59000 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Sun May 7, 2006 6:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] a "happy" proposition ken_aitch Hi Herman, --------- KH: > > > As I was saying before, the > > views of other thinkers can seem to occupy a middle ground between > > eternity belief and annihilation belief, but, in the final analysis > > they fall into one or the other. > > H: > Is nibbana eternity or annihilation? Or is the Middle Way not about time? > ---------- That's a curly one! :-) I was using the term "eternity belief" as shorthand for "belief in an eternal self." Therefore, I was not talking about belief in nibbana. As far as I know, nibbana can be correctly called eternal, but it is nonetheless devoid of self. Ken H 59001 From: "Paul Grabianowski" Date: Sun May 7, 2006 8:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.1 difficulty of understanding visible object paulgrabiano... Hi Howard, You Wrote: But, in this context, the 4 great elements are not spoken of experientially. They are spoken of as unexperienced entities lying "out there" and somehow underlying, say, visual object. This is concept-only, as I see it. Recall how, in the Kalaka (or Kalakarama) Sutta, the Buddha said "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." As I read this, it is a statement in support of pure (non-dualistic) experientialism, ruling out not only a seer, a dismissal unsurprising to all Buddhists, but also an object (the "partner" to a seer), and, most relevant to the point discussed here, an unseen reality underlying what is seen as its basis or substance. [Note: I'm not dismissing solidity, liquidity, temperature, and motion as experiential realities. I recognize these as body-sense rupas, with liquidity possibly mind-sense.] P: I think the Kalaka Sutta is quite relevant here. I may not have been as clear as I hoped to be in the last email, or perhaps I am in the process of gaining a better understanding of this. Certainly, the Buddha cautioned us against adopting any nominal or conceptual designation of visual object. The fact that what is here now is impermanent and always already in the process of passing away shows that there is no seer of visible object (whether one is a Tathagata or not). Also, I agree that objects are no less impermanent than mind. The visible datum here is not an object (I agree that any designation of the object in this way can only be merely a concept), but the visible datum that is arising and falling away, no less does become a condition and a support for the arising of seeing and the subsequent mind states that follow. I think the question of non-dualism here is an extremely tricky one and can, if we are not careful, be overstated. It reads that Tathagata doesn't "construe." I'm not sure what the original Pali word is here, but this suggests to me that the Buddha is placing the emphasis on what the mind doesn't do when seeing what is here now passing away. There is still, however, a "what is to be seen;" there are still realities that must perform their brief impermanent functions in order for seeing to arise. Consider this from the Aditta Pariyaya Sutta: "The eye is burning, forms are burning, eye-consciousness is burning, eye-contact is burning, also whatever is felt as pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant that arises with eye-contact for its indispensable condition, that too is burning. Burning with what? Burning with the fire of lust, with the fire of hate, with the fire of delusion. I say it is burning with birth, aging and death, with sorrows, with lamentations, with pains, with griefs, with despairs." There are indispensable conditions here, but they are all burning. When something burns, it is transformation of one state to the next. In this passage, however, there is only burning. It's not like there is log in the fire that is (conventionally speaking) pretty much a log minus that outer portion of the log that is in a state of combustion, going up in smoke. The Buddha brings burning to the very core of everything. But, notice closely what everything is burning with. With lust, hate, delusion. The burning, itself, is this process of designation, of pointing, of construing that conditions the mind again and again to undergo these same conditions of burning moment after moment, life time after life time. At all levels of investigation we find only conditioned realties arising and falling away again. At all levels we see that these conditions, though indispensable, are impermanent are therefore are not designatable and are not construable. We may point out that the apple is red, but that red is only the many mind states arising and passing away. For the sensation of temperature etc. is the same. Buddhism points out the most immediate and indispensable of realities to show that ultimately everything is impermanent. So in the final analysis, I would say that Buddhism neither advocates dualism nor non-dualism. This issue, however, I think, is too large for just a couple emails, but I hope this helps you to understand more what I meant and what I better understand owing to your comments. Paul 59002 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun May 7, 2006 10:42pm Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 439- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame/hiri & ottappa(a) 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;-) ========================================== Chapter 27 Moral Shame and Fear of Blame (hiri and ottappa) When we apply ourselves to kusala there is confidence, there is mindfulness which is non-forgetful of kusala, and there are many other sobhana cetasikas which each have their own specific function while they accompany the kusala citta. Moral shame, hiri, and fear of blame, ottappa, are two other sobhana cetasikas which accompany each sobhana citta. Moral shame or conscientiousness has shame of akusala and fear of blame has fear of the consequences of akusala. Each akusala citta is accompanied by the opposites of moral shame and fear of blame, namely by shamelessness, ahirika, and by recklessness, anottappa. Whenever there is kusala citta there have to be moral shame and fear of blame. There are many degrees of kusala and thus there are many degrees of moral shame and fear of blame. The more we see the impurity of akusala and realize its danger, the more moral shame and fear of blame will be developed; they will abhor even akusala which is more subtle. ***** (Ch27 - Moral Shame & Fear of Blame/hiri & ottappa continued) Metta, Sarah ====== 59003 From: "Joop" Date: Sun May 7, 2006 11:05pm Subject: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition ... Metta and Devas jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" wrote: > ... Hallo Tep, all One of the reasons to continue this discussion is that it makes Sarah happy. I will not react on everything you say because it has partly a "you had to belief …" character. But when you say : "If you believed in the laws of kamma and Dependent Origination then you would believe in rebirth. You would be scared of rebirths in the lower realms, And you would avoid all kinds of akusala dhammas", I'm a bit surprised J: Dependent Origination has primarely to do with what happens within this lifetime, as Ven. Buddhadasa and others had explained. And nobody should avoid all kind of akusala dhammas BECAUSE of being scared of a rebirth in a lower realm; but because behaving in a ethical way is a goal as such: without thinking of reward or punishment. And because "seeing things as they really are" is not possible without sila. Tep, two questions to you. As I said to Scott some days ago, I like to discuss my idea that a part of the Teachings should not be taken literally but metaphorically. - Do you take everything in the Suttas literal? - Can you imagine that a metaphorical interpretation of it can be awakening too? And if you ask me which part can be taken metaphorically: for example the whole Indian cosmology in it. Metta Joop 59004 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun May 7, 2006 11:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Rely on yourself" to what? sarahprocter... Hi Phil (and Charles D), --- Phil wrote: > Could someone clarify for me what the "rely on yourself" in the kalama sutta refers to? ... S: I think it's a summary of what we read throughout the teachings. In the Kalama sutta (Thanissaro transl), it says: "Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them." .... S: Only direct awareness and understanding can do the job. This is also summarised in some of the Buddha's last words in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta (Sister Vajira/F.Story transl,BPS): " 'Therefore, Aananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges under yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge." Commentary notes (Yang-Gyu An transl, PTS): "You should live, making yourself an island, a basis, like an island in the great ocean. You should turn to yourself, not to others. (cf. Dhp. 160, 276). ..... Back to the Mahaparinibbana Sutta again: " 'Now, O bhikkhus, I say to you that these teachings of which I have direct knowledge and which I have made known to you - these you should thoroughly learn, cultivate, develop and frequently practise that the life of purity may be established and may long endure.........And what, bhikkhus, are these teachings? They are the four foundations of mindfulness, the four right efforts, the four constituents of psychic power, the five faculties, the five powers, the seven factors of enlightenment, and the Noble Eightfold Path." Commentary note (Yang Gyu An transl again): " 'Namely, the holy life (life of purity)', this holy life in the teaching, consisting of the triad of trainings.....'The four foundations of mindfulness (cattaaro satipa.t.thaana) and so forth: All is expounded as mundane and supramundane. The definitive view of these factors conducive to enlightenment is stated in every way in the ~Naa.na-dassana-visuddhi-niddesa of the Visuddhimagga (Vism. 678-81). The rest of this is clear." ..... S: Teachers, including the Buddha, can only point the way. It is the (direct) understanding of the Teachings themselves (as contained in the Ti-pitaka), the understanding of satipatthana and so on, which is the only refuge. Metta, Sarah p.s. Charles, I liked your points and good to say you back to posting on list again in other threads. Did you have a chance to look at the books or listen to the c.d.? Any comments? ==================== 59005 From: "Fabrizio Bartolomucci" Date: Mon May 8, 2006 0:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Do mind objects have an intrinsic nature? fbartolom Hi Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > Thanks for your reply. I'm not familiar with this simile; You should be proud to have elicited from me this astonishing simile never heard of before :-) > could you site > a source? I could only find two cases of sticks striking gongs: one > having to do with vitakka and vicara, and the other an illustration > of how the breath becomes more and more subtle in anapanasati. In fact I used that material for the simile. > In terms of > cetasikas, I usually rely on sa~n~naa to explain a good part of > memory, rather than sati. Sati is the Pali word for the Sanskrit word "smriti" that exactly means memory. It may seem puzzling how that term changed meaning in the translitteration between so different words like "memory" and "mindfulness". Or are they different? My practice suggested that each time I was mindful to something I also remembered later that action and viceversa. > It is true that sati remembers, but sati only arises > with kusala cittas. I guess we could say rememboring is always kusala. Untrue. _SammaSati_ arises only with kusala cittasa. Often the micca part of the Noble Path goes forgotten... As an example of an unwholesome sati there is the one of a thief mindful to any sound that could reveal the arrival of someone. > That's certainly an interesting idea. We also remember those bad actions that we made mindfully. That is were the sense of guilt comes out from. Unmindfully made actions - either wholesome or unwholesome - have much less potency for eliciting either elation or guilt. > Regarding sankhara khandha as memory is also an interesting issue. I > believe this idea comes from the definition of the function of volition > (cetana): "Its function is to accumulate" (Vism.XIV,135). According to > the commentary 'accumulate' means to 'add together'. Presumably this > refers to the accumulation of kamma before it comes to fruition in kamma > vipaka. It could also refer to the creation of a habit. Yes. Still the processes that condition memory and habits are different. Similar > accumulations create a path. I don't think abhidhamma discusses habits, > per se, but it does discuss latent unwholesome tendencies (anusaya). Habits belong to the conventional reality, so the Abhidhamma could not cover them. > Anusaya are said to condition unwholesome javana cittas. How does > this > happen? My first thought is 'greed conditions greed as object and > javana > citta', but I don't know if that explains what a tendency (anusaya) > is. The mind has a sort of sense of inertia: once it is set on unwholesome it tends to stick to that condition, same with wholesome and, on a different plane, for joy and sorrow. In addition it may not switch directly from one of those opposites to the other without a neutral transition point. And sometimes there is not even the possibility for this neutral point to arise! So we get stuck in one single condition for extended periods even if conditions for a different state arose. A simile is that one of the hunter that is so focused on the prey that he does not notice the meditating monk sitting next to him. > Also, it's still unclear what the function of registration citta is. > You > seemed to suggest it is a link to a subsequent citta process which > would > clarify the object. Is that correct? Registration, for what I understood, is the taking of responsibility for the javana just completed. It may be tought as the link between absolute reality and conditional reality. So the characteristic is an "ok"; the function is to stop the consiousness process; the manifestation is a setting of the mind and the proximate cause is the bhavanga to arise. Ciao, Fabrizio 59006 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Mon May 8, 2006 1:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bodhisattva Ideal christine_fo... Hello all, Can anyone tell me to which 'persons' do the designations Bodhisatta and Mahaasatta refer in the excerpt below? Does it refer only to the Buddha in both modes ... or does it point to (possibly) numbers of 'beings'? metta Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From "The Path of Freedom (Vimuttimagga) by the Arahant Upatissa. Translated from the Chinese by Rev. N.R.M. Ehara, Soma Thera, & Kheminda Thera. BPS Kandy. 