. > > The thought about lifting up the cup of tea and putting it against the > lips > and drinking the tea does give also to the impression that what followed > as > being the result of the initial intention. This is true to some extent. > However, and here lies the problem, because there is no satipatthana at > anytime and esp. when the intention was verbalized, there is an > identification with the activity as being 'mine' and within the control of > 'my self'. > > Likewise your "intention to stop projecting interest everywhere" is what > gave me the impression that there was no panna involved. Such thought can > occur only with self-view. Panna doesn't make any such decisions. It knows > an object and detaches without any idea about what 'should be'. Again, you may be projecting a lot of things onto me here, Sukin, if not, please explain further. You seem to be saying that the process of going from projecting lobha to not projecting lobha does not have an experience connected with it, it cannot be described, so any description of it is only an indication of wrong view. If so, I disagree strongly. Besides > there is thinking after every sense door experience, your description of > what took place, i.e. seeming uninterested in the music, is unrealistic > and > so I assume that you were deluded. (I'm being blunt because it is > convenient > to be so ;-), please don't mind). Wow, there is thinking after every sense door experience? Is that something you have discovered, or did a little bird tell you that? Should I try and discover that to be true? :-) In conclusion, if we have an idea of having to do something to get somewhere > in terms of Dhamma and development, then its inevitable, that projections > will come to influence one's outlook. Meanwhile wrong view and desire have > had their influence taking us ever further away from the goal. I'm not sure whether I'm impressed or stunned. I suggested that it is possible, on the arising of the intention, and when it is known how, to stop projecting interest in the world. And you tell me the above?! =================================== > > Herman: > The question really is "Is learning possible?" and if it is "What are we > teaching ourselves?" > > Sukin: > Learning is possible. And because this can ever happen only in the present > moment, "what are we teaching ourselves" are the characteristics of > realities, including the fact that they are impermanent, suffering and > not-self. We also learn that they are conditioned in various ways. In > other > words, we learn exactly what the Buddha pointed out in his Teachings. Yes, learning is possible. And we have taught ourselves, and keep teaching ourselves that the world is interesting, not realising that we are projecting interest where it doesn't properly belong. And also not realising that this projected interest is the root of all our suffering. So what remains, for those who realise that, is to learn how to not project interest everywhere. And if it was not possible to do so, the Buddha wouldn't have taught how to do that. Metta, > > Sukinder. > > Ps: This post was a bit rushed and not as expected, having been > interrupted > by wife and kids about 30 times in the course of writing. :-/ But I will > respond to whatever is your reaction. No worries :-) -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58208 From: "Dan D." Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:46pm Subject: Re: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? onco111 Hi Tep, I find myself intrigued by your post. I take it as a given that ideas, writings, and disagreements can and should be and very commonly are conducted without expressed differences of opinion being taken as attacks on the character or person of either disputant. In my line of work, such discussions are a matter of course. Sure, there are some who take every disagreement about an idea as a personal attack, but, really, even among those folks, I find very few who argue that it is either right or inevitable to, as a matter of policy, take personal offense at differences of opinion. Am I reading you wrong? Metta, Dan > > Dan: Can you see no distinction between critique of a writing or an idea and judgement of a person? ... > Tep: No, I cannot! ... 58209 From: "gazita2002" Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] steering committee gazita2002 Hello Herman and Connie, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > On 22/04/06, connie wrote: > > > > > > the adverting consciousnesses, panca and mano dvaravajana cittas, turn to > > their object, respectively, thru the sense or mind door. "there" is > > manasikara cetasika, which << has the characteristic of driving associated > > states towards the object, the function of joining (yoking associated > > states to the object, the manifestation of facing the object. It is > > included in the sankharakkhandha, and should be regarded as the charioteer > > of associated states because it regulates the object.>> vsm and co. > > > > Well, Connie, that's another fine conceptual mess you got us into :-) > Kind Regards > Herman azita: I guess I'm not part of that 'us' you mention Herman, because I believe that what Connie has written is exactly what is happening right this moment, right here and now. I also believe there is little wisdom [panna] and lots of ignorance [moha] both of which are included in sankharakkhandha, that are conditions for not seeing/knowing that it is just these very states that we mistakenly take for self. patience, courage and good cheer, azitah 58210 From: "Dan D." Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:56pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? onco111 Hi Herman! I'm amazed! I do wish that instead of vague, generalized broadsides aimed at "anonymous person" , you would make specific points about Dhamma, and give your target the courtesy of being allowed to give a specific defense. Metta, Dan > > Hi James, > > I'm glad you posted this list, because my answer doesn't apply to you or > your thinking. But it gives me an opportunity to make a point without > needing to point at specific people. > > > > On 23/04/06, buddhatrue wrote: > > > > Hi Tep (and Dan), > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > So, how is it possible for you to admire and respect this "not > > > particularly" Buddhist monk, whose ideas are not in the Buddha's > > > Teaching domain? Doesn't he sound like a faked monk to you? > > > > > > You have touched on something that doesn't make much sense to me. I > > can't understand how all of these different respected Buddhist > > leaders could be considered to have wrong view: > > > > Thanissaro Bhikkhu = Wrong View > > Bhikkhu Bodhi = Wrong View > > Dali Lama = Wrong View > > Ajahn Chah = Wrong View > > Ajahn Sumedho = Wrong View > > Buddhadasa Bhikkhu = Wrong View > > Chogyam Trungpa = Wrong View > > D.T. Suzuki = Wrong View > > Milarepa = Wrong View > > Nagarjuna = Wrong View > > Thich Nhat Hanh = Wrong View > > > > AND THE ONLY EXCEPTION: > > Khun Sujin = Right View > > > > What is the likelihood of that?? > > > In some ways it is just funny, but in other ways quite symptomatic of how > delusion works, that people who claim they are only infants in Buddhism, and > restrict themselves to only tiny steps, can and regularly do spot wrong view > at 20 paces. > > > > > -- > Kind Regards > > > Herman 58211 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddhist Logic (was James' Long Response) egberdina Hi Howard, Still, there is a difference between mental phenomena and physical > ones. I am with Niels Bohr when he said ""No phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon". Differences are interesting. Is a difference a phenomenon? Are differences observed? Or are they thought? I personally think that differences are thoughts. Cartainly nothing, mental or physical, lasts at all, has own-being, > own-nature, or own-anything, or is a source of genuine satisfaction. > Nonetheless, events occur (dependently and inseparably), and some are > physical (sights, > sounds, tastes, smells, and bodily sensations) and all the rest are > mental. > Note that none of sights, sounds, tastes, odors and bodily > sensations > are operations. However, vi~n~nana, vedana, sankhara (the various > formational > operations including cetana, thought processes, emotional processes, and > more), and sa~n~na all are operations. Whether that is the basis for > distingishing > mental from physical I really don't know. (It's just a guess.) But the > mental/physical distinction is a clear one to me. When there is a sound > heard, I > know, without labeling it as such, that that sound is physical. When I > feel that > sound as pleasant, I know that feeling-as-pleasant to be a mental > operation. > When I observe that feeling-as-pleasant as the content of mind, I know > that it > is a mental phenomenon that is being observed, and not a physical one, but > I > know the pleasant sound to be physical. Broadly speaking, I agree with you. It seems to me that recognizing the fundamental importance of the > tilakkhana doesn't require ignoring all other facts about phenomena. I don't think it is a matter of ignoring anything. The differences that we think we observe are actually thoughts, not observations. Not thinking differences, similarities or identity, which are all comparisons, is different to ignoring them once having thought them. We talked about the Paramatthaka Sutta the other day. It describes the sage. I conclude from it that the authors of the Abhidhamma were not sages, because they do nothing but think comparisons. Which our sage doesn't :-) Knowing and > known are inseparable; they are interdependent; but they are not > identical. For > most of us, it is mental phenomena that we take to be "ourself", and > rarely > sights, sounds, tastes, odors, or bodily sensations. Those last seem to > us, for > the most part, to be merely the content of a passing show on the "screen > that > is ourself". We need to concern ourselves most of all with that screen > (citta) and the projector mechanisms (cetasika), and that won't happen if > we > conflate hardness, for example, with the experiential presence of that > hardness. Sa > ti's error for the most part is our error, and, thus, looking carefully at > mental phenomena, separating them out analytically, and seeing that they, > most > specifically, are actually fleeting, conditioned, empty, and quite > impersonal is > crucially important. I like your metaphor of the screen and I agree strongly with your statements about the tilakkhanna. Certainly, too, clear analytical thinking is an antidote to unguarded, illusory mentations being confused with what is real. And we all know only McCoy is real:-) -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58212 From: "Dan D." Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:07pm Subject: Re: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? onco111 Hi James, None of these Buddhist big-wigs teaches a pure Dhamma. Each is right about some things and wrong about others. At dsg, we mainly focus on differences because it gives us all a chance to have our prejudices and dearly held opinions challenged. I've found that most of the Dhamma I've "learned" has really been an unlearning a host of misconceptions about the world and what Buddha taught. Each of those teachers offers many lessons to help unlearn misconceptions. Each also teaches misconceptions, but, by and large, they do enormous service by teaching and living Dhamma in their ways and in their own capacities. The purpose of dsg is to act as a civil place to discuss Dhamma. Do you have any specific Dhamma issues you wish to discuss, or do you prefer to divide the dsg people into camps and throw bombs at each other from behind the bushes? With metta and appreciation, Dan --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Tep (and Dan), > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" > wrote: > > > > > So, how is it possible for you to admire and respect this "not > > particularly" Buddhist monk, whose ideas are not in the Buddha's > > Teaching domain? Doesn't he sound like a faked monk to you? > > > You have touched on something that doesn't make much sense to me. I > can't understand how all of these different respected Buddhist > leaders could be considered to have wrong view: > > Thanissaro Bhikkhu = Wrong View > Bhikkhu Bodhi = Wrong View > Dali Lama = Wrong View > Ajahn Chah = Wrong View > Ajahn Sumedho = Wrong View > Buddhadasa Bhikkhu = Wrong View > Chogyam Trungpa = Wrong View > D.T. Suzuki = Wrong View > Milarepa = Wrong View > Nagarjuna = Wrong View > Thich Nhat Hanh = Wrong View > > AND THE ONLY EXCEPTION: > Khun Sujin = Right View > > What is the likelihood of that?? > > Metta, > James > 58213 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? egberdina Hi Dan, On 23/04/06, Dan D. wrote: > > Hi Herman! > I'm amazed! I do wish that instead of vague, generalized broadsides > aimed at "anonymous person" , you would make specific > points about Dhamma, and give your target the courtesy of being > allowed to give a specific defense. You wish things were different?? Oh dear, that's wrong view, isn't it? :-) :-) -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58214 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] steering committee egberdina Hi Azita, It was more or less just a tongue in cheek remark I made to Connie, but some more comments below > > > azita: I guess I'm not part of that 'us' you mention Herman, > because I believe that what Connie has written is exactly what is > happening right this moment, right here and now. > > I also believe there is little wisdom [panna] and lots of > ignorance [moha] both of which are included in sankharakkhandha, > that are conditions for not seeing/knowing that it is just these > very states that we mistakenly take for self. > > patience, courage and good cheer, > azitah I don't wish to appear condescending, for all I know you were a physics major. Physicists have models of the world. There are protons neutrons, electrons and all sorts of sub particles in the model of the atom. The model is used to explain events and predict other events, that sort of thing. The model is just a tool, it never assumes it's own reality. A model is always a partial representation, we conveniently leave out things we think are unnecessary, so we can emphasise selected things. The components of the model that Connie and you are using are just concepts, no more, no less. If it helps you understand something good and well. If the concepts that make up the model take on a life of their own, nothing is gained by replacing one concept with another. I meant no harm. Sorry. :-) -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58215 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? egberdina Dear Dan, On 23/04/06, Dan D. wrote: > > Hi Herman! > I'm amazed! I do wish that instead of vague, generalized broadsides > aimed at "anonymous person" , you would make specific > points about Dhamma, and give your target the courtesy of being > allowed to give a specific defense. Yes, this is a Dear Dan post, rather than a Hi Dan post :-) It is not any one person that I wrote about. It is very common on this site to see people representing themselves as being only a novice Buddhist, it is very common to read the recommendation for baby steps only, it is very common to read attributions of wrong view here there and everywhere. If anyone feels they need to defend that sort of position, when all three are taken in combination, they don't first need me to challenge them to a duel, do they? -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58216 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhaatukathaa, Elements lbidd2 Icaro!: "( The more complete and all reaching list of the more vital points on Buddhistic doctrine, chained in a perfectly structured, organizated flow of Dhammas one will never see on buddhistic texts! If someone here is interested, I can provide more details about its basic components...heheheh!)." Hi Icaro, What's this??? Larry 58217 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 6:15pm Subject: Re: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? indriyabala Hi, Dan - I agree with your assertion that "ideas, writings, and disagreements can and should be and very commonly are conducted without expressed differences of opinion being taken as attacks on the character or person of either disputant". It sounds right in principle and in practice. Yet, sometimes we may find "some who take every disagreement about an idea as a personal attack", but that doesn't sound right. >Dan D.: > Sure, there are some who take every disagreement about an idea as a personal attack, but, really, even among those folks, I find very few who argue that it is either right or inevitable to, as a matter of policy, take personal offense at differences of opinion. Am I reading you wrong? Tep: No. We both are smart enough to know what's right and what's wrong. So, let's make it right. Sincerely, Tep, your friend. =========== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > > Hi Tep, > I find myself intrigued by your post. I take it as a given that > ideas, writings, and disagreements can and should be and very > commonly are conducted without expressed differences of opinion being > taken as attacks on the character or person of either disputant. In > my line of work, such discussions are a matter of course. (snipped) 58218 From: "gazita2002" Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 6:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] steering committee gazita2002 Hello Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Azita, > > It was more or less just a tongue in cheek remark I made to Connie, but some > more comments below > > > I don't wish to appear condescending, for all I know you were a physics > major. Physicists have models of the world. There are protons neutrons, > electrons and all sorts of sub particles in the model of the atom. The model > is used to explain events and predict other events, that sort of thing. The > model is just a tool, it never assumes it's own reality. A model is always a > partial representation, we conveniently leave out things we think are > unnecessary, so we can emphasise selected things. azita: did you have a certain thing in mind when u say we conveniently leave things out? > > The components of the model that Connie and you are using are just concepts, > no more, no less. If it helps you understand something good and well. If the > concepts that make up the model take on a life of their own, nothing is > gained by replacing one concept with another. I meant no harm. Sorry. :-) azita: no harm done, I just didnt want to be included in the "us' bit. I agree that replacing one concept with another is rather useless, and my point was that if I mistakenly take this 'azita' for something lasting then that is incorrect; so what is it really, and that's where Connie's comment made sense to me. patience, courage and good cheer, azita 58219 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 6:41pm Subject: Re: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? indriyabala Hi, James - You wrote: > > You have touched on something that doesn't make much sense to >me. I can't understand how all of these different respected Buddhist > leaders could be considered to have wrong view: Tep: I wonder who judged all these respected Buddhist leaders as having "wrong view"? It doesn't seem right ! So your data is probably inaccurate and unfit as the basis for the likelihood calculation. {:>|) Best wishes, Tep, your friend. ======= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Tep (and Dan), > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" > wrote: > > > > > So, how is it possible for you to admire and respect this "not > > particularly" Buddhist monk, whose ideas are not in the Buddha's > > Teaching domain? Doesn't he sound like a faked monk to you? > > > You have touched on something that doesn't make much sense to me. I > can't understand how all of these different respected Buddhist > leaders could be considered to have wrong view: > > Thanissaro Bhikkhu = Wrong View > Bhikkhu Bodhi = Wrong View > Dali Lama = Wrong View > Ajahn Chah = Wrong View > Ajahn Sumedho = Wrong View > Buddhadasa Bhikkhu = Wrong View > Chogyam Trungpa = Wrong View > D.T. Suzuki = Wrong View > Milarepa = Wrong View > Nagarjuna = Wrong View > Thich Nhat Hanh = Wrong View > > AND THE ONLY EXCEPTION: > Khun Sujin = Right View > > What is the likelihood of that?? > > Metta, > James > 58220 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 6:56pm Subject: Thank you Descartes! lbidd2 Hi all, I would like to proclaim a loud 'thank you' to the great bodhisatta Rene Descartes who said, "I think, therefore I am". In abhidhamma-speak this translates as, " "I" proudly cling to the belief that who and what I am is this very thought of the moment." Incredible, but true! Larry 58221 From: "sunnaloka" Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 8:16pm Subject: Re: The Four Great References (Mahapadesa) sunnaloka Hi Larry, Can't you please do better than that? :-) Nevertheless, I do appreciate your response. > Hi Geoff, > Here's my response to your argument that abhidhamma is not found in the sutta pitaka: G: My argument is that neither the Abhidhamma Pitaka nor the mahavihara commentarial tradition are authoritative as per the Buddha's statement in the Maha-parinibbana Sutta. Please don't try to confuse my statements. 1. The notion that the Abhidhamma is among the "four great references" for ascertaining the validity of a Dhamma teaching > L: Abhidhamma is nama and rupa. Nama and rupa are found in the sutta pitaka. G: I guess it wasn't clear -- by capitalizing "Abhidhamma" I was referring to the Abhidhamma Pitaka. It's clear in the relevant passage from the above mentioned sutta that the Sutta Pitaka and Vinaya Pitaka are the sole authorities for ascertaining authenticity or validity of a Dhamma teaching. This is beyond dispute. 2. The notion that conditioned dhammas are "ultimate things" (paramattha) > L: "Paramattha" refers to nama and rupa. G: Please give me the passage from the Sutta Pitaka which states that nama and rupa are paramattha. (Excluding the books only included in the Burmese Khuddaka Nikaya.) 3. The notion that paramattha dhammas possess "own-nature" (sabhava) (this being a direct contradiction of the Sunnata Katha of the Patisambhidamagga) > L: "Sabhava" in the Patisambhidamagga refers to the assumption of permanence in dhammas. Buddhaghosa's usage is just the opposite and this conforms to the suttas. G: Any notion of ultimate sabhava is refuted by both valid logical inference and direct valid cognition. It is also explicitly refuted by the Patisambhidamagga -- period. This is beyond dispute. 4. The notion of the pluralistic momentariness of dhammas and the momentary present (khanapaccuppanna) > L: An exposition of impermanence. G: Please give relevant sutta citations that declare either of these notions. (Again, excluding the books only included in the Burmese Khuddaka Nikaya.) 5. The notions of learning sign (uggahanimitta) and counterpart sign (patibhaganimitta) in the process of practicing jhana (see Wings to Awakening Part III F: Concentration and Discernment by Thanissaro Bhikkhu) > L: Try practicing jhana using _only_ the instructions found in the suttas. G: Anapanasati as taught in the Anapanasati Sutta is clearly explained and efficacious for attaining jhana. 6. The notion that the sign (nimita) of anapanasati is a visible object (this is a clear and obvious literalization of a simile from the Patisambhidamagga; see Mystery of the Breath Nimita by Bhikkhu Sona) > L: There is evidence in Vism. that it was a mental image (not visible object) for some practitioners. G: I've experienced such quasi-paranormal mental phenomena myself. They are adventitious byproducts of samadhi and have nothing to do with the attainment of jhana. 7. The notions of access concentration (upacara samadhi), fixed concentration (appana samadhi), and momentary concentration (khanika samadhi) > L: Again, simply practical guidelines. There is scant jhana instruction in the suttas. G: The exposition of jhana in general by Buddhaghosa et al bears little resemblance to the jhana formula. 8. The notion that "dry vipassana" without samatha can lead to liberation (see One Tool Among Many: The Place of Vipassana in Buddhist Practice by Thanissaro Bhikkhu) > L: "Dry vipassana" means without a daily regimen of jhana practice. I believe there are instances cited in the suttas of people becoming enlightened who had no extensive jhana training. G: I am pretty sure that we have two very different definitions of jhana. 9. The notion that the heart is the seat of consciousness > L: An exposition of nama and rupa. G: Metaphysical notions that the Buddha left unsaid. 10. The metaphysical location of an arahant after physical death > L: Don't know what this refers to. G: By denying the possibility of non-temporal "featureless" consciousness (i.e. vinnana anidassana), the Abhidhammikas are nihilistic. I await any replies. Metta, Geoff. 58222 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 4/22/06 6:38:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > >Hi, James (and Tep &Dan) - > > > > However, teachings need to be judged on their own merits or > demerits > >and not on being in the minority or majority. The Buddha at his > time was a > >minority of one, and it is he we follow and not the others. So > while I most > >assuredly share your lack of enthusiasm, to put it mildly, for > some of Khun Sujin's > >teachings, I think your argument here is a weak one. (Sorry! ;-) > > > >With metta, > >Howard > > > That's okay, Howard, I think you misunderstood my point. I was not > saying that majority rules when it comes to wisdom, I was saying to > look more closely at the dynamics at play here. I also agree and > disagree with certain teachings of all of those different Buddhist > leaders- that isn't my point. My point is that those who follow KS > dismiss these other teachers out of hand simply because they aren't > KS. Have you ever heard anyone of the KS camp say that they > disagree with something KS teaches? I haven't. > --------------------------------- Howard: Nope. That's why they're "camp followers"! ;-) Sorry, a poor joke that I just couldn't resist! (I didn't mean it folks, really. :-) ------------------------------------ Is it possible that > > everything KS teaches is Right View and that all these other > teachers suffer from Wrong View in one way or another? I don't > think that that is possible. ------------------------------------- Howard: Well, I don't know about "possible", but I'd say it's false. :-) ------------------------------------- > > It smacks to me of a %^&^%&^& (something I promised Sarah off-list > to not talk about again). > > 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) 58223 From: "Andrew" Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 8:46pm Subject: Re: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? corvus121 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" wrote: > > > Hi, Dan - > > I agree with your assertion that "ideas, writings, and disagreements > can and should be and very commonly are conducted without expressed > differences of opinion being taken as attacks on the character or > person of either disputant". It sounds right in principle and in > practice. Yet, sometimes we may find "some who take every disagreement > about an idea as a personal attack", but that doesn't sound right. Hi Tep and Dan I'm reminded of the Aranavibhanga Sutta (MN139) which says in part: "When one says: 'All those engaged in the pursuit of self- mortification ... have entered upon the wrong way', one thus disparages some. ... When one does not say: 'All those engaged in the pursuit of self- mortification ... have entered upon the wrong way', but says instead: 'The pursuit is a state beset by suffering, vexation, despair, and fever, and it is the wrong way', then one teaches only the Dhamma. ... So it was with reference to this that it was said: 'One should know what it is to extol and what it is to disparage, and knowing both, one should neither extol nor disparage but should teach only the Dhamma." Best wishes Andrew T 58224 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:01pm Subject: Final Post: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? rjkjp1 Dear Group, This is my final post on dsg. For various reasons I find it an inappropriate venue to discuss Dhamma, and especially regret how my posts have helped to create this foolish atmosphere. Dan and Sukin: I will continue to read your excellent contributions. Robert In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, James - > > In a message dated 4/22/06 6:38:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > buddhatrue@... writes: > > > Hi Howard, > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > > > >Hi, James (and Tep &Dan) - > > > > > > > However, teachings need to be judged on their own merits or > > demerits > > >and not on being in the minority or majority. The Buddha at his > > time was a > > >minority of one, and it is he we follow and not the others. So > > while I most > > >assuredly share your lack of enthusiasm, to put it mildly, for > > some of Khun Sujin's > > >teachings, I think your argument here is a weak one. (Sorry! ;-) > > > > > >With metta, > > >Howard > > > > > > That's okay, Howard, I think you misunderstood my point. I was not > > saying that majority rules when it comes to wisdom, I was saying to > > look more closely at the dynamics at play here. I also agree and > > disagree with certain teachings of all of those different Buddhist > > leaders- that isn't my point. My point is that those who follow KS > > dismiss these other teachers out of hand simply because they aren't > > KS. Have you ever heard anyone of the KS camp say that they > > disagree with something KS teaches? I haven't. > > > --------------------------------- > Howard: > Nope. That's why they're "camp followers"! ;-) Sorry, a poor joke that > I just couldn't resist! (I didn't mean it folks, really. :-) > ------------------------------------ > Is it possible that > > > everything KS teaches is Right View and that all these other > > teachers suffer from Wrong View in one way or another? I don't > > think that that is possible. > > ------------------------------------- > Howard: > Well, I don't know about "possible", but I'd say it's false. :-) > ------------------------------------- > > > > > It smacks to me of a %^&^%&^& (something I promised Sarah off- list > > to not talk about again). > > > > Metta, > > James > > > ================ > With metta, > Howard 58225 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Four Great References (Mahapadesa) lbidd2 Geoff: "I await any replies." Hi Geoff, I guess we have to agree to disagree. Larry 58226 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Final Post: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick t... upasaka_howard Hil, Robert - In a message dated 4/23/06 12:01:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rjkjp1@... writes: > Dear Group, > This is my final post on dsg. For various reasons I find it an > inappropriate venue to discuss Dhamma, and especially regret how my > posts have helped to create this foolish atmosphere. > Dan and Sukin: I will continue to read your excellent contributions. > Robert > ======================== Robert, I apologize for giving offense with my play on words. I actually did it to lighten up things a bit, and I immediately gave a disclaimer, pointing out that it was just fooling around and that it was an admittedly poor joke. I would retract my quip if I could, but I cannot. I'm very sorry I upset you or anyone else by my remark. (I assume that this is what is troubling you.) As for *your* contributing to a "foolish atmosphere", I have no idea why you would think that. My tasteless joke aside, there is no reason that I'm aware of, for people to refrain from making negative evaluations about various teachers or practices. There have been plenty of rather unflattering remarks about Thanissaro Bhikkhu made by a number of people on DSG, and that hasn't caused others to take offense or to stop posting. There has also been an ongoing attack on meditation by several folks here and accusations of "wrong view" and of "not being Theravadin" made that a number of members could take offense at if they were thin skinned, but that hasn't happened either. I would hope that you would stay on, Robert. I'm very sorry to have upset you, and, I presume, others as well. I sincerely apologize. 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) 58227 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Four Great References (Mahapadesa) TGrand458@... In a message dated 4/22/2006 9:17:05 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sunnaloka@... writes: G: By denying the possibility of non-temporal "featureless" consciousness (i.e. vinnana anidassana), the Abhidhammikas are nihilistic. I await any replies. Metta, Geoff. Hi Geoff I'm not sure I understand what you are saying above. Would what you're saying mean that the view of consciousness coming to a complete end is a form of nihilism? TG 58228 From: "Dan D." Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 10:44pm Subject: Re: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? onco111 Hi Tep, You often impress me with your ability to bring your hackles down so gracefully and insightfully after getting them raised. You are a good man. Keep on postin'! As for making things right, I will try my hardest to catch any personal attacks before they come out of my keyboard. I will also continue to wrestle with Dhamma with no holds barred. If I get out of line, can I count on you to help straighten me out? Your friend in Dhamma, Dan --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" wrote: > > > Hi, Dan - > > I agree with your assertion that "ideas, writings, and disagreements > can and should be and very commonly are conducted without expressed > differences of opinion being taken as attacks on the character or > person of either disputant". It sounds right in principle and in > practice. Yet, sometimes we may find "some who take every disagreement > about an idea as a personal attack", but that doesn't sound right. > > >Dan D.: > > Sure, there are some who take every disagreement about an idea as a > personal attack, but, really, even among those folks, I find very few > who argue that it is either right or inevitable to, as a matter of > policy, take personal offense at differences of opinion. Am I reading > you wrong? > > Tep: No. We both are smart enough to know what's right and what's > wrong. So, let's make it right. > > > Sincerely, > > > Tep, > your friend. > =========== > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > > > > Hi Tep, > > I find myself intrigued by your post. I take it as a given that > > ideas, writings, and disagreements can and should be and very > > commonly are conducted without expressed differences of opinion being > > taken as attacks on the character or person of either disputant. In > > my line of work, such discussions are a matter of course. > (snipped) > 58229 From: "Dan D." Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 10:48pm Subject: Re: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? onco111 Hi Andrew T, Thank-you for citing this excellent sutta (MN139)--one that I'd probably put in my top ten list [along with Mulapariyaya (MN 1), The great forty (MN 117), Brahmajala (DN 1), Mahasatipatthana sutta, and a few others]. Dan > Hi Tep and Dan > > I'm reminded of the Aranavibhanga Sutta (MN139) which says in part: > > "When one says: 'All those engaged in the pursuit of self- > mortification ... have entered upon the wrong way', one thus disparages > some. > ... > When one does not say: 'All those engaged in the pursuit of self- > mortification ... have entered upon the wrong way', but says > instead: 'The pursuit is a state beset by suffering, vexation, despair, > and fever, and it is the wrong way', then one teaches only the Dhamma. > ... > So it was with reference to this that it was said: 'One should know > what it is to extol and what it is to disparage, and knowing both, one > should neither extol nor disparage but should teach only the Dhamma." > > Best wishes > Andrew T > 58230 From: "Dan D." Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 11:00pm Subject: Re: Final Post: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? onco111 Dear Robert, This saddens me, and not because I enjoy your posts so much and learn so much from you (as I certainly do), but because you have worked so hard and so long to cultivate dsg as a place to discuss Dhamma. No one aside from Sarah and Jon have done more to bring this group and forum to fruition than you; it must be painful for you to come to such a decision. Your contribution has been immense, and your teaching has been superb. You may not realize this, but of all the people who I've discussed Dhamma with--lay and bhikkhu, live discussion and written correspondence--I've learned the most from you. Hats off to you, and I do hope you reconsider. You'll be greatly missed. With great respect and appreciation, Your ornery student, Dan --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > Dear Group, > This is my final post on dsg. For various reasons I find it an > inappropriate venue to discuss Dhamma, and especially regret how my > posts have helped to create this foolish atmosphere. > Dan and Sukin: I will continue to read your excellent contributions. > Robert > > In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > > Hi, James - > > > > In a message dated 4/22/06 6:38:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > > buddhatrue@ writes: > > > > > Hi Howard, > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > > > > > >Hi, James (and Tep &Dan) - > > > > > > > > > > However, teachings need to be judged on their own merits or > > > demerits > > > >and not on being in the minority or majority. The Buddha at his > > > time was a > > > >minority of one, and it is he we follow and not the others. So > > > while I most > > > >assuredly share your lack of enthusiasm, to put it mildly, for > > > some of Khun Sujin's > > > >teachings, I think your argument here is a weak one. (Sorry! ;- ) > > > > > > > >With metta, > > > >Howard > > > > > > > > > That's okay, Howard, I think you misunderstood my point. I was > not > > > saying that majority rules when it comes to wisdom, I was saying > to > > > look more closely at the dynamics at play here. I also agree > and > > > disagree with certain teachings of all of those different > Buddhist > > > leaders- that isn't my point. My point is that those who follow > KS > > > dismiss these other teachers out of hand simply because they > aren't > > > KS. Have you ever heard anyone of the KS camp say that they > > > disagree with something KS teaches? I haven't. > > > > > --------------------------------- > > Howard: > > Nope. That's why they're "camp followers"! ;-) Sorry, a > poor joke that > > I just couldn't resist! (I didn't mean it folks, really. :-) > > ------------------------------------ > > Is it possible that > > > > everything KS teaches is Right View and that all these other > > > teachers suffer from Wrong View in one way or another? I don't > > > think that that is possible. > > > > ------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > Well, I don't know about "possible", but I'd say it's > false. :-) > > ------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > It smacks to me of a %^&^%&^& (something I promised Sarah off- > list > > > to not talk about again). > > > > > > Metta, > > > James > > > > > ================ > > With metta, > > Howard > > 58231 From: "Dan D." Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 0:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Final Post: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick t... onco111 Dear Howard, I'm in near agreement when you say, "there is no reason that I'm aware of, for people to refrain from making negative evaluations about various teachers or practices." However, I would instead say "teachings" instead of teachers and would leave off the "practices" entirely. On "teachers", I just can't bring myself to say that it's o.k. to make negative judgments about any of them. It is not our job to pass judgment on *anyone*, let alone people who have dedicated their lives to living and teaching Dhamma as they see fit. None of them are perfect. None have a perfect understanding of Dhamma. All have an abundance of akusala arising, occasionally punctuated by kusala. So be it. However, the ideas they write about and talk about can and should be vigorously investigated, engaged, and discussed. I can't speak for others, but I have no problem with any of the practices qua activity envelopes that are so commonly discussed at dsg (e.g., formal meditation, reading, listening to Dhamma talks, discussing, thinking, writing). The only dispute I have with you or anyone else is about what constitutes "right effort" as a factor of the path. That being said, when you write: "There have been plenty of rather unflattering remarks about Thanissaro Bhikkhu made by a number of people on DSG", are you referring to anything I wrote? I believe I wrote rather sharply about his ideas and writing, while steering clear of personal judgement about the man himself (other than expressing my admiration and respect for his life and work). If I stepped over the line into personal attacks, please help me see where. You go on to write: "There has also been...accusations of 'not being Theravadin'." I'm pretty sure you are referring to my comment that reading "kusala", "sati", etc. as applying to people and activity envelopes rather than to mind states is not a Theravadin interpretation of Dhamma. I say this because I think of "Theravada" as being the tradition rooted in the Tipitaka, including Suttas, Vinaya, Abhidhamma, and commentaries. The suttas are written in an extremely terse style and there is little definitive word on how the Buddha's words should be defined or interpreted. It seems to me that there are a number of approaches. One is to just read them and interpret them in the way that makes the most sense to you at the time. Another way is to use the commentaries and Abhidhamma to aid in the interpretation. I think that the word "Theravada" implies a great respect for the Abhidhamma and commentaries. Can an essay or idea that discounts or dismisses major parts of the tipitaka be called "Theravadin"? This is distinctly different from "Can a bhikkhu who writes essays that go against the commentary and Abhidhamma be called 'Theravadin'?" To the first question, I'd answer, "No"--but I'm open to suggestions to the contrary. To the second question, I'd answer, "Certainly"--and I'm not open to suggestions to the contrary! I assure you in the strongest terms that I harbor no accusation, neither expressed nor implied nor suggested, that Thanissaro Bhikkhu is not a Theravada bhikkhu. In my opinion he most emphatically is. He has been a true Knight of Dhamma, doing far more to spread the word and teachings of Buddha than I or perhaps anyone else on this list can ever hope to accomplish. I have nothing but kind words for him, and I hope that his ministry is successfully carried on for many lively and fruitful years. That being said, not everything he does or says or writes about is in accord with Theravadin tradition. I think the passage Tep cited is a good example. In any case, you are a gentleman, Howard, and I'm glad to know you. Metta, Dan 58232 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 11:24pm Subject: Purity 1 to 5 ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: What are the various Inherent Aspects of Morality? The Primary Aspect of Morality is: Composing internal consistency in all behaviour The Dual Aspects of Morality are: Keeping the rules and avoiding wrongdoing Good behaviour and mental purification Good intention and full self-control Dependent on prompting or independent Limited in extent or unlimited in extent Temporary & feeble or lifelong & stable Ordinary/Mundane or Supramundane/Noble The Triple aspects of Morality are: Low, or medium, or superior Giving priority to oneself, or the world, or the Dhamma Clung to, or not clung to, or naturally maintained Pure, or impure, or dubious and doubtful The learners, the learneds, or the neither-learner-nor-learneds The Quadruple aspects of Morality are: Leading to falling, to stagnation, to distinction or to penetration That of Bhikkhus, or Bhikkhunis, or novices, or the laity Being natural, customary, necessary, or caused by prior events Regarding the rules, the sense doors, livelihood, or the requisites The Fivefold aspects of Morality are: Limited, unlimited, completed, detached, and tranquillized purity Intending, refraining, controlling, leaving, and non-transgression These are the various inherent aspects of Morality Source: The Path of Purification: Visuddhimagga. Written by 'the great explainer' Ven. Buddhaghosa in 5th century AC. http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=771100 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PS: Please include the word Samahita in any comment, since then will my automatic mail filters pick it up and I will see it & respond!! Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. Friendship is the Greatest ... Let there be Calm & Free Bliss !!! <...> 58233 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 1:03am Subject: Re: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? buddhatrue Hi Dan, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > > Hi James, > > Do you have any specific Dhamma issues you wish to discuss, or do you > prefer to divide the dsg people into camps and throw bombs at each > other from behind the bushes? > ;-)) Cute metaphor. It isn't my intention to create divisions- I don't need to, they have already been created. Those divisions were in existence in DSG when I arrived. I am simply pointing something out. Herman understood best my point: the KS camp is very quick to tell others they have Wrong View, or to state that Buddhist leaders have Wrong View, but they never accept the possibility that they themselves may have Wrong View. You see, I can learn something from all of those leaders I listed, even KS, but you cannot because you automatically dismiss them all as having Wrong View. You say that this has something to do with something you call "Pure Dhamma". What is that exactly? Does only KS teach this "Pure Dhamma"? I am not trying to start a big war or anything, I am simply wanting to understand your position. You see, I accept the possibility that I could be wrong. I understand that just because something doesn't "click" with me, that doesn't make it a wrong teaching. Enlighten me, if you wish. Metta, James 58234 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 1:20am Subject: Re: Final Post: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? buddhatrue Hi Robert, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > Dear Group, > This is my final post on dsg. For various reasons I find it an > inappropriate venue to discuss Dhamma, and especially regret how my > posts have helped to create this foolish atmosphere. > Dan and Sukin: I will continue to read your excellent contributions. > Robert Now don't be like that! You're going to give Sarah a heart-attack! (As she has stated on-list, the only thing that really upsets her about her position is when core members quit or threaten to quit). You can avoid all that melodrama, and an even more foolish atmosphere, if you just retract your decision. Metta, James 58235 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 2:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Final Post: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? egberdina Hi Robert K On 23/04/06, rjkjp1 wrote: > > Dear Group, > This is my final post on dsg. For various reasons I find it an > inappropriate venue to discuss Dhamma, and especially regret how my > posts have helped to create this foolish atmosphere. > Dan and Sukin: I will continue to read your excellent contributions. > Robert The decision to cease posting is one thing. The decision to announce that is another. The decision to post again will be another thing. The decision to announce that when / if it happens yet another. We've all been around long enough to know that folks come and go, and come and go. I'll accept that it was your final post when your untimely passing is announced. Welcome back upon your return, anyway :-) -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58236 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 2:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] steering committee egberdina Hi Gazita, A model is always a > > partial representation, we conveniently leave out things we think > are > > unnecessary, so we can emphasise selected things. > > azita: did you have a certain thing in mind when u say we > conveniently leave things out? No, I had nothing specific in mind. But it is the nature of models that they are not full-scale. Can you imagine having a full-scale map of Australia? It would be the size of Australia, and it would have to include in it that you are carrying that map. Infinite regress. The Tipitaka is not a full-scale model of reality. It is various models that emphasize certain things. But a question for you. Why do people want to have a model of reality, when the real thing is already there? > > > The components of the model that Connie and you are using are just > concepts, > > no more, no less. If it helps you understand something good and > well. If the > > concepts that make up the model take on a life of their own, > nothing is > > gained by replacing one concept with another. I meant no harm. > Sorry. :-) > > azita: no harm done, I just didnt want to be included in the "us' > bit. > I agree that replacing one concept with another is rather > useless, and my point was that if I mistakenly take this 'azita' for > something lasting then that is incorrect; so what is it really, and > that's where Connie's comment made sense to me. You make a lot of sense. Connie's statements made no sense to me, and I realise that is because I have not studied the particular model she was using. That is not a failing on her part. :-) patience, courage and good cheer, > azita I hope good cheer includes a bit of fun :-) I certainly think that Connie's posts are very funny and witty, in a very nice way. -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58237 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 2:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ADL ch 1, paramattha dhammas. nilovg Dear Scott, op 22-04-2006 22:55 schreef Scott Duncan op scduncan@...: > N: When I think of persons and situations, I > dwell for a long time with akusala citta on his words, I am actually > the loser." Scott: How does "dwelling" work? In the above example it seems as if I am in control of this process of "dwelling" on the insult. ------ N: Akusala cittas arise and fall away, succeeding one another. They have as object concepts of 'he said, I heard', etc. They arise because of conditions, because of accumulated dosa. -------- S: I am aware of thinking about it over and over, of elaborating it, of experiencing the anger or other feelings, but the point is it seems to remain. I know there is no one thinking. Apparently akusula dhammas continue to arise in a stream with one focus. What is this? What conditions it? ------- N: It seems to remain, because cittas succeed one another very rapidly, so that we do not realize that there are different cittas, arising in different processes. In theory we know that there is no person thinking, but as worldlings we have not eradicated the idea of I am thinking. ------- S: What breaks it? Perhaps suddenly I catch myself in the loop of experience and try to shake myself out of it. What has arisen then, because at that point (as earlier) there is no one to stop the arising of akusala > and yet something else arose. What would that be? What would > condition it? -------- N: There were conditions for different types of cittas experiencing another object. Perhaps one remembers suddenly what one had heard or studied before. No person can stop anything, but there are so many factors operating at different moments. We cannot trace them and instead of wondering what happened, it is best to understand what is present. Whatever occurs has its own appropriate conditions and there is no person that can be master of dhammas. At one moment there are the right conditions for the arising of akusala citta, at another moment there are the right conditions for the arising of kusala citta. Both types can be object of awareness. They are conditioned naamas and do not belong to anyone. This is hard to really understand, one can become familiar with their characteristics when they appear, very gradually. Nina. 58238 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 2:56am Subject: Citta and cetasika (was ADL ch.1 nama and rupa) philofillet Hi Nina Thanks for the following explanation: > As you know the citta is the chief in experiencing an object, and the > cetasikas share the same object. The cetasikas, experience it, but each in > their own way. Feeling experiences its flavour, thus, it still experiences > it. Saaa marks or remembers it, thus, it also experiences it. Lobha clings > to it, is attached to it, to what else but the object it experiences? Paaa > understands it, what else but the object? Ph: I guess it's because I don't really understand citta yet, or nama and rupa. No way to truly understand cetasika yet either. That's ok. Thank you as always for your patient explanations. I think the talk in which Acharn Sujin talks about the citta being as dark as the first citta in the womb is very deep and important and might condition a better understanding of what citta is, and therefore what cetasika is. We try to limit citta, assign it to a place in the body even - it is much subtler than that, darker than that. But for now the similes about the king and his retinue of cetasikas. That's as deep as I can get until understand deepens. I will not understand better by bearing down on it, or speculating, or positing my own pet theories. Patience...listening to your and Acharn Sujin's explanations hundreds and thousands of times, reflecting on suttas...the problem is that we think we *don't* have time. (Thanks for letting me take my own spin on your sign-off, Christine... :) Phil 58239 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:25am Subject: Re: Some thoughts about Buddhism (2) jonoabb Hi Neil Thanks again for your comments. I agree that "faith" and "love" as these terms are commonly used are not qualities to aspire to. However, confidence in what is right based on a proper understanding of the way things are, and unselfishness in our everyday dealings with others, are both qualities worth developing. The difficulty is in knowing one (the 'good') from the other (the 'not-good'). On the subjects of nirvana, karma and reincarnation (and the wheel of samsara) that you mention, yes, these are beyond confirmation by direct experience, and it would be misguided to adopt a belief in these things just because they are taught. But by the same token, since they cannot actually be disproved either, we should not be closed to the possibility that they do represent the way things truly are, or that they are capable of verification by one whose insight is sufficiently developed. The Buddha was not unique in teaching that birth in the current life was preceded by death in a previous life, and that death in this life will be followed by birth in another life. He saw that there is no ultimate refuge in this round of existence, that is to say, no end to the ups and downs, joys and sorrows you mentioned in our earlier post while this round of existence continues. The only escape is bringing this round of existence to a final conclusion. His unique realisation was that that final conclusion involves not life everlasting/immortality in some form or other, but death that is not followed by rebirth of any kind at all. It was the discovery of this final cessation (which he called Nibbana/Nirvana) that constitutes his enlightenment. He spent the rest of his life teaching the development of the insight (knowledge) that leads to this cessation. Jon Neil wrote: >Some quick further observations as I swing between the grating (not grading, >that comes later, but grating) of electronic transmissions to schools and >the more important work of trying to understand my students better...and >myself better too all the time. There is no disconnect between my >communication model for business that stresses two-way communication >("people bring things to messages, just a messages bring things to >people")and the notions of TB that you explicate so well. In neither of >them is "faith" required ("faith" is as dangerous and misusable as "love"), >and so we are talking about life and not airy-fairy artsy-fartsy nonlife. >Not only is constant learning-and-reassessing not troublesome, it is the key >to a sensible weltanschauung. In summary (for now) I find TB offers much >that is practical as well as "spiritual" (I worry about that word too), >although I assign to the world of speculation (no harm in that if it is >understood in the subjunctive and not the indicative) ideas like NIRVANA >(the everything-that-is-nothing-and-the-nothing-that-is everything) unless >it derives from a state of mind while we are alive and not an otherworldly >goal, KARMA, and REINCARNATION (which notion involving the WHEEL OF SAMSARA >so troubled the Buddha that he made the goal of all to get off that wheel >entirely and once and for all!). > >I will have to learn to write about our subject in shorter sentences, but >shorter sentences seem difficult to me to enclose these deep and vital >thoughts. > >More later. Best, Neil. > > 58242 From: "icarofranca" Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:37am Subject: [dsg] Re: Dhaatukathaa, Elements icarofranca Hi Larry! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Hi Icaro, > > What's this??? > > Larry ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I will try clarify it to you, Larry. Think about external reality off our senses as a flow of Dhammas. In the Dhaatukathaa 1.Maatikaa, 3. Abbhantaramaatikaa is stated that the more complete and coherent natural sequence of Dhammas begins with the Pacakkhando - Rupakkhando, Vedanakkhando, Saakkhando,, Shankharakkhando, Vianakkhando - the dvadasa ayatana and attarasadhatutyo: thats the usual sequence of mental events on Abhidhamma - Khandas, ayatanas and dhatus/aggregates, basis and elements. The key of this passage is the interlink between the main points of Buddhistic Doctrine and this sequence of dhammas. You can argue: But whats Nibbana ? Right: in the dhammasangani such similar sequences end with "...Rupaca Nibbana". But here is stated by principle that Nibbana is beyond any concept, idea or reference. I hope this can help you. Any doubt dont hesitate to post or E-mail! Mettaya caro 58243 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhaatukathaa, Elements nilovg Hi Icaro (and Larry), thank you very much. I have the English and I will provide part of the translation. I read the Guide through the Abh. to the Dhaatukathaa, as an intro to the Dhaatukathaa, and this helps. Nina. op 22-04-2006 23:22 schreef icarofranca op icarofranca@...: > > The Dhaatukathaa is the third volume of Abhidhamma and covers many > aspects that are only slightly touched on by Dhammasangani. I love it > almost I love the own Dhammasangani: > > I will cover first the beginning for now, the Dhaatukathaa > Maatikaa: 58244 From: connie Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:51am Subject: Re: steering committee nichiconn Kind Regards, Herman, Azita, > > the adverting consciousnesses, panca and mano dvaravajana cittas, turn to > > their object, respectively, thru the sense or mind door. "there" is > > manasikara cetasika, which << has the characteristic of driving associated > > states towards the object, the function of joining (yoking associated > > states to the object, the manifestation of facing the object. It is > > included in the sankharakkhandha, and should be regarded as the charioteer > > of associated states because it regulates the object.>> vsm and co. > > > > Well, Connie, that's another fine conceptual mess you got us into :-) Connie: It's a fine conceptual mess we're caught up & drowning in, for sure. Herman: A model is always a partial representation, we conveniently leave out things we think are unnecessary, so we can emphasise selected things. azita: did you have a certain thing in mind when u say we conveniently leave things out? connie: holding my breath to hear. but would quit listening to hear any idea of what it means to say that manasikara "regulates the object". if you see what i'm saying around my cheeky tongue. Herman: If the concepts that make up the model take on a life of their own, nothing is gained by replacing one concept with another. connie: the name is not the thing. some names point to "things" with jiivita/life. conventionally, you can take a life, but that doesn't make it yours and you can't use it or give it away, so i assume the things with jiivita must have a life of their own. if we replace mistaken models/concepts that even allow us to talk about taking life, which isn't a given at all, with any idea that points out our errors, where's the harm? 58245 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:56am Subject: Re: Final Post: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? indriyabala Hi, RobertK ( Howard, James and Dan) - Rob, I never thought you could become a 'sensitive person' like that! You have been around in a number of discussion groups longer than I. You know, even a slower learner like me has learned to benefit from DSG discussions (and personalities) without feeling bitter; tired and annoyed, maybe, but such a feeling is just feeling -- it is not a big deal (another way to say 'not self). {:>) Howard who is one of the nicest gentlemen I have encountered online has apologized to you. That would be a big deal for me, and if I were you I would quickly come back. Well, if Howard's apology is not enough, then please accept my apology too. I was the one who spilled the first drop of honey (on the street) that started the series of posts that upset you. I am sorry. Sincerely, Tep, your humble friend. ============ --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > Dear Group, > This is my final post on dsg. For various reasons I find it an > inappropriate venue to discuss Dhamma, and especially regret how my > posts have helped to create this foolish atmosphere. > Dan and Sukin: I will continue to read your excellent contributions. > Robert > > In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > > Hi, James - > > > > In a message dated 4/22/06 6:38:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > > buddhatrue@ writes: > > > > > Hi Howard, > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > > > > > >Hi, James (and Tep &Dan) - > > > > > > > > > > However, teachings need to be judged on their own merits or > > > demerits > > > >and not on being in the minority or majority. The Buddha at his > > > time was a > > > >minority of one, and it is he we follow and not the others. So > > > while I most > > > >assuredly share your lack of enthusiasm, to put it mildly, for > > > some of Khun Sujin's > > > >teachings, I think your argument here is a weak one. (Sorry! ;-) (snipped) 58246 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 7:17am Subject: Re: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? indriyabala Dear Dan - Thanks one hundred times for your wise understanding. ;-) I am pleased that we are able to exchange the different viewpoints, finally reach a conclusion, and become friends. >Dan: >I will also continue to wrestle with Dhamma with no holds barred. If >I get out of line, can I count on you to help straighten me out? Tep: I am not sure about who should count on whom to get help! Just let's work it out together next time. Peace, Tep your Dhamma friend ================== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > > Hi Tep, > You often impress me with your ability to bring your hackles down so > gracefully and insightfully after getting them raised. You are a good > man. Keep on postin'! > > As for making things right, I will try my hardest to catch any > personal attacks before they come out of my keyboard. I will also > continue to wrestle with Dhamma with no holds barred. If I get out of > line, can I count on you to help straighten me out? > > Your friend in Dhamma, > > Dan > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" > wrote: > > > > > > Hi, Dan - > > > > I agree with your assertion that "ideas, writings, and disagreements > > can and should be and very commonly are conducted without expressed > > differences of opinion being taken as attacks on the character or > > person of either disputant". It sounds right in principle and in > > practice. Yet, sometimes we may find "some who take every > disagreement > > about an idea as a personal attack", but that doesn't sound right. (snipped) 58247 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Final Post: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick t... upasaka_howard Hi, Dan (and RobertK, espacially at the end) - In a message dated 4/23/06 3:01:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, onco111@... writes: > > Dear Howard, > I'm in near agreement when you say, "there is no reason that I'm > aware of, for people to refrain from making negative evaluations > about various teachers or practices." However, I would instead > say "teachings" instead of teachers and would leave off > the "practices" entirely. --------------------------------------- Howard: We do differ somewhat on this, Dan. I think that any evaluation, if made without rancor and for wholesome reasons, is okay. However, an example of what isn't okay is my "camp follower" quip (directed not at Khun Sujin but at some unquestioning adherents). I was thinking of the term as referring to a "hanger on" who will slavishly follow troops wherever they will go. I wasn't entirely serious even in that, but I have just checked the dictionary entry for the term, and I see that it is far worse than I thought, and it doesn't fit in any way. So, I was very negligent in not checking carefully before putting type to screen. While there was no rancor as basis for my foolish remark, it *was* foolish, and I very much regret making it. --------------------------------------------- > > On "teachers", I just can't bring myself to say that it's o.k. to > make negative judgments about any of them. It is not our job to pass > judgment on *anyone*, let alone people who have dedicated their lives > to living and teaching Dhamma as they see fit. None of them are > perfect. None have a perfect understanding of Dhamma. All have an > abundance of akusala arising, occasionally punctuated by kusala. So > be it. However, the ideas they write about and talk about can and > should be vigorously investigated, engaged, and discussed. -------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree with that, and I have made no personal comments about Khun Sujin, whom I do not know, nor do I know anything about her other than her teachings to some extent and that she has a degree of fame. (If someone is actually an evil or dangerous person, I think it proper to let that be known. I have no evidence of anything other than the opposite of that in her case, of course.) -------------------------------------------- > > I can't speak for others, but I have no problem with any of the > practices qua activity envelopes that are so commonly discussed at > dsg (e.g., formal meditation, reading, listening to Dhamma talks, > discussing, thinking, writing). The only dispute I have with you or > anyone else is about what constitutes "right effort" as a factor of > the path. > > That being said, when you write: "There have been plenty of rather > unflattering remarks about Thanissaro Bhikkhu made by a number of > people on DSG", are you referring to anything I wrote? I believe I > wrote rather sharply about his ideas and writing, while steering > clear of personal judgement about the man himself (other than > expressing my admiration and respect for his life and work). If I > stepped over the line into personal attacks, please help me see > where. --------------------------------------- Howard: No, Dan. Your comments are always measured and well considered. I, myself, like a great deal of what Ven T has to say (in addition to his sutta translations), with my main objection being to his not-self "strategy" issue. In any case, I have not been personally upset by any negative remarks aimed at Ven T even though I think that he should be greatly admired for his enormous service to the Dhamma community. --------------------------------------- > > You go on to write: "There has also been...accusations of 'not being > Theravadin'." I'm pretty sure you are referring to my comment that > reading "kusala", "sati", etc. as applying to people and activity > envelopes rather than to mind states is not a Theravadin > interpretation of Dhamma. I say this because I think of "Theravada" > as being the tradition rooted in the Tipitaka, including Suttas, > Vinaya, Abhidhamma, and commentaries. The suttas are written in an > extremely terse style and there is little definitive word on how the > Buddha's words should be defined or interpreted. It seems to me that > there are a number of approaches. One is to just read them and > interpret them in the way that makes the most sense to you at the > time. Another way is to use the commentaries and Abhidhamma to aid in > the interpretation. I think that the word "Theravada" implies a great > respect for the Abhidhamma and commentaries. > ----------------------------------------- Howard: And that is a respect that I share. But there are degrees to things, and to be a Theravadin, one need not think that Abhidhamma and commentaries supercede the suttas, and one need not believe that the Abhidhamma is direct Buddha word. Often, however, one is made to feel by some here that such beliefs constitute a litmus test. -------------------------------------- Can an essay or idea > > that discounts or dismisses major parts of the tipitaka be > called "Theravadin"? > ------------------------------------ Howard: That, I suppose, depends on what is meant by "dismisses". If one *fully* dismisses the Abhidhamma Pitaka, then I can see validity in questioning the discription of such a dismisser as "Theravadin". Such a person would be more of a modern Sautrantika, I would suppose, but still very much a traditional and faithful Buddhist. Again, all of this is a matter of degree. But I think it makes sense to be cautious in drawing hard and fast boundaries. -------------------------------------- This is distinctly different from "Can a bhikkhu > > who writes essays that go against the commentary and Abhidhamma be > called 'Theravadin'?" To the first question, I'd answer, "No"--but > I'm open to suggestions to the contrary. To the second question, I'd > answer, "Certainly"--and I'm not open to suggestions to the contrary! > > I assure you in the strongest terms that I harbor no accusation, > neither expressed nor implied nor suggested, that Thanissaro Bhikkhu > is not a Theravada bhikkhu. In my opinion he most emphatically is. He > has been a true Knight of Dhamma, doing far more to spread the word > and teachings of Buddha than I or perhaps anyone else on this list > can ever hope to accomplish. I have nothing but kind words for him, > and I hope that his ministry is successfully carried on for many > lively and fruitful years. That being said, not everything he does or > says or writes about is in accord with Theravadin tradition. > ----------------------------------------- Howard: I agree with all you have just said about Ven T, including the last sentence. ---------------------------------------- I think > > the passage Tep cited is a good example. > > In any case, you are a gentleman, Howard, and I'm glad to know you. --------------------------------------- Howard: I certainly return this compliment, Dan. However, I'm upset that my foolish "camp-follower" attempt at humor was very much less than gentlemanly. In fact, I've been considering unsubscribing as a result of it, and I will do just that if Jon and Sarah think I should. ---------------------------------------- > > Metta, > > Dan > ==================== With metta, Howard P.S. Robert, please don't let my stupid lapse change your DSG participation in any way! /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) 58248 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 7:42am Subject: Re: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? indriyabala Hi, Andrew and Dan - I appreciate your valuable service -- reminding me about the importance of being mindful when the discussion at hand may deviate from the pure dhamma. I am open to more reminders any time. Andrew's quote: >'One should know what it is to extol and what it is to disparage, > and knowing both, one should neither extol nor disparage > but should teach only the Dhamma'. Thanks many times. Sincerely, Tep ========= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" > wrote: > > > > > > Hi, Dan - > > > > I agree with your assertion that "ideas, writings, and disagreements > > can and should be and very commonly are conducted without expressed > > differences of opinion being taken as attacks on the character or > > person of either disputant". It sounds right in principle and in > > practice. Yet, sometimes we may find "some who take every disagreement > > about an idea as a personal attack", but that doesn't sound right. > > Hi Tep and Dan > > I'm reminded of the Aranavibhanga Sutta (MN139) which says in part: > > "When one says: 'All those engaged in the pursuit of self- > mortification ... have entered upon the wrong way', one thus disparages > some. > ... > When one does not say: 'All those engaged in the pursuit of self- > mortification ... have entered upon the wrong way', but says > instead: 'The pursuit is a state beset by suffering, vexation, despair, > and fever, and it is the wrong way', then one teaches only the Dhamma. > ... (snipped) 58249 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 7:44am Subject: [dsg] Re: ADL ch 1, paramattha dhammas. scottduncan2 Dear Nina, Thank you very much. This is correct and, I guess, condtions are arising for me to understand this better. N: "Akusala cittas arise and fall away, succeeding one another. They have as object concepts of 'he said, I heard', etc. They arise because of conditions, because of accumulated dosa...It seems to remain, because cittas succeed one another very rapidly, so that we do not realize that there are different cittas, arising in different processes. In theory we know that there is no person thinking, but as worldlings we have not eradicated the idea of I am thinking...There were conditions for different types of cittas experiencing another object. Perhaps one remembers suddenly what one had heard or studied before. No person can stop anything, but there are so many factors operating at different moments. We cannot trace them and instead of wondering what happened, it is best to understand what is present. Whatever occurs has its own appropriate conditions and there is no person that can be master of dhammas. At one moment there are the right conditions for the arising of akusala citta, at another moment there are the right conditions for the arising of kusala citta. Both types can be object of awareness. They are conditioned naamas and do not belong to anyone. This is hard to really understand, one can become familiar with their characteristics when they appear, very gradually." This is not difficult to understand now. When I find that I've realised I had been caught up with mental objects ("he said," "I felt") the change has already happened. Once one gets over the intitial shock of the impersonality of it all it is necessary to learn to just watch. Sincerely, Scott. 58250 From: "Dan D." Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 7:45am Subject: Re: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? onco111 Hi James, I'm really not interested in discussing camps or divisions or people. Let's keep the discussion on Dhamma. Dan > ;-)) Cute metaphor. It isn't my intention to create divisions- I > don't need to, they have already been created. Those divisions were > in existence in DSG when I arrived. I am simply pointing something > out. Herman understood best my point: the KS camp is very quick to > tell others they have Wrong View, or to state that Buddhist leaders > have Wrong View, but they never accept the possibility that they > themselves may have Wrong View. You see, I can learn something from > all of those leaders I listed, even KS, but you cannot because you > automatically dismiss them all as having Wrong View. > > You say that this has something to do with something you call "Pure > Dhamma". What is that exactly? Does only KS teach this "Pure > Dhamma"? I am not trying to start a big war or anything, I am > simply wanting to understand your position. You see, I accept the > possibility that I could be wrong. I understand that just because > something doesn't "click" with me, that doesn't make it a wrong > teaching. Enlighten me, if you wish. > > Metta, > James > 58251 From: "Dan D." Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 7:55am Subject: Re: Final Post: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? onco111 Tep, I don't think Robert's leaving is a matter of 'sensitivity'. He has plenty of opportunities to discuss Dhamma in his life. In some places, the discussion is focussed on Dhamma and is interesting and helpful. My impression is that he just sees his participation as not being very productive because there is such a tendency by so many contributors to define imaginary camps and to focus on the politics of those camps, pointing fingers and accusations at people rather than wrestling with Dhamma. I suspect that he feels it is no longer enjoyable or useful to participate. I don't get the impression that he is leaving on account of a 'sensitive' hissy fit. Dan --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" wrote: > > > Hi, RobertK ( Howard, James and Dan) - > > Rob, I never thought you could become a 'sensitive person' like that! > You have been around in a number of discussion groups longer than I. > You know, even a slower learner like me has learned to benefit from > DSG discussions (and personalities) without feeling bitter; tired and > annoyed, maybe, but such a feeling is just feeling -- it is not a big > deal (another way to say 'not self). {:>) > > Howard who is one of the nicest gentlemen I have encountered online > has apologized to you. That would be a big deal for me, and if I were > you I would quickly come back. Well, if Howard's apology is not > enough, then please accept my apology too. I was the one who spilled > the first drop of honey (on the street) that started the series of > posts that upset you. I am sorry. > > Sincerely, > > Tep, > your humble friend. > ============ > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > > Dear Group, > > This is my final post on dsg. For various reasons I find it an > > inappropriate venue to discuss Dhamma, and especially regret how my > > posts have helped to create this foolish atmosphere. > > Dan and Sukin: I will continue to read your excellent contributions. > > Robert > > > > In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > > > > Hi, James - > > > > > > In a message dated 4/22/06 6:38:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > > > buddhatrue@ writes: > > > > > > > Hi Howard, > > > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > >Hi, James (and Tep &Dan) - > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, teachings need to be judged on their own merits or > > > > demerits > > > > >and not on being in the minority or majority. The Buddha at his > > > > time was a > > > > >minority of one, and it is he we follow and not the others. So > > > > while I most > > > > >assuredly share your lack of enthusiasm, to put it mildly, for > > > > some of Khun Sujin's > > > > >teachings, I think your argument here is a weak one. (Sorry! ;-) > (snipped) > 58252 From: "Dan D." Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:08am Subject: Re: Final Post: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick t... onco111 Hi Howard, We all make clumsy quips from time to time, and I think yours had very little to do with Robert's decision. For some time, I've also been thinking about the same issues that drove him away, and I'm sure that your quip played at most a nearly microscopic role. I think it is great that you are so ready to review your own actions with class and humility, but you almost always keep your posts focussed on Dhamma issues and your tone civil and respectful. Thank-you. And briefly... > Howard: And that is a respect [for commentaries and Abhidhamma] that I share. But there are degrees to things, and to be a Theravadin, one need not think that Abhidhamma and commentaries > supercede the suttas... I don't know of anyone who thinks that the commentaries supercede the suttas. However, some put more stock in the interpretations of the ancient Theras than they put in their own clouded judgment. Must run... Dan 58253 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:13am Subject: Re: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? buddhatrue Hi Dan, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > > Hi James, > I'm really not interested in discussing camps or divisions or people. > Let's keep the discussion on Dhamma. > > Dan I thought I was discussing the dhamma. You wrote that those teachers I listed don't teach `Pure Dhamma', I asked you to define what Pure Dhamma is and if KS teaches that. I know that this is a touchy subject, especially right now, but I don't care. To say that we can't discuss KS and her teachings, in this group, would be like the proverbial elephant in the room- so massive and so dominating, but we are all supposed to pretend that it isn't there. Wouldn't doing that reinforce delusion? Metta, James 58254 From: "Larry" Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:16am Subject: [dsg] Re: Dhaatukathaa, Elements lbidd2 Hi Icaro! I misunderstood. I thought you, Icaro, had composed a super matika that surpassed all others. I agree these matika (lists?), khandhas, bases and elements, are complete and all encompassing. Larry I: "( The more complete and all reaching list of the more vital points on Buddhistic doctrine, chained in a perfectly structured, organizated flow of Dhammas one will never see on buddhistic texts! If someone here is interested, I can provide more details about its basic components...heheheh!)." 58255 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Final Post: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick t... buddhatrue Hi Howard (and Robert), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > --------------------------------------- > Howard: > I certainly return this compliment, Dan. However, I'm upset that my > foolish "camp-follower" attempt at humor was very much less than gentlemanly. In > fact, I've been considering unsubscribing as a result of it, and I will do > just that if Jon and Sarah think I should. > ---------------------------------------- James: Oh goodness, I don't think it was that big of a deal! You just made a joke to break the tension of the subject matter I introduced (actually, I was a little disappointed because I wanted a more serious reply). You said it was a joke, you said you didn't mean it, so there is nothing to get all worked up about. Actually, I consider Robert's post in reply a melodramatic stunt to get what he wants: no serious questioning of KS or her teachings in this group. Metta, James 58256 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana -- The term "Reality" jonoabb Hi TG TGrand458@... wrote: >Hi Jon > >Always a challenge! > > And for me too! >TG: When I say above that -- "The point is to >know impermanence, suffering, and or no-self to the extent necessary to >detach >the mind from all conditions" -- I figure I have posited "enlightenment" as >the goal. > It seems we agree that enlightenment is the goal ;-)) I'm wondering why you are so concerned to describe awareness of the present moment as the means but not the goal. Couldn't it be said anything that precedes enlightenment (and hence also insight into impermanence, suffering and no-self) is part of the means to that goal? Personally, I don't see the distinction of means vs goal as being as crucial as you seem to suggest. The conditions necessary for enlightenment are the same conditions that are necessary for insight into impermanence, suffering and no-self; and these are the same conditions that are necessary for awareness of the present moment. These are just 3 stages or facets of the same path of development. >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. > >TG: That's fine to me. Keeping in mind, the Buddha spoke to the >impermanence of past and future states as well....meaning that such "conceptual >knowledge" and principles were fodder for insight as well. Insight is not merely >insight into the present moment...although "present moment insight" is a very >important aspect of insight. > We differ on this point, it seems ;-)) Are you saying there are suttas that talk about the possibility of there being insight into past or future dhammas, or into conventional objects? I'm not aware of any (although there are suttas that use conventional objects to refer to dhammas, e.g. the body to refer to rupas). To my understanding, insight is the knowledge gained from directly experiencing dhammas with panna of the level that knows things as they truly are. >Insight is effectively any knowledge that detaches the mind from conditions. > Seeing conditions as "ultimate realities" strikes me as having the opposite >affect. > You say that insight is the knowledge that detaches the mind from conditions. May I ask why conditions, not dhammas? It's said many times in the texts that we cling to dhammas and take them for self; but I don't think the same thing is said about conditions. >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? > >TG: Since "dhammas" is used as "realities" and since I don't like >"realities," I therefore don't like "dhammas." I'm satisfied calling them conditions, >elements, aggregates. When they start being referred to as "realities," >then I think a threshold is passed that should not be passed. The threshold is >that of imparting more significance and substantiality to these conditions >than I believe they were meant to have (by the Buddha.) > I'm puzzled by your choice of 'conditions' (paccaya) as a synonym for 'dhammas'. As I know the term, conditions describes the relationship between dhammas. Insight into conditions comes about through the development of insight into dhammas. You say you don't like "dhammas" because of the way the term is translated into English. I don't quite see the connection. But in any event, does it really help to simply substitute another term ('conditions', usually a translation of the Pali paccaya)? It seems unlikely that the meaning could remain the same. >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. > > >TG: My concern is -- "the commentaries" are being called "the Buddha's >teaching." I find it disingenuous and destructive for "truth investigators." > As Andrew pointed out in a response to your original post, any correct presentation of the teachings can be properly called the teachings. But surly the issue here is whether the commentaries are consistent with the Tipitaka or not. It should not be a matter of whether we like what they say ;-)) >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. > >TG: Some quotes... the first one, at least, exhibits a "general principle" >I think... > > True, your first quote talks about 'the world', but the very next paragraph of the sutta defines 'the world' as the eye, visible object, eye consciousness, eye contact, the feeling conditioned by eye contact, the ear ... and so on. So it is really talking about dhammas. > >“Venerable sir, it is said, ‘Empty is the world, empty is the world.’ In >what way, venerable sir, is it said, ‘Empty is the world’?” >“It is, Ananda, because it is empty of self and of what belongs to self that >it is said, ‘Empty is the world.’” >(The Buddha . . . CDB, vol. 2, pg. 1163) > In the following 2 suttas the descriptions are in terms of the 5 khandhas. So all 3 passages are specific to dhammas. I don't think they support the idea that 'nothing has anything of its own'. >“Form is like a lump of foam, >Feeling like a water bubble; >Perception is like a mirage, >Volitions like a plantain trunk (coreless), >And consciousness like an illusion, >(The Buddha . . . CDB, vol. 1, pg. 952 – 953) > >“Whatever exists therein of material form, feeling, perception, mental >formations, consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent, as suffering, as a >disease, as a tumour, as a barb, as a calamity, as an affliction, as alien, >as disintegrating, as void, as not self. He turns his mind away from those >states and directs it toward the deathless element thus: ‘This is the >peaceful, this is the sublime, that is, the stilling of all formations, the >relinquishing of all attachments, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, >Nibbana (Nirvana). Standing upon that, he attains the destruction of the >taints [mental corruptions].” >(The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 540, The Great Discourse to Malunkyaputta, >Mahamalunkyaputta Sutta, #64) > >TG: This last quote which includes seeing states as "void" and "alien" also >indicates to me that conditions have "nothing of their own." > What the sutta says is that 'the khandhas are void'. The statement can be read in a number of ways. Your own reading is that 'conditions have nothing of their own'. The commentaries will also have an explanation of that statement (probably along the lines that 'void' means 'void of self'). Jon 58257 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The place of "meditation" ... Viharati (corrected) jonoabb Hi Eric ericlonline wrote: >J>This sounds a bit like a 'dhamma by numbers (statistics)' >approach ;-)) > >This was a rare time when I was not >kidding. I was being serious asking >you to do me a favor! No big deal if >you dont have the time. I was curious >is all. Maybe we would both learn >something new. :-) > As I tried to explain in my last post, just finding out that number would not really tell us anything, because there are good reasons for the proximity of such references other than your claim that a person who attains jhana is necessarily developing hthe NEP (and I gave 3 examples of such reasons: (a) the importance of samadhi [note: samadhi, not samatha, not jhana] in the development of the path, (b) the development of insight to the stage of enlightenment by those who have already attained, or are capable of attaining, jhana, (c) the benefits of developing samatha to all levels including jhana). So once you got your search result you'd then have to go through all the references and see exactly what they were saying. Are you offering to do that? ;-)) >J> But the proposition that merely by developing jhana one is thereby >developing the path is something else altogether. If that's so, >what is the difference between samatha and vipassana, as you see it? > >There really is no difference between them. >They go hand in hand. This comes later in >the commentaries. Where the object of meditation >is defined as being a suitable samatha or >vippassana based one. > Thanks for this further elaboration of your thoughts on this important issue. Your view that there really is no difference between samatha and vipassana is something you infer from a reference in the commentaries, to the effect that both samatha and vipassana have (or can have) the same object. Could you explain this further? There are of course passages which say that both samatha and jhana can be developed together, or one after the other, or one based upon the other, but you have something else in mind I think. >>But the suttas do mention vipassana bhavana (as well as samatha >>bhavana), and bhavana translates as 'development'. I think of >>development in this context as more like 'increase' or 'growth', >>something that happens in its own good time but nevertheless, given >>the right conditions, inexorably. >> > >Yes, doing vs non-doing. In this regard >it may be beneficial to contemplate some >of the other traditions like zen with their >no-mind teachings. But these teachings are >for a developed practitioner and not beginners >trying to get the concepts down. > I am happy to keep to the beginner's level ;-)). The question is a simple one: how does the development of insight begin? I understand you to be saying that there is a step 1, namely the development of jhana, and that there's no possibility of even a single moment of insight until then (but I'd be happy to know I've misread you on this). >J>That right understanding does not come out of the blue just >because one has attained jhana. If there is to be insight after >jhana has been attained, it's development must have taken place >before (and independently of) the jhana attainment. > >I dont see it that way. Jhana and its >factors can be the basis of insight. >Again, not splitting samatha and vipassana. > Yes, jhana and its factors can be the basis for insight, there's no argument from me about that (see point (b) of the 3 points from my previous post requoted above). But what you've been saying in this thread is that if there's jhana then there is (automatically?) insight too. >J> Moments of insight (vipassana) do not come about by >somehow 'assembling' the individual path factors. There is clear >sutta authority showing that they arise together and support each >other. > >Sure, I agree. Again, firing on all >8 cylinders. > Yes, but how can jhana itself be a case of 'firing on all 8 cylinders'? >J> What conditions their >arising is, broadly speaking, an interest in and understanding of the >teachings and the relating of what one has properly understood to the >present moment (and patience, confidence and good cheer ;-)). > >And good friends and good health and >the ability to put ones views down >and look and see (concentrate on) what is >being revealed in the moment. > I gather from this and other remarks that you regard 'seeing' and 'concentrating on' as one and the same thing. To my understanding, the texts treat the 2 as different. While seeing needs concentration, it is not the case that concentration necessarily leads to seeing (even for a person sincerely interested in the teachings). And in terms of the NEP these functions are performed by separate factors (right view and right concentration). Jon 58258 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some thoughts about Buddhism (2) jonoabb Hi Eric ericlonline wrote: >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 > > The suttas talk about khandhas 'past and present', thus conveying the fact that (for example) hardness then and hardness now have the same characteristic. It is just this I was referring to. >I know Jon it is a hard >habit to kick!! Like the >12 step people say, one >day at a time. :-) > > Exactly how I in fact see it, Eric ;-)) Jon PS I seem to be falling foul of the word police lately (realities, essence). 58259 From: "icarofranca" Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:55am Subject: [dsg] Re: Dhaatukathaa, Elements icarofranca Hi Larry! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > I misunderstood. I thought you, Icaro, had composed a super matika >that surpassed all > others. I agree these matika (lists?), khandhas, bases and elements, >are complete and all > encompassing. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Hehehehe...forget about it, man!Its just seem that I am making some kind of advertisement about Daathukathaa...and thats right! Larry, if you consider a lot of "Carita" and "Vamsa"works that raised up since early days of Buddhistic pali texts producing, you can ever imagine that such Maatikaas were the real ground where they were builded up. You are a man of world, a pali and sanskrit scholar and Buddhistic doctrine enthusiast... so, in a beautiful sunny day you decide to write a sacred text based on a particular Abhidhamma Maatikaa, calling it "The true happy path for Boddhisatta Copycat Paradise of tasteful Pizzas" or something similar, gather some interested yogis and Pandits and... Voil!!! A new buddhistic dispensation! A new trend on Mahayana! A new wave on enlightment technique!A new aquarian cult! A new target for Jamess acute criticism!!!! As TV Production world, youll never create something new - youll ever copy other TV show! And about that "Super Maatikaa" idea, what about write something about it like "The Larry & Icaro guide for a new Mahayana dispensation" or " The garland of octuple noble path flowers about parinibbanic Torontos best snacks ?". Mettaya, caro 58260 From: "Larry" Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 11:33am Subject: [dsg] Re: Dhaatukathaa, Elements lbidd2 Icaro: "And about that "Super Maatikaa" idea, what about write something about it like "The Larry & Icaro guide for a new Mahayana dispensation" or " The garland of octuple noble path flowers about parinibbanic Torontos best snacks ?"." Hi Icaro! I like it. The rocket to happiness! From Rio to Toronto and back, all is included. Larry 58261 From: "Dan D." Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 2:03pm Subject: Re: Final Post: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick t... onco111 Dear James, You wrote: "Actually, I consider Robert's post in reply a melodramatic stunt to get what he wants: no serious questioning of KS or her teachings in this group." Is that an accurate reflection of what you think? Dan 58262 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:02pm Subject: The Abhidhamma of Hunting buddhatrue Hi All, I found this interesting blog article by a Canadian monk on "The Abhidhamma of Hunting". Thought you might be interested: http://bhikkhublog.blogspot.com/2006/03/abhidhamma-of-hunting.html Metta, James 58263 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:04pm Subject: Re: Final Post: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick t... buddhatrue Hi Dan, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > > Dear James, > You wrote: "Actually, I consider Robert's post in reply a melodramatic > stunt to get what he wants: no serious questioning of KS or her > teachings in this group." > > Is that an accurate reflection of what you think? > > Dan > Let's just drop it. It doesn't matter what I think. Metta, James 58264 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:58pm Subject: Re: Final Post: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? philofillet Hi Rob and all Sorry to hear about Rob's decision - and I think it will stick. I will try to pull some of his classic posts out the UPs so we can still benefit now and then from his understanding of Dhamma. It certainly is unfortunate that in a group that was founded in the light of Acharn Sujin's teaching, referring to her or quoting her to someone who disagrees with her gets one labelled as being one of her unthinking followers. I have been told this in many different ways by differing people at different times over the last two years. And it's difficult to "defend" oneself and her, because she emphasizes understanding from the beginning, and detachment, and other people emphasize a literal interpretation of suttas, irregardless of whether there are moments of understanding them or not. It is not so easy to quote one's understanding - understanding comes in moments. Moments of awareness of and understanding of seeing, hearing, tasting, touch, of beginning to know nama from rupa. That is all that really matters at our level of development. I feel that so strongly and clearly. But say it again, and again there is an insistence on a sutta quote. But that's ok. It doesn't really matter. What matters is awareness of and understanding of present dhammas to the degree that we are capable. A lack of harmony at an internet discussion group is just a concept. There are dhammas arising as well as we stare at the computer screen. They can be studied. And there are hundreds of excellent posts by Rob that can be studied again, so no great loss. We could spend a year studying just one great post and benefit just as much or more than we could by quickly reading lots of new ones. I will start bringing some up for your attention on my next stop by here. Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > Dear Group, > This is my final post on dsg. 58265 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: steering committee egberdina Hi Connie, Azita, > > connie: the name is not the thing. some names point to "things" with > jiivita/life. conventionally, you can take a life, but that doesn't make > it yours and you can't use it or give it away, so i assume the things with > jiivita must have a life of their own. if we replace mistaken > models/concepts that even allow us to talk about taking life, which isn't > a given at all, with any idea that points out our errors, where's the > harm? No harm at all. Until jivita becomes a thing. -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58266 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Final Post: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick t... egberdina Hey Howard and all, --------------------------------------- > Howard: > I certainly return this compliment, Dan. However, I'm upset that my > foolish "camp-follower" attempt at humor was very much less than > gentlemanly. In > fact, I've been considering unsubscribing as a result of it, and I will do > just that if Jon and Sarah think I should. > ---------------------------------------- > > It is only honest of me to say that I've already wondered a few times why the hell I came back. Not that, just because it is true, it needs to be said. But having said it, I also have decided to tough it out. On previous occasions I left because it seemed clear to me that some folks had problems with my manner of discussion. It has already become clear that this is still the case. But I am here because there is reference in the description of the group to understanding realities of the present moment. And that is Dhamma. In the end, the only sure thing that can be known in Internet communications is one's motivation in writing. Though I cannot know it with certainty, my suspicion has always been that your motivations are admirable. -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58267 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:19pm Subject: Re: Final Post: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? philofillet HI again (and Howard) >I > will try to pull some of his classic posts out the UPs so we can still > benefit now and then from his understanding of Dhamma. No, on second thought that's silly and melodramatic. I'll be busy with ADL for several years, I suspect. I imagine there will be posts of Rob amoungst the replies to the original ADL project that I pull up. BTW Howard, don't feel bad. Obviously Rob didn't leave because of your groaner!!! Phil 58268 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:26pm Subject: On conditions, God willing egberdina We are reminded at various times that everything is due to conditions. I guess this could be the equivalent of an Islamic or Christian reminder that things happen, God willing. If these statements are true, then it would be the safest form of communication to preface every statement with these caveats. Because the sporadic use of these caveats tends to suggest that it is especially the case in whatever point is being made. But a little more about conditions. I would suggest that conditions are never observed, they are always inferred. Like God, conditions we know conditions only as thoughts. Explanations of conditonality are, in their most reduced form, really nothing more than views. Is it necessary to have views about conditonality? Not at all. I would suggest that it is, however, necessary to become aware of the myriad attributions of conditionality and causation we make everyday, every hour, every minute. It is these conditionality views which are the very fabric of the stories we weave as the narrative of existence. Conditionality is the glue that binds colours, sounds, smells, tastes, feelings, thoughts together into an illusory unity. The Brahmajala Sutta points out the views that relate to existence/non-existence. It also points out that the foundation for these views is contact. Deliverance from these views is not brought about by categorising thoughts about conditonality, but by understanding as they really are the arisng and passing away of the six bases of contact and their attraction and peril. -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58269 From: "Dan D." Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:40pm Subject: Re: Final Post: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick t... onco111 Dear James, > J: Let's just drop it. Sounds good. I was just giving you a chance to make a graceful recovery. > J: It doesn't matter what I think. I suppose you're right. Metta, Dan 58270 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 0:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Final Post: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Qui... upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 4/23/06 7:20:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: > > HI again (and Howard) > > >I > >will try to pull some of his classic posts out the UPs so we can > still > >benefit now and then from his understanding of Dhamma. > > No, on second thought that's silly and melodramatic. I'll be busy > with ADL for several years, I suspect. I imagine there will be posts of > Rob amoungst the replies to the original ADL project that I pull up. > > BTW Howard, don't feel bad. Obviously Rob didn't leave because of > your groaner!!! ---------------------------------- Howard: Thank you, Phil! :-) ---------------------------------- > > Phil > > > ================ 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) 58271 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Final Post: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick t... egberdina Hey James, > It doesn't matter what I think. I think you must be the drama queen, with your medications and all :-). The above line clearly demonstrates your profound sanity!! The only probem I ever have is that I think what I think is pretty important. -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58272 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:30pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Final Post: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick t... indriyabala --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hey James, > > ... > > > The only probem I ever have is that I think what I think is pretty > important. > > > -- > Kind Regards > > > Herman > > > There is ego, but not a self who has it. > (Hofman H. 2005) > Hi, Hugo - So you say there is Hugo's ego, but there is no Hugo ? Warm regards, Tep, your old pal. ============ 58273 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Final Post: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick t... egberdina Hi Tep, It is nice to be typing to you. > Hi, Hugo - > > > So you say there is Hugo's ego, but there is no Hugo ? Yeah, that sounds about right. It is the same as saying that the thought "I am" doesn't have a thinker. That goes for Hugo, and Herman and Tep as well :-) Warm regards, > > > Tep, > your old pal. > ============ > > -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58275 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:45pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Final Post: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick t... indriyabala Dear Herman - Oops! I mustn't be thinking while typing !! I apologize for typing the wrong name for your name, Herman. It is the right name for Hugo, of course! Sincerely, Tep ===== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > It is nice to be typing to you. > > > > > Hi, Hugo - > > > > > > So you say there is Hugo's ego, but there is no Hugo ? > > > > Yeah, that sounds about right. It is the same as saying that the thought "I > am" doesn't have a thinker. That goes for Hugo, and Herman and Tep as well > :-) > 58276 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:52pm Subject: Re: On conditions, God willing .. Sutta Interpretation, Is It Really Bad? indriyabala Hi, Friend Herman (& Phil)- Thank you for discussing conditions and conditionality and the Brahmajala Sutta. Are you aware of our friend Phil's message #58264 about sutta discussion? >Phil : > It certainly is unfortunate that in a group that was founded in the light of Acharn Sujin's teaching, referring to her or quoting her to someone who disagrees with her gets one labelled as being one of her unthinking followers. I have been told this in many different ways by differing people at different times over the last two years. And it's difficult to "defend" oneself and her, because she emphasizes understanding from the beginning, and detachment, and other people emphasize a literal interpretation of suttas, irregardless of whether there are moments of understanding them or not. Tep: I like it whenever there is a sutta discussion that helps us carefully reflect over the Buddha's Teachings, literally. I think the original, literal teachings of the suttas lay a firm and reliable foundation on which our practice that leads to insights can be developed. You know, no-one can build a house's second floor first. Sutta interpretation and reflection are safe, unlike faithful following(due to unthinking?) of the teachings of any teachers who are not ariyan (ariya-savakko). ................. >Herman (#58268): >We are reminded at various times that everything is due to conditions. ... I would suggest that conditions are never observed, they are always inferred. Tep: Conditions (see Paccaya Sutta) are ignorance, fabrications, consciousness, ..., and birth. I would think that they are supposed to be observed as "dependently co-arisen phenomena: inconstant, compounded, dependently co-arisen, subject to ending, subject to passing away, subject to fading, subject to cessation". ..................... Warm regards, Tep ====== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > We are reminded at various times that everything is due to conditions. I guess this could be the equivalent of an Islamic or Christian reminder that things happen, God willing. If these statements are true, then it would be the safest form of communication to preface every statement with these caveats. Because the sporadic use of these caveats tends to suggest that it > is especially the case in whatever point is being made. > > But a little more about conditions. I would suggest that conditions are never observed, they are always inferred. Like God, conditions we know conditions only as thoughts. Explanations of conditonality are, in their most reduced form, really nothing more than views. Is it necessary to have views about conditonality? Not at all. (snipped) 58277 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Final Post: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quic... upasaka_howard Hi, Tep (and Herman) - In a message dated 4/23/06 9:46:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, indriyabala@... writes: > Dear Herman - > > Oops! I mustn't be thinking while typing !! > > I apologize for typing the wrong name for your name, Herman. It is the > right name for Hugo, of course! > > Sincerely, > > Tep > ======================== Amusing, isn't it, to be distinguishing two fictions! LOLOL! So - what's actually happening? Is anything actually happening? Well, yes, indeed it is! And it is perfectly true to say that Herman and Hugo are two different people. It is also perfectly true to say that Herman and Hugo are fictions! So, what's that all about? What it is all about is "the two truths," figurative and literal. I think that this matter brings out the abbreviational nature of figurative truth (and speech), a feature absolutely required for communication to be possible at all, and since thinking involves a kind of internal (self-)communication, that makes figurative speech a sine qua non for thinking as well as communication. 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) 58278 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 7:54pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Final Post: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quic... indriyabala Dear Howard (and Herman, of course)- LOLOL! {:>) = (<:} >Howard: >It is also perfectly true to say that Herman and Hugo are fictions! So, what's that all about? Tep: Yes, it is embarrassingly amusing! Your observation was right-- just fictions that are metal formations, empty and necessary. .............. >Howard: >I think that this matter brings out the abbreviational nature of figurative truth (and speech), a feature absolutely required for communication to be possible at all, and since thinking involves a kind of internal (self-)communication, that makes figurative speech a sine qua non for thinking as well as communication. Tep: You've reminded me about how important thinking (and along with it, assumptions and perceptions) is in making the world go round and round; yet, it is trapping us inside. "No matter how much you think, you won't know. Only when you stop thinking will you know. But still, you have to depend on thinking so as to know." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/dune/giftsheleft.html Thank you, friend. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Tep (and Herman) - > > In a message dated 4/23/06 9:46:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > indriyabala@... writes: > > > Dear Herman - > > > > Oops! I mustn't be thinking while typing !! > > > > I apologize for typing the wrong name for your name, Herman. It is the > > right name for Hugo, of course! > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Tep > > > ======================== > Amusing, isn't it, to be distinguishing two fictions! LOLOL! > So - what's actually happening? Is anything actually happening? Well, > yes, indeed it is! And it is perfectly true to say that Herman and Hugo are > two different people. It is also perfectly true to say that Herman and Hugo are > fictions! So, what's that all about? 58279 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:47pm Subject: What is Progress ... ??? bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: Real Progress is when obtaining the factors leading to real Freedom!!! The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, growing in five areas of progress, the Noble Disciple attains a noble growth, and acquires the essence, acquires the best, one possibly can in this bodily existence! What are these five areas? One grows in Confidence, One grows in Morality, One grows in Learning, One grows in Generosity, One grows in Understanding. Developing in these five areas of progress, a noble disciple grows with a noble Progress, and acquires the very essence, acquires the optimal advantage, of this bodily existence. When one grows here in Faith and Morality, In Wisdom, Liberality, and Learning, The virtuous lay disciple acquires right here the very quintessence of all advance! Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book IV [250] section 37:34 On growth ... http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PS: Please include the word Samahita in any comment, since then will my automatic mail filters pick it up and I will see it & respond!! Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. Friendship is the Greatest ... Let there be Calm & Free Bliss !!! <...> 58280 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 11:06pm Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 427- mindfulness/sati (i) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== (Ch26 - mindfulness/sati continued) Nma and rpa appear one at a time and each one of them has its own characteristic. These characteristics cannot be changed. Seeing, for example, has its own characteristic; we can give it another name, but its characteristic cannot be changed. Seeing is always seeing for everybody, no matter an animal or any other living being sees. Concepts are only objects of thinking, they are not realities with their own characteristics, and thus they are not objects of which right understanding is to be developed. Nma and rpa which are real in the absolute sense are the objects of which right understanding should be developed. Only one reality at a time can be experienced by citta and thus also mindfulness which accompanies the kusala citta can experience only one object at a time. Since we are so used to paying attention to wholes, to concepts such as people, cars or trees, we find it difficult to consider only one reality at a time. When we know the difference between the moments of thinking of concepts and the moments that only one reality at a time, such as sound or hardness appears, we will gradually have more understanding of what mindfulness is. ***** (Ch26 - mindfulness/sati to be contd) Metta, Sarah ====== 58281 From: "Sukinder" Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 11:29pm Subject: Re: Final Post: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? sukinderpal Hi Robert, I know you have your reasons for making the decision. But I have my reason for wishing that you will change your mind. :-) Like Dan I have befitted greatly from your contributions. You understand quite deeply what others are saying and like magic, always manage to quote the most relevant passages from the Texts to make your point. Regarding the posts on dsg these days, I too was feeling as if opponents of K. Sujin and/or the Abhidhamma and commentaries were being encouraged from each other's writings, to air their views freely. Perhaps as Tep said, that honey was spilled on the road, and in rushed the ants (?). In fact I became visibly agitated when I read the first two of Geoff's (not meant to be personal, Geoff) posts this Saturday, just before I was to leave for the foundation. It even prompted me to ask K. Sujin whether if the Buddha, anywhere in the Sutta, said anything about how to ascertain whether or not one is correctly interpreting His teachings. I was thinking about the "Four Great references" others have quoted here, and found that it didn't help in this regard. Ivan suggested the Kalama Sutta and here too, there was always the chance that what one thinks one knows through direct experience, can be quite wrong! He suggested that one should always maintain a `questioning' attitude and I think to a good extent he is right. I mentioned the fact that on DSG, there were many posts expressing disrespect towards the commentaries. K. Sujin seeing that I was agitated, reminded me about the impermanence of realities. She also suggested that we mind our own cittas. And regarding making sure what is and is not in fact the correct interpretation; she said that it is for each individual to find out for himself and that we should not be too concerned about trying to convince others. I wish you will stay on Robert. In fact I think you should post even more now, maybe not to convince the opponents, but to encourage, with good reminders, those of us who respect the commentaries ;-). And it is not that I disregard the others. I believe that everyone who is here and willing to listen as much as they do, will benefit to a little or higher degree. Metta, Sukinder. 58282 From: "gazita2002" Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 11:34pm Subject: Re: steering committee gazita2002 hello Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Gazita, > > A model is always a > > > partial representation, we conveniently leave out things we think > > are > > > unnecessary, so we can emphasise selected things. > The Tipitaka is not a full-scale model of reality. It is various models that > emphasize certain things. > > But a question for you. Why do people want to have a model of reality, when > the real thing is already there? > azita: I don't know why other people want a model of reality; however I know that I am a 'puthujjana, one of the many folk, worldling, ordinary man/woman who is still possessed of all the 10 fetters bound to the round of rebirths and have not yet reached any of the 4 stages of holiness' [Buddhist dictionary]. As u state, the real thing is already there, however, in my case, there is a lot of moha about the real thing so it helps to have a 'model' as u call it. Generally speaking, I live in the sea of concepts and the 'model' aids knowing. Patience, courage and good cheer, azita. 58283 From: "Sukinder" Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 11:37pm Subject: A great debate on Scholars & Meditators ? [was: [dsg] Re: How to radiate metta sukinderpal Hi Herman, Some comments in between yours. ==================================== Herman: If ever you ordain I recommend your name be "Lazy Eye" (in Pali of course) because it was the St John's Passion :-) S: :-)) Very appropriate name it would be. Though as Num has pointed out, it is more a matter of 'impatience' while reading. And there is also much moha and wrong sanna. While writing I did wonder at one point if "Matthew's" was what you wrote, and was almost going to write "St. Luke's Passion", when the name Penderecki (a Polish composer) popped up and I knew that this one wasn't Bach's. ================================ > Herman: > Not quite, but all the signs are hopeful :-) > > What would clear it up is if you were prepared to say that the > intention to learn prevents learning, or that the intention to learn > doesn't prevent learning. Would you be prepared to say either? > > Sukin: > Intention arises with all cittas, so I think the more important point to > consider is whether there is understanding or not. Lobha is clearly > akusala and accompanied by ignorance. So yes, to any intention accompanied by > panna, but no, to one that is accompanied by lobha. Herman: So you are saying that learning is possible only in the absence of lobha? OK, that clears it up. Now I must go and see if it really is that way :-) On the face of it, I think we learn all sort of stuff, with oodles and oodles of lobha. And we unlearn all sorts of stuff with lobha too. Just think of trying to give up smoking. If there is great lobha with the intention of being smokefree, perhaps the chances of success are even better then if there was no lobha at all. But of course we are talking about the Dhamma. S: Given the fact that at the fundamental level what goes on is just the arising of sense impressions and thinking about these with mostly akusala javanas or kusala without panna, then what learning is there? It is quite irrelevant what concepts follow, especially since they are rooted in non-understanding, or worse 'wrong' understanding of the nature of experience. Even if some of these give rise to the impression of 'knowing' and 'learning' something new, it is just more concepts to be attached to. One of the qualities I like in a person is the willingness to question one's existing preconceptions. And as even you pointed out, there is a process of 'unlearning' that one is willing to go through. This happens when some aspect of 'reality' is revealed and one 'discovers' that one was wrong about something, this is what `self discovery' is about. Sometimes it involves giving new meaning to preexisting concepts as applied in daily life. So learning to me, is about aspects of Reality of which we have so far been ignorant of or have had little understanding about. I don't consider being informed 'about' new things, or even new ways of solving a mathematical problem as an instance of 'learning'. All being just more thinking. ============================================ Herman: Which leads me to another point. About kusala and akusala. I feel very uncomfortable with the definitions of these words that are in common use, because they tend to be used in such a way as to bolster a particular view. For me, Buddhism is about nibbana, and if kusala or akusala has no bearing on that, then it is trivial to busy yourself with it. With that in mind, kusala leads to cessation, and akusala leads to becoming. And so, of course, lobha is akusala, because it drives becoming. S: Anything dhamma can be used to bolster one's view of course, including Nibbana ;-). But this does not mean there can't be wise consideration about them. We need to have right understanding about all dhammas, starting with the intellectual level. For example that even kusala of jhana is the stuff of becoming, and only satipatthana leading to vipassana can be said to be slowly removing the bricks of samsara. You state that the goal is Nibbana and which is transcending both akusala and kusala. And of course you know the position of some of us, that we do not deliberately "seek" kusala. But this does not stop us from appreciating the value of these dhammas, does it? Dana, Sila and Bhavana are all about kusala, and the Paramis, the development of which is indispensable to reaching the goal are all about the development of kusala states. So the goal of Nibbana, from which you seem to be judging everything else, will not in fact be understood if one does not appreciate enough the mundane states needed to be developed. Experience of the unconditioned happens only when the mind is ready, and this is got only from thoroughly understanding the conditioned states. But I am not sure if we in fact disagree on this. ;-) =================================== Herman: I agree in part. I think broadly speaking, people are quite different today than even a few hundred years ago. The St John's Passion is an example of that. It is 2 hours of music. It was written to replace the reading of the Gospel in a church service. To fit it into the normal schedule, the minister had to cut his sermon (dhamma talk) short. The service still lasted 4 hours. You would not find many people today that could muster 4 hours of paying attention / concentration, yet a few hundred years ago, ordinary village folk would go to church twice on Sundays and concentrate for 8 hours. So yes, I accept that in the time of the Buddha things were different. But it is broadly speaking only, and I think there are still pockets of resistance around, ie people quite able to concentrate and guard their minds. S: Its not so much about who and how many, I don't concern myself with this. I look at the views expressed and the different attitudes towards experiences. When someone talks about 'guarding the sense' and encouraging others to 'look' or 'try' something, it impresses me as being all from 'self view' and with little or no consideration for the fact of conditionality. "Just do it!" ?? The conditions that lead to the senses being guarded is just this satipatthana and this happens not by any intention to look or guard. The objects that caught our interest a moment ago can't be now the object of alobha simply from being prompted to 'not take interest'. Better to admit to lobha, moha and ditthi, than think that one is getting somewhere with these practices, I think. ================================== Sukin: You with your knowledge of the Dhamma, happen to decide > to 'think' differently that evening, the intention to do so was > conditioned > by various factors. The result was different from what otherwise was your > normal reaction, but I can assure you that it was still a form of > 'thinking' > nevertheless. And what you may have perceived and judged as being some > level > of detachment was more a matter of lobha taking on a different object and > supported by wrong view. Herman: Dear, oh dear, you can say all that from my few lines of description which you misremember blatantly :-) (St John's, remember) You may well have sound reasons for saying what you say, but they are not apparent to me here. Feel free to expand or clarify. S: I hope the above has helped clarify my position. But more below. ================================= Sukin: > Likewise your "intention to stop projecting interest everywhere" is what > gave me the impression that there was no panna involved. Such thought can > occur only with self-view. Panna doesn't make any such decisions. It knows > an object and detaches without any idea about what 'should be'. Herman: Again, you may be projecting a lot of things onto me here, Sukin, if not, please explain further. You seem to be saying that the process of going from projecting lobha to not projecting lobha does not have an experience connected with it, it cannot be described, so any description of it is only an indication of wrong view. If so, I disagree strongly. S: It is possible that there was a moment of genuine understanding, but certainly the conclusion made, reflected in the prompt to 'do' something, is not, especially when it has proliferated to an extended period of time, and later to go and advice others to try the same. Imo it doesn't happen the way you state. Attachment to sense objects continue till before Anagami. We as putthujanas can't expect great results in this regard. Even the first and second stages of enlightenment do not produce anything dramatic in terms of attachments. Better to identify it as a kind of mental trick, than think that there was panna and alobha there. Even in the case of samatha, there must have been panna of the level that knows the danger of sense objects. In vipassana, it is the characteristic of nama or rupa that is known and not a concept of 'self being in someplace experiencing something'. The idea that arose in the mind, was it prompted by some insight into the moment or was it just a "good idea"? Was there any awareness of thinking as 'thinking' or was there immediately an 'attraction' to the idea and a desire to follow it through? And the apparent result? I have done and could do such a thing even right now! The conditions for lobha and wrong view are in plenty for this to happen. But there is also a part that sees no value in such a thing. =============================== Sukin: > there is thinking after every sense door experience, your description of > what took place, i.e. seeming uninterested in the music, is unrealistic > and so I assume that you were deluded. (I'm being blunt because it is > convenient to be so ;-), please don't mind). Herman: Wow, there is thinking after every sense door experience? Is that something you have discovered, or did a little bird tell you that? Should I try and discover that to be true? :-) S: I don't know nor at this point interested in the exact count. The little bird gives me the details. The general principle makes sense to me and in observation and some reflection, this seems to confirm or at least bear higher probability than any other idea floating around. ;-) ========================================= Sukin: In conclusion, if we have an idea of having to do something to get somewhere > in terms of Dhamma and development, then its inevitable, that projections > will come to influence one's outlook. Meanwhile wrong view and desire have > had their influence taking us ever further away from the goal. Herman: I'm not sure whether I'm impressed or stunned. I suggested that it is possible, on the arising of the intention, and when it is known how, to stop projecting interest in the world. And you tell me the above?! S: Of course you shouldn't be impressed; I am mostly just a parrot. :-) But aren't you implying in your statement that it is kusala and with panna? If not then I apologize for judging you. Otherwise I continue to question, and so I ask, what is the 'world' above? In the worldling's experience, it is nothing but part of the ocean of concepts taken much of the time to be real. If that is the case also with you, then your 'interest' must simply have shifted from one set of concepts to another. And 'interest', was that lobha? Was there any insight to know its characteristics? =================================== > Herman: > The question really is "Is learning possible?" and if it is "What are we > teaching ourselves?" > > Sukin: > Learning is possible. And because this can ever happen only in the present > moment, "what are we teaching ourselves" are the characteristics of > realities, including the fact that they are impermanent, suffering and > not-self. We also learn that they are conditioned in various ways. In > other > words, we learn exactly what the Buddha pointed out in his Teachings. Herman: Yes, learning is possible. And we have taught ourselves, and keep teaching ourselves that the world is interesting, not realising that we are projecting interest where it doesn't properly belong. And also not realising that this projected interest is the root of all our suffering. So what remains, for those who realise that, is to learn how to not project interest everywhere. And if it was not possible to do so, the Buddha wouldn't have taught how to do that. Sukin: It happens well before that stage of thinking "about" and "judging" things. And this includes the influence of ignorance and wrong view, such that by the time the idea to "do" something arises, these akusala influences have already done their jobs. Hence the general caution against "trying", "doing" or any "talking oneself into". So I don't think the Buddha taught any "doing". He taught about the nature of realities, including how the development of sati and panna takes place. And we know that this happens very slowly and little by little, all beyond control. There is no short cut, only the development through the practice of satipatthana. The latter being arrived at by constantly being reminded about the ever present akusala, particularly wrong view. This being the main culprit in taking us onto the wrong path in the name of right. Sorry for the length of the post. Metta, Sukinder 58284 From: "Sukinder" Date: Sun Apr 23, 2006 11:56pm Subject: Re: The Four Great References (Mahapadesa) sukinderpal Hi Geoff (and Larry), I think Larry gave what I consider to be one of the best and most relevant replies I've seen anywhere. I think if there was a willingness on your part to learn, you would have. But it seems that you are more interested in finding fault and arguing. The part of the thinking process that we call 'reasoning' can be used to justify or refute any position. But "understanding" dhamma is a kusala activity, one which requires kusala of other levels be developed along as well. I may be wrong about the whole thing, but if any response from you is of the same nature as the ones you have written prior to this, I may not bother to respond further. Best wishes, Sukinder --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sunnaloka" wrote: > > Hi Larry, > > Can't you please do better than that? :-) Nevertheless, I do > appreciate your response. > > > Hi Geoff, > > Here's my response to your argument that abhidhamma is not found in > the sutta pitaka: > > G: My argument is that neither the Abhidhamma Pitaka nor the > mahavihara commentarial tradition are authoritative as per the > Buddha's statement in the Maha-parinibbana Sutta. Please don't try to > confuse my statements. > 58285 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 0:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Final Post: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? nilovg Hi Phil, and not to forget,all the material on Rob's web, including very good articles by Burmese authors. See intro to Dhammasangani. There is a wealth on his web. In fact, we could post here some parts of it. Nina. op 24-04-2006 00:58 schreef Phil op philco777@...: > And there are hundreds of excellent posts by Rob that can be studied > again, so no great loss. 58286 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 0:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Final Post: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? egberdina Dear Sukin, I would appreciate clarification as to why a reminder from K Sujin is unhesitatingly acceptable, She also suggested that we mind our own cittas. but essentailly the same reminder from me, about guarding the mind or not projecting interest, is not acceptable. -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58287 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 0:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Final Post: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? nilovg Hi Sukin, There was nothing new, nothing to be agitated about. I had a friendly debate with Geoff some years ago on the Pali list about the same subject. He also posted here on this list something about Abh. He is a well known Pali scholar. He studied the Tipitaka in Pali and came to the conclusion that only the texts of the four Nikayas were pure. That was his conclusion. He is kind hearted, I noticed, when his generosity appeared by something he mentioned, I forgot what. It is as Larry said: we have to agree to disagree. So, why should we have any feelings about his posts. The Abhidhamma does not need any defense, it defends itself. Nina. op 24-04-2006 08:29 schreef Sukinder op sukinder@...: > In fact I became visibly agitated when I read the first two > of Geoff's (not meant to be personal, Geoff) posts this Saturday, just > before I was to leave for the foundation. 58288 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 0:44am Subject: Re: The Four Great References (Mahapadesa) ken_aitch Hi TG, (Geoff, Larry and all), Larry answered Geoff's ten points exactly the way I would have liked to. Geoff's response ended with: ---------------- > By denying the possibility of non-temporal "featureless" consciousness (i.e. vinnana anidassana), the Abhidhammikas are nihilistic. > --------------- To which TG replied: -------------------------- > I'm not sure I understand what you are saying above. Would what you're saying mean that the view of consciousness coming to a complete end is a form of nihilism? > ----------------------------------- TG, I owe you an apology. Some months ago, when I asked if you were a student of Bhikkhu Thanissaro, you indirectly answered no, but I didn't really believe you. But now, if I understand your question to Geoff correctly, it seems you are quite unfamiliar with BT's teachings. I look forward to Geoff's answer and to the discussions that follow. I am also grateful to Dan and to Andrew T for showing how to criticise BT's teaching without getting personal. Ken H 58289 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 0:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Four Great References (Mahapadesa) sarahprocter... Hi Geoff (& Larry), I'm very glad to see you back after a year's sabbatical:-). I hope you're doing well. Thank you also for your detailed articles which various friends have responded to with the usual varied reactions. I think Larry raised good points. Let me just pick up one of your responses to him for now as I don't have much time: --- sunnaloka wrote: > G: I guess it wasn't clear -- by capitalizing "Abhidhamma" I was > referring to the Abhidhamma Pitaka. It's clear in the relevant passage > from the above mentioned sutta that the Sutta Pitaka and Vinaya Pitaka > are the sole authorities for ascertaining authenticity or validity of > a Dhamma teaching. This is beyond dispute. .... S: As I'm sure you've gathered, nothing is beyond dispute round here:). In the translation of the passage you quoted from the Mahaparinnibbana Sutta it refers to 'the Dhamma, the Discipline' (S: i.e Dhamma Vinaya)throughout. For many people, like yourself, I agree that it's beyond dispute that the Abhidhamma is not included in the Dhamma Vinaya. For the ancient commentaries, clearly it was. I recently quoted a couple of passages from the section of the commentary to this sutta ( posts #58033, #58040). I'd like to quote one more section: [commentary to Mahaparinibbana Sutta, 'Four Great References', transl by Yang-Gyu An, PTS] Sudinna Thera said: "'There is no word of the Buddha which is not called a sutta.' And he said, 'The three baskets are the sutta; Vinaya is moral conduct (kaara.na).' In order to show that moral conduct, he quoted this sutta*: 'Gotamii, you should know that there are things which lead to passion, not to dispassion; lead to bondage, not to release therefrom; lead to attachment (sa-upaadaanaaya), not to detachment; lead to wanting more, not to wanting less; lead to discontent, not to contentment; lead to idleness, not to making effort; lead to sociability, not to solitude; lead to piling up [of rebirth], not to absence of piling up. Gotamii, you should definitely understand: 'This is not Dhamma. This is not Vinaya. This is not the instruction of the Teacher.' 'And Gotamii, you should know that there are things which lead to dispassion, not to passion; lead to release from bondage, not to bondage; lead to detachment, not to attachment; lead to wanting less, not to wanting more; lead to contentment, not to discontent; lead to making effort, not to idleness; lead to solitude, not to sociability; lead to absence of piling up, not to piling up. Gotamii, you should definitely understand: 'This is Dhamma. This is Vinaya. This is the word of the Teacher.' ' 'Therefore this is meant: 'they should be collated with the sutta which is the three baskets, the word of the Buddha, and they should be made to fit the Vinaya, which means the moral conduct of disciplining passion and so forth. " *see also AN 1V 280-281, Vin 11 258. According to the commentaries, Mahaapajaapatii attained arahantship by this teaching. S: In the end, the word of the Buddha is not about the books, but about developing an understanding of what leads to dispassion, what leads to release from bondage, what leads to detachment, what leads to wanting less, what leads to contentment, what leads to right effort, what leads to solitude (from defilements), what leads to the absence of piling up in samsara. Like Mahaapajaapatii, perhaps we can also learn that: 'This is Dhamma. This is Vinaya. This is the word of the Teacher.' Metta, Sarah p.s You may also like to look at posts saved under 'Dhamma-Vinaya' in 'Useful Posts' with further detail on the meaning as given in various texts:). ======== 58290 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:07am Subject: Re: On conditions, God willing buddhatrue Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > We are reminded at various times that everything is due to conditions. I > guess this could be the equivalent of an Islamic or Christian reminder that > things happen, God willing. If these statements are true, then it would be > the safest form of communication to preface every statement with these > caveats. Because the sporadic use of these caveats tends to suggest that it > is especially the case in whatever point is being made. Very interesting post! Living in Egypt, I often hear people using the phrase "Inshaalla" (God willing). It often irritates me because of two reasons: 1. There is no God; 2. They use it as an excuse to be lazy. However, you have pointed out that I could see it as a reminder of conditionality. Thanks! Metta, James 58291 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Final Post: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? sarahprocter... Hi Sukin (& Herman), --- Sukinder wrote: > I mentioned the fact that on DSG, there were many posts expressing > disrespect towards the commentaries. K. Sujin seeing that I was > agitated, reminded me about the impermanence of realities. She also > suggested that we mind our own cittas. And regarding making sure > what is and is not in fact the correct interpretation; she said that it > is for > each individual to find out for himself and that we should not be too > concerned about trying to convince others. .... S: I think these are good reminders, whether said by K.Sujin or Herman! It really doesn't matter what anyone says about any of the texts - the clinging and agitation can be seen for what they are. What seems so important to us in life is only momentary. The pleasant and unpleasant feelings, the joys and agitations are not of any significance at all because they've all gone already, they're dhammas arising and falling away all the time. We foolishly go on clinging to stories about feelings and other namas or visible objects, sounds, tastes and other useless, impermanent rupas:-). When we mind the other's cittas, we forget all about awareness of the cittas which can be directly known - hence the reminders I just typed from the sutta about the path of detachment and dispassion. Metta, Sarah ====== 58292 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:26am Subject: Re: Final Post: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick t... buddhatrue Hi Dan, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > > Dear James, > > > J: Let's just drop it. > > Sounds good. I was just giving you a chance to make a graceful recovery. James: I don't think I need to make a recovery, or apology, of any sort. I meant exactly what I wrote. I had three problems with Robert's post: 1. It didn't fit the circumstances. It came from nowhere. It seemed like he was looking for the slightest provokation to "quit". (But I accept that I may not be aware of other circumstances). 2. There is no reason to announce to one and all that you are going to stop posting- just stop posting. Just recently I stopped posting, and reading the posts, for a couple of months. I didn't announce my decision to anyone. There is no reason to make a grand announcement about such a thing; that is just ego gratification and attention seeking. 3. Robert, as an expert dhamma student, should know the teaching of anicca. Why quit DSG forever simply because you don't like the atmosphere at the moment? Just wait a little bit and it will change. > > > J: It doesn't matter what I think. > > I suppose you're right. James: Yes, it really doesn't matter what I think. But since you seem to really want to know, I have shared my thoughts with you. > > Metta, > > Dan > Metta, James 58293 From: "Sukinder" Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 2:10am Subject: Re: Final Post: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? sukinderpal Hi Herman, You asked: I would appreciate clarification as to why a reminder from K Sujin is unhesitatingly acceptable, She also suggested that we mind our own cittas. but essentailly the same reminder from me, about guarding the mind or not projecting interest, is not acceptable. S: I understood her reminder however much, only at the intellectual level. And I am almost sure she knew that I would only understand it on that level. That there is only one citta each moment and so conventionally speaking, we are in fact alone. It seems like unhesitating acceptance, but this is not the first time I have heard this, which means I have considered it before. But mostly I know that she always points to understanding the moment, whatever the dhamma. Your suggestion on the other hand, was in reference to actual states, yours. And you suggested a causal connection between a 'decision' and 'apparent result'. Then you went on to suggest the 'exercise' to another. Lastly you never talk about knowing the present dhamma, but to developing attitudes, all with 'self'. But I may be wrong. Maybe I need to read more carefully your posts. ;-) Metta, Sukinder. 58294 From: "Sukinder" Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 2:12am Subject: [dsg] Re: Final Post: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? sukinderpal Hi Nina, In fact Geoff just happened to be there. I guess dosa was being accumulated little by little while reading other's response before and since. Not to worry, I don't usually dwell on these things, and also I almost never feel the need to defend the Abhidhamma or the commentaries. Why should I? They are just an abstraction. :-) Metta, Sukin --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > > Hi Sukin, > There was nothing new, nothing to be agitated about. I had a friendly debate > with Geoff some years ago on the Pali list about the same subject. He also > posted here on this list something about Abh. He is a well known Pali > scholar. He studied the Tipitaka in Pali and came to the conclusion that > only the texts of the four Nikayas were pure. That was his conclusion. He is > kind hearted, I noticed, when his generosity appeared by something he > mentioned, I forgot what. It is as Larry said: we have to agree to disagree. > So, why should we have any feelings about his posts. The Abhidhamma does not > need any defense, it defends itself. > Nina. 58295 From: "Sukinder" Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 2:14am Subject: [dsg] Re: Final Post: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? sukinderpal Hi Sarah, Not to worry. The stories have already changed and these ones are accompanied by neutral and pleasant feelings. ;-) Metta, Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Sukin (& Herman), > > --- Sukinder wrote: > > I mentioned the fact that on DSG, there were many posts expressing > > disrespect towards the commentaries. K. Sujin seeing that I was > > agitated, reminded me about the impermanence of realities. She also > > suggested that we mind our own cittas. And regarding making sure > > what is and is not in fact the correct interpretation; she said that it > > is for > > each individual to find out for himself and that we should not be too > > concerned about trying to convince others. > .... > S: I think these are good reminders, whether said by K.Sujin or Herman! It > really doesn't matter what anyone says about any of the texts - the > clinging and agitation can be seen for what they are. > > What seems so important to us in life is only momentary. The pleasant and > unpleasant feelings, the joys and agitations are not of any significance > at all because they've all gone already, they're dhammas arising and > falling away all the time. We foolishly go on clinging to stories about > feelings and other namas or visible objects, sounds, tastes and other > useless, impermanent rupas:-). > > When we mind the other's cittas, we forget all about awareness of the > cittas which can be directly known - hence the reminders I just typed from > the sutta about the path of detachment and dispassion. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ====== > 58296 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 2:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ultimately empty of own-nature (sabhava) sarahprocter... Hi Geoff, --- sunnaloka wrote: > Hi all, > > Let's explore both the logical validity and direct valid cognition > regarding the "ultimate own-nature" (paramattha-sabhava) of any given > conditioned phenomenon.... > > All conditioned phenomena are dependently arisen. This is undisputed > by all who practice Dhamma-vinaya. That which is dependently arisen > cannot possess any ultimate own-nature because by definition an > ultimate own-nature would be inherent and that which is inherent is > not dependent. . S: Can we agree that dhammas which are dependently arisen have characteristics (lakkhana)? Some dhammas have the characterisitics of namas, others of rupas. They also have particular characteristics. A visible object is different from a sound and each visible object is different. All dhammas have the ti-lakkhana characteristics of course. The way that sabhava is generally used in the commentaries, it refers to lakkhana. Each dhamma with its characteristics is dependent (apart from nibbana, of course). .. <> > It is illogical because any inherent ultimate own-nature, by > definition, is not dependent upon anything -- it is inherent. But it > is obvious that there can be no tactile consciousness element without > contact between the body element and tactile form element. There is > nothing inherent in tactile consciousness independent of these other > two elements. . S: Right -without tactile rupa form and the support of conascent mental states and many other conditions, such as the preceding consciousness etc, etc, there is no tactile consciousness or characteristic (sabhava) of consciousness at all. No commentary has said otherwise that I've read:). . >Thus to speak of an "ultimate own-nature" is a > completely unskillful use of language in that it sets up the fallacy > of reification of inherent individual characteristics, which, although > relatively valid, have no ultimate existence. . S: What do you mean by 'ultimate existence' here? Before a citta arises, it doesn't exist, when it arises, it has a sabhava/characteristic. When it falls away, it's gone completely along with its distinguishing and general characteristics. . > Furthermore, it is completely conceptual because during the actual > tactile experience resulting from the coming together of the tactile > form element, the body element, and the tactile consciousness element, > any notion of "knowing" as being anything, or in any way > distinguishable from "that which is known" is completely conceptual, > and therefore relative. This is so obvious as to make me laugh out > loud every time a hardline abhidhammika states that their system > "distinguishes concept from reality." What a load of nonsense. .. S: When there hasn't been the development of direct awareness of dhammas such as tactile consciousness or tactile form, I agree that any such 'knowing' is completely conceptual, like now when we talk about them. However, when there is awareness of the characteristic of a dhamma -- which can be now as we speak -- it becomes more apparent that the Buddha wasn't just talking for the sake of talking. Dhammas can be known directly. When realities are known even a little, there is less and less doubt that concepts are not realities . <> > IV.24: Kalaka Sutta; trans. Thanissaro Bhikkhu) .. S: I'd be happy to discuss this sutta, but I'd be relying on the commentary to help me understand it, as I don't think it's as simple as it seems. And of course, you wouldn't agree with them.;-). Thanks again for all your other comments, Geoff. Metta, Sarah ======== 58297 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ADL ch 1, paramattha dhammas, elements. nilovg Dear Scott ( Icaro and all those interested in elements), op 23-04-2006 16:44 schreef Scott Duncan op scduncan@...: > > N: ... At one moment there are the > right conditions for the arising of akusala citta, at another moment > there are the right conditions for the arising of kusala citta. Both > types can be object of awareness. They are conditioned naamas and do > not belong to anyone. This is hard to really understand, one can > become familiar with their characteristics when they appear, very > gradually." > Scott: This is not difficult to understand now. When I find that I've > realised I had been caught up with mental objects ("he said," "I > felt") the change has already happened. Once one gets over the > intitial shock of the impersonality of it all it is necessary to learn > to just watch. -------- N: Yes, paaa can eventually learn that also watching is a conditioned element. Conditioned by one's accumulated inclinations. Thus, no self or person is watching. I am glad that Icaro brought to our attention the Book of the Elements of the Abhidhamma. First one may feel as if drowning in all these classifications, but the preface and intor to the English translation help to study it with the right spirit. I quote from Thein Nyun's preface: Nina. 58298 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:08am Subject: Re: Final Post: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? philofillet Hi Nina and all Yes, Abhidhamma. org. Come to think of it, I remember that Rob mentionned putting up a discussion software or something, with access to the UPs. Perhaps that is something to consider, whether it's the UPs or not - having another discussion forum parallel to DSG that would be more strictly limited to folks who see Abhidhamma as the Buddha's teaching, on par with the suttanta. That would prevent a lot of the round and round and roundabouts and resulting frustration that naturally enough occur when one person fully values Abdhidhamma and the other doesn't. Something to think about? Or not. Doesn't really matter. This sort of thing takes us away from the present moment, one of many many many things that does. "no great loss" sounds a little cold - and I said the smae thing when Htoo left - what I meant was that a great post can be read a 100 times and appreciated in a different way every time - we will continue to benefit from Rob's understanding of Dhamma. Phil > Hi Phil, > and not to forget,all the material on Rob's web, including very good > articles by Burmese authors. See intro to Dhammasangani. There is a wealth > on his web. In fact, we could post here some parts of it. > Nina. > op 24-04-2006 00:58 schreef Phil op philco777@...: > > > And there are hundreds of excellent posts by Rob that can be studied > > again, so no great loss. > 58299 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:23am Subject: Re: On conditions, God willing .. Sutta Interpretation, Is It Really Bad? philofillet Hi Tep > Tep: I like it whenever there is a sutta discussion that helps us > carefully reflect over the Buddha's Teachings, literally. I think the > original, literal teachings of the suttas lay a firm and reliable > foundation on which our practice that leads to insights can be > developed. You know, no-one can build a house's second floor first. > > Sutta interpretation and reflection are safe, unlike faithful > following(due to unthinking?) of the teachings of any teachers who > are not ariyan (ariya-savakko). I appreciate your enthusiasm for and knowedge of suttas, Tep. Someday I hope I have more time to learn about them from you. I also think that the more deeply we understand abhidhamma, the more deeply we understand suttas, and the less likely we are to latch on to them with premature enthusiasm, or something like that. I don't know. I also think it is a bit absurd to think that our independent interpretations of suttas could possibly equal to those of the ancient commentators. I don't know if you think that. I think some people do. It's seems a bit odd, doesn't it? I wish I had a full commentary for SN 35!!! That might get me fired up about suttas again, because when I read them without a commentary I feel so aware of my hunger to get something out them. It doesn't feel like kusala chanda, that's for sure. Maybe I'll get over that. Phil 58300 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:33am Subject: Is breath a rupa? philofillet Hi Nina I was listening to a talk today. Kom was asked by Acharn Sujin if the breath can be object of awareness. He said no, as I would have, because the object of satipatthana must be a paramattha dhamma, and the dhammas that are rupa when it comes to breath are three of the four great elements (temperature, hardness, motion) I thought, not breath. There is no paramattha dhamma "breath" is there? But the talk seemed to end up with Acharn Sujin saying that breath could be object of awareness. She asked "is breath a rupa" and Kom said "no." as I would have. Then she asked "can breath be aware of anything" and Kom said "no" as I would have. Then she said that since it cannot be aware of anything, it is a rupa. But what about concepts? they can't be aware of anything, but they are not rupa... And of course there is a well-known sutta that is interpreted, naturally enough, to mean that breath can be and indeed should be object of satipatthana. I think this has been a hot topic in the past, discussed in a much more academic and thorough way than I am asking. I didn't follow. Perhaps I could just ask for Nina's understanding of what Acharn Sujin would have been saying in that talk. If object of satipatthana must be paramattha dhamma, how can "breath" be object of satipatthana? Thanks in advance. Phil 58301 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On conditions, God willing .. Sutta Interpretation, Is It Really Bad? egberdina Hi Tepster (thanks Connie :-) Hugo, Herman, it's much of a muchness. On 24/04/06, indriyabala wrote: > > > Hi, Friend Herman (& Phil)- > > Thank you for discussing conditions and conditionality and the > Brahmajala Sutta. Are you aware of our friend Phil's message #58264 > about sutta discussion? Yes, I had read that message. >Phil : > > It certainly is unfortunate that in a group that was founded in > the light of Acharn Sujin's teaching, referring to her or quoting her > to someone who disagrees with her gets one labelled as being one of > her unthinking followers. I have been told this in many different ways > by differing people at different times over the last two years. And > it's difficult to "defend" oneself and her, because she emphasizes > understanding from the beginning, and detachment, and other people > emphasize a literal interpretation of suttas, irregardless of whether > there are moments of understanding them or not. > > Tep: I like it whenever there is a sutta discussion that helps us > carefully reflect over the Buddha's Teachings, literally. I think the > original, literal teachings of the suttas lay a firm and reliable > foundation on which our practice that leads to insights can be > developed. You know, no-one can build a house's second floor first. I agree with you. We need to connect what the Buddha says with reality, which is the subject he spoke about. We do not need to connect what the Buddha said with what the commentators have said. I am happy for people to have their interests, but the recent interest in the dissecting of Bhikkhu Thanissaro's views seems a strange way to spend your time if your interest is in the present moment. It appears more like an academic exercise, the writing of an essay to satisfy the requirements for a diploma in conceptual studies; compare and contrast BT, BB & KS's views on name-any-thing-at-all, and relate it to something-else. Ho Hum. But as I say, each to their own. Thanks for writing, Tep(ster) -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58302 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 0:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On conditions, God willing upasaka_howard Hi, James (and Herman) - In a message dated 4/24/06 4:08:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > Very interesting post! Living in Egypt, I often hear people using > the phrase "Inshaalla" (God willing). It often irritates me because > of two reasons: 1. There is no God; 2. They use it as an excuse to > be lazy. However, you have pointed out that I could see it as a > reminder of conditionality. Thanks! > ====================== Yes, the same with orthodox Jews. How an expression is understood by the user of it and whether it is wholesome or the opposite depends on the state of that person. There are some "God willing" or "As conditions allow" folks for whom this is a deep, calming, and beneficial insight, and there are others for whom it is just an excuse for many unwholesome attitudes and actions. As that old-time Jewish reformer said, "By their fruits you shall know them." 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) 58303 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 6:03am Subject: Visuddhimagga, Ch XVII, 72. Part I, and Tiika. nilovg Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 72. Part I. Conascent-Predominance-Condition (sahajtdhipati-paccaya). Intro: There are two kinds of predominance-condition: conascent-predominance (sahajtdhipati) object-predominance (rammadhipati) As to conascent-predominance-condition, the conditioning factor (paccaya) which has a dominating influence over the realities it conditions (paccayupanna dhammas) is conascent with these, that is, it arises together with them. As regards object-predominance-condition (rammadhipati- paccaya), this does not arise simultaneously with the conditioned dhammas. Conascent-predominance-condition: ******************************** There are four factors which condition other realities they arise together with by way of conascent-predominance-condition, and these are: chanda (desire-to-do) viriya (energy or effort) citta vima.msa (investigation of Dhamma, pa cetasika) It is due to these four factors that great and difficult enterprises can be accomplished. Whenever we wish to accomplish a task, one of these four factors can be the leader, the predominance-condition for the realities they arise together with and also for the rpa which is produced at that moment by citta. Chanda, viriya and citta can be predominant in the accomplishment of an enterprise or task both in a wholesome way and in an unwholesome way, whereas vimasa, investigation of Dhamma, which is paaa, a sobhana (beautiful) cetasika, can only be predominant in a wholesome way. The conascent predominant factors operate at the moments of javana-cittas (kusala cittas or akusala cittas in the case of non-arahats) and thesejavana-cittas have to be accompanied by at least two roots (hetus), otherwise they would be too weak for the occurrence of predominance-condition. Citta can be conascent predominance only when it has at least two roots. All mah-kusala cittas (kusala cittas of the sense-sphere) and all mah-kiriyacittas (of the arahat), have the two roots of alobha, non-attachment, and adosa, non-aversion, and they can have in addition the root which is pa, thus, they have two or three roots and therefore they can be predominance-condition. Akusala cittas rooted in attachment, lobha, and those rooted in aversion, dosa, have two roots and thus they can be conascent predominant factors. ****** Text Vis.: (3) A state that assists in the sense of being foremost is a 'predominance condition'. It is of two kinds as conascent and as object. Herein, because of the passage beginning 'Predominance of zeal is a condition, as predominance condition, for states associated with zeal and for the kinds of materiality originated thereby' (P.tn.1,2), it is the four states called zeal, [purity of] consciousness, energy, and inquiry, that should be understood as predominance condition; ------ N: The Tiika explains that when chanda, zeal or wish-to-do, is predominant it wields power over the accompanying dhammas. The latter are inferior (hiina) and they follow the predominant factor. ------- Text Vis.: but not simultaneously, for when consciousness occurs with emphasis on zeal and putting zeal foremost, then it is zeal and not the others that is predominant. So with the rest. ------ N: The Tiika mentions that it is asked why it is not said that the factor of predominance conditions the accompanying factors of predominance (adhipatisampayuttaka), as is said in the case of root-condition which conditions the accompanying roots (hetusampayuttakaa). The answer is that two or three hetus can be root-condition at the same time, whereas, in the case of predominance-condition, only one of the four factors can be predominance-condition. Not more than one factor at a time can be foremost (je.t.thaka). That is why it is said that chanda conditions the dhammas that accompany chanda (chandasampayuttaka) by being foremost. The kusala citta or akusala citta which is conditioned by one of the factors of conascent predominance-condition, is also conditioned by root-condition at the same time. The Tiika refers to the Pa.t.thaana text (Conditional Relations, p. 146-148) that gives examples of conascent predominance, and these examples are classified as sevenfold. As we have seen, the rpas produced by citta can also be conditioned by way of predominance-condition. Body intimation (kya-viatti) and speech intimation (vac-viatti) are rpas produced by citta. When we generously give something away, the citta which is firm in kusala can be the predominant factor. While we, at such an occasion, show by our gestures our intention to give, there are rpas which are bodily intimation, and these are conditioned by kusala citta by way of predominance- condition. When we speak harsh words, the citta which is firm in akusala may be predominance-condition, and then the rpa which is speech intimation is conditioned by the akusala citta by way of predominance-condition. There are different degrees of the predominant factors. When these four factors have been developed to a high degree, they have become "bases of success'', iddhipdas, and then they can lead to the acquisition of supernatural powers (Visuddhimagga,Ch XII,50-53). The rpas produced by citta which exercises such powers are also conditioned by way of predominance-condition. In the development of vipassan, right understanding of nma and rpa, one also needs the "four bases of success'' for the realisation of the stages of insight wisdom and for the attainment of enlightenment. They are among the thirtyseven factors leading to enlightenment (bodhipakkhiya dhammas). For the accomplishment of our task, the development of right understanding, the factors which are conascent-predominance-condition are indispensable. The study of conascent-predominance-condition can be a reminder that right understanding is dependant on different kinds of conditions, that it does not depend on a "self''. ****** Nina. 58304 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 6:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:Co. to S.N. 35. nilovg Hi Phil, if you like, sometimes, of one sutta at a time. I have the Co. complete in Pali and also in Thai. Nina. op 24-04-2006 12:23 schreef Phil op philco777@...: > I wish I had a full commentary for SN 35!!! That might get me > fired up about suttas again, because when I read them without a > commentary I feel so aware of my hunger to get something out them. 58305 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 6:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Is breath a rupa? nilovg Hi Phil, yes. This was posted before under anapanasatisutta. I just give one part. It is tangible object. op 24-04-2006 12:33 schreef Phil op philco777@...: > If object of satipatthana must be > paramattha dhamma, how can "breath" be object of satipatthana? ********* In the word commentary to the above quoted sutta the Visuddhimagga (VIII, 223-226) mentions with regard to the first tetrad (group of four clauses, marked I-IV) of the sutta the different stages of insight-knowledge which are developed after emerging from jhna. We read: < On emerging from the attainment he sees that the in-breaths and out-breaths have the physical body and the mind as their origin; and that just as, when a blacksmiths bellows are being blown, the wind moves owing to the bag and to the mans appropriate effort, so too, in-breaths and out-breaths are due to the body and the mind. Next he defines the in-breaths and out-breaths and the body as materiality, and the consciousness and the states associated with the consciousness as the immaterial... Having defined nama-rupa in this way, he seeks its condition...> The Visuddhimagga then mentions all the different stages of insight (Visuddhimagga VIII, 223 -225). We then read: In the Papancasudani, the Co to the Anapanasati sutta, there is more explanation on rupas which should be objects of awareness after the meditator has emerged from jhana. As we read at the end of the first tetrad, The Commentary explains, this is a certain body, kya~n~natara: N: Breath is rupa, and it can be understood as such when it appears through the bodysense, at the nosetip or upperlip. It can appear as solidity or motion or temperature. It can be known as only rupa, not my breath, as non-self. Contemplating the Body in the Body: now we go to the Co to Satipatthana Sutta (Middle length Sayings, I, 10, translated by Ven. Soma): As to the words: , this Co explains that the world is the five khandhas. Covetousness stands for sense desire and grief stands for ill will, which are, as the Co states, the principal hindrances. We read: Nina. 58306 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Is breath a rupa? upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Phil) - In a message dated 4/24/06 9:19:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Phil, > yes. This was posted before under anapanasatisutta. I just give one part. It > is tangible object. > op 24-04-2006 12:33 schreef Phil op philco777@...: > > >If object of satipatthana must be > >paramattha dhamma, how can "breath" be object of satipatthana? > ==================== As far as I have seen, both Abhidhamma and commentaries move back & forth between literal and figurative speech. It seems to me that referring to breath as rupa is to say two things: 1) Breath, the conventional phenomenon, is based on rupas (of all four of the great elements actually, with earth being the least significant I would presume), and 2) Breath, while not an actual, single experiential reality, is a well founded conventional object imputed upon experiential realities, and not created from whole cloth. Also, I'd like to point out that Phil wrote "But the talk seemed to end up with Acharn Sujin saying that breath could be object of awareness." Now, being an object of awareness is not the same as being an object of insight. With regard to meditating on the breath (or any other conventional reality) not purely for concentrative absorption, but for both calm and insight, when the process goes well and deeply, one sees through the breath to the rupas upon which it is perceptually/conceptually imposed. 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) 58307 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 7:30am Subject: RE: Some thoughts about Buddhism (2) jonoabb [Neil writes:] Dear Jonothan... Thanks, as always, for your further thoughts. ... As to eschatology, indeed, the most apparent Buddhist break from Hinduism (the source of Buddhism, as well as the source of Sikhism and Jainism) was a rejection of the Hindu teaching that the ultimate desideratum was the union of the individual-soul (atman) with the world-soul (brahman), since Buddhism largely rejects (or diminishes) the notion of the "self" in a (if I may) a "self-ish" way. Nirvana (the everything-that-is-nothing- and-the-nothing-that-is-everything) remains elusive, and always will be, but if that peaceful frame of mind can be attained at the moment of death, perhaps that is enough. Like you (I believe) I accept nothing and reject nothing on faith, but I continue to seek what will give me a way to go on in a better way. Insofar as the bases of belief and philosophy are understanding of what "reality" really is, and relationships of one-to-another (some of the Ten Commandments focus on this), it cannot be bad, and an essentially secularist weltaschauung like TB can provide good things to one. More later. Best to you and Sarah, Neil. -----Original Message----- From: Jonothan Abbott Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 6:26 AM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Some thoughts about Buddhism (2) Hi Neil Thanks again for your comments. I agree that "faith" and "love" as these terms are commonly used are not qualities to aspire to. However, confidence in what is right based on a proper understanding of the way things are, and unselfishness in our everyday dealings with others, are both qualities worth developing. The difficulty is in knowing one (the 'good') from the other (the 'not-good'). On the subjects of nirvana, karma and reincarnation (and the wheel of samsara) that you mention, yes, these are beyond confirmation by direct experience, and it would be misguided to adopt a belief in these things just because they are taught. But by the same token, since they cannot actually be disproved either, we should not be closed to the possibility that they do represent the way things truly are, or that they are capable of verification by one whose insight is sufficiently developed. The Buddha was not unique in teaching that birth in the current life was preceded by death in a previous life, and that death in this life will be followed by birth in another life. He saw that there is no ultimate refuge in this round of existence, that is to say, no end to the ups and downs, joys and sorrows you mentioned in our earlier post while this round of existence continues. The only escape is bringing this round of existence to a final conclusion. His unique realisation was that that final conclusion involves not life everlasting/immortality in some form or other, but death that is not followed by rebirth of any kind at all. It was the discovery of this final cessation (which he called Nibbana/Nirvana) that constitutes his enlightenment. He spent the rest of his life teaching the development of the insight (knowledge) that leads to this cessation. Jon 58308 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 7:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Is breath a rupa? nilovg Hi Howard, It is a ruupa conditioned by citta. It appears as tangible object, where it touches nosetip or upperlip. I take it that what is object of awareness is also, when sati sampajaa has developed more, object of insight. Nina. op 24-04-2006 16:14 schreef upasaka@... op upasaka@...: > As far as I have seen, both Abhidhamma and commentaries move back & > forth between literal and figurative speech. It seems to me that referring to > breath as rupa is to say two things: 1) Breath, the conventional phenomenon, > is > based on rupas (of all four of the great elements actually, with earth being > the least significant I would presume), and 2) Breath, while not an actual, > single experiential reality, is a well founded conventional object imputed > upon > experiential realities, and not created from whole cloth. > Also, I'd like to point out that Phil wrote "But the talk seemed to > end up with Acharn Sujin saying that breath could be object of awareness." > Now, > being an object of awareness is not the same as being an object of insight. > With regard to meditating on the breath (or any other conventional reality) > not purely for concentrative absorption, but for both calm and insight, when > the process goes well and deeply, one sees through the breath to the rupas > upon > which it is perceptually/conceptually imposed. 