1995.From the chapter on 'Subjects of Meditation' pages 188/89/90 TEN PERFECTIONS Owing to differences in faculties in common parlance, it is said that there are beings. Now the Bodhisatta and the Mahaasatta develop loving-kindness for all beings and fulfil the ten perfections. Q. How is it so? A. The Bodhisatta and the Mahaasatta develop loving-kindness for all beings and resolve to benefit all beings and give them fearlessness. Thus they fulfil the perfection of giving. The Bodhisatta and the Mahaasatta develop loging-kindness for all beings. For the sake of benefitting all beings, they cause separation from suffering and do not lose the faculty of truth. It is like the relation of a father to his children. Thus they fulfil the perfection of virtue. The Bodhisatta and the Mahaasatta develop loving-kindness for all beings. For the sake of benefitting all beings, they acquire non- greed, and in order to remove the non-merit of beings, they attain to meditation, jhaana, and enter into homelessness. Thus they fulfil the perfection of renunciation. The Bodhisatta and the Mahaasatta develop loving-kindness for all beings. For the sake of benefitting all beings, they consider merit and non-merit. Understanding in accordance with truth, devising clean expedients, they reject the bad and take the good. Thus they fulfil the perfection of wisdom. The Bodhisatta and the Mahaasatta develop loving-kindness for all beings. For the sake of benefitting all beings, they, without abandoning energy, exert themselves at all times. Thus they fulfil the perfection of energy. The Bodhisatta and the Mahaasatta develop loving-kindness for all beings. For the sake of benefitting all beings, they practise patience and do not grow angry when others blame or hate them. Thus they fulfil the perfection of patience. The Bodhisatta and the Mahaasatta develop loving-kindness for all beings. For the sake of benefitting all beings, they speak the truth, dwell in the truth and keep the truth. Thus they fulfil the perfection of truth. The Bodhisatta and the Mahaasatta develop loving-kindness for all beings. For the sake of benefitting all beings, they do not break their promises but keep them faithfully unto life's end. Thus they fulfil the perfection of resolution. The Bodhisatta and the Mahaasatta develop loving-kindness for all beings. For the sake of benefitting all beings, they identify themselves with all beings and fulfil the perfection of loving- kindness. The Bodhisatta and the Mahaasatta develop loving-kindness for all beings. For the sake of benefitting all beings, they regard friends, indifferent ones and enemies, equally, without hatred and without resentment. Thus they fulfil the perfection of equanimity. In these ways do the Bodhisatta and the Mahaasatta practise loving- kindness and fulfil the ten perfections. I elucidate (further) loving-kindness and the four resolves. Now the Bodhisatta and the Mahaasatta having practised loving- kindness, having fulfilled the ten perfections, fulfil the four resolves. They are the resolve of truth, the resolve of liberality, the resolve of peace and the resolve of wisdom. Here, the perfection of truth, the perfection of resolution and the perfection of energy, fulfil the resolve of truth. The perfection of giving, the perfection of virtue and the perfection of renunciation, fulfil the resolve of liberality. The perfection of patience, the perfection of loving-kindness and the perfection of equanimity, fulfil the resolve of peace. The perfection of wisdom fulfil the resolve of wisdom. Thus the Bodhisatta and the Mahaasatta having practised loving- kindness and fulfilled the ten perfections, fulfil the four resolves and attain to two states, namely, serenity and insight. Here, the resolve of truth, the resolve of liberality and resolve of peace fulfil serenity. The resolve of wisdom fulfils insight. Through the fulfilment of serenity, they attain to all meditations, jhaanas, and hold to emancipation and concentration firmly. They cause the arising of the concentration of the twin-miracle and the concentration of the attainment of great compassion. With the attainment of insight, they are endowed with all supernormal knowledge, analytical knowledge, the powers, the confidences. Thereafter they cause the arising of natural knowledge and omniscience. Thus the Bodhisatta and the Mahaasatta practise loving- kindness, and gradually attain to Buddhahood. Loving-kindess has ended." 59007 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon May 8, 2006 1:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Very Brief Report on My Weekend Meditation "Retreat" sarahprocter... Hi Howard (& Dan), --- upasaka@... wrote: D:> > How does this square with the standard doctrine that with stream > > entry the three fetters are shattered? > > > ======================= H:> Does it say in some sutta that all three must be uprooted at the > same > time? .... S: It certainly spells it out very clearly in the Abhidhamma and the commentaries. For example, see the excellent commentary notes given by Nyanaponika to the 'Simile of the Cloth'(Vatthuupama Sutta), on-line if I recall, where it clearly elaborates on the eradication of the 16 defilements by sotaapatti-magga, anaagaami-magga and arahatta-magga cittas. CMA and the Vism will also give the details. In the Nyantiloka dictionary, under 'sotaapanna', it quotes from A.III.87 (and also an Abh. text): "If a man, after the disappearance of the 3 fetters (personality-belief, skeptical doubt, attachment to rules and ritual; s. samyojana), has entered the stream (to Nibbâna), he is no more subject to rebirth in lower worlds, is firmly established, destined to full enlightenment. After having passed amongst the heavenly and human beings only seven times more through the round of rebirths, he puts an end to suffering. Such a man is called 'one with 7 births at the utmost' (sattakkhattu-parama)." ... S: Here of course, 'entered the stream' refers to the single citta,sotaapatti-magga when these defilements are eradicated. ..... >If it does, then Bhante Gunaratana must be wrong on that point, > though > not about the main matter of time delay between path and fruit, because > the > Dakkhinvibhanga Sutta does seem to support that. ..... S: Such an interpretation of this sutta would not be in accordance with what we read in the Abhidhamma and commentaries. Do you have other suttas or textual sources to support this? (It's fine, if you'd rather not discuss it further). Metta, Sarah ========= 59008 From: "Fabrizio Bartolomucci" Date: Mon May 8, 2006 1:50am Subject: Re: a "happy" proposition fbartolom Hi Suk, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinder" wrote: > I argue against what I perceive to be your position, but I must say that I > appreciate discussing this matter of sila with you. It is certainly more > fruitful for me to be discussing such basic matters than say, about > whether Jhana is necessary for vipassana. Those discussions could do > well to consider what in fact Jhana is and what are the conditions > leading to it. Only then perhaps, will Samatha and Vipassana be seen as > being distinct and requiring different causes leading to correspondingly > different results. Perhaps also then will the so-called Jhana practitioner > realize the need to go back to the basics and not be deluded about > his/her present practice? Well... the issue whether Jhana is needed or not for Vipassana surely follows the one whether Sila is needed or not for both. So, for the time being, let's focus on this second part: I will try to convince you on the former later :> > My comments are between yours. Unlike you though, I can't seem to > give only short statements, hope you don't mind my style. I also oftne use that style to the contempt of many of my correspondant. So I wholeheartedly take you as the fruit of my kamma and try to cope. > Suk: We are talking about momentary conditioned realities. There can > be panna of the most basic level arising from time to time and we > should not assume wrong view to arise just because it hasn't yet > been eradicated. Wrong view does not arise by itself. This view, a wrong view itself, leads to fatalism. It is very important, to me, to distinguish between wrong views and fetters. The difference is the same between using an incorrect map and missing an autoroute exit. > Suk: No, however conditionality, kamma/vipaka, and the fact that all > our experiences are anicca, dukkha and anatta are some of the things > we come to face with constantly, right from the beginning. Not all our experiences: otherwise practice would be meaningless. Just those that are conditioned. > Suk: What is your understanding of the "gradual teaching"? Is it > pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha? Or is it Sila, Samadhi and Panna > (Vinaya, Sutta and Abhidhamma?)? If it is the latter, please explain > more, because as of now, I have a problem with such a formulation. My understanding is that the gradual character apply to all levels: the ones you proposed and many others. The simile is the one between a trek and a trip by car. > Suk: I don't understand how the Dhamma is contradictory. It is ok. That part of the teaching is not good for you. > Good to hear about this from you. ;-) Ok: you have already framed me in some of your old experiences :-) > Suk: Yes you are right about Sila being quite basic and not requiring a > great level of understanding. However, like anything else, it can also > become the object of wrong understanding, don't you think? It may not counteract wrong understanding, sure. Yet it does not produce it by itself. > In which > case, only the development of panna can keep check. One might for > example, proliferate into ideas about vegetarianism or celibacy, > completely unaware of the influence of wrong view at those times. Or > someone may think about following the vinaya as monks do and end up > overreaching and later fall prey to kukucha........ Vegeterianism is not a sila matter. Celibacy is more the sign of an unresolved issue, to me. > Fab: > > In our world I think it is impossible to practice Sila without at the > > same time developing wisdom - short of neither giving up the practice > > or one's own life. > Suk: You mean as students of Dhamma? But what if even Dhamma is > wrongly understood? The good thing about Sila is that it works even if the Dhamma is temporarily misunderstood. > Suk: No, without ditthujukamma, Sila is more likely to become the > object of wrong view, even as Dhamma students. You must live in a lucky environment. > Suk: Only if and when Sila is understood correctly. If not, then as > objects of wrong view, it does become silabattaparamasa. Sila may not be misunderstood: it just means committing to not kill any creatures, to not take what is not given, not say falsehood, not use sex to bear sorrow (the most troublesome part), not drink alchol. > Suk: Serial killing!? Then I wonder what you understand by Right > View > of the intellectual level? Right view has no meaning at the intellectual level. > Suk: I wouldn't want to trust any assessment based on comparison, the > vipallasas are sure to take effect. It takes courage, truthfulness and a > degree of wisdom to question oneself with regard to how much > understanding of the present moment there is. And I must admit to > having too little of all. Then you could try Sila, couldn't you? ;-) > Anyway, I think that you are implying that Sila makes the > development > of the Path easier. Nope. It makes the development of the path "possible" [tout court]. > But in fact > this being an aspect of the Middle Way, is easily seen as falling on one > side of the extreme by those who hold so fast their own one sided view > of practice.;-) Sila, to me, comes before the teaching of the middle way. That is another aspect of the gradual teaching. > So no, even though I don't think that my own practice is smooth, I am > still not convinced enough about other practices to be persuaded to > change. ;-) That is a good approach. > > At the basic level Sila means keeping the precepts: and I do not doubt > > even a 5 years old child would say if an act is done according to the > > precepts or not. > Suk: I don't think we can assume that of a 5 yr, old, nor for the > matter, a 70 yr. old. Why? You are undervaluing Sila. > We are not talking about answers got from a moment of > reflection and that which can easily become an object of `idealism'. Even > the "commitment" that you speak about, even this must be with panna. Not at all. Even people without any hint of panna could follow the precept. This is not frequent in the the west but it is a common situation between born buddhists. > The precepts are training rules not meant to condition unwholesome > regret and other akusala dhammas, just because the Dhamma student > misses the significance of the Middle Way. Precepts are committments. Of course that does not mean one should fail into despair if she does not follow the committment. > Suk: Allow me to put this, another way. Would you not give > importance > to the development of Right View over everything else? Of course: the problem is that it is not possible to develop right view. The issue is thus one of pragmatic nature. > Suk: Yes, none of the baskets should be ignored. But one question, > should a lay person attempt to follow the Vinaya as the monk does? The Vinaya comes in the form of stories. Each precepts is introduced by the Buddha after someone experiences the effects of not following it. This is the value I encourage to enjoy. For example masturbation is forbidden after a monk reports depression after having performed it. Ciao, Fabrizio 59009 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon May 8, 2006 2:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bodhisattva Ideal sarahprocter... Hi Chris, (Joop & all), --- Christine Forsyth wrote: > Can anyone tell me to which 'persons' do the designations Bodhisatta > and Mahaasatta refer in the excerpt below? Does it refer only to the > Buddha in both modes ... or does it point to (possibly) numbers > of 'beings'? <..> > TEN PERFECTIONS > Owing to differences in faculties in common parlance, it is said > that there are beings. Now the Bodhisatta and the Mahaasatta develop > loving-kindness for all beings and fulfil the ten perfections. ..... S: The following translation of an extract from the Cariyaapi.taka A.t.thakathaa (by B.Bodhi in 'The All-embracing Net of Views (BPS)' helps clarify that the bodhisattas ARE the mahaasatta, i.e. those destined to become 'universal' Buddhas. ..... "In what sense are they called 'Paaramiis'? The bodhisattvas, the great beings, are supreme (parama), since they are the highest of beings by reason of their distinguished qualities such as giving, virtue, etc. The paaraamiis - the activities of giving, etc. - are their character or their conduct. Or else: he excels, thus he is supreme (paratii ti paramo). The bodhisattva is the fulfiller and guardian of the noble qualities such as giving, etc.; that which belongs to the supreme - the character or conduct of the one who is supreme (i.e of the bodhisattva) - is a paaramii, i.e. the activities of giving, etc. ... Later the text elaborates on the condition of the paaramiis here and how it depends on the great aspiration (abhiniithaara). Before we consider making such an aspiration, the text elaborates on the conditions for such a successful aspiration which are: "the male sex, the cause, the sight of the Master, the going forth, the achievement of noble qualities, extreme dedication, and strong desire.' Here, the 'sight of the Master' (satthaaradassana) refers to the personal presence of a living Buddha. The reason is that only Buddhas have the power to support the aspiration. 'The achievement of noble qualities' (gu.nasampatti) refers to attainment of the abhi~n~naas and so on (all jhaanas and 5 mundane abhi~n~nas). Without these, it is said that it's not possible to thoroughly investigate the paaramiis. The strong desire of course refers to very strong wholesome chanda. We're also given the similes to indicate the strength of this chanda. The last one is "If he were to hear: 'Buddhahood can only be attained after being tortured in hell for four incalculables and a 100,000 aeons' - he would not deem that difficult to do, but would be filled with desire for the task and would not shrink away." A little more from the text on the aspiration as you and others were asking: "The aspiration, made by one endowed with these eight factors, is in denotation the act of consciousness (cittuppaada) occurring together with the collection of these eight factors (S: the paramis). Its characteristic is rightly resolving to attain the supreme enlightenment. Its function is to yearn, 'O, may I awaken to the supreme perfect enlightenment, and bring well-being and happiness to all beings!' It is manifest as the root cause for the requisites of enlightenment. Its proximate cause is great compassion, or the achievement of the necessary supporting conditions. "Since it has as its object the inconceivable plane of the Buddhas and the welfare of the whole immeasurable world of beings, it should be seen as the loftiest, most sublime and exalted distinction of merit, endowed with immeasurable potency, the root-cause of all the dhammas issuing in Buddhahood. Simultaneous with its arising, the Great Man enters upon the practice of the great vehicle to enlightenment (mahaabodhiyaanapa.tipatti). He becomes fixed in his destiny, irreversible, and therefore properly gains the designation 'bodhisattva'...." A lot more is given on the conditions (paccaya), causes (hetu) and powers (bala), such as the supporting conditions of having served former Buddhas, endowed with a compassionate and other good qualities and with very 'feeble' defilements, prepared to undertake extreme hardship, support of good friends and so on. As friends (like Joop) were discussing 'skilful means', I'll also add that here skilful means (upaayakosalla) are also given as conditions. "Therein, 'skilful means' is the wisdom which transforms giving (and the other nine virtues) into requisites of enlightenment. Through their great compassion and skilful means, the Great Men devote themselves to working uninterruptedly for the welfare of others without any concern for their own happiness and without any fear of the extremely difficult course of conduct that great bodhisattvas must follow." A lot more is given on the combination of wisdom and compassion. They're very interesting. Here are a few: "Through wisdom he destroys all attachments, but because his wisdom is accompanied by compassion he never desists from activity that benefits others. Through compassion he shakes with sympathy for all, but because his compassion is accompanied by wisdom his mind is unattached. Through wisdom he is free from 'I-making' and 'my-making,' through compassion he is free from lethargy and depression." At the end of this section the text says that wisdom and compassion are the condition for the development of the paaramiis. I hope this helps. Metta, Sarah p.s. How were the weekend discussions? ============================ 59010 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun May 7, 2006 10:13pm Subject: The Noble Purpose ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: What is the Purpose, Advantage & Final Goal of the Noble Holy Life? The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, if those of other sects and of other beliefs should ask you this question: Friends, for what purpose is the Noble Life lived under the ascetic Buddha Gotama? When being asked that, you should answer them in this very way: It is, friends: For the fading away of greed, lust, and desire... For the breaking out of the mental prison of addiction... For the uprooting of the ingrown evil latent tendencies... For the direct experience of the supremely good method... For the destruction of all the mental fermentations... For the enjoying the fruit of certainty & total freedom... For the sake of definite knowledge & penetrating vision... For the sake of final Nibbana without trace of clinging... that this Noble Life is lived under the Blessed Buddha!!! Then, Bhikkhus, if those of other sects ask you: But what is the Method for attaining final Nibbana without clinging? Being asked that, you should answer them thus: Friends, there is indeed a Method; there is certainly a Way for reaching final Nibbana without any clinging: It is this Noble 8-fold Way: Right View (samma-ditthi) Right Motivation (samma-sankappa) Right Speech (samma-vaca) Right Action (samma-kammanta) Right Livelihood (samma-ajiva) Right Effort (samma-vayama) Right Awareness (samma-sati) Right Concentration (samma-samadhi) This is the method; this is the way for entering the dimension of final Nibbana without clinging. When asked these questions, Bhikkhus, you should answer those of other beliefs in this way… Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V:27-9] section 45: The Way. 41-42: Purpose ... 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 !!! <...> 59011 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 8, 2006 0:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.1 difficulty of understanding visible object upasaka_howard Hi, Paul - In reading the following, I'm unclear as to how close our understandings are. They may be quite close - it's really hard to say. I'll insert a comment or two - very brief - in context below. In a message dated 5/7/06 11:24:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, paulgrabianowski@... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > You Wrote: But, in this context, the 4 great > elements are not spoken of experientially. They are spoken of as > unexperienced > entities lying "out there" and somehow underlying, say, visual object. This > is > concept-only, as I see it. > Recall how, in the Kalaka (or Kalakarama) Sutta, the Buddha said > "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." As I read this, it is a statement > in > support of pure (non-dualistic) experientialism, ruling out not only a seer, > a dismissal unsurprising to all Buddhists, but also an object (the "partner" > to a seer), and, most relevant to the point discussed here, an unseen > reality > underlying what is seen as its basis or substance. [Note: I'm not dismissing > solidity, liquidity, temperature, and motion as experiential realities. I > recognize these as body-sense rupas, with liquidity possibly mind-sense.] > > P: I think the Kalaka Sutta is quite relevant here. I may not have been as > clear as I hoped to be in the last email, or perhaps I am in the process of > gaining a better understanding of this. Certainly, the Buddha cautioned us > against adopting any nominal or conceptual designation of visual object. > The fact that what is here now is impermanent and always already in the > process of passing away shows that there is no seer of visible object > (whether one is a Tathagata or not). > ----------------------------------------- Howard: Mmm, I'm not so sure that the impermanence is quite enough by itself to guarantee no seer of visible object. If an object of seeing appears at all and if a seer appears at all, but does not remain, that still allows for seer and seen. The point, as I view the matter, is that seeing and seen, however momentary, are dependent arisings as well as mutually dependent, and not self-existent even for a moment. Their existence is of a middle-way, contingent sort. Seeing and seen are interdependent facets of an experiential event that itself is utterly empty of own being. ---------------------------------------- Also, I agree that objects are no less > > impermanent than mind. The visible datum here is not an object (I agree > that any designation of the object in this way can only be merely a > concept), but the visible datum that is arising and falling away, no less > does become a condition and a support for the arising of seeing and the > subsequent mind states that follow. > ----------------------------------------- Howard: I certainly do agree that experiential content, visual or otherwise, at any time, is central to the current "mindstate" and serves as condition for future states. ---------------------------------------- I think the question of non-dualism > > here is an extremely tricky one and can, if we are not careful, be > overstated. ---------------------------------------- Howard: The nondualism that I speak of is the interdependence of knowing and known, the latter being the content and the former being the (experiential) presence of that content. Neither ever exists without the other, but always and only arise together in mutual dependence, and, of course, in utter dependence on other equally empty phenomena. -------------------------------------- It reads that Tathagata doesn't "construe." I'm not sure what > > the original Pali word is here, but this suggests to me that the Buddha is > placing the emphasis on what the mind doesn't do when seeing what is here > now passing away. There is still, however, a "what is to be seen;" there > are still realities that must perform their brief impermanent functions in > order for seeing to arise. > --------------------------------------- Howard: But not self-existent "realities". There is nothing anywhere that has self or own-being. ---------------------------------------- Consider this from the Aditta Pariyaya Sutta:> > > "The eye is burning, forms are burning, eye-consciousness is burning, > eye-contact is burning, also whatever is felt as pleasant or painful or > neither-painful-nor-pleasant that arises with eye-contact for its > indispensable condition, that too is burning. Burning with what? Burning > with the fire of lust, with the fire of hate, with the fire of delusion. I > say it is burning with birth, aging and death, with sorrows, with > lamentations, with pains, with griefs, with despairs." > > There are indispensable conditions here, but they are all burning. When > something burns, it is transformation of one state to the next. In this > passage, however, there is only burning. It's not like there is log in the > fire that is (conventionally speaking) pretty much a log minus that outer > portion of the log that is in a state of combustion, going up in smoke. The > > Buddha brings burning to the very core of everything. But, notice closely > what everything is burning with. With lust, hate, delusion. The burning, > itself, is this process of designation, of pointing, of construing that > conditions the mind again and again to undergo these same conditions of > burning moment after moment, life time after life time. At all levels of > investigation we find only conditioned realties arising and falling away > again. > --------------------------------------- Howard: I'm not sure that the burning here pertains to impermanence. I believe it is more a matter of emotional (and proliferative) burning. ---------------------------------------- At all levels we see that these conditions, though indispensable, > > are impermanent are therefore are not designatable and are not construable. > We may point out that the apple is red, but that red is only the many mind > states arising and passing away. For the sensation of temperature etc. is > the same. > --------------------------------------- Howard: Well, here what you are saying sounds closer to my perspective, though it may actually go further than I would go. (I'm not clear on that.) The redness and warmth, while the content of experiential states, are still objective in being vipaka determined by objective conditions, and not concept-only. ---------------------------------------- Buddhism points out the most immediate and indispensable of > > realities to show that ultimately everything is impermanent. So in the > final analysis, I would say that Buddhism neither advocates dualism nor > non-dualism. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Anicca is central, but it isn't identical with anatta. And dependent origination subsumes but goes beyond each of the tilakkhana individually. -------------------------------------- > > This issue, however, I think, is too large for just a couple emails, but I > hope this helps you to understand more what I meant and what I better > understand owing to your comments. > > Paul > =================== 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) 59012 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 8, 2006 0:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Very Brief Report on My Weekend Meditation "Retreat" upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 5/8/06 4:28:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > S: Such an interpretation of this sutta would not be in accordance with > what we read in the Abhidhamma and commentaries. Do you have other suttas > or textual sources to support this? (It's fine, if you'd rather not > discuss it further). > ================== Well, the Dakkhinavibhanga Sutta is clear enough to me. I haven't made a further search, and I don't think I will. I mentioned this matter as part of my "retreat report", and I don't have any "emotional investment" in the matter. LOL! With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 59013 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon May 8, 2006 4:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Samatha and vipassana 2 egberdina Hi Jon, Herman Hofman wrote: > > >>Clearly, I think, the sutta is not to be read as saying that each factor > >>can only be developed when the preceding factor has been fully developed > >>(that would not make much sense, would it?). > >> > > > >The only time something properly doesn't make sense is when it is out of > >sync with reality, not when it is different to a preconceived notion. > > > > Another one of your neat little sayings ;-)) No dissent from me on this. > > Any suggestions as to how this might apply in the case of the sutta > under discussion? Nah, not a clue :-) -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 59014 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon May 8, 2006 4:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana ... What lies