58309 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Is breath a rupa? upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 4/24/06 10:35:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > It is a ruupa conditioned by citta. It appears as tangible object, where it > touches nosetip or upperlip. > I take it that what is object of awareness is also, when sati sampajaa has > developed more, object of insight. > Nina ===================== I don't quite follow you on this, Nina. I agree that the breath is mind-conditioned. But as far as I can see, breath is a collection - a (structured) body of (interrelated) dhammas, and thus pa~n~natti. It was my understanding that the official Abhidhammic perspective is that insight never has pa~n~natti as object. I think that was Phil's point also and the reason for his question. 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) 58310 From: "Dan D." Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 8:06am Subject: Re: Final Post: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick t... onco111 Dear James, By 'recovery', I only mean that dosa hurts. I do wish you all the best. Metta, Dan --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Dan, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." > wrote: > > > > Dear James, > > > > > J: Let's just drop it. > > > > Sounds good. I was just giving you a chance to make a graceful > recovery. > > James: I don't think I need to make a recovery, or apology, of any > sort. I meant exactly what I wrote. I had three problems with > Robert's post: > > 1. It didn't fit the circumstances. It came from nowhere. It > seemed like he was looking for the slightest provokation to "quit". > (But I accept that I may not be aware of other circumstances). > 2. There is no reason to announce to one and all that you are going > to stop posting- just stop posting. Just recently I stopped > posting, and reading the posts, for a couple of months. I didn't > announce my decision to anyone. There is no reason to make a grand > announcement about such a thing; that is just ego gratification and > attention seeking. > 3. Robert, as an expert dhamma student, should know the teaching of > anicca. Why quit DSG forever simply because you don't like the > atmosphere at the moment? Just wait a little bit and it will > change. > > > > > > J: It doesn't matter what I think. > > > > I suppose you're right. > > James: Yes, it really doesn't matter what I think. But since you > seem to really want to know, I have shared my thoughts with you. > > > > > > Metta, > > > > Dan > > > > Metta, > James > 58311 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 10:37am Subject: mettaa, I nilovg Dear friends, Our evening reading is from Khun Sujin's book on Mettaa. This is taken from Ch 6: ****** Nina. 58312 From: "ericlonline" Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 10:41am Subject: [dsg] Re: The place of "meditation" ... Viharati (corrected) ericlonline Hi Jon, >J> But the proposition that merely by developing jhana one is thereby >developing the path is something else altogether. If that's so, >what is the difference between samatha and vipassana, as you see it? E>There really is no difference between them. >They go hand in hand. This comes later in >the commentaries. Where the object of meditation >is defined as being a suitable samatha or >vippassana based one. > J> Thanks for this further elaboration of your thoughts on this important issue. Your view that there really is no difference between samatha and vipassana is something you infer from a reference in the commentaries, to the effect that both samatha and vipassana have (or can have) the same object. > >Could you explain this further? There are of course passages which say that both samatha and jhana can be developed together, or one after the other, or one based upon the other, but you have something else in mind I think. Actually different objects. I forget the words, samathanakanna (sp?) and I cant remember the other. But it seems the commentaries expounded on this difference in object and then postulated 2 different types of meditation when in fact there was not. Then the Burmese ran with Vipassana. So, this was why I was asking to do a search in the Nikayas and Vinaya. To see if Vipassana and Samadhi was more closely linked than in later traditions. I really am not sure and was asking for your help. Again, no big deal if you dont have the time. J>But the suttas do mention vipassana bhavana (as well as samatha >>bhavana), and bhavana translates as 'development'. I think of >>development in this context as more like 'increase' or 'growth', >>something that happens in its own good time but nevertheless, given >>the right conditions, inexorably. >> E>Yes, doing vs non-doing. In this regard >it may be beneficial to contemplate some >of the other traditions like zen with their >no-mind teachings. But these teachings are >for a developed practitioner and not beginners >trying to get the concepts down. > J>I am happy to keep to the beginner's level ;-)). The question is a simple one: how does the development of insight begin? I understand you to be saying that there is a step 1, namely the development of jhana, and that there's no possibility of even a single moment of insight until then (but I'd be happy to know I've misread you on this). Lets go back to Transcendent Dependent Origination. Where do you want to say insight (vipassana) starts? The Sutta says after jhana is developed and not before. Maybe you feel it starts with reasoned faith after hearing the teaching? But I would not call this intellectual cogitated thought (no matter how sublime) insight. >J>That right understanding does not come out of the blue just >because one has attained jhana. If there is to be insight after >jhana has been attained, it's development must have taken place >before (and independently of) the jhana attainment. > E>I dont see it that way. Jhana and its >factors can be the basis of insight. >Again, not splitting samatha and vipassana. > J>Yes, jhana and its factors can be the basis for insight, there's no argument from me about that (see point (b) of the 3 points from my previous post requoted above). But what you've been saying in this thread is that if there's jhana then there is (automatically?) insight too. No, I have started with TDO and if there is no jhana then there is no "the knowledge and vision of things as they really are". Probably what you would refer to as the apprehending of 'reality'. The continuous seeing of the momentariness of namas and rupas. metta 58313 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 11:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Is breath a rupa? nilovg Hi Howard, I should add something, I did not quite get where there was a problem with paatti. op 24-04-2006 16:59 schreef upasaka@... op upasaka@...: > ===================== > I don't quite follow you on this, Nina. I agree that the breath is > mind-conditioned. But as far as I can see, breath is a collection - a > (structured) body of (interrelated) dhammas, and thus pa~n~natti. > It was my understanding that the official Abhidhammic perspective is > that insight never has pa~n~natti as object. I think that was Phil's point > also > and the reason for his question. -------- N: Before the Buddha's time, as you know, there were wise people who developed samatha with breath as subject. The Visuddhimagga states that it is very difficult because the ruupa that is breath is very subtle. Careful instructions are given. The yogavacara should be aware of it where it touches the nosetip or upperlip. I should add: we should not confuse breath conditioned by citta with blowing air, or puffing. That is not the natural breathing in and out. This subject leads to calm, detachment from breath. We cling so much to it because our life depends on it. When the yogavacara is more advanced a mental image of breath appears, a nimitta. You may wonder why this subject is mentioned under the Application of Mindfulness of Body. The ruupa conditioned by citta which is breath is very subtle and it can only be object of awareness in vipassanaa when it appears. Is sati aware of it, without trying to do something about it, or make it appear, that is the question. Those who had already developed samatha with this subject were familiar with it, it appeared to them, they were aware of it, but they did not realize it as a rupa element, a dhatu, devoid of self. Through vipassanaa this subject acquires a new dimension: it has to be remembered that breath we find so important is only rupa appearing through the bodysense: as solidity, temperature or motion. It has to be known as rupa, not belonging to anyone. Thus, nothing is excluded from the objects of satipatthaana. But again, what is breath is so subtle, it does not appear to everybody. Only what appears can be object of satipa.t.thaana. When you read about the first tetrad I posted, perhaps it may be clearer why insight can be developed with breath; as you see, all stages of insight are mentioned. Another example may make things clearer. A similar subject of samatha that is also used as object of vipassanaa and is thus included under Mindfulness of the Body is foulness. In samatha this brings detachment from sense objects. How foul the body is. In vipassanaa there is a new dimension: the body parts are in fact only different rupas. These arise and fall away. Is what arises and falls away beautiful ? No feature of beauty can be found here, it is gone, completely gone. That is true asubha saaa, the perception of the foul. Thus, at first in samatha the subject is paatti, but in vipassanaa it is only dhamma, to see dhamma as dhamma. 58314 From: "ericlonline" Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 11:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ultimately empty of own-nature (sabhava) ericlonline Hi Sarah & (Geoff), G> Furthermore, it is completely conceptual because during the actual > tactile experience resulting from the coming together of the tactile form element, the body element, and the tactile consciousness element, any notion of "knowing" as being anything, or in any way distinguishable from "that which is known" is completely conceptual,and therefore relative. .. S: When there hasn't been the development of direct awareness of dhammas such as tactile consciousness or tactile form, I agree that any such 'knowing' is completely conceptual, like now when we talk about them. You did not do Geoff's tactile experiment did you? How can you be directly aware of tactile consciousness? How can you make tactile consciousnes an object? What is an indirect awareness btw? metta 58315 From: "robmoult" Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 2:37pm Subject: Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence robmoult Hi Icaro, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "icarofranca" wrote: > > Hi Rob!!! > > "This Unprobable thought on consider a Putthujjanas 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. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- - > > Thats a good questiong, Rob! > At the original Abhidhammas 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. > Anurudhas Abhidhamma Sangaha, the author had put forth a straight > definition of suttanta frame as the Paticca Samupadda and the > Abhidhammata frame as the Patthanapalis 24 Paccaya... but is such > cetasikaslists and so on a totally strange deviation out of the > more classical texts, or a more complex elaboration of Suttas > material ? > If you consider a fourfold frame as a characteristic of Buddhas > discourse, so the Paramattha Dhammas scheme is inside context: > Buddhadatta could had conceived it as a assemblage of many suttas > passages. You are a deep thinker on these questions Rob...could you > provide us more detalis on these matters ? ===== Imagine the situation of Buddhadhatta or Acariya Anurruddha. They have many thousands of pages of texts in front of them. The style and treatment of different texts varies significantly (contrast the Dhammasanghani with the Puggalapannatti and these two texts against the Patthana). Their objective is to somehow compress this wealth of information into a simple beginner's study guide. I am sure that Buddhadhatta and Anurruddha fully expected the student to proceed to study the source texts after having being introduced to the subject. When these authors sat down to write, the first thing that they would need to do is to come up with a simple, concise structure to present the material. Unfortunately, people who do not study the Abhidhamma deeper than the Abhidhammattasangaha come away with the impression that this simple, concise structure is a characterisitic of the Abhidhamma. In my opinion, the simple concise structure of the four paramattha dhammas is a literary device, not the Buddha's teaching. ===== > Is there any > Abhidhammavatara or Vimutthimagga printed copies on selling nowadays? > ===== I have not seen any printed Abhidhammavatara, but I do have a copy of the Vimutthimagga. Please contact me off-list if you want me to search around for the Vimutthimagga and mail it to you. Metta, Rob M :-) 58316 From: "robmoult" Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Are concepts impermanent? robmoult Hi Sarah / Herman / Ken H / Joop / TG / Fabrizio, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Rob M (& Sukin), > > Many thanks for sharing your breakfast get-together with us. I'm glad it > worked out. > > --- robmoult wrote: > > 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." > .... > S: Yes, it's an odd (wrong) note and I showed it to B.Bodhi a couple of > years ago or so. He was also surprised! He said he'd have to take > responsibility, being the editor at the time but speculated that it may > have been copied from notes Ven Nyanaponika had written. I believe > elsewhere there are comments to suggest Ven N. thought like this. BB > talked about it for some time and about discussions and different views > the two of them had at times on some points like this one. (Is there a > ref. to something similar in 'AB.Studies'? I forget now where I've seen > it. > > This is all just my vague memory, so don't quote me. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ========== > ===== A year or so ago, I posted a message on DSG regarding my search for the word "pannatti" in the Tipitaka. I searched thousands of pages and found only a single reference (in the Patthana, pannatti is one of the conditioning states for natural decisive support condition). In my opinion, Buddhism and ontology (the philosophy of what is real and what is not real) are not closely linked. To say that "concepts are not subject to impermanence is not supported by the canonical texts nor by the ancient commentaries" does not necessarily imply that concepts are subject to impermanence. I am of the opinion that the ancient texts and commentaries barely mention pannatti and are silent on the issue of whether concepts are subject to impermanence or not. When I read the footnote literally, I believe it to be accurate; the ancient texts do not support the position that concepts are not subject to impermanence (nor do the ancient texts support the opposing position that concepts are subject to impermanence). Herman replied to my original post with, "Can anything unreal be subject to change?" and Ken H commented, "Isn't it self evident that concepts don't really exist? In what way could it be said that non- existent things are anicca?" In my opinion, this in an inappropriate mixing of different subjects (Buddhism and ontology). TG made some very good comments: "As I always argue...concepts are mental-formations and therefore are of course impermanent. There are no contradictions in Sutta interpretation when concepts are understood as mental-formations. The 'commentarial view' that "concepts don't exist" is a mistake IMO. There is also no need to create a "two realities" viewpoint and so on. The Suttas do not support these views and do not even bother to deal with them." I agree with TG's statement that the Suttas do not support the "two realities" viewpoint (they are silent on the subject). Fabrizio is correct that the Buddha adjusted his mode of presentation according to the audience but I do not see this as "two realities" (TG also made this point in his reply to Fabrizio). TG's statement that "pannatti is the same as sankhara" (I hope that I have interpreted this correctly) is interesting. TG, can you point me to some supporting texts? Metta, Rob M :-) 58317 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] RE: Some thoughts about Buddhism (2) egberdina Hi Jon and Neil, I am very much appreciating the correspondence. (Some people are deterred by praise, so I'll leave it to you, Jon, as to whether you convey my appreciation to Neil) -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58318 From: "sunnaloka" Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Patisambhidamagga refutation of own-nature (sabhava) sunnaloka Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Geoff - > I think we see things similarly, Geoff! :-) > Let me just add: There is considerable use of the term 'sabhava' here. Though I think it is a very poor term, as it used here for the most part it means "characteristic" or "quality" (close in meaning to 'lakkhana') more than "own-nature". G: Yes, it is indeed a poor term which of course caused much unnecessary verbal and mental proliferation once introduced. Of course as a "mere" conventional term there is nothing wrong with it. But to emphatically insist that sabhava of conditioned dhammas is paramattha-sacca! now that is another matter altogether.... Metta, Goeff. 58319 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Thank you Descartes! egberdina Hey Larry, Perhaps I misunderstand the meaning of thought in this context. On 23/04/06, LBIDD@... wrote: > > Hi all, > > I would like to proclaim a loud 'thank you' to the great bodhisatta Rene > Descartes who said, "I think, therefore I am". In abhidhamma-speak this > translates as, " "I" proudly cling to the belief that who and what I am > is this very thought of the moment." Incredible, but true! > > Larry How about I see,hear,feel,taste,smell therefore I am? I am what I see, I see what I am etc Or does he count seeing etc as thinking? -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58320 From: "sunnaloka" Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Patisambhidamagga refutation of own-nature (sabhava) sunnaloka Hi TG, Thank you. :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > Hi Geoff > > I think its brilliant!!!! Excellent work!!! > > TG Metta, Geoff. 58321 From: "robmoult" Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:17pm Subject: A great debate on Scholars & Meditators ? [was: [dsg] Re: How to radiate metta robmoult Hi Joop & James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joop" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott > wrote: > > > > Hi Joop (James & all), > > > > > Hallo Sarah, James, RobM, Christine, all > > I did send today my request off-list to the mods although generally > speaking I prefer transparancy in decision-making and thus in on- list > proposals (so I don't ask James; no reason to be afraid). > You already started the discussion (I did too), but not structured > enough. > Perhaps RobM will be a good moderator for this discussion; Christine > too. > ===== Joop, I am genuinely honoured that you would include my name as a potential moderator for this discussion. Unfortunately, I am so busy at work these days that I am not posting frequently enough on DSG. ===== > > And about accumulations you said "accumulations refer to all the > various mental tendencies (dhammas)arising now as we speak - the > likes and dislikes for particular objects,the feelings, the > rememrances of certain sights or sounds and so on." > > J: That is a rather good definition that makes it clear that > this "accumulations" are not ultimate realities: they don't > immediately fall away (and, a formal argument, they are not mentioned > in the list of cittas+cetasikas+rupas+nibbana). > ERGO: they are conventional realities (concepts)! Do you agree? Or is > there a third class of realities? ===== James, I would place "accumulations" in the same category as "kamma". Getting a bit technical: - Mental states with unwholesome roots and those with beautiful roots create kammic potential. When conditions support the ripening of this kammic potential, kamma condition (one of the 24) supports the arising of a resultant (vipaka) mental state. - Strong past rupa, strong past nama and stong past concepts(!) also create "potential". Every subsequent mental state is conditioned by this potential through natural decisive support condition. This is accumulations. Metta, Rob M :-) 58322 From: "sunnaloka" Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:25pm Subject: Re: The Four Great References (Mahapadesa) sunnaloka Hi Herman, Thank You. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Geoff, > > Bravo! Encore! Hear, hear. > > I would be very interested to read in more detail about the 10 points you list further below. > > My image of things is that the Buddha was a realist / ontologist. His suttas are a commentary on what he studied directly ie reality. We too can study reality directly, but may find it impossible, and the Buddha's commentaries (suttas) are invaluable in this respect. Others have come and studied the suttas, and have systemised and commented on them. This puts those later works in the realm of the study of study, academia, not the study of reality. > > I am happy for people to delight in academia, but it would help from time to time if they announced that they understood they were delighting in academia, and that they understood there is no necessary connection between that and the Buddha's program, the study of reality. G: Yes I agree. The Buddha's Dhamma-vinaya was and remains a straightforward and practical method. As for these ten points: Point one is clear -- the Buddha says Dhamma-vinaya and not Abhidhamma (which as I'm sure you know, wasn't even added to the canon until the third council) when referring to the mahapadesa. As for point two -- nowhere in the Sutta or Vinaya Pitakas does it say that conditioned dhammas are paramattha (at least not in the Sri Lankan or Thai editions; there are three texts added to the fifth Niakaya of the Burmese edition which are very late texts and as such are not included in the other two editions, I haven't read these late texts in detail). Points three and four are likewise nowhere stated in the two Pitakas. Points five and six have references listed (please google the titles). The three terms of point seven are also nowhere mentioned in the two Pitakas. Point eight has a reference (again, please google). For point nine, please google: "The Whole Body, Not Heart, As 'Seat Of Consciousness': The Buddha's View" by Suwands H. J. Sugunasiri. And as for number ten, because the commentarial position denies the possibility of non-temporal "featureless consciousness" (vinnana anidassana) which is mentioned in the Suttanta, they therefore conclude that all consciousness ceases for the arahant upon death. This view is nihilistic. (Of course being non-temporal, vinnana anidassana cannot be said to be "eternal" as it transcends all relative mental labels). Metta, Geoff. 58323 From: "sunnaloka" Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:33pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Four Great References (Mahapadesa) sunnaloka Hi Larry, Indeed. I am in no way trying to "convert" you or anyone else to my "position." Simply investigating, etc., in line with the Blessed One's instructions as understood by a conservative reading of the Suttanta. If the Abhidhammika paradigm works for anyone to allow them to begin to release conditioned phenomena that is all good. Metta, Geoff. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > > Geoff: "I await any replies." > > Hi Geoff, > > I guess we have to agree to disagree. > > Larry > 58324 From: "sunnaloka" Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:39pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Four Great References (Mahapadesa) sunnaloka Hi TG, Yes indeed. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/22/2006 9:17:05 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, > sunnaloka@... writes: > > G: By denying the possibility of non-temporal "featureless" > consciousness (i.e. vinnana anidassana), the Abhidhammikas are > nihilistic. > Hi Geoff > > I'm not sure I understand what you are saying above. Would what you're saying mean that the view of consciousness coming to a complete end is a form of nihilism? G: It is certainly nihilistic. Because the commentarial position denies the possibility of *non-temporal* vinnana anidassana (which as I'm sure you're aware, is mentioned in the Suttanta) they therefore conclude that all consciousness ceases for the arahant upon death. This view is nihilistic. Of course being non-temporal, vinnana anidassana cannot be said to be "eternal" as it transcends all relative temporal mental labels. Metta, Geoff. 58325 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Are concepts impermanent? egberdina Hi Rob M, Thanks for your further comments. > > Herman replied to my original post with, "Can anything unreal be > subject to change?" and Ken H commented, "Isn't it self evident that > concepts don't really exist? In what way could it be said that non- > existent things are anicca?" In my opinion, this in an inappropriate > mixing of different subjects (Buddhism and ontology). Fancy Ken H and I agreeing on something :-) When you have time, it would be interesting to read why you think Buddhism is not about "what is real". Are you and Joop perhaps in the same camp (oh God, that word again :-)), and regard Buddhism as soteriology? If so, I would just point out that there is no deliverance from what is real, only from what is unreal. -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58326 From: "sunnaloka" Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:57pm Subject: Re: The Four Great References (Mahapadesa) sunnaloka Hi Sukinder, As Larry completely evaded the points in question, I would say that his reply was beautifully evasive! lol.... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinder" wrote: > > I think Larry gave what I consider to be one of the best and most > relevant replies I've seen anywhere. I think if there was a willingness on your part to learn, you would have. But it seems that you are more interested in finding fault and arguing. G: Ouch! Not to worry, I am only interested in ascertaining the Dhamma-vinaya. I am not here to argue, merely to offer an alternative interpretation of certain key points. Moreover, I have been a member of DSG for over a year, and never do I join in meaningless argumentation -- even when I read completely invalid refutations of statements by teachers such as Ajahn Thanissaro and Ajahn Chah (Ajahn Chah explicitly stated that the true nature of citta is unconditioned, for example). > The part of the thinking process that we call 'reasoning' can be > used to justify or refute any position. But "understanding" dhamma is a kusala activity, one which requires kusala of other levels be developed along as well. > > I may be wrong about the whole thing, but if any response from you is of the same nature as the ones you have written prior to this, I may not bother to respond further. G: You are completely free to disregard anything and everything I say. I am not here to fight. Unfortunately the tone of a critical essay may lead the reader to conclude that the writer is being aggressive or whatever. Please understand that I have merely offered up alternate understandings in keeping with Venerable teachers whom I respect very, very much, and who I feel represent the Dhamma-vinaya much more accurately than does the Abhidhammika commentarial tradition. That is all. The similes of the snake and the raft come to mind (I'm sure you're probably aware of them; I post them here for readers who may be new to Dhamma-vinaya): *The Snake Simile* "To those who do not wisely examine the purpose, these teachings will not yield insight. They study the Teaching only to use it for criticizing or for refuting others in disputation. They do not experience the (true) purpose for which they (ought to) study the Teaching. To them these teachings wrongly grasped, will bring harm and suffering for a long time. And why? Because of their wrong grasp of the teachings. "Suppose, monks, a man wants a snake, looks for a snake, goes in search of a snake. He then sees a large snake, and when he is grasping its body or its tail, the snake turns back on him and bites his hand or arm or some other limb of his. And because of that he suffers death or deadly pain. And why? Because of his wrong grasp of the snake. "Suppose, monks, a man wants a snake, looks for a snake, goes in search of a snake. He then sees a large snake, and with a forked stick he holds it firmly down. Having done so he catches it firmly by the neck. Then although the snake might entwine with (the coils of) its body that man's hand or arm or some other limb of his, still he does not on that account suffer death or deadly pain. And why not? Because of his right grasp of the snake. "Similarly, O monks, there are here some noble sons who study the Teaching; and having learned it, they examine wisely the purpose of those teachings. To those who wisely examine the purpose, these teachings will yield insight. They do not study the Teaching for the sake of criticizing nor for refuting others in disputation. They experience the purpose for which they study the Teaching; and to them these teachings being rightly grasped, will bring welfare and happiness for a long time. And why? Because of their right grasp of the teachings. *The Raft Simile* "Suppose, monks, there is a man journeying on a road and he sees a vast expanse of water of which this shore is perilous and fearful, while the other shore is safe and free from danger. But there is no boat for crossing nor is there a bridge for going over from this side to the other. So the man thinks: 'This is a vast expanse of water; and this shore is perilous and fearful, but the other shore is safe and free from danger. There is, however, no boat here for crossing, nor a bridge for going over from this side to the other. Suppose I gather reeds, sticks, branches and foliage, and bind them into a raft.' Now that man collects reeds, sticks, branches and foliage, and binds them into a raft. Carried by that raft, laboring with hands and feet, he safely crosses over to the other shore. Having crossed and arrived at the other shore, he thinks: 'This raft, indeed, has been very helpful to me. Carried by it, laboring with hands and feet, I got safely across to the other shore. Should I not lift this raft on my head or put it on my shoulders, and go where I like?' "What do you think about it, O monks? Will this man by acting thus, do what should be done with a raft?" "No, Lord" "How then, monks, would he be doing what ought to be done with a raft? Here, monks, having got across and arrived at the other shore, the man thinks: 'This raft, indeed, has been very helpful to me. Carried by it, and laboring with hands and feet, I got safely across to the other shore. Should I not pull it up now to the dry land or let it float in the water, and then go as I please?' By acting thus, monks, would that man do what should be done with a raft. "In the same way, monks, have I shown to you the Teaching's similitude to a raft: as having the purpose of crossing over, not the purpose of being clung to. "You, O monks, who understand the Teaching's similitude to a raft, you should let go even (good) teachings, how much more false ones!" (Majjhima Nikaya 22: Alagaddupama Sutta; as translated by Nyanaponika Thera) Metta, Geoff. 58327 From: "robmoult" Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Are concepts impermanent? robmoult Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > When you have time, it would be interesting to read why you think Buddhism > is not about "what is real". ===== When reading the Tipitaka, I cannot find any evidence that ontology is related to the Buddha's teaching. There is one Sutta in the Samyutta Nikaya (I am on the road at the moment and do not have my texts with me) where Bhikkhu Bodhi added a footnote along the lines of, "This sutta shows that the Buddha did not avoid confronting ontological arguments when they arose." I should be able to provide the Sutta reference this weekend (it has been discussed on DSG in the past). So let me twist this around. Why do you think that the Buddha's teachings are linked to ontology? Is there any support for this position in the Tipitaka? ===== > > Are you and Joop perhaps in the same camp (oh > God, that word again :-)), and regard Buddhism as soteriology? ===== I think that the "camp" should be enlarged to include the Buddha Himself :-). I am referring to the Simsapa Sutta (SN LVI.31) and the Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta (MN63) where the Buddha clearly defined the purpose of the teaching as being connected to the holy life and leading to Nibbana. Clearly soteriological. And by the way, how did God get dragged into this discussion? :-) ===== > If so, I > would just point out that there is no deliverance from what is real, only > from what is unreal. ===== I do not interpret things from an ontological perspective, so I have no comment on this (and I don't think that the Tipitaka has any comment on this either :-) ). Metta, Rob M :-) 58328 From: "sunnaloka" Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:16pm Subject: Re: The Four Great References (Mahapadesa) sunnaloka Hi Ken, I am aware that the teachings of venerable teachers such as Ajahn Chah, Ajahn Buddhadasa, and Ajahn Thanissaro are not held in the highest regard at DSG. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" wrote: > Larry answered Geoff's ten points exactly the way I would have liked > to. Geoff's response ended with: > > ---------------- > > By denying the possibility of non-temporal "featureless" > consciousness (i.e. vinnana anidassana), the Abhidhammikas are > nihilistic. > > --------------- G: As I've stated in another reply, because the commentarial position denies the possibility of *non-temporal* vinnana anidassana (which as I'm sure you are aware, is mentioned in the Suttanta), they therefore conclude that all consciousness ceases for the arahant upon death. This view is nihilistic. Of course being non-temporal, vinnana anidassana cannot be said to be "eternal" as it transcends all relative mental labels. I'm not sure what Ajahn Thanissaro's view is in this regard, but I refer you to the following statement by Ajahn Chah: "The Buddha talked about sankhata dhammas and asankhata dhammas [...] Asankhata dhamma, the unconditioned, refers to the mind which has seen the Dhamma, the truth, of the five khandhas as they are -- as transient, imperfect and ownerless [...] Seeing in this way the mind transcends things. The body may grow old, get sick and die, but the mind transcends this state. When the mind transcends conditions, it knows the unconditioned. The mind becomes the unconditioned, the state which no longer contains conditioning factors. The mind is no longer conditioned by the concerns of the world, conditions no longer contaminate the mind. Pleasure and pain no longer affect it. Nothing can affect the mind or change it, the mind is assured, it has escaped all constructions. Seeing the true nature of conditions and the determined, the mind becomes free." ["Living Dhamma: Toward the Unconditioned" by Ajahn Chah; not sure of the translator off hand?) > TG, I owe you an apology. Some months ago, when I asked if you were > a student of Bhikkhu Thanissaro, you indirectly answered no, but I > didn't really believe you. But now, if I understand your question to > Geoff correctly, it seems you are quite unfamiliar with BT's > teachings. I look forward to Geoff's answer and to the discussions > that follow. G: I guess being called a "student of Bhikkhu Thanissaro" is considered an insult around here? lol. Nice. I assure you Ken, I for one have been called far worse :-) Metta, Geoff. 58329 From: "sunnaloka" Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:39pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Four Great References (Mahapadesa) sunnaloka Hi Sarah, I am well, and I pray that you are well also. I've stopped in a few times to see what was going on here at DSG, and am happy to see many familiar names still posting. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > I'm very glad to see you back after a year's sabbatical:-). I hope you're doing well. > > Thank you also for your detailed articles which various friends have > responded to with the usual varied reactions. I think Larry raised good points. G: Well as I said elsewhere, Larry simply evaded the points -- which is perfectly fine of course. > S: As I'm sure you've gathered, nothing is beyond dispute round here:). G: Indeed! lol. > In the translation of the passage you quoted from the Mahaparinnibbana Sutta it refers to 'the Dhamma, the Discipline' (S: i.e Dhamma Vinaya)throughout. > > For many people, like yourself, I agree that it's beyond dispute that the Abhidhamma is not included in the Dhamma Vinaya. For the ancient commentaries, clearly it was. G: Yes, I am aware of the commentarial position also. And as Larry said, we can agree to disagree on the interpretation of what the Buddha meant by "Dhamma-vinaya." To me it is completely obvious that he was referring exclusively to the first two Pitakas. Otherwise the Abhidhamma Pitaka would have been included in the canon of the first council. I'm sure the commentarial tradition has some flimsy reason for why it (the Abhidhamma Pitaka) wasn't included -- but their whole position on the Abhidhamma being the words of the Buddha as taught in the heavenly realm is just as mythical as the Mahayana assertion that the Prajnaparamita teachings were taught by him and hid in the naga realm. If you choose to belief either myth that is completely fine. I personally believe neither. > "'There is no word of the Buddha which is not called a sutta.' And he said, 'The three baskets are the sutta; Vinaya is moral conduct > (kaara.na).' G: As just stated, I don't believe that the Abhidhamma Pitaka is the words of the Buddha, or that they are of the same age as the Suttanta. Furthermore, I don't see much of the Blessed One's insight therein contained. I am not trying to convince you or anyone else of this, just making an alternative view known which is in complete accord with a conservative reading of the Maha-parinibbana passage in question. If the Abhidhammika paradigm works for you or anyone else as a method for letting go of conditioned phenomena, then that is all good. Metta, Geoff. 58330 From: LBIDD@... Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Thank you Descartes! lbidd2 Herman: "Hey Larry, Perhaps I misunderstand the meaning of thought in this context. On 23/04/06, LBIDD@... wrote: Hi all, I would like to proclaim a loud 'thank you' to the great bodhisatta Rene Descartes who said, "I think, therefore I am". In abhidhamma-speak this translates as, " "I" proudly cling to the belief that who and what I am is this very thought of the moment." Incredible, but true! Larry H: "How about I see,hear,feel,taste,smell therefore I am? I am what I see, I see what I am etc Or does he count seeing etc as thinking?"" Hi Herman, It was perhaps an over exuberant moment of tiny insight. I have been struggling for a long time trying to see what exactly I am identifying with as my self. I wouldn't really say seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching is "me". But I think I would say discursive thinking is me and, perhaps, that is what Descartes meant also. At least that is what I cling to in the most obvious way. Larry 58331 From: "sunnaloka" Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ultimately empty of own-nature (sabhava) sunnaloka Hi Eric and Sarah, Any notion that conditioned phenomena of the eighteen dhatus cannot be experienced by the average person is an elitist perspective not found in the Suttanta. Anyone with average intelligence can readily do so. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ericlonline" wrote: > > Hi Sarah & (Geoff), > > G: Furthermore, it is completely conceptual because during the > S: When there hasn't been the development of direct awareness of > dhammas such as tactile consciousness or tactile form, I agree that > any such 'knowing' is completely conceptual, like now when we talk > about them. > You did not do Geoff's tactile experiment did you? G: I'll give the invitation again: Right now, close your eyes while keeping your hand on your computer mouse. While doing so, try to nonconceptually distinguish any differentiation between "knowing" (i.e. tactile consciousness) and "the known" (i.e. the hardness of the computer mouse). If you can do this without reference to any conditioned expectations of what you should experience, it will become completely obvious that there is no "knowing" that can in any way be directly and nonconceptually distinguished from "the known." Take you time and investigate again and again -- the ignorant reification of subjective/objective duality is a persistent and long running habit for all of us. But if you can remain open and mindful, it can be readily experienced. > How can you be directly aware of tactile consciousness? G: Indeed. There is no direct nonconceptual differentiation between "knower" (tactile consciousness) and "known" (tactile hardness). Any such distinction is completely conceptual. > How can you make tactile consciousness an object? G: Agreed again. Consciousness cannot be an object (neither can Nibbana for that matter). Metta, Geoff. 