dormant? sarahprocter... Hi James (& Rob M), A quick response to another part of your post: --- buddhatrue wrote: > James: .....Actually, this discussion brings to light why I find the > Abhidhamma to be overly simplistic. A while back, Rob M gave me a > list of the description for eight different unwholesome mind > states. If I remember, I think that there were eight of them. It > also said that these eight were the only unwholesome cittas which > could arise. I don't buy that for a second! The mind is much too > complex to be so easily categorized and labeled. > > To use an analogy, I could tell you the different kinds of clouds: > > High-Level Clouds .... S: Actually I have some sympathy with this and the cloud analogy was pretty good. I think you may have been thinking about the classification of the 8 kinds of consciousness accompanied by attachment, i.e with or without pleasant feeling, with or without wrong view, strong or weak. We could use any number of classifications which seem simplistic and they are not just in the Abhidhamma, but also in the suttas as in 3 kinds of feelings etc. Like the clouds, they are just broad categories used for teaching purposes. There's no suggestion that any 2 moments of attachment are the same or that there aren't an infinite variety and shades of attachment. It's like when we talk about sound as object of hearing. Clearly, no two sounds are ever the same and no sound can ever be exactly replicated because the conditions are far too complex. But still we refer to 7 kinds of rupa only that are experienced through the 5 senses. .... > Mid-Level Clouds > Cloud types include: altocumulus, altostratus. > > Low-Level Clouds > Cloud types include: nimbostratus and stratocumulus. > > Clouds with Vertical Development > Cloud types include: fair weather cumulus and cumulonimbus. > > Other Cloud Types > Cloud types include: contrails, billow clouds, mammatus, orographic > and pileus clouds. > > Have I now entirely named all cloud types? No, there are many > clouds which cannot be so easily named and categorized. And even > those clouds which are named and categorized, not any two will be > exactly the same. .... S: I have no idea whether this grouping includes all clouds. The category of 8 kinds of cittas with attachment do include all kinds. But as I said and as you said about the clouds, no two cittas will be the same. .... > If we run into this difficulty naming and categorizing clouds, just > imagine the difficulty of trying to do the same thing with the mind- > which is much more complex than clouds. .... S: I agree - nothing is more complex than the mind. As I said, we find groupings throughout the Tipitaka (not just the Abhidhamma) and these are given for teaching purposes. Anguttara Nikaya is full of them - 8 worldly conditions, 7 kinds of wives,7 perceptions, 7 bonds of sexuality, 5 hindrances, 5 desirable things, 4 ways of behaviour, 4 kinds of happiness and so on (just flicking through the index of BB's anthology, you get lots of these). Perhaps Rob M has more to add too - I know you find his explanations clear. Metta, Sarah ======= 59015 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon May 8, 2006 5:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition egberdina Hi Scott, "Deva" is concept. Let's say one appears to you. I mean standing > there like the guy at the convenience store where you buy a coffee. > (Now who's introducing ridiculous analogies, you say.) I read where > this sort of appearance happened frequently at points when the Buddha > was teaching or deciding whether to teach or not. Anyway, there's > this deva standing in front of you. Can you work with this analogy > and show the various sorts of "knowing" you wish to posit? No, there's no deva standing in front of me. It's actually the archangel Gabriel. And he is announcing that I am to be the first male to give birth. :-) I think knowing reduces to mindfulness, which is the state of not dreaming; dreaming being the involuntary wishful state that characterises 99.99% of the waking life of the average person. I'm arguing that a deva has an existence beyond the level of object of > the mind, although that it can be of course. I'm arguing that one can > indeed conceptualise, imagine, fantasise, or whatever about "devas" > but that the fact that this sort of behaviour is possible does not > negate the "literal" existence of devas. A deva sitting in his deva > realm deciding that humans are only the mental fabrications of devas > with too much time on their hands does not negate "my" existence as > experienced now. Again, I would say that all of this is unknowable, and therefore speculative. What do you think? (Please see above in relation to the claim I make > about my fuzzy thinking.) Would you like there to be devas? -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 59016 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon May 8, 2006 5:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition egberdina Hi Dan, On 07/05/06, Dan D. wrote: > > Herman, > > > > I think you are right that understanding not-self has "got to be > > > good", but isn't there a distinction between thinking in terms of > > > self and understanding not-self? Either is "good," I would say. > > > > > > I am probably misunderstanding you here. Are you meaning to say > that it is good to think in terms of self? > > No. I'm saying there are three things: > 1. Understanding no-Self; > 2. Wrong view of Self; > 3. No wrong view of Self, yet no understanding of no-Self. It would be useful to me if you could elaborate some more. In saying wrong view of Self, is there room for right view of Self? And wouldn't there also be a possibility of no views on either/both self and not-self? It seems to me that thinking in terms of self or no-self is like an active alcholic who thinks in terms of alchohol (self) or the one who hasn't touched a drop for 30 years, but still thinks in terms of alchohol, only in a negative form (not-self). #1 is good; > #2 is not good; > #3 may be either good or bad, depending on other factors. > > Metta, > > Dan -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 59017 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon May 8, 2006 6:08am Subject: Re: a "happy" proposition scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Thanks for your further reply. H: "No, there's no deva standing in front of me. It's actually the archangel Gabriel. And he is announcing that I am to be the first male to give birth." Congratulations! H: "I think knowing reduces to mindfulness, which is the state of not dreaming; dreaming being the involuntary wishful state that characterises 99.99% of the waking life of the average person. Again, I would say that all of this is unknowable, and therefore speculative. Would you like there to be devas?" I guess I would. 99.99% of the time. The remaining .01% of the time is another story. Shall we leave it at this and pick up the discourse on some new and intriguing topic? Sincerely, Scott. 59018 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon May 8, 2006 6:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Samatha and vipassana 2 jonoabb Hi Phil Rest assured I am not planning to reduce one bit the extent to which I make reference to the commentaries! But as I had already quoted extensively from the commentary material to Eric in this thread, I thought that a change of tack might be appropriate ;-)) Jon Phil wrote: > Hi Jon > > A nosy little chip in. > > > >>(OK, you've made it clear that you're not interested in hearing >>anything more from the commentaries, so I'll restrict my comments >>to the text of the sutta itself.) >> >> > > I'd keep at it with the commentaries, whether Eric is interested >or not. DSG should be about the promotion of right understanding, in >my opinion, whether it is received or not. (Well, the friendliness >you show here is also important, of course...) The commentaries are >deeper in understanding than anything you, Eric or I or anyone else >here can say about the text of a sutta, surely. > > Phil > > 59019 From: "Dan D." Date: Mon May 8, 2006 7:02am Subject: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition onco111 Hi Herman, I like your analogy of the alcoholic. We are addicted to seeing the world through Self-colored glasses. Even when we are not drunk with Self-view, our vision is STILL clouded by delusion of Self most of the time---but not always. "Understanding no-self" and "wrong view of self" are cetasikas. They are much more like the mode in which the world is viewed at a particular moment than like an opinion that a person has. They arise and pass away from moment to moment. In a citta with wrong view of Self, there is no room at all for right view of self and vice versa. There may be a long string of moments in which non-understanding and wrong view arise over and over and over again, but then for a few brief moments there may arise understanding of no-Self; then back to a seemingly relentless succession non-understanding and wrong view. Metta, Dan > > No. I'm saying there are three things: > > 1. Understanding no-Self; > > 2. Wrong view of Self; > > 3. No wrong view of Self, yet no understanding of no-Self. > > > It would be useful to me if you could elaborate some more. In saying wrong > view of Self, is there room for right view of Self? And wouldn't there also > be a possibility of no views on either/both self and not-self? It seems to > me that thinking in terms of self or no-self is like an active alcholic who > thinks in terms of alchohol (self) or the one who hasn't touched a drop for > 30 years, but still thinks in terms of alchohol, only in a negative form > (not-self). > > > > #1 is good; > > #2 is not good; > > #3 may be either good or bad, depending on other factors. > > > > Metta, > > > > Dan > 59020 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon May 8, 2006 7:13am Subject: Sila, samadhi, panna jonoabb Hi Tep and All Thanks for your kind words. I'm glad you feel that your question has been squarely answered! Regarding your suggestion that we start a new thread on the significance of the 'sila, samadhi and panna' classification ... indriyabala wrote: >>Jon: Like Andrew, I feel we are a lot closer than you recognise, but >>I find it difficult to explain how that is so. >> >> > >Tep: As friends who enjoy discussing the dhammas together we are very >close, Jon. > >... > > > >>Jon: >>Yes, the division into sila, samadhi and panna is the one used in the >>Visuddhimagga, as you know. The real question is the significance of >>that classification, in particular the extent to which it is intended >>to be a strictly sequential prescription. Another whole thread ;-)) >> > >Tep: Let's discuss "that" in another thread. Would you like to go >ahead setting it up for us? > > Yes, I'd be pleased to get the thread going. I think an obvious place to start a discussion on sila, samadhi and panna is the verse that the Visuddhimagga begins with (see the terms Virtue, Consciousness and Understanding): ‘When a wise man, established well in Virtue, ‘Develops Consciousness and Understanding, ‘Then as a bhikkhu ardent and sagacious ‘He succeeds in disentangling this tangle’ (S.i,13) [Also at SN 1:23, see p. 101 of CDB] Here is the brief commentary on that verse from Vism Ch I, 7: ******************************** "Established well in virtue": standing on virtue. It is only one actually fulfilling virtue who is here said to ‘stand on virtue’. So the meaning here is this: being established well in virtue by fulfilling virtue. "A man": a living being. "Wise": possessing the kind of understanding that is born of kamma by means of a rebirth-linking with triple root-cause. "Develops Consciousness and Understanding" : develops both concentration and insight. For it is concentration that is described here under the heading of ‘consciousness’, and insight under that of ‘understanding’. "Ardent" (atapin) : possessing energy. For it is energy that is called ‘ardour (atapa)’ in the sense of burning up and consuming (atapana-paritapana) defilements. He has that, thus he is ardent. "Sagacious": it is understanding that is called ‘sagacity’; possessing that, is the meaning. This word shows protective understanding. For understanding is mentioned three times in the reply to the question. Herein, the first is native understanding, the second is understanding consisting in insight, while the third is the protective understanding that guides all affairs. "Bhikkhu": He sees fear (bhayam ikkhati) in the round of rebirths, thus he is a bhikkhu. "He succeeds in disentangling this tangle" : Just as a man standing on the ground and taking up a well-sharpened knife might disentangle a great tangle of bamboos, so too, he—this bhikkhu who possesses the six things, namely, this virtue, and this concentration described under the heading of consciousness, and this threefold understanding, and this ardour--, standing on the ground of virtue and taking up with the hand of protective-understanding well-sharpened on the stone of concentration, might disentangle, cut away and demolish all the tangle of craving that had overgrown his own life’s continuity. But it is at the moment of the Path that he is said to be disentangling that tangle : at the moment of fruition he has disentangled the tangle and is worthy of the highest offerings in the word with its deities. ******************************** Do you find anything of interest in this commentary? Please feel free to bring in any other texts you would like to discuss. Jon PS I found particularly interesting the reference to the 3 kinds of understanding, mentioned in the commentary on "sagacious" above, where is says 'For understanding is mentioned three times in the reply to the question. The 3 kinds of understanding are: - native understanding (see 'wise man' in line 1) - understanding consisting in insight (see 'Understanding' in l. 2) - the protective understanding that guides all affairs (see 'sagacious' in l. 3) 59021 From: Daniel Date: Mon May 8, 2006 7:36am Subject: Creator? daniell@... Hi! Does anyone know what arguments can be posited against the existence of a creator? Yours, Daniel 59022 From: "Dan D." Date: Mon May 8, 2006 8:39am Subject: Re: Creator? onco111 Hi Daniel, No. I can't think of a single one. The question doesn't yield itself to rational discourse and resolution. Within a framework of belief in a creator, you can argue about properties of that creator or its manifestations in the world; outside the framework of belief in a creater, you can argue about the nature and workings of the world. But there is no rational argument across those two frameworks. Dan > Does anyone know what arguments can be posited against the existence of a > creator? 59023 From: "Joop" Date: Mon May 8, 2006 9:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bodhisattva Ideal jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Chris, (Joop & all), > Hallo Sarah, Christine, all You're making me happy with your quote: " As friends (like Joop) were discussing 'skilful means', I'll also add that here skilful means (upaayakosalla) are also given as conditions. "Therein, 'skilful means' is the wisdom which transforms giving (and the other nine virtues) into requisites of enlightenment. Through their great compassion and skilful means, the Great Men devote themselves to working uninterruptedly for the welfare of others without any concern for their own happiness and without any fear of the extremely difficult course of conduct that great bodhisattvas must follow." It's clear that 'skilful means' are also according Theravada used by the Buddha for the welfare of others. I think the text does not continue and does not give examples of which means the Buddha used? And Sarah, why do you say the skilful means are given as conditions? Isn't that a Abhidhammic interpretation? Christine I did read the text of Samuels "The Bodhisattva Ideal In Theravada", you menstioned. Good stuff! Although I'm very far from it, I prefer to go the bodhisatta-path, more then trying to get arahant. Metta Joop 59024 From: "Joop" Date: Mon May 8, 2006 9:11am Subject: Re: Creator? jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Daniel wrote: > > Hi! > > Does anyone know what arguments can be posited against the existence of a > creator? > > Yours, Daniel Hallo Daniel You could also have asked the opposite to buddhists: what arguments can be posited pro the existence of a creator. Why first suppose there is a creator and then ask questions about him or her? Metta Joop 59025 From: "ericlonline" Date: Mon May 8, 2006 9:17am Subject: [dsg] Re: Samatha and vipassana 2 ericlonline HI Howard, > > >The factors are: > > >1 Suffering (dukkha) > > >2 Faith (saddha) > > >3 Gladness (pamojja) > > >4 Rapture (piti) > > >5 Tranquillity (passaddhi) > > >6 Happiness (sukha) > > >7 Concentration (samadhi) > > >8 Knowledge and vision of things as they really are > > >(yathabhutañanadassana) > > >9 Revulsion (nibbida) > > >10 Dispassion (viraga) > > >11 Liberation (vimutti) > > >12 Knowledge of destruction in regard to destruction > > (asavakkhaye ñana) > =========================== Howard> I'd like to add my two cents on this. > As I see it, all of these D.O. formulations involve pointing out that > some A is a requisite condition for some B. As I understand that, it means > that A is one of several (if not many) conditions the occurrence of *all* of > which guarantees the occurrence of B, and, moreover, A is > requisite/necessary/indispensable for B. So, for example, samadhi is one of several conditions which, > together, will result in the arising of insight. The concentration is > indispensable, but it is insufficient, being but one condition out of several > required. Yes, so why would the Buddha say it this way then? For brevities sake? Or trying to show the importance of that 1 factor out of many, that without it, there is no going forward. > BTW, a proof that conditioning is not single-factor conditioning can > be obtained by looking at a variety of suttas. In one place we will see with > condition C there is B, without C not B. In another place we'll see with C2 > there is B, without C2 not B. In yet another place a third condition, C3 would be > given as requisite for B. Yes, but then why did he say it this way in this particular instance? metta E 59026 From: "ericlonline" Date: Mon May 8, 2006 9:20am Subject: Re: Samatha and vipassana 2 ericlonline Hi Tep, > >Eric: > > Sooner or later you are going to have to > > leave the nest and with all those books > > under your wings I am afraid you are not > > going to clear the first branch! :-) > > Tep: You are reminding me of those old warplanes that carry lots of > amunition under their wings. But they fly so slowly. :-) metta 59027 From: "ericlonline" Date: Mon May 8, 2006 9:29am Subject: Re: Creator? ericlonline Hi Daniel, > > Does anyone know what arguments can be posited against the existence of a creator? There is a sutta in the Majjhima Nikaya where the Buddha discusses how a belief in a creator god comes to be. It is pretty amusing. But he was not for or against a creator. The highest god's existence is also impermanent and so liable to suffering. The creator god for us Buddhists is the Law of Conditionality. All things experienced flow from it. PEACE E 59028 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 8, 2006 5:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Samatha and vipassana 2 upasaka_howard Hi, Eric - In a message dated 5/8/06 12:21:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ericlonline@... writes: > Yes, but then why did he say it this > way in this particular instance? > ==================== Because it is easy to remember. Let me ask you: Is it the case that whenever there is rapture, there is then tranquillity? Doesn't one have to relinquish the rapture in order for tranquillity to arise? And to relinquish it, must there not be sufficient wisdom to see the inadequacy of the rapture? Eric, formulations may be simple, but the Dhamma is complex. This is why the Buddha made so many different formulations, some emphasizing certain points and others emphasizing other points. 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) 59029 From: "ericlonline" Date: Mon May 8, 2006 10:14am Subject: [dsg] Re: Samatha and vipassana 2 ericlonline Hi Howard, E > Yes, but then why did he say it this > > way in this particular instance? > > > ==================== H> Because it is easy to remember. LOL (I am sorry) H> Let me ask you: Is it the case that > whenever there is rapture, there is then tranquillity? Doesn't one have to > relinquish the rapture in order for tranquillity to arise? And to relinquish it, > must there not be sufficient wisdom to see the inadequacy of the rapture? Yes, of course, but there is no tranquility without first passing thru rapture. In this way, rapture is the gateway to tranquillity. You dont come to it thru agitation! The mind must first 'know' rapture for tranquility to arise. Eric, > formulations may be simple, but the Dhamma is complex. This is why the Buddha > made so many different formulations, some emphasizing certain points and > others emphasizing other points. I see the path as a series of graduated understandings. As a whole it is quite complex but when you look close there is just this/that conditionality at each step of the way. To walk this path you have to first stabalize the step you are on and then cultivate the step that is next. Trancendent DO is a very good sutta to see what step needs developing as you traverse the meditative path. PEACE E 59030 From: "Dan D." Date: Mon May 8, 2006 10:30am Subject: Re: Creator? onco111 What do you mean by "a creator"? And "existence"? > Does anyone know what arguments can be posited against the existence of a creator? > > Yours, Daniel > 59031 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 8, 2006 9:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Samatha and vipassana 2 upasaka_howard Hi, Eric - In a message dated 5/8/06 1:19:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ericlonline@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > E >Yes, but then why did he say it this > >>way in this particular instance? > >> > >==================== > H> Because it is easy to remember. > > LOL (I am sorry) > > H> Let me ask you: Is it the case that > >whenever there is rapture, there is then tranquillity? Doesn't one > have to > >relinquish the rapture in order for tranquillity to arise? And to > relinquish it, > >must there not be sufficient wisdom to see the inadequacy of the > rapture? > > Yes, of course, but there is no tranquility > without first passing thru rapture. In this > way, rapture is the gateway to tranquillity. > You dont come to it thru agitation! The mind > must first 'know' rapture for tranquility to > arise. ------------------------------------- Howard: Oh, yes - provided the rapture is the jhanic rapture and not some "excitement" rapture. ---------------------------------- > > Eric, > >formulations may be simple, but the Dhamma is complex. This is why > the Buddha > >made so many different formulations, some emphasizing certain > points and > >others emphasizing other points. > > I see the path as a series of graduated > understandings. As a whole it is quite > complex but when you look close there > is just this/that conditionality at > each step of the way. To walk this path > you have to first stabalize the step you > are on and then cultivate the step that > is next. Trancendent DO is a very good > sutta to see what step needs developing > as you traverse the meditative path. > > > PEACE > > E > > ======================= 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) 59032 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon May 8, 2006 2:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Creator? egberdina Hi Daniel, On 09/05/06, Daniel wrote: > > Hi! > > Does anyone know what arguments can be posited against the existence of a > creator? Once this creator is given characteristics, like omnipotence or omniscience, I remember seeing pretty definitive proofs that those characteristic are self-contradictory. But then, the die-hard believer will not be shaken by such logical thinking. -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 59033 From: "Paul" Date: Mon May 8, 2006 2:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.1 difficulty of understanding visible object paulgrabiano... Hi Howard, It seems that we would more agree than disagree, but perhaps it is the finer points and uses of terminology and such that are most useful to discuss. Howard: Mmm, I'm not so sure that the impermanence is quite enough by itself to guarantee no seer of visible object. If an object of seeing appears at all and if a seer appears at all, but does not remain, that still allows for seer and seen. The point, as I view the matter, is that seeing and seen, however momentary, are dependent arisings as well as mutually dependent, and not self-existent even for a moment. Their existence is of a middle-way, contingent sort. Seeing and seen are interdependent facets of an experiential event that itself is utterly empty of own being. ---------------------------------------- P: Yes, but this is how this all gets tricky. I agree that it is an experiential event that is empty of self or as the Middle-Way Tibetan consequentialist school would say, both mental phenomena and material phenomena are devoid of "inherent being from its own side." This is perhaps the most radical sense of the dhamma, but this does not preclude the manner in which these conditions arise againa and again in dependence upon one another. The Tibetan Consequentialists, for example, recognize that one of the most power practices one can undertake to experience the emptiness of all phenomena is to posit the firm existence of self. In this practice, one looks at a chariot, for example, and says, "this is most definitely a chariot; it has wheels, a seat, axles, pinions, etc." Yes, but what if you remove those wheels, is it still a chariot, etc.? Sure enough, but, I can still touch it, see it, hear it when it moves or if the wheels are gone, when something strikes against it; I feel all kinds of sensations dependent upon it. Yes, but what are those sensations, but citta arising and falling away, this dependent arising following that dependent arising? Yes, now I am beginning to see. This is quite a crude rendition of consequentialist doctrine, but the point here is that one has no means of recognizing emptiness if one does not understand conditonality all the way from concept through to the most irreducible (yet, I agree, nonetheless empty) realities that are arising and following away in each moment. So, it appears we agree perhaps in theory, but perhaps not in the emphasis that still needs to be put on conditions? Howard: The nondualism that I speak of is the interdependence of knowing and known, the latter being the content and the former being the (experiential) presence of that content. Neither ever exists without the other, but always and only arise together in mutual dependence, and, of course, in utter dependence on other equally empty phenomena. Paul: I agree here, but I might still not want to call this nondualism. The Buddha often compares the mind to a monkey swinging from branch to branch. The mind is radically unsettled and should not be mistaken as the self. He contrasts this with mistaking the body for the self, which the Buddha suggests is a lessor folly because the body changes differently; it's impermanence is not so readily obvious to experience. This does not change the fact that both mind and object are equally empty, but it does suggest the subtle nature of the different functions they play in dependent arising. I think discernment should be stressed over the danger of a kind of flattening (almost nihilistic) effect which middle-way doctrine is suceptible to. Howard: But not self-existent "realities". There is nothing anywhere that has self or own-being. ---------------------------------------- Paul: I couldn't agree more. Consider this from the Aditta Pariyaya Sutta:> > > "The eye is burning, forms are burning, eye-consciousness is burning, > eye-contact is burning, also whatever is felt as pleasant or painful or > neither-painful-nor-pleasant that arises with eye-contact for its > indispensable condition, that too is burning. Burning with what? Burning > with the fire of lust, with the fire of hate, with the fire of delusion. I > say it is burning with birth, aging and death, with sorrows, with > lamentations, with pains, with griefs, with despairs." > > There are indispensable conditions here, but they are all burning. When > something burns, it is transformation of one state to the next. In this > passage, however, there is only burning. It's not like there is log in > the > fire that is (conventionally speaking) pretty much a log minus that outer > portion of the log that is in a state of combustion, going up in smoke. > The > > Buddha brings burning to the very core of everything. But, notice closely > what everything is burning with. With lust, hate, delusion. The burning, > itself, is this process of designation, of pointing, of construing that > conditions the mind again and again to undergo these same conditions of > burning moment after moment, life time after life time. At all levels of > investigation we find only conditioned realties arising and falling away > again. > --------------------------------------- Howard: I'm not sure that the burning here pertains to impermanence. I believe it is more a matter of emotional (and proliferative) burning. ---------------------------------------- Paul: Fair enough. I like your interpretation. But, something does not burn in this way without conditions, and I think that these conditions must be known (experientially, of course) before any understanding of emptiness is possible. How can one understand emptiness if one does not know the conditions of interdependent arising that burn ("proliferate") and obscure it. The Tathagatta deeply understands what