58332 From: "robmoult" Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 5:16pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Four Great References (Mahapadesa) robmoult Hi Geoff, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sunnaloka" wrote: > G: As just stated, I don't believe that the Abhidhamma Pitaka is the > words of the Buddha, or that they are of the same age as the Suttanta. > Furthermore, I don't see much of the Blessed One's insight therein > contained. ===== An interesting subject. I am not sure that even the commentarial tradition says that the Abhidhamma texts that we have are the "Words of the Buddha". I believe that the commentarial tradition mentions the Buddha passing along the structure of the Abhidhamma to Sariputta (who filled in the gaps). Obviously, the Abhidhamma texts bear much closer resemblence to Saripitta's Sangiti Sutta (DN33) than to any of the Buddha's discourses. In brief, I agree with you that the Abhidhamma is not the word of the Buddha and I also suspect that the Abhidhamma was not recited at the first council. Nevertheless, I do believe that there is a considerable amount of the Blessed One's insight in the Abhidhamma texts. The Buddha said that after He passed away, the Dhamma should be the teacher. Obviously, this led to an urgent need to codify the teachings. My opinion is that the Abhidhamma "was not ready in time" for the first council however, much of the material would have been generally available before the Buddha's parinibbana. I remember reading either in Warder's "Indian Buddhism" or Watanabe's "Philosophy and its Development in the Nikayas and Abhidhamma" that the Abhidhamma was in more-or-less in its current form before the second council (100 years after the Buddha's parinibbana). I am on the road and do not have my texts with me. Obviously, the Abhidhamma reached its current form for the third council, 218 years after the Buddha's parinibbana, when the Katthavatthu was added. The Theravada position at the time of the second council was ultra- conservative; they insisted on sticking with the original texts in the face of the Mahasangikha (who later developed into the Mahayana school). Given this situation, I find it very unlikely that the Theravada school would stick to the Abhidhamma if it were not rooted in material from the Buddha's time. (I know that the school was not called Theravada at that time, but I do not have my texts with me to insert the correct name). I therefore believe that the Abhidhamma that we currently have has strong links to material available at the time of the Buddha and is not significantly later than the Suttana. On the other hand, it is clear that the Sarvastivada Abhidharma does not share a common root with the Theravada Abhidhamma (the first book of the Sarvastivada Abhidharma is attributed to Sariputta and reads something like an expansion of the Sangiti Sutta). I would be interested in reading your comments. Metta, Rob M :-) 58333 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Are concepts impermanent? TGrand458@... Hi Rob M. In a message dated 4/24/2006 4:03:56 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, rob.moult@... writes: A year or so ago, I posted a message on DSG regarding my search for the word "pannatti" in the Tipitaka. I searched thousands of pages and found only a single reference (in the Patthana, pannatti is one of the conditioning states for natural decisive support condition). In my opinion, Buddhism and ontology (the philosophy of what is real and what is not real) are not closely linked. TG: Agreed. To say that "concepts are not subject to impermanence is not supported by the canonical texts nor by the ancient commentaries" does not necessarily imply that concepts are subject to impermanence. I am of the opinion that the ancient texts and commentaries barely mention pannatti and are silent on the issue of whether concepts are subject to impermanence or not. TG: There are DO examples (not the 12 fold chain) where the Buddha includes or ends them with -- "thinking and pondering." Thinking and pondering therefore would be conditioned phenomena. It seems to me memories and conceptualizations are part of that process. I see all of these things as conditioned and therefore impermanent. When I read the footnote literally, I believe it to be accurate; the ancient texts do not support the position that concepts are not subject to impermanence (nor do the ancient texts support the opposing position that concepts are subject to impermanence). TG: If concepts are merely considered mental phenomena, i.e., perceptions, mental formations, consciousness; why would they be spoken of as if a different thing from other conditions? Isn't it just "our rather bizarre idea" that concepts are somehow non-existing<->existing things? Herman replied to my original post with, "Can anything unreal be subject to change?" and Ken H commented, "Isn't it self evident that concepts don't really exist? In what way could it be said that non- existent things are anicca?" In my opinion, this in an inappropriate mixing of different subjects (Buddhism and ontology). TG: How can we speak about something that doesn't really arise? "A flying pink elephant" does arise ... as mental phenomena. That's all that concepts are ... mental phenomena. Try thinking of an animal or color that you have never experienced before. Its impossible. The best that can be done is the put together a fantasy based on a combination of animal parts (and or other parts) that have been experienced. This proves that concepts are conditioned by past experiences. This is "direct experience" proof and does not need texts to prove the point! TG made some very good comments: "As I always argue...concepts are mental-formations and therefore are of course impermanent. There are no contradictions in Sutta interpretation when concepts are understood as mental-formations. The 'commentarial view' that "concepts don't exist" is a mistake IMO. There is also no need to create a "two realities" viewpoint and so on. The Suttas do not support these views and do not even bother to deal with them." I agree with TG's statement that the Suttas do not support the "two realities" viewpoint (they are silent on the subject). Fabrizio is correct that the Buddha adjusted his mode of presentation according to the audience but I do not see this as "two realities" (TG also made this point in his reply to Fabrizio). TG's statement that "pannatti is the same as sankhara" (I hope that I have interpreted this correctly) is interesting. TG, can you point me to some supporting texts? TG: The Buddha speaks more in terms of thinking and memories. Concepts as being part of thinking, memories, perceptions and the rest of the Khandas is my understanding through contemplation. I don't have a Sutta quote handy to supply you, and am doubtful one exists that would be definitive. One the other hand, as I understand the Suttas, all conditioned things are impermanent. Nibbana is the only exception. I'm not aware of some "sub-category of things" that are not impermanent, and are not Nibbana. It also seem so obvious and elementary that concepts ARE conditioned as to be embarrassing to argue the point with educated Buddhists. Metta, Rob M :-) TG 58334 From: "robmoult" Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 6:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Are concepts impermanent? robmoult Hi TG, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > Hi Rob M. > > In a message dated 4/24/2006 4:03:56 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, > rob.moult@... writes: > > A year or so ago, I posted a message on DSG regarding my search for > the word "pannatti" in the Tipitaka. I searched thousands of pages > and found only a single reference (in the Patthana, pannatti is one > of the conditioning states for natural decisive support condition). > In my opinion, Buddhism and ontology (the philosophy of what is real > and what is not real) are not closely linked. > TG: Agreed. > ===== If we agree on this, the rest should be easy :-) ===== > > To say that "concepts are not subject to impermanence is not > supported by the canonical texts nor by the ancient commentaries" > does not necessarily imply that concepts are subject to impermanence. > I am of the opinion that the ancient texts and commentaries barely > mention pannatti and are silent on the issue of whether concepts are > subject to impermanence or not. > > TG: There are DO examples (not the 12 fold chain) where the Buddha includes > or ends them with -- "thinking and pondering." Thinking and pondering > therefore would be conditioned phenomena. It seems to me memories and > conceptualizations are part of that process. I see all of these things as conditioned > and therefore impermanent. > > > > When I read the footnote literally, I believe it to be accurate; the > ancient texts do not support the position that concepts are not > subject to impermanence (nor do the ancient texts support the > opposing position that concepts are subject to impermanence). > > TG: If concepts are merely considered mental phenomena, i.e., perceptions, > mental formations, consciousness; why would they be spoken of as if a > different thing from other conditions? Isn't it just "our rather bizarre idea" that > concepts are somehow non-existing<->existing things? > > > > Herman replied to my original post with, "Can anything unreal be > subject to change?" and Ken H commented, "Isn't it self evident that > concepts don't really exist? In what way could it be said that non- > existent things are anicca?" In my opinion, this in an inappropriate > mixing of different subjects (Buddhism and ontology). > > TG: How can we speak about something that doesn't really arise? "A flying > pink elephant" does arise ... as mental phenomena. That's all that concepts > are ... mental phenomena. Try thinking of an animal or color that you have > never experienced before. Its impossible. The best that can be done is the > put together a fantasy based on a combination of animal parts (and or other > parts) that have been experienced. This proves that concepts are conditioned > by past experiences. This is "direct experience" proof and does not need > texts to prove the point! > > > > TG made some very good comments: "As I always argue...concepts are > mental-formations and therefore are of course impermanent. There are > no contradictions in Sutta interpretation when concepts are > understood as mental-formations. The 'commentarial view' > that "concepts don't exist" is a mistake IMO. There is also no need > to create a "two realities" viewpoint and so on. The Suttas do not > support these views and do not even bother to deal with them." > > I agree with TG's statement that the Suttas do not support the "two > realities" viewpoint (they are silent on the subject). Fabrizio is > correct that the Buddha adjusted his mode of presentation according > to the audience but I do not see this as "two realities" (TG also > made this point in his reply to Fabrizio). > > TG's statement that "pannatti is the same as sankhara" (I hope that I > have interpreted this correctly) is interesting. TG, can you point me > to some supporting texts? > > TG: The Buddha speaks more in terms of thinking and memories. Concepts as > being part of thinking, memories, perceptions and the rest of the Khandas is > my understanding through contemplation. I don't have a Sutta quote handy to > supply you, and am doubtful one exists that would be definitive. > > One the other hand, as I understand the Suttas, all conditioned things are > impermanent. Nibbana is the only exception. I'm not aware of some > "sub-category of things" that are not impermanent, and are not Nibbana. It also seem > so obvious and elementary that concepts ARE conditioned as to be embarrassing > to argue the point with educated Buddhists. > ===== I think my confusion arises because you mixed the terms "mental formations", "mental phenomena" and "concepts". If we agree that we are talking about dhamma-dhatu (mind-object element), then I think we are on the same page, at least as far as terminology goes. Metta, Rob M :-) 58335 From: "sunnaloka" Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 8:05pm Subject: Ajahn Chah's Unconditioned Mind sunnaloka Hi all, I mentioned the following excerpt in another thread, but the topic is worthy of a thread of its own. The excerpt is from "Living Dhamma: Toward the Unconditioned" by Ajahn Chah: "The Buddha talked about sankhata dhammas [conditioned phenomena] and asankhata dhammas [unconditioned phenomena] [...] Asankhata dhamma, the unconditioned, refers to the mind which has seen the Dhamma, the truth, of the five khandhas as they are -- as transient, imperfect and ownerless [...] Seeing in this way the mind transcends things. The body may grow old, get sick and die, but the mind transcends this state. When the mind transcends conditions, it knows the unconditioned. The mind becomes the unconditioned, the state which no longer contains conditioning factors. The mind is no longer conditioned by the concerns of the world, conditions no longer contaminate the mind. Pleasure and pain no longer affect it. Nothing can affect the mind or change it, the mind is assured, it has escaped all constructions. Seeing the true nature of conditions and the determined, the mind becomes free." Any thoughts? Metta, Geoff. 58336 From: LBIDD@... Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 9:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga, Ch XVII, 72. Part I, and Tiika. lbidd2 Hi Nina, Is citta a conascent predominance condition only for the intimations? Does all intimation have citta as conascent predominance condition? I noticed that citta was qualified by "purity of". What does that mean? Why aren't vitakka and vicaara included in predominance condition? Very interesting subject! Larry 58337 From: "sunnaloka" Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 9:23pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Four Great References (Mahapadesa) sunnaloka Hi Rob, I would suggest that the entire methodology of the Abhidhammikas diverges from the Buddha's insistence that one let go of the conditioned dhammas of the sanna and sankhara khandhas. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > > Hi Geoff, > > I also suspect that the Abhidhamma was not recited at the first council. G: I haven't even heard the Abhidhammikas assert that it was? But I'm sure they have some sort of explanation of the entire affair. Their "party line" regarding the authenticity of the Abhidhamma Pitaka is that the Blessed One taught it in Tavatimsa heaven (to his mother if I remember correctly?). Relevant to this, Ajahn Sujato says: The Theravada insists that the Theravada Abhidhamma was taught by the Buddha in Tavatimsa heaven during his seventh rains retreat. The Mahayana claims that the Mahayana sutras were written down in the time of the Buddha, preserved in the dragon world under the sea, then retrieved by Nagarjuna 500 years later. Zen claims authority from an esoteric oral tradition outside the scriptures descended from Maha Kassapa [....] All of these are myths, and do not deserve serious consideration as explanations of historical truth. Their purpose, as myths, is not to elucidate facts, but to authorize religious convictions. They tell us, not how the teachings came to be, but how the devotees feel about them [....] What I am criticizing here is not myth as myth, but myth as history: the naive fallacy of insisting that the stories of the traditions are factual. ["A History Of Mindfulness: How Insight Worsted Tranquillity in the Satipatthana Sutta" by Bhikkhu Sujato] And I would maintain that the insistence that the Abhidhamma Pitaka of any school goes back to the Buddha, is mythological and in no way historical. > Nevertheless, I do believe that there is a considerable amount of the Blessed One's insight in the Abhidhamma texts. G: I would suggest that the Blessed One's insight is quite absent and that a infatuation with mental labeling is quite prevalent in the Abhidhamma Pitaka. > My opinion is that the Abhidhamma "was not ready in time" for the first council however, much of the material would have been generally > available before the Buddha's parinibbana. G: I am aware of no contemporary scholar who would propose such an opinion. Of course it is always possible that there are a few, but they are definitely in the minority. > I remember reading either in Warder's "Indian Buddhism" or > Watanabe's "Philosophy and its Development in the Nikayas and > Abhidhamma" that the Abhidhamma was in more-or-less in its current form before the second council (100 years after the Buddha's parinibbana). I am on the road and do not have my texts with me. Obviously, the Abhidhamma reached its current form for the third council, 218 years after the Buddha's parinibbana, when the Katthavatthu was added. I don't doubt that the basic methodology of classifying phenomena ad infinitum was well under way by the time of the second council. But that means nothing. There is no way to authenticate the historicity of the Abhidhamma Pitaka, and due to the prevalence of a number of notions not contained in the Suttanta, much reason to assert that the final paradigm that it offers us is a divergence from the Blessed One's Dhamma-vinaya, as I proposed in the first post of this thread. And as the paradigm offered by the Mahavihara commentarial tradition contains more notions nowhere to be found even in the Abhidhamma Pitaka, I have suggested that it is a radical divergence in many respects -- both in regard to right view and right samadhi. > The Theravada position at the time of the second council was ultra- > conservative; they insisted on sticking with the original texts in the face of the Mahasangikha (who later developed into the Mahayana > school). Given this situation, I find it very unlikely that the > Theravada school would stick to the Abhidhamma if it were not rooted in material from the Buddha's time. G: Well there are two sides to every schism. And the second council wasn't a controversy over Dhamma, it was a controversy over Vinaya. > I therefore believe that the Abhidhamma that we currently have has > strong links to material available at the time of the Buddha and is not significantly later than the Suttana. > > On the other hand, it is clear that the Sarvastivada Abhidharma does > not share a common root with the Theravada Abhidhamma (the first book of the Sarvastivada Abhidharma is attributed to Sariputta and reads something like an expansion of the Sangiti Sutta). G: According to all proponents of the historical method, because the various early schools all have different Abhidhammas, this is a clear indication that their texts were compiled after the various sectarian schisms had begun sometime after the second council. Again, I'm sure the basic idea of phenomenological classification predates the schisms in its earliest forms (of which we have no knowledge over and above suttas like the one you mention, which the historical method would also suggest is later than the earliest strata of the Sutta Pitaka), but this is by no means any indication that these notions go back to the Buddha. In my opinion, their bulk, as well as their infatuation with naming and pointless conceptual analysis, is in direct contradiction to the Buddha's subtlety and insistence upon dealing only with what is absolutely essential for release. Metta, Geoff. 58338 From: "indriyabala" Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 9:31pm Subject: Re: On conditions, God willing .. Sutta Interpretation, Is It Really Bad? indriyabala Hi, Phil (& Joop)- Thank you for acknowledging the fact that we have different preferences, and also for your (formally?) encouraging words . >Ph : > I also think that the more deeply we understand abhidhamma, the more deeply we understand suttas, and the less likely we are to latch on to them with premature enthusiasm, or something like that. I don't know. Tep: I have two observations. First, no-one should not have any doubt about the complementary role between the Sutta-pitaka and the Abhidhamma-pitaka. Second, without any question, even without premature enthusiasm anyone may easily be latching on to his or her "deep understanding" of the Abhidhamma! For example, Abhidhammikas are generally very proud of themselves (an attachment) -- look at how often they quickly reject other people's ideas, and suggest the ideas that are based on the Paramattha-dhamma or higher dhammas. Even latching on to the whole Tipitaka is often seen in monks and lay people who think of themselves as having the greatest wisdom of accomplished scholars. ............... >Ph : > I also think it is a bit absurd to think that our independent interpretations of suttas could possibly equal to those of the ancient commentators. I don't know if you think that. I think some people do. It's seems a bit odd, doesn't it? Tep: Admittedly, many years ago I used to depend on the sutta commentaries of the "ancient commentators" too. However, I have found some of them not to be useful (or even confusing) because of their extraneous stories, opinionated interpretations of the suttas and extensions thereof. No, I am not arrogant enough to think of my "independent interpretations of suttas" to always equal to or better than those of the ancient commentators. But after reading several major suttas over and over for nearly 30 years, I think it is time for me to stand on my own two feet and be self confident. Sincerely yours, Tep ====== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > > Hi Tep > > > Tep: I like it whenever there is a sutta discussion that helps us > > carefully reflect over the Buddha's Teachings, literally. I think > the > > original, literal teachings of the suttas lay a firm and reliable > > foundation on which our practice that leads to insights can be > > developed. You know, no-one can build a house's second floor first. > > > > Sutta interpretation and reflection are safe, unlike faithful > > following(due to unthinking?) of the teachings of any teachers who > > are not ariyan (ariya-savakko). > > (snipped) > > I wish I had a full commentary for SN 35!!! That might get me > fired up about suttas again, because when I read them without a > commentary I feel so aware of my hunger to get something out them. > It doesn't feel like kusala chanda, that's for sure. Maybe I'll get > over that. > > Phil > 58339 From: "Paul Grabianowski" Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 8:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Thank you Descartes! paulgrabiano... Hi Herman and Larry, I think Descartes also had in mind the incommensurability of the mind and the body. The mind or soul lodged comfortably in the pituitary gland would go on thinking even in the absence of material reality. The mind in a sense goes on thinking in the absence of matter. Thinking, then, in this sense, would preceed existence. It lies outside the material universe. The dependent arising of nama and rupa would be a secondary concern for Descartes, I think. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:41 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Thank you Descartes! > Herman: "Hey Larry, > Perhaps I misunderstand the meaning of thought in this context. > On 23/04/06, LBIDD@... wrote: > Hi all, > I would like to proclaim a loud 'thank you' to the great bodhisatta Rene > Descartes who said, "I think, therefore I am". In abhidhamma-speak this > translates as, " "I" proudly cling to the belief that who and what I am > is this very thought of the moment." Incredible, but true! > Larry > > H: "How about I see,hear,feel,taste,smell therefore I am? I am what I > see, I see what I am etc > Or does he count seeing etc as thinking?"" > > Hi Herman, > > It was perhaps an over exuberant moment of tiny insight. I have been > struggling for a long time trying to see what exactly I am identifying > with as my self. I wouldn't really say seeing, hearing, smelling, > tasting, and touching is "me". But I think I would say discursive > thinking is me and, perhaps, that is what Descartes meant also. At least > that is what I cling to in the most obvious way. > > Larry <...> 58340 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 6:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Are concepts impermanent? TGrand458@... In a message dated 4/24/2006 7:32:35 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, rob.moult@... writes: I think my confusion arises because you mixed the terms "mental formations", "mental phenomena" and "concepts". If we agree that we are talking about dhamma-dhatu (mind-object element), then I think we are on the same page, at least as far as terminology goes. Metta, Rob M :-) Hi Rob M. To consider a concept a "mind-object element" is correct in the way I think of it also. It is the precise way to identify it. I tend to mix these kinds of terms because I see a "mind-object element" as something not wholly separate from the other cognitive processes that are upholding it and any given time. Even a "mind-object element" is upheld by rupa and is not wholly separate from that either. Therefore I have a problem with the idea of seeing nama and rupa as "separate and distinct realities." TG 58341 From: LBIDD@... Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 10:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Thank you Descartes! lbidd2 Paul: "Hi Herman and Larry, I think Descartes also had in mind the incommensurability of the mind and the body. The mind or soul lodged comfortably in the pituitary gland would go on thinking even in the absence of material reality. The mind in a sense goes on thinking in the absence of matter. Thinking, then, in this sense, would precede existence. It lies outside the material universe. The dependent arising of nama and rupa would be a secondary concern for Descartes, I think." Hi Paul, I think you know a lot more about Descartes than I do. What do you think Descartes meant by "think"? Words running through the mind? How do I tell the difference between my thoughts and your thoughts? Larry 58342 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 11:05pm Subject: A great debate on Scholars & Meditators ? [was: [dsg] Re: How to radiate metta christine_fo... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joop" wrote: > Hallo Sarah, James, RobM, Christine, all > > I did send today my request off-list to the mods although > generally speaking I prefer transparancy in decision-making and > thus in on-list proposals (so I don't ask James; no reason to be > afraid). > You already started the discussion (I did too), but not structured > enough. Perhaps RobM will be a good moderator for this > discussion; Christine too. > Metta > Joop Hello Joop and all, Thank you for considering me, but I must (regretfully) decline. I have my hands full over on E-sangha as a Global Mod. Dhammastudygroup is a precious resource - I really enjoy signing in and reading everyone's posts, and continue to learn from the experienced members of this group - all so well versed in the Dhamma. metta Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- 58343 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 10:06pm Subject: What is Virtue ... ??? bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: What are the causes of Future Good??? Bodily Morality is: Not Killing Not Stealing Not Abusing the Senses 1. No Adultery ! 2. No Alcohol ! 3. No Drugs ! 4. No Overeating ! 5. No Porn ! Verbal Morality: Not Lying Not Scolding Not Slandering Not Gossiping Verbal Morality: Not Envying Not Hating Not maintaining Wrong View These are the 10 causes of Future Good, Pleasure, and Success Source: The Path of Purification: Visuddhimagga. Written by 'the great explainer' Ven. Buddhaghosa in 5th century AC. http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=771100 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PS: Please include the word Samahita in any comment, since then will my automatic mail filters pick it up and I will see it & respond!! Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. Friendship is the Greatest ... Let there be Calm & Free Bliss !!! <...> 58344 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Are concepts impermanent? egberdina Hi Rob M, On 25/04/06, robmoult wrote: > > Hi Herman, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" > wrote: > > When you have time, it would be interesting to read why you think > Buddhism > > is not about "what is real". > > ===== > > When reading the Tipitaka, I cannot find any evidence that ontology > is related to the Buddha's teaching. There is one Sutta in the > Samyutta Nikaya (I am on the road at the moment and do not have my > texts with me) where Bhikkhu Bodhi added a footnote along the lines > of, "This sutta shows that the Buddha did not avoid confronting > ontological arguments when they arose." I should be able to provide > the Sutta reference this weekend (it has been discussed on DSG in the > past). > > So let me twist this around. Why do you think that the Buddha's > teachings are linked to ontology? Is there any support for this > position in the Tipitaka? > > ===== Well, it seems that me that there is hardly anything in the Suttas which doesn't relate in some way to pointing out the illusory nature of atta, permanence and the desirability of phenomena. What is real cannot be approached positively by a deluded mind that grasps at the content of thought as real. So the training is a negative one, discovering what is not real. This is ontology in optima forma, not? > > > Are you and Joop perhaps in the same camp (oh > > God, that word again :-)), and regard Buddhism as soteriology? > > ===== > > I think that the "camp" should be enlarged to include the Buddha > Himself :-). I am referring to the Simsapa Sutta (SN LVI.31) and the > Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta (MN63) where the Buddha clearly defined the > purpose of the teaching as being connected to the holy life and > leading to Nibbana. Clearly soteriological. There may be a preconception here of what Nibbana is. I agree that the teachings are all about Nibbana. But it would be a hindrance to grasp at what that would as a positive. > > If so, I > > would just point out that there is no deliverance from what is > real, only > > from what is unreal. > > ===== > > I do not interpret things from an ontological perspective, so I have > no comment on this (and I don't think that the Tipitaka has any > comment on this either :-) ). After having read my comments, do you still think that ? -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58345 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Cetasikas' study corner 427- mindfulness/sati (i) egberdina Hi to anyone who can answer some questions :-) On 24/04/06, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom > > http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html > http://www.zolag.co.uk/ > > Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) > ========================================== > > (Ch26 - mindfulness/sati continued) > > Nma and rpa appear one at a time and each one of them has > its own characteristic. Is this saying that nama and rupa appear together or separately? If it is saying that they arise separately, on what basis is that said? These characteristics cannot be changed. > Seeing, for example, has its own characteristic; we can give it > another name, but its characteristic cannot be changed. Seeing is > always seeing for everybody, no matter an animal or any other > living being sees. Are we talking about seeing as opposed to the object of seeing, or seeing as opposed to, say, hearing? On what basis is it said that seeing is the same for all beings? -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58346 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:09am Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 428- mindfulness/sati (j) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== (Ch26 - mindfulness/sati continued) In order to remind people of the truth of conditioned realities the Buddha taught about six doors, the objects experienced through these doorways and the realities which experience these objects. We read, for example, in the Middle Length Sayings (III, no. 148, Discourse on the Six Sixes) that the Buddha, while he was staying near Svatth, in the Jeta Grove, explained to the monks: * " When it is said, Six internal sense-fields are to be understood, in reference to what is it said? It is in reference to the sense-field of eye, the sense-field of ear, the sense-field of nose, the sense-field of tongue, the sense-field of body, the sense-field of mind. When it is said, Six internal sense-fields are to be understood, it is said in reference to this. This is the first Six. "When it is said, Six external sense-fields are to be understood, in reference to what is it said? It is in reference to the sense-field of material shapes, the sense-field of sounds, the sense-field of smells, the sense-field of tastes, the sense-field of touches, the sense-field of mental states. When it is said, Six external sense-fields are to be understood, it is said in reference to this. This is the second Six. "When it is said, Six classes of consciousness are to be understood, in reference to what is it said? It is in reference to the visual consciousness that arises because of eye and material shapes; the auditory consciousness that arises because of ear and sounds; the olfactory consciousness that arises because of nose and smells; the gustatory consciousness that arises because tongue and tastes; the bodily consciousness that arises because of body and touches; the mental consciousness that arises because of mind and mental states. When it is said, Six classes of consciousness are to be understood, it is said in reference to this. This is the third Six" * We then read about the six classes of impingement (contact or phassa), about the six classes of feeling conditioned by those impingements and about the six classes of craving conditioned by the six classes of feeling. Direct understanding of all these realities which arise because of their own conditions can eradicate the wrong view of self and can eventually lead to turning away, to detachment from realities. This sutta reminds us that each reality which appears through one of the six doors should be known separately, we should not confuse different realities with each other. We are so used to the idea of seeing people. However, the only object which can be seen is visible object. If there is mindfulness of visible object when it appears we will understand that visible object is a reality which can be experienced through the eyesense, that it is not a person. We may find it difficult to grasp this truth and we may wonder whether we have to avoid thinking of concepts. We do not have to avoid this, then we could not live our daily life. The citta which thinks of concepts is a reality, it arises because of conditions and it can be known as only a kind of nma, not self. We can live our daily life as usual, thinking of concepts and expressing ourselves by means of conventional language, in terms of I, self or person, but at the same time right understanding of nma and rpa can be developed. Even when we think of people and talk to them, there are nma and rpa which appear, and these can be objects of mindfulness. ***** (Ch26 - mindfulness/sati to be contd) Metta, Sarah ====== 58347 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:14am Subject: Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 72, and Tiika. Part II. nilovg Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 72. Part II. Object-predominance condition, ramma.naadhipati- paccaya. Intro: As we have seen, there are two kinds of predominance-condition: conascent- predominance-condition and object-predominance-condition. As regards object-predominance-condition (ramma.naadhipati- paccaya), this does not arise simultaneously with the conditioned dhammas, as is the case with conascent-predominance-condition. Not every object citta experiences is object-predominance-condition. An object which is predominance-condition is highly regarded by citta and the accompanying cetasikas so that they give preponderance to it. Object-predominance-condition is different from object-condition. Certain objects cannot be object-predominance-condition, because they are undesirable. Among them is the type of body-consciousness which is akusala vipka, accompanied by painful feeling and the two types of dosa-mla-citta, which are accompanied by unpleasant feeling and thus not desirable. --------- Text Vis 72.: But the state, by giving importance to which, immaterial states occur, is their 'object-predominance'. Hence it is said: 'When any states, as states of consciousness and consciousness-concomitants, arise by giving importance to any states, these [latter] states are a condition, as predominance condition, for those [former] states' (P.tn.1,2). --------- N: The Tiika states that the object that is object-predominance condition gives assistence by wielding its own power. It is given importance and it is highly esteemd by the citta and cetasikas that experience it. The Tiika refers to the Pa.t.thaana text (Conditional Relations, p. 146-148) that gives examples of object-predominance-condition, and these examples are classified as sevenfold. Kusala can be object-predominance-condition for kusala citta which esteems and considers the wholesome deed which was done. In this case one gives preponderance to that object. We read in the "Pahna''(Faultless Triplet,VII,Investigation Chapter, Conditions:Positive,1,Classification Chapter,Predominance,10,413): ...After having offered the offering, having undertaken the precept, having fulfilled the duty of observance, (one)esteems and reviews it. (One)esteems and reviews (such acts) formerly well done... When we have been generous we can recollect our generosity and then there can be the arising again of kusala cittas. Kusala can also be object-predominance-condition for akusala citta. We read in the same section ( 414)) that dna, sla and jhna can be object- predominance-condition for akusala citta. When we have performed generous deeds with kusala citta we may find that citta highly desirable, we may be pleased with our own generosity. There may be attachment, conceit or wrong view on account of our good deeds. If we do not know the different conditions for kusala citta and akusala citta we may take for kusala what is actually akusala. Thus, kusala can be object of clinging, it can even be object-predominance-condition for clinging. Anything can be object of clinging, except Nibbna and the lokuttara cittas that experience it. Nibbna and the eight lokuttara cittas which experience it cannot be object-condition for lobha-mla-citta nor can they be object-predominance-condition for lobha-mla-citta. Nibbna is object-predominance-condition for the eight lokuttara cittas which experience it. Nibbaana and the lokuttara cittas can be object-predominance-condition for the cittas which arise after the attainment of enlightenment and which review, consider with pa, nibbaana and the lokuttara cittas which arose. Akusala can condition akusala citta by way of object-predominance-condition. We read in the "Pahna'',in the same section,415: (One)esteems, enjoys and delights in lust. Taking it as estimable object, arises lust, arises wrong views. (One)esteems, enjoys and delights in wrong views. Taking it as estimable object, arises lust, arise wrong views. Ruupa which is a desirable object can be object- predominance-condition only for lobha-mla-citta. Ruupa cannot condition kusala citta by way of object-predominance-condition, only by way of object-condition. At different moments different conditions play their part in our life. As we have seen, kusala can condition wrong view or conceit by way of object-predominance-condition. We may attach great importance to the notion of "my kusala'' with wrong view. Or we may have a high esteem of our good deeds with conceit, while we compare ourselves with others. When we are attached to pleasant sense objects, our attachment may be object-predominance-condition for lobha-mla-cittas; we may be quite absorbed in our enjoyment and forgetful of the development of right understanding. At other moments we may devote time to the study and the consideration of the Dhamma so that right understanding can develop. The Dhamma we hear may condition mah-kusala citta accompanied by pa by way of object-predominance-condition. A sutta we read can inspire us to continue developing right understanding with patience and perseverance. ***** Nina. 58348 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:13am Subject: Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence buddhatrue Hi Rob M., --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: Unfortunately, people who do not study the Abhidhamma > deeper than the Abhidhammattasangaha come away with the impression > that this simple, concise structure is a characterisitic of the > Abhidhamma. In my opinion, the simple concise structure of the four > paramattha dhammas is a literary device, not the Buddha's teaching. > Would you mind elaborating on this statement further? Are you saying that the compilers added structure where there wasn't structure? That they created a structure incompatible with the original structure? Or that their structure was too simplistic in comparison with the original structure? Also, if your assertion is true, that raises other questions: Why would the compilers create this structure if it could be misleading? How did they intend this structure to be understood (differently than the present understanding)? How can we see this structure in the light of the entire Abhidhamma? Rob, what you write strikes a cord with me because I see a truth in it. It is no secret that I am not a fan of the Abhidhamma as it is taught in this group. For all its seeming complications (endless lists), I find it overly simplistic. This isn't because I necessarily have a great deal of wisdom or think I am better than the ancients (hi Phil), it is because I have spent many hours in meditation examining my own mind stream. The atomistic approach to the mind just doesn't seem to fit with my experience. I would appreciate your feedback because I do respect you as an Abhidhamma teacher. Metta, James 58349 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Visuddhimagga, Ch XVII, 72. Part I, and Tiika. nilovg Hi Larry, op 25-04-2006 06:19 schreef LBIDD@... op LBIDD@...: > > Is citta a conascent predominance condition only for the intimations? ------ N: no. for all ruupa produced by javana citta and arising together with it. And also when chanda, viriya and investigation of Dhamma are, one at a time, predominant, they condition the ruupa produced by the javana citta they accompany by way of conascent predominance condition. This ruupa arises together with the javanacitta. As we read in the Vis. text: If a person gives generously and this is conditioned by one of the four conascent predominance-conditions, there are ruupas produced by citta when he moves his hands in getting the things he wants to hand and in handing them to the receiver. These ruupas are also conditioned by conascent predominance-condition, depending on which of the four factors is predominant at that time. . --------- L: Does all intimation have citta as conascent predominance condition? --------------- N: The intimation ruupas are not conditioned every time by one of the four conascent predominance-condition. But if it is conditioned by way of conascent predominance condition, it is conditioned by one of the four factors. ---------- L: I noticed that citta was qualified by "purity of". What does that mean? > Why aren't vitakka and vicaara included in predominance condition? Very > interesting subject! --------- N: Purity of citta pertains only to kusala citta that is steadfast and firm in kusala so that it can perform great works. However, also akusala citta accompanied by two roots can be predominance-condition, it can perform great works. For example, akusala citta rooted in attachment clings to pleasant objects, but in order to obtain what it likes, it needs chanda, wish-to-do, as conascent predominance condition. It cannot take action without this condition. The akusala cittas rooted in moha alone are too weak to be conascent predominance condition. Vitakka and vicaara perform their functions of directing citta to the object, touching the object, and of keeping citta occupied with the object. They 'think', but they are not predominant in the undertaking of great tasks, be it in the wholesome way or the unwholesome way. Nina. 58350 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:25am Subject: A great debate on Scholars & Meditators ? [was: [dsg] Re: How to radiate metta buddhatrue Hi Rob M. and All, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > > J: That is a rather good definition that makes it clear that > > this "accumulations" are not ultimate realities: they don't > > immediately fall away (and, a formal argument, they are not > mentioned > > in the list of cittas+cetasikas+rupas+nibbana). > > ERGO: they are conventional realities (concepts)! Do you agree? Or > is > > there a third class of realities? > > ===== > > James, I would place "accumulations" in the same category as "kamma". > Just a point of clarification: I didn't ask that question. The "J" must stand for Joop in this case. Metta, James 58351 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Cetasikas' study corner 427- mindfulness/sati (i) sarahprocter... Hi Herman, --- Herman Hofman wrote: > > Nma and rpa appear one at a time and each one of them has > > its own characteristic. > > > Is this saying that nama and rupa appear together or separately? If it > is > saying that they arise separately, on what basis is that said? .... S: No, it means they appear as objects of consciousness, one at a time. For example, at a moment of seeing consciousness, several mental factors accompany the seeing (as you know), but there's only one object - vis. object. That vis object (or the seeing, or another mental factor) may be the object of a mind-door process. Again, many mental factors are accompanying the consciousness, but only one object 'appears'. So, if awareness arises with the consciousness, it can only be aware of this one object. .... >> These characteristics cannot be changed. > > Seeing, for example, has its own characteristic; we can give it > > another name, but its characteristic cannot be changed. Seeing is > > always seeing for everybody, no matter an animal or any other > > living being sees. > > > Are we talking about seeing as opposed to the object of seeing, or > seeing as > opposed to, say, hearing? .... S: Seeing always has a characteristic common only to seeing, different from the object of seeing (the rupa), different from hearing, different from any other dhamma/element. .... > > On what basis is it said that seeing is the same for all beings? ... S: It's not the same - not even two moments of seeing for any of us are the same. BUT, each element of seeing has a characteristic in common with each other element of seeing and this is so for all beings. Without visible object, eye-sense, contact and so on, there's no seeing. It's that dhamma which experiences (or is the experiencing of, if you prefer) visible object. As Phil reminded me, we think there is light all the time, but actually light only appears at those brief moments of seeing when visible object appears. Then it's dark again. Of course, some will disagree:-)) Metta, Sarah ======== 58352 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Cetasikas' study corner 427- mindfulness/sati (i) nilovg Hi Herman, That is long ago, good to see you. I like your questions. op 25-04-2006 11:06 schreef Herman Hofman op hhofmeister@...: >> >> Nma and rpa appear one at a time and each one of them has >> its own characteristic. > > > Is this saying that nama and rupa appear together or separately? If it is > saying that they arise separately, on what basis is that said? -------- N: Appear as object, thus, one at a time. I am not speaking about arising together, or being present together, they are. But citta can experience them only one at a time, because citta cannot experience more objects at the same time. ---------- H: > These characteristics cannot be changed. >> Seeing, for example, has its own characteristic; we can give it >> another name, but its characteristic cannot be changed. Seeing is >> always seeing for everybody, no matter an animal or any other >> living being sees. > > > Are we talking about seeing as opposed to the object of seeing, or seeing as > opposed to, say, hearing? -------- N: not opposed, but, different, with different characteristics. -------- > H: On what basis is it said that seeing is the same for all beings? -------- N: Seeing sees what is visible, and this pertains to you, to me, to a dog. I only refer to the function of seeing, not to thinking after the seeing, or remembering what was seen. We all think differently on account of what is seen. The sutta quote in Cetasikas just posted may be of help: <"When it is said, Six classes of consciousness are to be understood, in reference to what is it said? It is in reference to the visual consciousness that arises because of eye and material shapes; the auditory consciousness that arises because of ear and sounds...