must not be construed and why. --------------------------------------- Howard: Well, here what you are saying sounds closer to my perspective, though it may actually go further than I would go. (I'm not clear on that.) The redness and warmth, while the content of experiential states, are still objective in being vipaka determined by objective conditions, and not concept-only. ---------------------------------------- I would agree with this. Howard: Anicca is central, but it isn't identical with anatta. And dependent origination subsumes but goes beyond each of the tilakkhana individually. -------------------------------------- Paul: This is nicely put. Paul 59034 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon May 8, 2006 2:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Memory, Dreaming and Saints egberdina Hi Scott and all, Shall we leave it at this and pick up the discourse > on some new and intriguing topic? > I would like that. Is the following a candidate? With the recent graduation of my son, there was again the opportunity to have good round-table discussions. One of the topics was the first / earliest memory that people had. It seemed that for most their first memory was between 2 and 3 years of age, some later. Would there be any dhamma-relevant causes for such amnesia? Could it be that the start of sanna co-incides with the birth of self (ego)? In a similar vein, it is said (or I remember having heard it :-) ) that arahants do not sleep much, and don't dream at all. Modern science speculates that one of the functions of dreaming is to process memories produced during the last awake period. Could it be that arahants don't need to sleep or dream because they do not "sanna"? -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 59035 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon May 8, 2006 2:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Samatha and vipassana 2 jonoabb Hi again Eric You say: "It is not my formulation it is the Buddha's, I am just applying it to each step." Well this is the very point we are discussing, whether your version of the Buddha's formulation is the same as the original. I say it differs materially ;-)) The Buddha's formulation of this/that conditionality is: 'With A as condition, there occurs B' or, as we might say: 'A is a condition for B'. The formulation you are applying is: 'If A is, B is. If no A, no B' There is a very material difference between the Buddha's formulation and yours. To take one of the examples you give: "Clearly you have to experience some sort of suffering for faith in the path to arise." OK, accepting that statement for a moment, it is of course also true that not everyone who experiences suffering has faith in the path, right? In fact faith in the teachings arises only in a small minority of such cases. So the formulation must allow for that fact too. Thus to say: 'Suffering is a condition for faith.' would be correct, but 'If suffering is, faith is.' would not (because it means 'whenever there is suffering there is faith'). Likewise, taking the next link (Faith -> gladness), the kusala factor of gladness can arise in one who has not heard the teachings. Thus, the statement 'If not faith, no gladness' is not correct, but the statement: 'With the non-arising of faith as a condition, gladness does not arise' is correct because it does not imply the 'whenever' connection. On the sukha -> jhana link, you explain that "Without sukha there is no jhana." Two comments from me on that: 1. True for some levels of jhana, but not all. 2. Even so, it cannot be said that whenever there is sukha there is jhana, and thus your formulation is materially different to the Buddha's formulation. The difference between the 2 formulations is that yours implies that B necessarily follows from A in every instance, whereas the Buddha's does not. How say you now? Jon ericlonline wrote: >J> Applying your formulation to the first sets of factors we would >get: > >It is not my formulation it is the Buddha's, >I am just applying it to each step. > > > > >>J> 1-2: 'When Suffering (dukkha) is, Faith (saddha) is. When >>Suffering (dukkha) is not, Faith (saddha) is not' >>2-3: 'When Faith (saddha) is, Gladness (pamojja) is. When Faith >>(saddha) is not, Gladness (pamojja) is not' >> >>I think it's obvious that this doesn't 'work'. >> >> > >Really?! When the woman who was suffering and >the Buddha told her to find a mustard seed from >a house who did not experience death, she would >have gained faith in the Buddha without her >suffering? Clearly you have to experience some >sort of suffering for faith in the path to >arise. Seems pretty straight forward to me. > >And once on the path with faith, naturally >gladness will arise as you begin to see that >there is a possibility that you can one day >go beyond suffering. I am sure you have >experienced this gladness stemming directly >from your faith in the Dhamma, yes? > >... > > > > >>Jon> Now let's take the factor immediately preceding samadhi, >>which is pleasant feeling (sukha). >>6-7: 'When pleasant feeling is, samadhi/jhana is. When pleasant >>feeling is not, samadhi/jhana is not'. >> >>Surely not! >> >> > >Without sukha there is no jhana. Yes Jon. >Look at the factors accompanying the first >jhana. You cannot enter if you are not happy. >When the hindrances are gone and you are on >the verge, trust me, it is a very happy moment! >Years and years of practice and finally!! A sad >and grumpy meditator does not enter jhana!! > > 59036 From: John V Date: Mon May 8, 2006 7:51am Subject: Re : Sex is_that_mail Greetings, >>> From: "indriyabala" indriyabala@... >>> How does it have "a very very bad impact" you? Let's say that I think a certain thought. Like "I really want to have sex with that woman". Then I think "If I will continue having thoughts like that, I will become sex-obssessed". Then I send a mental impulse - "stop this thought", and somehow try to stop it, as if cutting it somehow. But this just leads to repression... Yours, John <....> 59037 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon May 8, 2006 3:11pm Subject: A little chat about nothing egberdina Hi all, I would appreciate your thoughts on the following. On coming out of some non-conscious state, be that from anaesthetic, deep sleep, cessation, whatever, is there an innate sense that knows there was absence of mind, or is that knowing arrived at by thinking about it? Also, perceptual objects are delineated by what is not-that-object. You have x in all directions until you get to non-x and that marks the boundary of the object. I am hoping for the purposes of the next question that we all have a sense of "thereness", which I find hard to describe. It is just a basic, low-level, non-discriminating level of awareness. I am wondering, is this thereness delineated by not-thereness? -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 59038 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon May 8, 2006 3:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Very Brief Report on My Weekend Meditation "Retreat" egberdina Hi Howard, On 01/05/06, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Chris - > > > > ==================== > No no, no! I was obviously very unclear! He thinks that the > tilakkhana > are critically important, and that the realization of them is what leads > to > awakening! What he thinks is not significant is the use of 'dhamma' > instead of > 'sankhara' in the third line of the following: > > Sabbe sankhara anicca. > Sabbe sankhara dukkha. > Sabbe dhamma anatta. Yes, that is the way I see it too. Some more about this awakening. When can it be said "Sabbe sankhara anicca"? When all sankhara have been seen as they are? No, that wouldn't work. Not even the Buddha has seen all sankhara. This approach would be an eternalist approach, with the excuse to keep on keeping on, because all sankhara need to be seen to realise the truth of the matter. It can be said "Sabbe sankhara anicca" when the structure of sankhara is understood. That can be understood in the twinkling of an eye, and when it is understood there is no need to keep on watching those dhammas just to make sure there wasn't one that crept in that somehow wasn't anicca :-) -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 59039 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 8, 2006 11:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.1 difficulty of understanding visible object upasaka_howard Hi again, Paul - In a message dated 5/8/06 5:45:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time, paulgrabianowski@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > It seems that we would more agree than disagree, but perhaps it is the finer > > points and uses of terminology and such that are most useful to discuss. > ======================= If there is any disagreement at all, and it's not clear to me that there is, it lies in emphases and formulations only, I think. I can't point to an y substantive matter in your post that I take exception to. I look forward to many enjoyable conversations with you, Paul! :-) 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) 59040 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 8, 2006 11:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Very Brief Report on My Weekend Meditation "Retreat" upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 5/8/06 6:28:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... quote me saying: > No no, no! I was obviously very unclear! He thinks that the > >tilakkhana > >are critically important, and that the realization of them is what leads > >to > >awakening! What he thinks is not significant is the use of 'dhamma' > >instead of > >'sankhara' in the third line of the following: > > > > Sabbe sankhara anicca. > > Sabbe sankhara dukkha. > > Sabbe dhamma anatta. > > > > Yes, that is the way I see it too. Some more about this awakening. When can > it be said "Sabbe sankhara anicca"? When all sankhara have been seen as they > are? No, that wouldn't work. Not even the Buddha has seen all sankhara. This > approach would be an eternalist approach, with the excuse to keep on keeping > on, because all sankhara need to be seen to realise the truth of the matter. > > > It can be said "Sabbe sankhara anicca" when the structure of sankhara is > understood. That can be understood in the twinkling of an eye, and when it > is understood there is no need to keep on watching those dhammas just to > make sure there wasn't one that crept in that somehow wasn't anicca :-) ---------------------------------------- Howard: LOLOL! Right you are, Herman! ;-) ---------------------------------------- > > > > > -- > Kind Regards > > > Herman > ===================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 59041 From: "Dan D." Date: Mon May 8, 2006 3:47pm Subject: Re: Creator? onco111 Hi Herman, A famous paradox along those lines is the question: What happens when an irresistable force meets up with an immovable object? I asked my 7- year-old son Mark that question one day. He thought about it for a second or two and said: "The immovable object gets shattered." And there you have it. Dan > Once this creator is given characteristics, like omnipotence or omniscience, > I remember seeing pretty definitive proofs that those characteristic are > self-contradictory. But then, the die-hard believer will not be shaken by > such logical thinking. > > > > > -- > Kind Regards > > > Herman > > > There is ego, but not a self who has it. > (Hofman H. 2005) > 59042 From: LBIDD@... Date: Mon May 8, 2006 4:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Do mind objects have an intrinsic nature? lbidd2 Fabrizio: "Sati is the Pali word for the Sanskrit word "smriti" that exactly means memory. It may seem puzzling how that term changed meaning in the translitteration between so different words like "memory" and "mindfulness". Or are they different? My practice suggested that each time I was mindful to something I also remembered later that action and viceversa." Larry: "It is true that sati remembers, but sati only arises with kusala cittas. I guess we could say remembering is always kusala." F: "Untrue. _SammaSati_ arises only with kusala cittasa. Often the micca part of the Noble Path goes forgotten... As an example of an unwholesome sati there is the one of a thief mindful to any sound that could reveal the arrival of someone." Hi Fabrizio, Very good. I feel properly enlightened on the subject of memory. My difficulty in the past had been that in "Abhidhammattha Sangaha" and "Visuddhimagga" sati cetasika is listed as kusala, but I do remember a discussion somewhere on the subject of micca sati. This clarifies things considerably. F: "Registration, for what I understood, is the taking of responsibility for the javana just completed. It may be tought as the link between absolute reality and conditional reality. So the characteristic is an "ok"; the function is to stop the consciousness process; the manifestation is a setting of the mind and the proximate cause is the bhavanga to arise." L: Well, this is a problem. It sounds like javana is the object of registration, which is what I had originally proposed. Could you clarify what you mean by "a link between absolute reality and conditional [conventional?] reality"? Does this refer to a particularly strong role for sa~n~naa cetasika, the maker of signs (nimitta)? I liked your discussion of anusaya as inertia. Made sense to me. This is a different process from accumulation but they are both powered by javana cittas, correct? Larry 59043 From: LBIDD@... Date: Mon May 8, 2006 4:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Creator? lbidd2 Daniel: "Does anyone know what arguments can be posited against the existence of a creator?" Hi Daniel, The main argument is dependent arising. Vism.XVII,282: "This Wheel of Becoming consists in the occurrence of formations, etc., with ignorance, etc., as the respective reasons. Therefore it is devoid of a maker supplementary to that, such as a Brahmaa conjectured thus, 'Brahmaa the Great, the Highest, the Creator' (D.i,18), to perform the function of maker of the round of rebirths; and it is devoid of any self as an experiencer of pleasure and pain conceived thus, 'This self of mine that speaks and feels' (cf.M.i,8). This is how it should be understood to be without any maker or experiencer." Larry 59044 From: "Phil" Date: Mon May 8, 2006 4:34pm Subject: Re: Commentaries online? philofillet Hi Larry (and others who responded on this topic) > Bottom line, it comes down to our own > judgement. Our judgement is rooted in greed, hatred and delusion, according to the Buddha's teaching. The more help we get from wise commentators, the better, in my opinion. If there are flaws in them (I have read BB disagreeeing with them too) I'm sure the flaws are very few indeed compared to the distortions our lobha-rooted minds create as we interpret suttas in ways that serve (albeit it subtly) self's interest. Why am I sure? I don't know. That's the way I see things now - probably