> They have to be differentiated, they arise because of different conditions. Nina. 58353 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:47am Subject: Re: The Four Great References (Mahapadesa) buddhatrue Hi Geoff, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sunnaloka" wrote: > > Hi Ken, > > I am aware that the teachings of venerable teachers such as Ajahn > Chah, Ajahn Buddhadasa, and Ajahn Thanissaro are not held in the > highest regard at DSG. I, for one, hold their teachings in high regard (though I hold Chah in a higher regard than Buddhadasa and Thanissaro). And Sarah, the moderator, has officially recognized me as a "core member" of DSG ;-), so I don't think your generalization is appropriate. Metta, James 58354 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 3:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vipassana and Satipattana sarahprocter... Hi Daniel, The list got very busy and I don't think anyone answered these questions, so let me try: --- Daniel wrote: > Hello. Often buddhist meditation is called "Vipassana meditation". But I > think > that speaking precisely, "Vipassana" (Special Insight) is not a > meditation. .... S: Vipassana means 'insight' and refers to the wisdom developed through satipatthana. Let me quote from an old message of Jon's replying to a similar question: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/3663 "As you know, there is no we who can practise. But we also need to realise that there is no practice to be done either in any generally accepted sense of the word. Vipassana bhavana is the making become (bhavana) of understanding or wisdom (vipassana). The question we actually need to consider is, How is vipassana made to become (ie. developed)? Understanding is something that grows by gradual accretion, given the right conditions. One of those conditions is a correct understanding, from listening to and studying the texts (pariyatti theory), of exactly what the Buddha meant by vipassana bhavana. Many people are not much interested in this. They regard the study of the texts, intellectual understanding, listening and considering (call it what you will) as something for beginners, members of dsg and other nerds. They also seem to think that having an interest in this implicitly rules out any interest in understanding at other levels. This totally misses the point that understanding at a deeper level (patipatti practice) can only occur if the proper basis is there. The other point that is not appreciated is that the different levels of understanding are interdependent and mutually supportive. Progress along the path is a cycle of listening, considering, applying, realising. Pariyatti (theory), patipatti (practice) and pativedha (realization). Sutta-, cinta- and bhavana-maya-panna (understanding acquired through listening, considering and realising). This cycle continues until enlightenment. They are not discrete stages that are to be left behind. So, keeping it as brief as possible: Vipassana bhavana is not a question of practising, its a question of the development of understanding. The understanding to be developed is the understanding of the reality appearing at the present moment, so it is all about studying more, knowing more about the reality appearing at the present moment. Its sounds simple, I know, but theres nothing easy about it! I hope this helps a little." ***** S: Also see more in 'useful posts' under 'vipassana'. ... >It > is a state of mind that should be reached by meditation. This state of > mind is > reached by practicing Satipattana meditation. So, if one wants to be > really > precise, the Satipattana is the meditation and Vipassana is the state of > mind > reached after practicing this. Am I correct? .... S: Both satipatthana and vipassana refer to moments of the right path when right understanding and other path factors arise. In the case of satipatthana, we're only talking about mundane path factors. What do you mean by meditation here? Are you referrring to bhavana as Jon explained in this extract? The development of satipatthana or vipassana is not dependent on a way of sitting/focussing/concentrating and so on. .... >Could anyone bring a > precise > quotation from a Sutta? (Hopefully a short one... Sometimes those > quotations > become much longer than three posts together... ). Thank you. ... Nina wrote the following in an old post too: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/6954 "Jim explained the word vipassanaa: < the Patisambhidhamagga com. gives the following interpretation of vipassanaa: "Aniccataadivasena vividhehi aakaarehi dhamma passatii ti vipassanaa." It sees realities in various aspects by way of impermanence and so on.> In the "Path of Discrimination" you will find many passages on insight and the stages of insight, Treatise on Knowledge, Ch XVII, Behaviour. Buddhaghosa in his commentaries uses the word vipassana very frequently: it should know the khandhas, the dhatus, the ayatanas, thus whatever appears through the six doors, again and again. Jim mentioned that the Buddha Vipassii was given this name, " .... S: Sorry, it wasn't really a concise sutta quote and this is a longer post than intended, but I hope it helps. Please let me know what you think and share any further questions/comments with us. Metta, Sarah ======= 58355 From: "robmoult" Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 4:05am Subject: Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence robmoult Hi James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Rob M., > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" > wrote: > > > Unfortunately, people who do not study the Abhidhamma > > deeper than the Abhidhammattasangaha come away with the impression > > that this simple, concise structure is a characterisitic of the > > Abhidhamma. In my opinion, the simple concise structure of the > four > > paramattha dhammas is a literary device, not the Buddha's teaching. > > > > > Would you mind elaborating on this statement further? Are you > saying that the compilers added structure where there wasn't > structure? That they created a structure incompatible with the > original structure? Or that their structure was too simplistic in > comparison with the original structure? > > Also, if your assertion is true, that raises other questions: Why > would the compilers create this structure if it could be > misleading? How did they intend this structure to be understood > (differently than the present understanding)? How can we see this > structure in the light of the entire Abhidhamma? > > Rob, what you write strikes a cord with me because I see a truth in > it. It is no secret that I am not a fan of the Abhidhamma as it is > taught in this group. For all its seeming complications (endless > lists), I find it overly simplistic. This isn't because I > necessarily have a great deal of wisdom or think I am better than > the ancients (hi Phil), it is because I have spent many hours in > meditation examining my own mind stream. The atomistic approach to > the mind just doesn't seem to fit with my experience. I would > appreciate your feedback because I do respect you as an Abhidhamma > teacher. ===== Imagine the following scenario. I come into your office and dump a whole stack of books on your desk. The stack is about two feet tall and includes the following: - A book of lists (Dhammasangani) - Two books of essays on various topics (Vibhanga, Dhatukata) - A book of extracts from Suttas (Puggalapannatti) - A collection of controversial points and "official responses" (Katthavatthu) - An exercise in logic (Yamaka) - A huge volume showing the interrelations between the items on the lists from the first book (Patthana) - Three volumes of commentaries by Buddhaghosa which spend a lot of time looking at the etymological derivation of key terms - Various other commentaries such as a 24 chapter poem (Buddhadatta's Abhidhammavatara) Each of the books has a consistent internal structure, but the styles of presentation are radically different (as suggested above). I then tell you that I want you to produce a 50 page summary (that's right, in Pali the Abhidhammattasangaha is only 50 pages!). I tell you that the purpose of the summary is to allow young monks to memorize the key points from the texts. With this assignment facing you, how would you proceed? Of course, you are going to have to come up with a simple, rigid structure which pulls everything together. James, I do not see any sinister intentions behind the simple, rigid structure of the Abhidhammatthasangaha. I see the simple, rigid structure as being a necessary literary device. I genuinely believe that Acariya Anuruddha expected those who were interested in the Abhidhamma to proceed with a study of the original texts. The original text with the closest resemblance (style-wise) to the Abhidhammatthasangaha would be the Dhammasangani. However, there are some important differences. Whereas the Abhidhammatthasangaha presents close-ended lists like building blocks, the Dhammasangani presents lists of interacting processes. For example, in the initial list of the Dhammasangani, (the list of wholesome Dhammas) there are seven instances of "wisdom" (it appears as a path factor, as a spiritual faculty, as a power, etc.) whereas in the Abhidhammatthasangaha, this is summarized into a single item, "panna". Metta, Rob M :-) 58356 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 4:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Please don't run away yet, DAN 1.ii sarahprocter... Dear Dan, After the usual delay.. Lots of snips, but it'll still be long, I'm sure --- "Dan D." wrote: >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; . S: I think most people here would agree that you need a pretty 'elaborate conceptual model', i.e. you need to have heard, read and considered a lot of detail in order for these 'models' to make such good sense to you. I don't think I need to elaborate. . > 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: You may be right. I think the difficulty is that they just don't resonate for many people because they go so much against the way of the world, the way of our usual thinking, especially the clinging to an idea of self. . <> > > 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." . S: I'd say it depends on the cittas of the unenlightened person. There could be some firm confidence and sacca ~naa.na in the 4NT even though one is still a worldling. For another example, we may appreciate the value and importance of kamma to some degree which can be a condition for more understanding later. This is in spite of the fact that there isn't a direct understanding of conditions or kamma yet. And so on. I agree that usually if we just repeat words about nibbana, it may well be 'wrong theory' - but I wouldn't generalise on it as you've done. It the words are said with kusala cittas, there's nothing 'wrong' with them. Only pa~n~naa can tell of course:). . >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. . S: Not necessarily. If we say now that nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, it's 'right'. Now this may be said with kusala or akusala cittas - with understanding, with ignorance, with attachment or whatever. Even if it's akusala, we can't say it's based on wrong view. (Of course, wrong view may arise - we might think for example, that repeating the words like a mantra is the way to attainment). >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. . S: Would you suggest there is patipatti before pariyatti in effect? Of course they work together, but there always has to be the hearing, considering and reflecting BEFORE the direct understanding of the truths. Even Sariputta had to hear the right words first. Anyway, we've been over this in great detail and you have your own reasons for your comments, I'm sure:-). . >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: I'd phrase it a little differently, but I agree that pariyatti and patipatti work together consolidating and reinforcing. But there can be no patipatti without pariyatti. No pativedha without patipatti either. . > 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. . S: Right View can be of many different levels and kinds. When we reflect on why killing is not good or generosity is good, there is (usually) right view of that degree. .. ***** > > >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. . S: Cetasikas are not cittas. They are different dhammas, different dhatus. They have different characteristics and different functions as I said. (Of course, in some contexts cittas refer to cittas + cetasikas but we're not talking about that here). Pls find me any reference from any text which says that cetasikas are characteristics of cittas. It makes no sense to me.Am I somehow missing your point? I'm not sure where this is coming from . > > 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). . S: That's fine. All formulations are used - the main point is to appreciate that there is no self involved at all in a process of seeing. Merely dhammas arising, performing their functions and then falling away. For many people with the usual ideas that we experience objects and so on, it is helpful to read and hear that this is the function of cittas and cetasikas, not of self. Metta, Sarah p.s. Thanks again for all your good posts recently. I particularly liked the neat description in #57691 of teaching in conventional and ultimate terms as an example. ============================ 58357 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 4:30am Subject: Re: A great debate on Scholars & Meditators ? [was: [dsg] Re: How to radiate metta egberdina Hi Christine, Thank you for considering me, but I must (regretfully) decline. I > have my hands full over on E-sangha as a Global Mod. I'm really interested in this, but of course don't feel obliged :-) What sort of thoughts accompany the allowing and disallowing of the communications of others? -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58358 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 4:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Abhidhamma of Hunting sarahprocter... Hi James & all, --- buddhatrue wrote: > Hi All, > > I found this interesting blog article by a Canadian monk on "The > Abhidhamma of Hunting". Thought you might be interested: > > http://bhikkhublog.blogspot.com/2006/03/abhidhamma-of-hunting.html .... S: I just took a look, thanks. Here's an extract: "Tom is quite right when he says that the act of killing is always wrong. According to abhidhamma theory, we would call it an "akusala kamma," or unskilfull act. That is, one stemming from an unwholesome mind-state and leading to a bad destination. Again according to the orthodox theory; killing an animal stems from the root of ill-will. I had an interesting discussion once with a fellow monk who had hunted as a layman. (I never have, only fished a very few times and didn't like it.) He maintained that the root in the case of most hunters is really greed. He said when he hunted it was greed for venison which motivated him. I put up a stout defence of the orthodox theory at the time, but now I'm not so sure. Other men I've known have said their motivation for hunting is desire for some particular meat, such as moose (which is admittedly delicious) or pheasant." **** S: He's quite right that 'according to the orthodox theory; killing an animal stems from the root of ill-will". From the Atthasalini,(commentary to the first book of the Abhidhamma, PTS transl): "Life-taking is associated with a painful feeling. For although kings on seeing a thief may say, laughing, 'Go, kill him.' the volition of decision is associated with pain only." Of course, there can be and usually are plenty of motivations involved in desire as well, but at that moment of decision or intentional killing, there has to be ill-will for the other being. It's a good example of changing motivations, intentions and kinds of consciousness following each other. Metta, Sarah p.s Just listening to the News as I type and another attack in an Egyptian resort. Hope your parents aren't listening....:). ================ 58359 From: "Charles Thompson" Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:02am Subject: Off Topic Requests: Your Chant/Meditation/Prayer Please dhammasaro Good friends all, Please my off topic request... please delete if deemed inapproriate... Over the years, I have read and studied your Dhamma messages... This coming Saturday, I plan to be ordained as a monk to honor the 60 years of HH The King of Thailand. Friday night, I must demonstrate... In the USA, it will be Friday morning... As I am an American, I am having a very difficult time learning the required Pali chants... Hence, my two requests: 1. to adaquately learn and to chant the required Pali chants and 2. to be able to properly kneel on my toes... Very sincere thanks... metta (maitri), Chuck 58360 From: "matheesha" Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:02am Subject: Re: Ajahn Chah's Unconditioned Mind matheesha333 Hi Geoff, The excerpt is from "Living Dhamma: > Toward the Unconditioned" by Ajahn Chah: > > "The Buddha talked about sankhata dhammas [conditioned phenomena] and > asankhata dhammas [unconditioned phenomena] [...] Asankhata dhamma, > the unconditioned, refers to the mind which has seen the Dhamma, the > truth, of the five khandhas as they are -- as transient, imperfect and > ownerless [...] Seeing in this way the mind transcends things. The > body may grow old, get sick and die, but the mind transcends this > state. When the mind transcends conditions, it knows the > unconditioned. The mind becomes the unconditioned, the state which no > longer contains conditioning factors. The mind is no longer > conditioned by the concerns of the world, conditions no longer > contaminate the mind. Pleasure and pain no longer affect it. Nothing > can affect the mind or change it, the mind is assured, it has escaped > all constructions. Seeing the true nature of conditions and the > determined, the mind becomes free." > M: It seems the Ajhan Chah is talking about a mind which doesnt give rise to craving or defilements. I think to be in a unconditioned state nothing can arise (or pass away). That is the arahath- phalasamapatti -the (non)experience of nibbana. While of course these two states are two sides of the same coin of an arahath's mind, there can be variations. For exmaple a sotapanna experiencing phala, hasnt necessarily erradicated craving. Or a complete but temporary suppression of craving through samadhi/jhana in a normal person, still doesn mean the mind is enlightened. regards Matheesha 58361 From: "icarofranca" Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:46am Subject: Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence icarofranca Hi Rob! This post series of you - about the Abhidhamma Sangaha and its links with the Abhidhamma - are being one of the best here at DSG!!! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > I have not seen any printed Abhidhammavatara, but I do have a copy of > the Vimutthimagga. Please contact me off-list if you want me to > search around for the Vimutthimagga and mail it to you. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > ------------------------------------------------------------------ I am sending you an e_mail!!! Mettaya, caro 58362 From: "icarofranca" Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 6:07am Subject: [dsg] Re: Dhaatukathaa, Elements icarofranca Hi Larry!!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > I like it. The rocket to happiness! From Rio to Toronto and back, all is included. > > Larry ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Some suggestions ( of course you know Toronto better than me...so corrections are welcome!) 1. Rupakkhando: the celestial vision of the Toronto Sukkhavatis fried chicken with curry in all Tv broadcasting. Meanwhile here in Rio... 2. Vedanakkhando:...Icaros mouth feels in antecipation the delicious taste of fried chicken with Curry at Torontos style! 3. SaaKkhando: touching up his pockets, Icaro perceive, by its volume, that has sufficient money inside it only to take the next fly to Santa Cruz de La Sierra, Bolvia... 4. Sankharakkhando:Thinking better, Icaro conceives a plan to get more money to get a fly in route from Rio to Toronto, passing over the Bermuda Triangle! The Rio-Toronto Rocket! 5. Vianakkhando: practising Niyama and some wrestling on his luggage, Icaro manages to put inside them all your very necessary itens to a stay on Canada: 274 numbers of the True and original Mongolian Buddhistic Review, from the number one to the interview with the original Devadatta reincarnation. Three bottles of my favourite stomach medicine.My PDA with all Abhidhamma stored in it and a Scarfe... Well!!! Thats a good beginning for a "Torontos Mahavamsa"!!! 58363 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 6:08am Subject: Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence buddhatrue Hi Rob M., Rob: James, I do not see any sinister intentions behind the simple, rigid structure of the Abhidhammatthasangaha. I see the simple, rigid structure as being a necessary literary device. I genuinely believe that Acariya Anuruddha expected those who were interested in the Abhidhamma to proceed with a study of the original texts. James: I didn't mention anything about "sinister intentions". ;-)) I just wanted to know how the structure of the Abhidhammatthasangaha deviates from the entirety of the Abhidhamma. You keep telling me why it happened, I understand that; I want to know how to view the results. I'm sorry, but I don't have the entire Abhidhamma in English to read so I can't quite see the big picture you are painting. Can you paint a bigger picture or are you saying that it is absolutely necessary to read all of the books of the Abhidhamma to get the gist of what you are saying? Metta, James 58364 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 6:17am Subject: Re: The Abhidhamma of Hunting buddhatrue Hi Sarah, Sarah: Just listening to the News as I type and another attack in an Egyptian resort. Hope your parents aren't listening....:). James: Yeah, I have been reading about that also. Pretty scary. If I stay here much longer I might just get myself blown up! There is so much ill-will in the world. Metta, James 58365 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 3:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence upasaka_howard Hi, Rob (and anyone else "in the know") - In a message dated 4/25/06 7:05:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rob.moult@... writes: > Two books of essays on various topics (Vibhanga, Dhatukata) > ========================== I don't do so well with synoptic lists. I'm much more an essay enjoyer. Can you say more about these, and are either of them available in English? 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) 58366 From: "ericlonline" Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:34am Subject: Hi Geoff & All, ericlonline Do you know of a good exposition of the last tetrad of Anapanasati? I have Thanissaro's Wings and Buddhadasa's Mindfulness with Breathing. Thanks in advance. PEACE E 58367 From: "ericlonline" Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thank you Descartes! ericlonline Descartes abridged. I think, 'I am'. 58368 From: "ericlonline" Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ultimately empty of own-nature (sabhava) ericlonline Hi Geoff, E > How can you be directly aware of tactile consciousness? > G: Indeed. There is no direct nonconceptual differentiation between > "knower" (tactile consciousness) and "known" (tactile hardness). Any such distinction is completely conceptual. How did you come to this undestanding? metta 58369 From: "sunnaloka" Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 10:42am Subject: Re: Hi Geoff & All, sunnaloka Hi Eric, I can't think of any? Metta, Geoff. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ericlonline" wrote: > > Do you know of a good exposition > of the last tetrad of Anapanasati? > > I have Thanissaro's Wings and > Buddhadasa's Mindfulness with > Breathing. > > Thanks in advance. > > PEACE > > E > 58370 From: "sunnaloka" Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 10:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ultimately empty of own-nature (sabhava) sunnaloka Hi Eric, It is the result of direct valid cognition. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ericlonline" wrote: > > Hi Geoff, > > E > How can you be directly aware of tactile consciousness? > > > G: Indeed. There is no direct nonconceptual differentiation between > > "knower" (tactile consciousness) and "known" (tactile hardness). Any > such distinction is completely conceptual. > > How did you come to this undestanding? When the mental labels (sanna) of "tactile consciousness element" and "tactile sensation element" are removed, one's experience is "just Such." And the Blessed One says: "Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer. "When hearing.... "When sensing.... "When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer. "Thus, monks, the Tathagata -- being the same with regard to all phenomena that can be seen, heard, sensed, & cognized -- is 'Such.' And I tell you: There's no other 'Such' higher or more sublime." Metta, Geoff. 58371 From: "sunnaloka" Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 10:53am Subject: Re: The Four Great References (Mahapadesa) sunnaloka Hi James, I very happily stand corrected on this point. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > I am aware that the teachings of venerable teachers such as Ajahn > > Chah, Ajahn Buddhadasa, and Ajahn Thanissaro are not held in the > > highest regard at DSG. > > I, for one, hold their teachings in high regard (though I hold Chah in a higher regard than Buddhadasa and Thanissaro). And Sarah, the > moderator, has officially recognized me as a "core member" of DSG ;-), > so I don't think your generalization is appropriate. > > Metta, > James Thank you for clarifying this for me. Metta, geoff. 58372 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 10:58am Subject: metta 2. nilovg Metta 2 (from Kh Sujin's book, Metta). Dear friends, ****** Nina. 58373 From: "sunnaloka" Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:04am Subject: Re: Ajahn Chah's Unconditioned Mind sunnaloka Hi Matheesha, Thank you for replying. I think that "an unconditioned state" refers to the nonarising of ignorance and the other kilesas. If that is what you are saying then I agree completely. But I don't see any Suttanta evidence for the necessary cessation of all conditioned phenomena in order to experience the deathless (unconditioned). Such cessation, is of course, experienced in the highly refined state of concentration called "cessation of feeling and perception." --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "matheesha" wrote: > > Hi Geoff, > > M: It seems the Ajhan Chah is talking about a mind which doesnt give > rise to craving or defilements. I think to be in a unconditioned > state nothing can arise (or pass away). That is the arahath- > phalasamapatti -the (non)experience of nibbana. > > While of course these two states are two sides of the same coin of an > arahath's mind, there can be variations. For exmaple a sotapanna > experiencing phala, hasnt necessarily erradicated craving. Or a > complete but temporary suppression of craving through samadhi/jhana > in a normal person, still doesn mean the mind is enlightened. Metta, Geoff. 58374 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] the fourth tetrad of the anapanasatisutta. nilovg Hi Eric, Can I be of help? See whether you can use it. op 25-04-2006 18:34 schreef ericlonline op ericlonline@...: > Do you know of a good exposition > of the last tetrad of Anapanasati? > > I have Thanissaro's Wings and > Buddhadasa's Mindfulness with > Breathing. ----------- The fourth tetrad of the sutta : (XIII) He trains thus I shall breathe in contemplating impermanence; he trains thus I shall breathe out contemplating impermanence. (XIV) He trains thus I shall breathe in contemplating fading away; he trains thus I shall breathe out contemplating fading away. (XV) He trains thus I shall breathe in contemplating cessation; he trains thus I shall breathe out contemplating cessation. (XVI) He trains thus I shall breathe in contemplating relinquishment; he trains thus I shall breathe out contemplating relinquishment. (then as translated by Ven. Nyanatiloka:) <..on that occasion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu abides contemplating mental objects in mental objects, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful ,having put away covetousness and grief with regard to the world. Having see with understanding what is the abandoning of covetousness and grief, he becomes one who looks on with complete equanimity. That is why on that occasion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu abides contemplating mental objects in mental objects, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful ,having put away covetousness and grief with regard to the world. That is how respiration-mindfulness, developed and repeatedly practised, perfects the four foundations of mindfulness.> **** The Visuddhimagga (VIII, 237) states about the fourth tetrad, This tetrad deals only with pure insight while the previous three deal with serenity and insight. As regards the words of the fourth tetrad, (XIII) I shall breathe in... breathe out contemplating impermanence, the Visuddhimagga (VIII, 234) states: ... Impermanence is the rise and fall and change in those same khandhas, or it is their non-existence after having been; the meaning is, it is the break-up of produced khandhas through their momentary dissolution since they do not remain in the same mode. Contemplation of impermanence is contemplation of materiality, etc., as impermanent in virtue of that impermanence... As regards the clause: (XIV) I shall breathe in... breathe out contemplating fading away, the Visuddhimagga states that there are two kinds of fading away, namely: fading away as destruction which is the momentary dissolution of formations (conditioned realities) and absolute fading away which is nibbna. The text (Visuddhimagga VIII, 235) states: ... Contemplation of fading away is insight and it is the path, which occur as the seeing of these two. It is when he possesses this twofold contemplation that it can be understood of him He trains thus, I shall breathe in... shall breathe out contemplating fading away. The same method of explanation is applied to the clause contemplating cessation (XV). And with regard to the clause (XVI) contemplating relinquishment, the Visuddhimagga states: relinquishment is of two kinds too, that is to say, relinquishment as giving up, and relinquishment as entering into. Giving up is the giving up of defilements, and entering into is the entering into nibbna, the Visuddhimagga explains. We read: The fourth tetrad pertains to the contemplation of dhammas (mental objects) in dhammas. We read in the Commentary to the Anapanasati Sutta (translated by Ven. Nyanatiloka) about the explanations of the words of the sutta: : here covetousness is the hindrance of lust. By grief the hindrance of ill will is pointed out. For this tetrad is stated by way of insight. And contemplation of mental objects is sixfold... Of that contemplation, the section on the hindrances is the beginning... Accordingly, he said, in order to point out the beginning of the contemplation of mental objects. (pahaana.m) means it is the knowledge of abandoning, thus, that is intended... N: The Co refers to higher stages of insight knowledge leading to more detachment from conditioned realities: fading away (viraaga~naa.na), cessation (nirodha ~naa.na), and relinquishment (pa.tinissagga). We read further on: : because one who proceeds by the method, etc., is one who looks on with complete equanimity after successively seeing with understanding not only the mental objects beginning with the hindrances, but also the knowledge of the abandoning of the mental objects stated under the heading of covetousness and grief. Therefore, it should be understood that Nina: In the Way of Mindfulness, Co translated by Ven. Soma, it is stated that just as in the case of body, feeling and citta, the mental objects should be contemplated in seven ways: as impermanent; as being subject to dukkha; as anatta; by way of turning away from it and not by way of delighting in it; by freeing himself of passion for it; with thoughts making for cessation and not making for origination; and not by way of laying hold of it, by by way of giving it up. As we have seen, the hindrances are classified under the mental objects, and they include also the khandhas, the sense-bases (ayatanas), the seven factors of enlightenment and the four Truths. *** Nina. 58375 From: "Dan D." Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:13am Subject: Re: Please don't run away yet, DAN 1.ii onco111 Dear Sarah, The Buddha talked about listening and yoniso manasikara as conditions for satipatthana. I look at the development of conceptual models and intellectual understanding and theorizing as near-enemies to listening in much the same way as you and I look at directed attention, eyes closed butt-sitting as near-enemy to yoniso manasikara. If a master teacher tells you something that draws your attention to a presently arising citta or even to an honest-to-goodness awareness of a citta in the past, a lesson is learned. If instead, you hear more and more theory and cling to a conceptual model and crave a deeper intellectual understanding and think that real understanding somehow arises from that conventional cultivation of theoretical understanding, how does that really differ from sitting in a corner, eyes close, directing the attention to such-and-such object in the hopes that real understanding will somehow arise from that conventional cultivation of attention? I think Howard is right about the "conventional" affinity between development of intellectual understanding and development of a ritual meditation practice. Of course, thinking so doesn't make it right and I don't yet have time to express or think through it clearly; when I do, we might be able have a more fruitful and interesting discussion of the issue. > > D: 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." > ?. > S: I'd say it depends on the cittas of the unenlightened person. There > could be some firm confidence and sacca ~naa.na in the 4NT even though one > is still a worldling. Our (worldlings) theoretical understandings of the 4NT are wrong. We don't know what they are. Yes, we know the words. Yes, we can formulate the concepts. Yes, we have an "idea" of what they mean, but we don't really *know*. Ideas about the 4NT are not the 4NT and do not in any way bring about knowledge of them. Intellectual understanding is a dead horse--it doesn't go anywhere. > S: For another example, we may appreciate the value and importance of kamma > to some degree which can be a condition for more understanding later. This > is in spite of the fact that there isn't a direct understanding of > conditions or kamma yet. And so on. Appreciate it because someone says it is important? Appreciate it because we have previously observed "something" which resonates with what that someone says? Appreciate it because we have thought about the theory? Think about the theory because we have an "intuitive" sense (i.e., have recognized it but haven't formed an adequate description yet) about the importance? > I agree that usually if we just repeat words about nibbana, it may well be > 'wrong theory' - but I wouldn't generalise on it as you've done. It the > words are said with kusala cittas, there's nothing 'wrong' with them. Only > pa~n~naa can tell of course:). Different meanings of "wrong"... If the words are said with kusala citta, they are morally faultless (i.e., not morally wrong) even though they are incorrect because what we mean by 'nibbana' is not the same as what Buddha meant by 'nibbana'. When we say that word, we don't know what it means. > >D: 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. > ?. > S: Not necessarily. If we say now that nibbana is the unconditioned > dhamma, it's 'right'. I'm sorry, Sarah, even though I know the words and can say them just fine, I don't know anything about what 'unconditioned' means. When I say 'unconditioned', I have no idea what I mean. And you assure me that I'm right? Now, what exactly is right about it? An analogy: A lot of people would argue that working hard at meditation is right effort. You (Sarah) always ask them what they mean by "meditation" and "right". If they answer the questions right, you agree with them; more often, though, they aren't able to satisfy you with their answers, and you say that what they are saying is wrong because they don't have an understanding of what 'bhavana' and 'samma vayama' are. Likewise, if I were to say "nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma" and an enlightened person were to question me on it, he or she would have to conclude that I am wrong, that I don't understand nibbana, that I have the wrong view of nibbana (if I am assuming that what I say about it being the unconditioned element is actually correct), that I have the wrong concept of nibbana, that I am just plain wrong. > S: Now this may be said with kusala or akusala cittas - > with understanding, with ignorance, with attachment or whatever. Even if > it's akusala, we can't say it's based on wrong view. (Of course, wrong > view may arise - we might think for example, that repeating the words like > a mantra is the way to attainment). 1. Two right/wrongs--moral/immoral and correct/incorrect. I'm thinking more about the latter. 2. Wouldn't it 'wrong view' to take a wrong understanding as right understanding? > >D: 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. > ?. > S: Would you suggest there is patipatti before pariyatti in effect? Of > course they work together, but there always has to be the hearing, > considering and reflecting BEFORE the direct understanding of the truths. > Even Sariputta had to hear the right words first. I don't know what "patipatti" and "pariyatti" mean--fairly complicated models, in my opinion. > Anyway, we've been over this in great detail and you have your own reasons > for your comments, I'm sure:-). I surely do! Primarily, my reasons are selfish. I want to get this expressed clearly enough so you can find out where I'm wrong and set me straight--like you and Robert (and Erik and Martin Luther) did with me on silabbataparamasa. > >D: 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: I'd phrase it a little differently, but I agree that pariyatti and > patipatti work together consolidating and reinforcing. But there can be no > patipatti without pariyatti. No pativedha without patipatti either. I just don't have a good understanding of these terms: pariyatti, patipatti, pativedha. To me they are much more complex than the long list of "models" I brought up in the previous post. Part of the problem is that the lines between them seem very fuzzy. Should I be thinking of them as paramattha? Or conceptual? Either way, it is very difficult for me to see clear distinctions between them. If conceptual, I don't see them as anything but a vague, conventional description of some generalized process of development of understanding. If paramattha, then the contextual object (e.g., "reading") seems to take on much too much importance in the definitions to make the distinctions useful. > > D: 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. > ?. > S: Cetasikas are not cittas. They are different dhammas, different > dhatus. They have different characteristics and different functions as I > said. (Of course, in some contexts cittas refer to cittas + cetasikas but > we're not talking about that here). Of course cetasikas are not cittas, but my shirt is green. I wouldn't say, "It's a green". It isn't. Shirts and colors are different things. They each have their own characteristics. Shirts do come in different colors. Every time there is a shirt, there is color associated with it. The color is a characteristic of the shirt. > Pls find me any reference from any text which says that cetasikas are > characteristics of cittas. It makes no sense to me?.Am I somehow missing > your point? I'm not sure where this is coming from? characteristic (n): a distinguishing feature or quality; A distinguishing feature of cittas is that they inevitably arise with a host of cetasikas. BB (CMA intro) describes citta as an "evanescent cognitive event" and cetasikas as "a constellation of mental factors" that arise with the citta and exercise specialized tasks. Nyanatiloka (Bud. Dict.) calls cetasikas "mental concommitants" of cittas. What's the difference between "concommitant" and "characteristic"? Metta, Dan 58377 From: "robmoult" Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 0:21pm Subject: [dsg] Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence robmoult Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Rob (and anyone else "in the know") - > > In a message dated 4/25/06 7:05:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > rob.moult@... writes: > > > Two books of essays on various topics (Vibhanga, Dhatukata) > > ========================== > I don't do so well with synoptic lists. I'm much more an essay > enjoyer. Can you say more about these, and are either of them available in English? > ===== All of the Abhidhamma texts, except the Yamaka, are available in English from the Pali Text Society. If you like essays, then I would strongly recommend the Vibhanga. Here is Bhikhu Bodhi's description of this text from his introduction to the Abhidhammatthasangaha: The Vibhanga, the "Book of Analysis," consists of eighteen chapters, each a self-contained dissertation, dealing in turn with the following: aggregates, sense bases, elements, truths, faculties, dependent arising, foundations of mindfulness, supreme efforts, means to accomplishment, factors of enlightenment, the eightfold path, jhanas, illimitables, training rules, analytical knowledges, kinds of knowledge, minor points (a numerical inventory of defilements), and "the heart of the doctrine" (dhammahadaya), a psycho-cosmic topography of the Buddhist universe. Most of the chapters in the Vibhanga, though not all, involve three sub-sections: an analysis according to the methodology of the Suttas; an analysis according to the methodology of the Abhidhamma proper; and an interrogation section, which applies the categories of the matrix to the subject under investigation. The excellent commentary to the Vibhanga, the Sammohavinodani (The Dispeller of Delusion) is also available in English from the Pali Text Society (two volumes). Frankly, whenever I read an essay in the Vibhanga, I always have the corresponding section from the Sammohavinodani open at the same time. The commentary really adds in a lot more detail on different points and makes the reading of the Vibhanga much more interesting. Metta, Rob M :-) 58378 From: "robmoult" Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:12pm Subject: Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence robmoult Hi James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Rob M., > > Rob: James, I do not see any sinister intentions behind the simple, > rigid structure of the Abhidhammatthasangaha. I see the simple, rigid > structure as being a necessary literary device. I genuinely believe > that Acariya Anuruddha expected those who were interested in the > Abhidhamma to proceed with a study of the original texts. > > James: I didn't mention anything about "sinister intentions". ;-)) ===== :-) ===== > > I just wanted to know how the structure of the Abhidhammatthasangaha > deviates from the entirety of the Abhidhamma. You keep telling me > why it happened, I understand that; I want to know how to view the > results. I'm sorry, but I don't have the entire Abhidhamma in > English to read so I can't quite see the big picture you are > painting. Can you paint a bigger picture or are you saying that it > is absolutely necessary to read all of the books of the Abhidhamma > to get the gist of what you are saying? ===== Each of the source texts which went into the Abhidhammatthasangaha had a different method of presentation and structure. Access to Insight has reproduced Bhikkhu Bodhi's "Introduction" to his translation of the Abhidhammatthasangaha. It can be found at: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/abhiman.html The section "The Seven Books" gives an excellent overview of the contents of the original texts. The section "The Abhidhammattha Sangaha" is also interesting (in fact, Bhikkhu Bodhi's entire "Introduction" is really interesting). So you really cannot say that there is an overall structure to the original seven Abhidhamma texts. Each book has its own structure, style and "personality". I would even go so far as to say that it looks as though they were written by seven different authors (only the Katthavatthu has an identified author). There is surprisingly little overlap in material presented over the seven books. Six of the seven texts can be read as stand-alone books (the exception being the Patthana, one must first read the Dhammasangani before tackling the Patthana). Now onto the style of the Abhidhammatthasangaha. In his "Introduction" referenced above, Bhikkhu Bodhi states, "Although the book's manner of treatment is extremely terse even to the point of obscurity when read alone, when studied under a qualified teacher or with the aid of an explanatory guide, it leads the student confidently through the winding maze of the system to a clear perception of its entire structure." Let me share with you the first seven paragraphs of the Abhidhammatthasangaha: Having resepectfully saluted the Fully Enlightened One, the Peerless One, along with the Sublime Teaching and the Noble Order, I will speak of the Manual of Abhidhamma - a compendium of the things contained in the Abhidhamma. The things contained in the Abhidhamma, spoken of therein, are altogether fourfold from the standpoint of ultimate reality: consciousnesss, mental factors, matter and Nibbana. Of them, consciousness, firstly, is fourfold: (i) sense-sphere consciousness; (ii) fine-material-sphere consciousness; (iii) immaterial-sphere consciousness; (iv) supramundane consciousness Amongst them what pertains to the sense sphere? 1. One consciousness, accompanied by joy, associated with wrong view, unprompted 2. One consciousness, accompanied by joy, associated with wrong view, prompted 3. One consciousness, accompanied by joy, dissociated from wrong view, unprompted 4. One consciousness, accompanied by joy, dissociated from wrong view, prompted 5. One consciousness, accompanied by equanimity, associated with wrong view, unprompted 6. One consciousness, accompanied by equanimity, associated with wrong view, prompted 7. One consciousness, accompanied by equanimity, dissociated from wrong view, unprompted 8. One consciousness, accompanied by equanimity, dissociated from wrong view, prompted These eight types of consciousness are accompanied by greed. 9. One consciousness, accompanied by displeasure, associated with aversion, unprompted 10. One consciousness, accompanied by displeasure, associated with aversion, prompted These two types of consciousness are accompanied by aversion. 11. One consciousness, accompanied by equanimity, associated with doubt 12. One consciousness, accompanied by equanimity, associated with restlessness These two types of consciousness involve sheer delusion. Thus end, in all, the twelve types of unwholesome consciousness. Eight are rooted in greed, two in hatred and two in delusion. Thus there are twelve types of unwholesome consciousness. James, when Bhikkhu Bodhi added his explanatory notes, this becomes more than 17 pages of text. Hopefully this gives you a feel for the simple, concise structure of the Abhidhammatthasangaha. I hope that I have answered your question. Metta, Rob M :-) 58379 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] the fourth tetrad of the anapanasatisutta. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 4/25/06 2:09:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > The Visuddhimagga (VIII, 237) states about the fourth tetrad, > > ŒThis tetrad deals only with pure insight while the previous three deal with > serenity and insight.¹ > ======================== This is similar to the way that I anayzed the four foundations of mindfulness. My thought was that it began with conventional meditation objects, moved on to a mix of conventional and ultimate, or as I prefer to say, figurative and literal, and with the 4th foundation dealing solely with paramattha dhammas (and their inrelationships). 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) 58380 From: "robmoult" Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Are concepts impermanent? robmoult Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > Well, it seems that me that there is hardly anything in the Suttas which > doesn't relate in some way to pointing out the illusory nature of atta, > permanence and the desirability of phenomena. What is real cannot be > approached positively by a deluded mind that grasps at the content of > thought as real. So the training is a negative one, discovering what is not > real. This is ontology in optima forma, not? > ===== Without question, the Suttas stress the nature of phenomena as being anicca, dukkha and anatta. I am aware of only one Sutta (Vipallasa Sutta, AN IV.49) which discusses the illusory nature of: - 'Constant' with regard to the inconstant - 'Pleasant' with regard to the stressful - 'Self' with regard to not-self - 'Attractive' with regard to the unattractive Your next sentence, "What is real cannot be approached positively by a deluded mind that grasps at the content of thought as real." really confuses me. I am not exactly clear on what you mean but it seems you have made a huge jump into ontology. Please help me to understand better. Is there textual support for this? ===== > > > > > > > Are you and Joop perhaps in the same camp (oh > > > God, that word again :-)), and regard Buddhism as soteriology? > > > > ===== > > > > I think that the "camp" should be enlarged to include the Buddha > > Himself :-). I am referring to the Simsapa Sutta (SN LVI.31) and the > > Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta (MN63) where the Buddha clearly defined the > > purpose of the teaching as being connected to the holy life and > > leading to Nibbana. Clearly soteriological. > > > > There may be a preconception here of what Nibbana is. I agree that the > teachings are all about Nibbana. But it would be a hindrance to grasp at > what that would as a positive. > ===== Sorry Herman, you have lost me again. I see Nibbana as an object of consciousness. Would you agree that experiencing Nibbana is Buddhist soteriology? Metta, Rob M :-) 58381 From: "indriyabala" Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cetasikas' study corner 427- mindfulness/sati (i) indriyabala Hi, Herman(ugo) - I'd like to offer my 2-cent non-Abhidhamma thinking too, but only after Nina and Sarah. > > 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom : > Naama and ruupa appear one at a time and each one of them has > its own characteristic. >Herman (#58345): >Is this saying that nama and rupa appear together or separately? If >it is saying that they arise separately, on what basis is that said? Sarah(#58351): No, it means they appear as objects of consciousness, one at a time. For example, at a moment of seeing consciousness, several mental factors accompany the seeing (as you know), but there's only one object - vis. object. That vis object (or the seeing, or another mental factor) may be the object of a mind-door process. Again, many mental factors are accompanying the consciousness, but only one object 'appears'. So, if awareness arises with the consciousness, it can only be aware of this one object. Nina(#58352): Appear as object, thus, one at a time. I am not speaking about arising together, or being present together, they are. But citta can experience them only one at a time, because citta cannot experience more objects at the same time. ...................... Tep: The coming together of nama and rupa as a person at the moment of seeing can cause pleasure and attachment to arise; seeing nama and rupa one at a time as "separate" can cause disappearance of pleasure and attachment to the pleasurable object. Today I while I was walking around the block I saw a young woman walking and talking on a cell phone. In that very moment while I was "seeing" her good figure and nice-looking young skin, I also heard her musical and lovely voice -- all these coming together to define a beautiful woman. The next moment after my contemplation of this "pleasurable object" as being nothing but the "coming together" of separate body parts and voice, the perception of beautiful woman dissolved. Sincerely, Tep ====== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi to anyone who can answer some questions :-) > > On 24/04/06, sarah abbott wrote: > > > > Dear Friends, > > > > 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom > > > > http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html > > http://www.zolag.co.uk/ > > > > Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) > > ========================================== > > > > (Ch26 - mindfulness/sati continued) > > > > Nma and rpa appear one at a time and each one of them has > > its own characteristic. > > > Is this saying that nama and rupa appear together or separately? If it is > saying that they arise separately, on what basis is that said? > > (snipped) 58382 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Are concepts impermanent? egberdina Hi Rob M, I guess now that Rob K is absent a simple Rob would suffice. But you'll always be Rob M to me :-) We were due to be in the hospital for my wife's surgery, but it has been put back for an hour, so I can answer your questions now. > > > Without question, the Suttas stress the nature of phenomena as being > anicca, dukkha and anatta. > > I am aware of only one Sutta (Vipallasa Sutta, AN IV.49) which > discusses the illusory nature of: > - 'Constant' with regard to the inconstant > - 'Pleasant' with regard to the stressful > - 'Self' with regard to not-self > - 'Attractive' with regard to the unattractive > > Your next sentence, "What is real cannot be approached positively by > a deluded mind that grasps at the content of thought as real." really > confuses me. I am not exactly clear on what you mean but it seems you > have made a huge jump into ontology. Please help me to understand > better. Is there textual support for this? MN121, the lesser discourse on emptiness, neatly captures the Buddhist path. It concludes with the finding that the world is empty of what is not there. I could quote the whole sutta, without having to highlight anything in particular, to make the point that Buddhist salvation is discovering what is real through discovering what is not real (mentally fabricated). > > > > > There may be a preconception here of what Nibbana is. I agree that > the > > teachings are all about Nibbana. But it would be a hindrance to > grasp at > > what that would as a positive. > > > ===== > > Sorry Herman, you have lost me again. I see Nibbana as an object of > consciousness. Would you agree that experiencing Nibbana is Buddhist > soteriology? Again, I would point to MN121. Nibbana is an absence, not a presence. Nibbana is a mind undeluded by all mental fabrications, which equates with ".....entry into emptiness, accords with actuality, is undistorted in meaning, pure superior & unsurpassed." If you would like to call the path to the realisation of what accords with actuality soteriology, that's fine. But I see discovering what is real as being ontology. -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58383 From: "robmoult" Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Are concepts impermanent? robmoult Hi Herman (and Rob K), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Rob M, > > I guess now that Rob K is absent a simple Rob would suffice. But you'll > always be Rob M to me :-) ===== I am going to stick with Rob M as I sincerely hope that Rob K changes his mind. His knowledge of the Dhamma & Abhidhamma is very deep and it would be a loss to many people if he did not continue to share it with others on DSG. As the Mahabrahma Sahampati said to the Buddha, "... there are beings with less dust in their eyes". ===== > We were due to be in the hospital for my wife's > surgery, but it has been put back for an hour, so I can answer your > questions now. ===== After sending this message, I will spend some time radiating metta to you and your wife. ===== > > > > > > > Without question, the Suttas stress the nature of phenomena as being > > anicca, dukkha and anatta. > > > > I am aware of only one Sutta (Vipallasa Sutta, AN IV.49) which > > discusses the illusory nature of: > > - 'Constant' with regard to the inconstant > > - 'Pleasant' with regard to the stressful > > - 'Self' with regard to not-self > > - 'Attractive' with regard to the unattractive > > > > Your next sentence, "What is real cannot be approached positively by > > a deluded mind that grasps at the content of thought as real." really > > confuses me. I am not exactly clear on what you mean but it seems you > > have made a huge jump into ontology. Please help me to understand > > better. Is there textual support for this? > > > MN121, the lesser discourse on emptiness, neatly captures the Buddhist path. > It concludes with the finding that the world is empty of what is not there. > I could quote the whole sutta, without having to highlight anything in > particular, to make the point that Buddhist salvation is discovering what is > real through discovering what is not real (mentally fabricated). > > > > > > > > > There may be a preconception here of what Nibbana is. I agree that > > the > > > teachings are all about Nibbana. But it would be a hindrance to > > grasp at > > > what that would as a positive. > > > > > ===== > > > > Sorry Herman, you have lost me again. I see Nibbana as an object of > > consciousness. Would you agree that experiencing Nibbana is Buddhist > > soteriology? > > > Again, I would point to MN121. Nibbana is an absence, not a presence. > Nibbana is a mind undeluded by all mental fabrications, which equates with > ".....entry into emptiness, accords with actuality, is undistorted in > meaning, pure superior & unsurpassed." > > If you would like to call the path to the realisation of what accords with > actuality soteriology, that's fine. But I see discovering what is real as > being ontology. ===== Thank you for your prompting. I am going to read and re-read MN121 to try and better appreciate your perspective. So I will not be replying until this weekend when I have access to my texts. Metta, Rob M :-) 58384 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 3:21pm Subject: Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence buddhatrue Hi Rob M., Thank you so much for the detailed explanation! I hope that it helped others as well. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > > Hi James, > > So you really cannot say that there is an overall structure to the > original seven Abhidhamma texts. Each book has its own structure, > style and "personality". I would even go so far as to say that it > looks as though they were written by seven different authors (only > the Katthavatthu has an identified author). There is surprisingly > little overlap in material presented over the seven books. Six of the > seven texts can be read as stand-alone books (the exception being the > Patthana, one must first read the Dhammasangani before tackling the > Patthana). Wow. I didn't know this! I didn't know that each of the books were so different. That is an eye-opener. Well, honestly, I don't see how it is possible to summarize seven different books in such a manner. A great deal of information and understanding would, by necessity, be lost. To use a comparison, one can read the Cliff's Notes for a Shakespearean play. You can get some idea of the plot of the play, the characters, and some of the meaning, but it is NOTHING like reading the actual play. Now, imagine one Cliff's Notes for SEVEN Shakespearean plays! Impossible! So much would be left out as to be ridiculous. So, it is my understanding that what I am mainly reading in this group is the information found in the Abhidhammatthasangaha- it is no wonder I find it overly simplistic!! Metta, James 58385 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence upasaka_howard Hi again, Rob - Thank you so much for this, of which I've copied only a part below. I have one more question pertaining to the Vibhanga and it's commentary: How is the English of the translation? (Some translations such as for the PTSM are so bad as to ruin things for me.) With metta, Howard In a message dated 4/25/06 3:24:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rob.moult@... writes: > The excellent commentary to the Vibhanga, the Sammohavinodani (The > Dispeller of Delusion) is also available in English from the Pali > Text Society (two volumes). Frankly, whenever I read an essay in the > Vibhanga, I always have the corresponding section from the > Sammohavinodani open at the same time. The commentary really adds in > a lot more detail on different points and makes the reading of the > Vibhanga much more interesting. > > /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) 58386 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Are concepts impermanent? upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 4/25/06 5:20:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > We were due to be in the hospital for my wife's > surgery, but it has been put back for an hour, so I can answer your > questions now. > ======================= I had missed a mention of that. Whatever that surgery is about, I do hope it all goes very, very well. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 58387 From: "robmoult" Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 4:12pm Subject: [dsg] Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence robmoult Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi again, Rob - > > Thank you so much for this, of which I've copied only a part below. I > have one more question pertaining to the Vibhanga and it's commentary: How is > the English of the translation? (Some translations such as for the PTSM are so > bad as to ruin things for me.) > ===== I guess that the quality of translations depends on when it was done. The stuff translated a century ago seems to have very bad English. The good news is that the Vibhanga was translated in 1969 and the Sammohavinodani was translated in 1987. I find the English in both to be very readable. I checked the Pali Text Society website and they show the Vibhanga and the Sammohavinodani on their "best seller" list! Metta, Rob M :-) 58388 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 0:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence upasaka_howard Hi, Rob - In a message dated 4/25/06 7:13:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rob.moult@... writes: > I guess that the quality of translations depends on when it was done. > The stuff translated a century ago seems to have very bad English. > > The good news is that the Vibhanga was translated in 1969 and the > Sammohavinodani was translated in 1987. I find the English in both to > be very readable. > > I checked the Pali Text Society website and they show the Vibhanga > and the Sammohavinodani on their "best seller" list! > > ======================= Thank you! That's excellent news!! :-) 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) 58389 From: "robmoult" Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 4:26pm Subject: Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence robmoult Hi James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Wow. I didn't know this! I didn't know that each of the books were > so different. That is an eye-opener. Well, honestly, I don't see > how it is possible to summarize seven different books in such a > manner. A great deal of information and understanding would, by > necessity, be lost. To use a comparison, one can read the Cliff's > Notes for a Shakespearean play. You can get some idea of the plot > of the play, the characters, and some of the meaning, but it is > NOTHING like reading the actual play. Now, imagine one Cliff's > Notes for SEVEN Shakespearean plays! Impossible! So much would be > left out as to be ridiculous. > > So, it is my understanding that what I am mainly reading in this > group is the information found in the Abhidhammatthasangaha- it is > no wonder I find it overly simplistic!! ===== I agree that if I were to attempt the task of summarizing the seven texts (plus the commentaries) into fifty pages, the result would have so much left out as to be ridiculous. The genius of Acariya Anuruddha is how well he managed the task. To quote Bhikkhu Bodhi, "[The popularity of the Abhidhammatthasangaha] may be accounted for by its remarkable balance between concision and comprehensiveness. Within its short scope all the essentials of the Abhidhamma are briefly and carefully summarized." It has been a "best seller" for a millennium! There are some members of this group who are extremely familiar with the original texts (the moderators, Nina, Rob K, Htoo, Icaro among others). I am not sure which statements you are referring to as being overly simplistic, but I would be happy to try and identify the source. When I teach my class, I stress the source of ideas as being from the Suttas, from the Abhidhamma Pitaka, from Buddhaghosa's commentaries or from later commentaries. I feel that this information is important for the students to put the ideas into context. I do not go into differentiating between "early" Suttas vs. "late" Suttas as this is a slippery slope. Metta, Rob M :-) 58390 From: LBIDD@... Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 4:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Visuddhimagga, Ch XVII, 72. Part I, and Tiika. lbidd2 Hi Nina, Thanks for your reply regarding citta as conascent predominance condition. Am I understanding correctly that when citta is a conascent predominance condition for consciousness produced rupa one of the other four (citta, chanda, viriya, vimamsa) is also a conascent predominance condition? Larry 58391 From: LBIDD@... Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 4:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhaatukathaa, Elements lbidd2 Icaro: "Well!!! Thats a good beginning for a "Torontos Mahavamsa"!!!" Hi Icaro, I think you have it. Now all you need is some predominance conditions (adhipati-paccaya). Larry 58392 From: "robmoult" Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:18pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Four Great References (Mahapadesa) robmoult Hi Geoff, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sunnaloka" wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > I would suggest that the entire methodology of the Abhidhammikas > diverges from the Buddha's insistence that one let go of the > conditioned dhammas of the sanna and sankhara khandhas. > ===== I composed a lengthy reply to this message but Yahoo! ate it :-) I will try to get back to this in a day or two. You have made a number of valuable points. Metta, Rob M :-) 58393 From: LBIDD@... Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ajahn Chah's Unconditioned Mind lbidd2 Ajahn Chah: "The Buddha talked about sankhata dhammas [conditioned phenomena] and asankhata dhammas [unconditioned phenomena] [...] Asankhata dhamma, the unconditioned, refers to the mind which has seen the Dhamma,..." Hi Geoff, I think 'defiled' and 'undefiled' would be a better choice of words. If a mind were unconditioned it wouldn't change. Nibbana is called "deathless" because it doesn't change. I agree that the experience of nibbana is not, as an experience, a state of cessation of all conditioned phenomena. But I would say the experience of nibbana is an _experience_ of a state of cessation of all conditioned phenomena. To put it crudely, I imagine it is like looking at something else, or better yet, understanding and tasting a different kind of dhatu. However, an arahant is such a rarefied creature that I am sure it makes sense, at least on a devotional level, to consider the arahant as "embodied" nibbana. I don't have any sutta references. This is all purely speculation. Larry 58394 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 6:12pm Subject: Re: The Four Great References (Mahapadesa) ken_aitch Hi Geoff, the reply I posted 18 hours ago has not shown up. Never being one to take a hint, I will try again. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sunnaloka" wrote: > > Hi Ken, > > I am aware that the teachings of venerable teachers such as Ajahn > Chah, Ajahn Buddhadasa, and Ajahn Thanissaro are not held in the > highest regard at DSG. > ---------- Hi Geoff, Thanks for your reply. It is a pleasure to discuss eternalism and nihilism with you. Remember, no holds barred. :-) --------------- <. . .> G: > because the commentarial position denies the possibility of *non-temporal* vinnana anidassana (which as I'm sure you are aware, is mentioned in the Suttanta), they therefore conclude that all consciousness ceases for the arahant upon death. This view is nihilistic. Of course being non-temporal, vinnana anidassana cannot be said to be "eternal" as it transcends all relative mental labels. I'm not sure what Ajahn Thanissaro's view is in this regard, but I refer you to the following statement by Ajahn Chah: "The Buddha talked about sankhata dhammas and asankhata dhammas [...] Asankhata dhamma, the unconditioned, refers to the mind which has seen the Dhamma, the truth, of the five khandhas as they are -- as transient, imperfect and ownerless [...] Seeing in this way the mind transcends things. The body may grow old, get sick and die, but the mind transcends this state. When the mind transcends conditions, it knows the unconditioned. The mind becomes the unconditioned, the state which no longer contains conditioning factors. The mind is no longer conditioned by the concerns of the world, conditions no longer contaminate the mind. Pleasure and pain no longer affect it. Nothing can affect the mind or change it, the mind is assured, it has escaped all constructions. Seeing the true nature of conditions and the determined, the mind becomes free." ["Living Dhamma: Toward the Unconditioned" by Ajahn Chah; not sure of the translator off hand?) ------------------- Yes, we are familiar (at DSG) with that sort of eternalist reasoning. I believe Ajahn Chah goes on to say that, at parinibbana, consciousness "flies out from the conditioned world like a seed ejected from a pod. It then becomes embedded in Nibbana where it lives happily ever after (or words to that effect)." Thanissaro says the same. He admits that the Buddha likened an arahant at parinibbana to "a flame gone out," however, he says we are to understand that after a flame goes out there remains an essence of flame, which later flares up somewhere else. It's quite pitiful, but nothing wins converts like the promise of eternal life. ------------------- G: > I guess being called a "student of Bhikkhu Thanissaro" is considered an insult around here? ------------------- That has been my attitude I must admit, but as Dan reminds us, Thanissaro is dedicated to what he sincerely believes. He must somehow believe he is teaching the middle way. So I must try to attack the teaching, not the man. -------------- lol. Nice.I assure you Ken, I for one have been called far worse :-) -------------- Ah, yes, but we see things differently. I have to wonder, why would an eternalist (such as BT must truly be) want to infiltrate the Buddhist world and re-define the Dhamma as just another eternalist religion? As if there weren't enough of them already! In order to carry out his mission, BT has to discredit the ancient commentaries, recommend that the Abhidhamma Pitaka be ignored, deny the ultimate reality of dhammas and their characteristics (especially anatta, of course) and give new translations to 'dukkha' and other keywords. I find it lamentable in the extreme. There is no endeavour I would want less to be associated with. Ken H 58395 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:00pm Subject: Re: Q. Visuddhimagga, Ch XVII, 72. Part I, and Tiika. philofillet Hi Larry Interested to see that the Vis. corner is getting into the paccayas, for which I have considerable lobha???chanda??? Could I ask you to give me a brief summary of where this material falls withing Vis? Chapter 17 covers both D.O and the paccayas, is that right? Has the section on D.O already been covered by you and Nina. (Personally, I find D.O too deep to even begin to discuss.) From now will you be going through all the paccayas? Thanks. Phil P.s If I understand your question below correctly, the answer is no, isn't it? Only one of them can be conascent predominance condition at a time, right? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > > Hi Nina, > > Thanks for your reply regarding citta as conascent predominance > condition. Am I understanding correctly that when citta is a conascent > predominance condition for consciousness produced rupa one of the other > four (citta, chanda, viriya, vimamsa) is also a conascent predominance > condition? > > Larry > 58396 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:22pm Subject: Re: On conditions, God willing .. Sutta Interpretation, Is It Really Bad? philofillet Hi Tep > Thank you for acknowledging the fact that we have different > preferences, and also for your (formally?) encouraging words. Yes, for now there is less clinging to want to try to prove other people wrong, and therefore fewer aversive cittas arising in response to contrary views. That could end by the time I finish writing this sentence because we can never tell where conditions will lead us but so far it looks like I will be able to finish this sentence without feeling aversion and yes it still looks that way so let me put a period now. > . > > Tep: I have two observations. First, no-one should not have any doubt > about the complementary role between the Sutta-pitaka and the > Abhidhamma-pitaka. Second, without any question, even without > premature enthusiasm anyone may easily be latching on to his or her > "deep understanding" of the Abhidhamma! Ph: Absolutely true. I've commented on this many times. For example, Abhidhammikas are > generally very proud of themselves (an attachment) Ph: Yes, I do feel superior for appreciating "abhi" -- look at how > often they quickly reject other people's ideas, and suggest the ideas > that are based on the Paramattha-dhamma or higher dhammas. Ph: Well, everyone quickly rejects other peoples ideas for all kinds of reasons. People who insist on the predominance of suttas are rather ruthless in rejecting even tenderly offered opinions of those who place faith in abhidhamma. There is a lot of belittling and condescending that goes on, subtly or not, on all sides. The only folks who don't indulge in it are....well, I'll leave that open as a DSG personality-related pop quiz! > > Even latching on to the whole Tipitaka is often seen in monks and lay > people who think of themselves as having the greatest wisdom of > accomplished scholars. Ph: Yes, but what is an accomplished scholar. Someone who ahs a great reputation in this day and age? That doesn't impress me. It is the person's understanding of the moment that counts for me, and there is no way whatsoever to know that by reading his words. There are many ways to prove one's ignorance of Dhamma, but to prove one's true and deep understanding? Not so easy. It is in the citta, and we don't see into other people's cittas. For example, once you praised me for having equanimity that you hadn't seen before because I didn't lash out at you for the "crying baby" post of yours. Well, in fact, I was seething with hatred even as I posted my measured response, the purpose of which was to demonstrate that I was wise enough not to be bothered, i.e all about mana, lobha - not really equanimity. We never know the other's citta - never, never, never. Not really. So I am not impressed by scholars who can develop thorough and persuasive arguments. I don't know their citta. Only they can do that, and that is all that really matters, I feel. > >Ph : > > I also think it is a bit absurd to think that our independent > interpretations of suttas could possibly equal to those of the > ancient commentators. I don't know if you think that. I think some > people do. It's seems a bit odd, doesn't it? > > Tep: Admittedly, many years ago I used to depend on the sutta > commentaries of the "ancient commentators" too. However, I have found > some of them not to be useful (or even confusing) because of their > extraneous stories, opinionated interpretations of the suttas and > extensions thereof. Ph: I can see that. I've only read one, in parts (Soma's translation of satipatthana sutta commentary) but it certainly does go off on tangents. But I would like to read many, many more, if I had time. For now, alas, there is only time to rely on BB's brief commentarial notes in the anthologies. They are helpful, of course. No, I am not arrogant enough to think of my > "independent interpretations of suttas" to always equal to or better > than those of the ancient commentators. But after reading several > major suttas over and over for nearly 30 years, I think it is time for > me to stand on my own two feet and be self confident. PH: Again, mudita for your enthusiasm and confidence. But I have to put in a word of warning, as well, for all of us. "30 years" has no ultimate meaning in Dhamma. It could very well be 30 years of accumulating wrong understanding, couldn't it?@iI don't mean this about you, just talking in principle.) I've cooked for 30 years, I guess, and I certainly haven't improved. I have the accumulated tendency to add a lot of salt, because it gives my mouth instant gratification irregardless of what it does for my longterm health. I think there can be the same tendency with suttas, leaping out with eagerness to understand them in a way that suits our taste (ie views). So the commentaries would help to sober us up a little, I would guess, adn perhaps urge us away from spicy delights to blander but in the long run more wholesome fare. Again, I say that in principle. I have no way of knowing your cittas. You have said that I assume too much and it might seem that I am always labelling people as ignorant but based on my understanding of the "burning" sutta, the all (ayatanas) are burning with lobha, dosa and moha, and only the ariyans are free from that. I find it a very sobering sutta, but I am interpreting it in the way that suits my views, perhaps. I think it is the first sutta I will ask Nina for commentarial feedback on because I am certainly clinging to my interpretations of it and the anatta sutta. Whew, babble concluded, and no aversion detected. In fact, I will even write.... ....metta Phil! p.s having trouble to find time to do all I want to do here, Tep, so will as I often do offer you the last word, if you'd like. p.p.s another metaphor to warn about the danger of having too much confidence in one's own understanding. I teach English as a second language and there is a term "fossilized errors" referring to the errors long time learners make that have become uncorrectable due to having become so deeply entrenched. Again, I say that in principle, not about Tep. 58397 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:40pm Subject: Re: mettaa, I philofillet Hi Nina and all > it can arise more often and become more powerful. We should not think that > we can have a great deal of mett$B!&(Bimmediately Ph: Yes, lots all be careful about this! It feels very pleasant to *think* about metta, but is it metta? Well, at least there is harmlessness when we think about metta, so there is adosa I guess, which is ...metta. So I don't know. but each short moment of > mett$B!&(Bis a condition that mett$B!&(Bdevelops. Ph: Yes, I feel a lot of faith in this. My work has been a blessing in that it has really helped me develop metta without thinking about it, I feel. This is not boasting, it it is sharing kusala, I feel. Otherwise the Buddha would not > have taught that mett$B!&(Beven for the duration of one pull of a cow's udder is > beneficial. Ph: Yes, let's not pull on the udder too long or too hard! No forcing the milk of human kindness!! I also like the sutta in which it says just a passing breath of metta is more valuable than...I forget. Does anyone remember? Phil 58398 From: "Andrew" Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:43pm Subject: Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence corvus121 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: I do not go into > differentiating between "early" Suttas vs. "late" Suttas as this is a > slippery slope. Hi RobM (and Geoff) You place alot of credence on the historians' approach to Dhamma until you reach the Suttanta and thereafter it becomes "a slippery slope". I wonder where the slippery slope truly begins? Geoff doesn't share your reluctance in this regard and he is convinced that there is not a trace of the Buddha's teachings in the Abhidhamma pitaka. Within the sutta pitaka, how do you comprehend talk of devas and yakkhas and the earthquake and thunder that marked the Buddha's parinibbana and the inability to light his funeral pyre? Literal? Figurative? Mythical? Cheeky questions but I would be interested to learn how you and Geoff suggest we approach reading and interpreting the Tipitika. It seems your (RobM's) approach is very much a hybrid, whereas Geoff's is more uniform. Best wishes Andrew T 58399 From: LBIDD@... Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Q. Visuddhimagga, Ch XVII, 72. Part I, and Tiika. lbidd2 PHIL: "Could I ask you to give me a brief summary of where this material falls within Vis?" Hi Phil, We are in the middle of discussing the formations link, and will be discussing all 24 conditions in order to understand the conditional relationship. Nina just finished the third one, predominance condition. Then we will look at how ignorance is a condition for formations. Then continue on with the rest of the dependent arising. The Vism. treatment of dependent arising is very detailed, incorporating everything we learned in ch. XIV regarding the khandhas. It might be helpful to follow along with either a copy of Vism. or Abhidhammattha Sangaha. Even if you don't understand everything (or anything), I would recommend reading it any way. Little bits and pieces will sink in and begin to make sense eventually. Also, any question is helpful for everyone. If you don't understand, keep asking questions. And if you get lost, we can review. Larry