just a phase. Having said that, I'll continue studying suttas without full commentary because I don't have time to read full commentaries. But if there is a dispute on a technical point between a person who is backed by a commentary and a person who is backed by a modern meditation teacher, well, there is no question in my mind who "wins." I suspect that at least some criticisms of commentaries derive from the lack of support commentaries provide to the aims of modern teachers and their students. Not nefarious aims by any means. Very well-meaning. But rooted in two of the three factors mentionned at the beginning of the post. Just a hunch, of no import whatsoever. Phil 59045 From: "Phil" Date: Mon May 8, 2006 4:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Rely on yourself" to what? philofillet Hi Sarah Wonderful passages, thanks. However, > S: Only direct awareness and understanding can do the job. Yes, this is true. And we know how very, very rare moments of direct awareness and understanding are. I certainly have never had one and have no expectations of having one in this lifetime, though I may - there is not telling. In the meantime, I will continue to study experience through the six doors. That is the relying on myself - only I can do that. But when it comes to reading suttas I will rely as little as possible on my self's interpretations. Or so I hope but there is not telling to what degree lobha and moha will direct me through life, and to what degree alobha and amoha will arise. Not telling whatsoever. Phil 59046 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon May 8, 2006 5:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Commentaries online? egberdina Hi Phil, I suspect that at least some criticisms of commentaries > derive from the lack of support commentaries provide to the aims of > modern teachers and their students. Not nefarious aims by any means. > Very well-meaning. But rooted in two of the three factors mentionned > at the beginning of the post. Just a hunch, of no import whatsoever. I bet you were just waiting to hear from me about commentaries :-) One of my beefs with commentaries is that they are written at all. I don't think it is controversial to say that the teachings of the Buddha are aural. They were spoken, heard and remembered as spoken and heard. I happen to believe that the coming to be of writing has totally altered the way memory works. And that the shift from an aural tradition to a written tradition has made the aims of the aural tradition unreachable. Because reading/writing has so fundamentally altered the way the mind works. Would I be too extreme in saying that the very act of writing something down is rooted in greed? If not, what is the purpose of writing other than to unnaturally preserve or keep or hang onto ? -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 59047 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 8, 2006 1:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Commentaries online? upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 5/8/06 8:01:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > Would I be too extreme in saying that the very act of writing something > down > is rooted in greed? If not, what is the purpose of writing other than to > unnaturally preserve or keep or hang onto ? > ===================== Might the motive be lovingkindness and compassion? ;-) 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) 59048 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon May 8, 2006 5:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Rely on yourself" to what? egberdina Hi Phil, Yes, this is true. And we know how very, very rare moments of direct > awareness and understanding are. I certainly have never had one and > have no expectations of having one in this lifetime, though I may - > there is not telling. In the meantime, I will continue to study > experience through the six doors. That is the relying on myself - only > I can do that. But when it comes to reading suttas I will rely as > little as possible on my self's interpretations. Or so I hope but there > is not telling to what degree lobha and moha will direct me through > life, and to what degree alobha and amoha will arise. Not telling > whatsoever. Just reading your comments reminded me of something my father wrote the other day. He wrote: The universe is like a giant spluttering pot of soup. We never know where the next splutter will occur. -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 59049 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon May 8, 2006 5:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Commentaries online? egberdina Hi Howard, On 09/05/06, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Herman - > > In a message dated 5/8/06 8:01:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > hhofmeister@... writes: > > > Would I be too extreme in saying that the very act of writing something > > down > > is rooted in greed? If not, what is the purpose of writing other than to > > unnaturally preserve or keep or hang onto ? > > > ===================== > Might the motive be lovingkindness and compassion? ;-) It could be, I guess, but it seems paradoxical to seek to preserve in immutable form, with or without realisation, that "Sabbe Sankhara Anicca". I'm not sure of the following, but was the Canon written down because the Buddha so instructed? -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 59050 From: "indriyabala" Date: Mon May 8, 2006 6:22pm Subject: Re: a "happy" proposition ... Metta and Devas indriyabala Hallo Joop (and Sarah) - Thank you for the following "feedback" : >Joop: I will not react on everything you say because it has partly a "you had to belief …" character. Tep: I didn't know it sounded that bad to you. From now I will have to be more careful. Sorry! .............. >Joop: >Dependent Origination has primarely to do with what happens within this lifetime, as Ven. Buddhadasa and others had explained. Tep: You, Ven. Buddhadasa and others, may not be aware of the various suttas that are referenced by Thanissaro Bhikkhu in the "Wings to Awakening". http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part1.html#part1-b .................... >Joop: >And nobody should avoid all kind of akusala dhammas BECAUSE of being scared of a rebirth in a lower realm; but because behaving in a ethical way is a goal as such: without thinking of reward or punishment. And because "seeing things as they really are" is not >possible without sila. Tep: Indeed, a rebirth in a lower realm is very scary to me, because the Buddha's Teachings have taught me so well. "Beings are the owners of their kamma, heir to their kamma, born of their kamma, related through their kamma, and have their kamma as their refuge. Kamma is what creates distinctions among beings in terms of coarseness & refinement... "There is the case where a certain woman or man is one who takes life — brutal, bloody-handed, violent, cruel, merciless to living beings. From performing & undertaking such kamma, then on the break-up of the body, after death, this person re-appears in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. Or, if he/she does not reappear in the plane of deprivation... in hell, but instead returns to the human state, then wherever he/she is reborn, he/she is short-lived. This is the way leading to short life, namely being one who takes life... [MN 135] ............................. >Joop: >Tep, two questions to you. As I said to Scott some days ago, I like to discuss my idea that a part of the Teachings should not be taken literally but metaphorically. - Do you take everything in the Suttas literal? - Can you imagine that a metaphorical interpretation of it can be awakening too? And if you ask me which part can be taken metaphorically: for example the whole Indian cosmology in it. Tep: I love good methaphors because they help me get the idea quicker than without them. The literal sense of a Pali word is absolutely critical for my precise understanding of the 37 bodhipakkhiya dhammas and the Paticcasamuppada in the various suttas. The Buddha used both metaphorical meaning and literal meaning in the Teachings, so we have to be smart enough to know which meaning is to be taken exactly or as metaphorical comparison. Of course, sometimes some wordings in a sutta (e.g. DN 15) are not clear to me either. But I don't too quickly put down the 31 planes of existence like you. {:->|) There are several cosmological discourses that you might want to study for example : DN 26, DN 27, MN 129, and MN 130. Study them carefully and you may change your mind about the cosmos. If not, then put the blame on me. ^_* Sincerely, Tep ======== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joop" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" > wrote: > > > ... > > Hallo Tep, all > > One of the reasons to continue this discussion is that it makes Sarah > happy. > I will not react on everything you say because it has partly a "you > had to belief …" character. > But when you say : "If you believed in the laws of kamma and > Dependent Origination then you would believe in rebirth. You would be > scared of rebirths in the lower realms, And you would avoid all kinds > of akusala dhammas", I'm a bit surprised > (snipped) 59051 From: "indriyabala" Date: Mon May 8, 2006 6:49pm Subject: Re: Re : Sex indriyabala Hi John, Thank you for replying. >John: > Let's say that I think a certain thought. Like "I really want to have sex with that woman". Then I think "If I will continue having thoughts like that, I will become sex-obssessed". Then I send a mental impulse - "stop this thought", and somehow try to stop it, as if cutting it somehow. But this just leads to repression... Tep: Precisely, repression is not a solution. I think a solution that the great Buddha taught for abandoning "sex obsession" (ragaanusaya) is to switch the attention to reflect on the drawbacks of the sensuality. Please read the following. "... I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with sensuality has arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to the affliction of others or to the affliction of both. It obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding.' "As I noticed that it leads to my own affliction, it subsided. As I noticed that it leads to the affliction of others... to the affliction of both... it obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding, it subsided. Whenever thinking imbued with sensuality had arisen, I simply abandoned it, destroyed it, dispelled it, wiped it out of existence. (Similarly with thinking imbued with ill will & harmfulness.) "Whatever a monk keeps pursuing with his thinking & pondering, that becomes the inclination of his awareness. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking imbued with sensuality, abandoning thinking imbued with renunciation, his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with sensuality. (Similarly with thinking imbued with ill will & harmfulness.) [MN 19 Dvedhavitakka Sutta. Two Sorts of Thinking] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn-019-tb0.html Sincerely, Tep ======= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, John V wrote: > > Greetings, > > > > >>> From: "indriyabala" indriyabala@... > >>> How does it have "a very very bad impact" you? > (snipped) 59052 From: "indriyabala" Date: Mon May 8, 2006 8:27pm Subject: Re: Sila, samadhi, panna indriyabala Hi Jon (and others) - I appreciate your effort and the good idea to start with the verse in Visuddhimagga's Chapter I (that I myself quoted a few times in the past discussion with Nina). This verse came from a sutta too -- one stone hits two birds, so to speak. >Jon: >I think an obvious place to start a discussion on sila, samadhi and panna is the verse that the Visuddhimagga begins with (see the terms Virtue, Consciousness and Understanding): `When a wise man, established well in Virtue, `Develops Consciousness and Understanding, `Then as a bhikkhu ardent and sagacious `He succeeds in disentangling this tangle' (S.i,13) >[Also at SN 1:23, see p. 101 of CDB] >Jon: >Do you find anything of interest in this commentary? >Please feel free to bring in any other texts you would like to discuss. .............. Tep: Without letting the commentary plant ideas in my head, I read through the verse and pondered over it first. Now let me tell you what I think I understand this verse. Then I will give a few thoughts on the commentary to show that when we do not exercise our own thinking (i.e. letting the commentator feed us like a baby), we might be misled. Of course, it is possible that I myself misunderstand the verse (i.e. not being wise enough). I understand the verse to mean that the Buddha's Teachings are not for an un-wise person. (Who would want to teach a difficult subject to a stupid student anyway?) To be able to appreciate the Teachings requires a certain level of attention and intelligence in a puthujjana(worlding), who is uninstructed in sila, samadhi and paññaa. It is required that the wise man is well established in virtue -- morality or sila -- before he develops consciousness(citta-- Nanamoli's translation) and understanding(paññaa-- Nanamoli's translation). So it is clear that the purification of citta and paññaa depends on the "established" sila. However, only a bhikkhu who is ardent(atapi) and discerning properly (sagacious?) is able to cut through the jungle of tanha. My Comments on the Commentary ------------------------------ -- "..being established well in virtue by fulfilling virtue" T: That is the same as saying that sila must be developed in order to support developments of citta and paññaa. -- "Wise": possessing the kind of understanding that is born of kamma by means of a rebirth-linking with triple root-cause. T: That is a mouth-full with the Abhidhamma jargon. -- "Develops Consciousness and Understanding" : develops both concentration and insight. T: It is not clear whether the commentator means developing both simultaneously or one at a time. -- ".. he—this bhikkhu who possesses the six things, namely, this virtue, and this concentration described under the heading of consciousness, and this threefold understanding, and this ardour--, standing on the ground of virtue and taking up with the hand of protective-understanding well-sharpened on the stone of concentration, might disentangle, cut away and demolish all the tangle of craving .." T: The commentator was quite imaginative. This shows that if you have ten commentators, they would possibly have ten different ways to express their views. Then you'd have to decide whose commentary should be followed! [So why don't we learn to be on our own two feet?] ............... >Jon: >PS I found particularly interesting the reference to the 3 kinds of understanding, mentioned in the commentary on "sagacious" above, where is says 'For understanding is mentioned three times in the reply to the question. The 3 kinds of understanding are: - native understanding (see 'wise man' in line 1) - understanding consisting in insight (see 'Understanding' in l. 2) - the protective understanding that guides all affairs (see 'sagacious' in l. 3) Tep: Is it possible that "sagacious" is full understanding by overcoming -- as defined below? "Full understanding of the known" is the knowledge consisting in the discernment of the specific characteristics of such and such phenomena, as: 'Corporeality has the characteristic of being oppressed; feeling has the characteristic of being felt, etc.' "Full understanding by investigating" is that insight-wisdom (vipassanaa-paññā; s. vipassanaa), which has the 3 general characteristics (impermanence, suffering, not-self) as its objects, and which arises when attributing a general characteristic to (physical and mental) phenomena, as for instance: 'Corporeality is impermanent, feeling is impermanent, etc.' "Full understanding by overcoming" is that insight-wisdom which has the above mentioned general characteristics as its objects, and arises after overcoming the idea of permanence, etc." [Vis.M. XX, 3] Warm regards, Tep ======= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Tep and All > > Thanks for your kind words. I'm glad you feel that your question has > been squarely answered! > >(snipped) > > Here is the brief commentary on that verse from Vism Ch I, 7: > > ******************************** > "Established well in virtue": standing on virtue. It is only one > actually fulfilling virtue who is here said to `stand on virtue'. So the meaning here is this: being established well in virtue by fulfilling virtue. > > "A man": a living being. > > "Wise": possessing the kind of understanding that is born of kamma by means of a rebirth-linking with triple root-cause. > > "Develops Consciousness and Understanding" : develops both concentration and insight. For it is concentration that is described here under the heading of `consciousness', and insight under that of `understanding'. > > "Ardent" (atapin) : possessing energy. For it is energy that is called `ardour (atapa)' in the sense of burning up and consuming > (atapana-paritapana) defilements. He has that, thus he is ardent. > > "Sagacious": it is understanding that is called `sagacity'; possessing that, is the meaning. This word shows protective understanding. For understanding is mentioned three times in the reply to the question. > Herein, the first is native understanding, the second is understanding consisting in insight, while the third is the protective understanding that guides all affairs. > > "Bhikkhu": He sees fear (bhayam ikkhati) in the round of rebirths, thus he is a bhikkhu. > > "He succeeds in disentangling this tangle" : Just as a man standing on the ground and taking up a well-sharpened knife might disentangle a great tangle of bamboos, so too, he—this bhikkhu who possesses the six things, namely, this virtue, and this concentration described under the heading of consciousness, and this threefold understanding, and this ardour--, standing on the ground of virtue and taking up with the hand of protective-understanding well-sharpened on the stone of > concentration, might disentangle, cut away and demolish all the tangle of craving that had overgrown his own life's continuity. But it is at the moment of the Path that he is said to be disentangling that tangle : > at the moment of fruition he has disentangled the tangle and is worthy of the highest offerings in the word with its deities. > > ******************************** (snipped) 59053 From: "Andrew Leong" Date: Mon May 8, 2006 7:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Rely on yourself" to what? ascleong HI Phil, Put aside what you have read and learned... perform some charity... meditate... Just do it... then compare what you experience with what was in the scriptures... don;t think... just live it.. May you have contentment. Andrew ... 59054 From: "Paul" Date: Mon May 8, 2006 10:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A little chat about nothing paulgrabiano... Hi everyone, Interesting questions Herman which I have no idea how to answer, but for fun, I'll conjecture a few points. Also, perceptual objects are delineated by what is not-that-object. You have > x in all directions until you get to non-x and that marks the boundary of > the object. I am hoping for the purposes of the next question that we all > have a sense of "thereness", which I find hard to describe. It is just a > basic, low-level, non-discriminating level of awareness. I am wondering, > is > this thereness delineated by not-thereness? Yes, but even the object x is broken by inconsistencies, blind spots, etc. (a sort of shimmering of otherness, or a never quite attaining to that which it attests to attain). I'd imagine if the object ever could be fully the thing that nominal thinking would like to make it, the mind would most certainly become so enamored by it that it would never come out of its Platonic daze. The alternative is quite different, a kind of daze or constant distraction or dispersel that undercuts the object x before the mind ever reaches its edge. There is a sense of being there precisely because attention is already frought through with distraction, and distraction with attention. Conventional object boundaries at this point would be only secondary. I'm not sure how applicable this is to any larger dhamma question, but its just a speculation. On coming out of some non-conscious state, be that from anaesthetic, deep > sleep, cessation, whatever, is there an innate sense that knows there was > absence of mind, or is that knowing arrived at by thinking about it? An enormously complex pondering. I'd be really interested in hearing what Budhism has to say about this. I'd imagine that a mind element upon lapsing out of non-consciousness would first avert to whatever is "there" and after a succession of mind states would at some point bring about a concept that "construe" that there has been moments without consciousness. In other words, at some point certain minds states will have to be conscious of the fact that there was an absence of consciousness. How this is possible, I do not know, but I think the question is more tricky than it appears. Evolutionarily speaking, I wouldn't doubt if there is a quick streamlined brain/body mechanism in which the mind makes damn sure that the person knows its been unconscious and now its conscious, but I'll have to think more about this. Hope someone else can do better than this. paul 59055 From: "Fabrizio Bartolomucci" Date: Mon May 8, 2006 11:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Do mind objects have an intrinsic nature? fbartolom Dear LBIDD, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > Very good. I feel properly enlightened on the subject of memory. My > difficulty in the past had been that in "Abhidhammattha Sangaha" and > "Visuddhimagga" sati cetasika is listed as kusala, but I do remember > a discussion somewhere on the subject of micca sati. This clarifies > things considerably. Happy of that. Yet it seems to me the word Sati does not appear as such in the "Abhidhammattha Sangaha": in fact it is substituted by the word "Manasikara" that is one of the seven universal cetasikas and thus belongs to all cittas (either wholesome, unwholesome, resultant or functional). > F: "Registration, for what I understood, is the taking of responsibility > for the javana just completed. It may be tought as the link between > absolute reality and conditional reality. So the characteristic is an > "ok"; the function is to stop the consciousness process; the > manifestation is a setting of the mind and the proximate cause is the > bhavanga to arise." > > L: Well, this is a problem. It sounds like javana is the object of > registration, which is what I had originally proposed. Could you clarify > what you mean by "a link between absolute reality and conditional > [conventional?] reality"? Does this refer to a particularly strong role > for sa~n~naa cetasika, the maker of signs (nimitta)? In fact there is a case in which registration is connected to the javana process and that is the one when it employs one of the eight wholesome resultant cittas with roots. Of course that leaves the question open with a javana process composed of unwholesome cittas with roots that according to the Abhidhamma is registered by an investigation citta without roots: thus it seems there is an asymmetry between the wholesome and the unwholesome with regard to the persistence of roots. From that, that I must leave as it is because I have not found a confirmation of it in my practice as yet, it follows that the registration of all "unwholsome" and "wholesome without roots" consciousness processes ignores the javana process and is connected only to the object, while "wholesome with roots" processes are connected both to the original object AND the javana phase. > I liked your discussion of anusaya as inertia. Made sense to me. This is > a different process from accumulation but they are both powered by > javana cittas, correct? Everything that has an effect is done in the javana phase. Ciao, Fabrizio 59056 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 9, 2006 1:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Meditation, Alone & Thinking.... sarahprocter... Reply from Neil which I'm forwarding. Sarah ****** Dear Sarah... Thank you, as always, for your response. The crux of it-- "Whenever there is a growth of wisdom, a growth of mental development...that...is...meditation"-- is trenchant and compatible with experience. Prayer-- whatever that is-- cannot, in my judgment, sensibly be a supplication for supernatural or preternatural aid. It can be a dialog with our inner self ("prayer cannot heal a broken arm, but it can heal a broken heart"), and an island in our island. (The "island" analogy is also useful.) And yes, please feel free to share my thoughts with others. "May my thoughts have wings", as the words go some classical song. My warmest wishes to you and Jonothan, Neil. -----Original Message----- From: sarah abbott [mailto:sarahprocterabbott@...] >There is a common Pali word we often us, bhavana, which is sometimes translated as mental development and sometimes as meditation. I consider that whenever there is a growth of wisdom, a growth of mental development, that this is bhavana or meditation. It doesn't matter whether one is alone or standing on the M.T.R (the crowded subway in Hong Kong) - there can be a growth of wisdom, a growth of understanding at any time.<....>< 59057 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 9, 2006 2:26am Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 440- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame/hiri & ottappa(b) 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;-) ========================================== Moral Shame & Fear of Blame (hiri & ottappa) contd ***** The Visuddhimagga (XIV, 142) gives the following definition of hiri, moral shame (here translated as conscience), and ottappa, fear of blame (here translated as shame): * "It has conscientious scruples (hiriyati) about bodily misconduct, etc., thus it is conscience (hiri). This is a term for modesty. It is ashamed (ottappati) of those same things, thus it is shame (ottappa). This is a term for anxiety about evil. Herein, conscience has the characteristic of disgust at evil, while shame (ottappa) has the characteristic of dread of it. Conscience has the function of not doing evil and that in the mode of modesty, while shame has the function of not doing it and that in the mode of dread. They are manifested as shrinking from evil in the way already stated. Their proximate causes are self-respect and respect of others (respectively)…" * The words shame, scruples, fear or anxiety do not, in this case, have the same meaning as in conventional language. When we think with aversion or worry about our akusala there are akusala cittas. Moral shame, hiri, and fear of blame, ottappa, do not arise with a citta accompanied by aversion and worry; they accompany kusala citta. ***** Ch27 - Moral Shame & Fear of Blame(hiri & ottappa) to be continued Metta, Sarah ====== 59058 From: "Joop" Date: Tue May 9, 2006 2:33am Subject: D.O. in three lifetimes and/or within one [was:Re: a "happy" proposition... jwromeijn Hallo Tep, all >>Joop: >>Dependent Origination has primarely to do with what happens within >>this lifetime, as Ven. Buddhadasa and others had explained. >Tep: You, Ven. Buddhadasa and others, may not be aware of the various >Suttas that are referenced by Thanissaro Bhikkhu in the "Wings to Awakening". >www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part1.html#part1 -b It's a good idea to discuss this now (I know Sarah, many mesages about it on U.P.) An essay that gives good information about both aspects (DO in three lifetimes and DO within one), is: Dependent Origination; The Buddhist Law of Conditionality by P. A. Payutto Translated from the Thai by Bruce Evans (www.buddhismtoday.com/english/philosophy/thera/002-dependent.htm) After explaining the 'three lifetimes' use of D.O., Payutto gives in paragraph 5 an other interpretation: " The description of Dependent Origination given in the previous chapter is that most often found in the scriptures and commentaries. It seeks to explain Dependent Origination in terms of the samsaravatta, the round of rebirth, showing the connections between three lifetimes -- the past, the present and the future. Those who do not agree with this interpretation, or who would prefer something more immediate, can find alternatives not only in the Abhidhamma Pitaka, where the principle of Dependent Origination is shown occurring in its entirety in one mind moment, but can also interpret the very same words of the Buddha used to support the standard model in a different light, giving a very different picture of the principle of Dependent Origination, one which is supported by teachings and scriptural references from other sources. The arguments used to support such an interpretation are many. For instance, the immediacy of the end of suffering and the sorrowless life of the Arahant are states which can arise in this present life. It is not necessary to die before realizing the cessation of birth, aging and death, and thus sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair. Those things can be overcome in this very lifetime. The whole of the Dependent Origination cycle, both in the arising of suffering and in its cessation, is concerned with this present life. If the cycle can be clearly understood as it operates in the present, it follows that the past and the future will also be clearly understood, because they are all part of the one cycle. For reference, consider these words of the Buddha: …. [M.II.31] …. [S.IV.327] …..[S.IV.230] …..[S.II.65] Although this interpretation of the principle of Dependent Origination must be understood in its own right, we nevertheless do not discard the pattern established by the standard model. Therefore, before going into its meaning, we should first reiterate the standard model, adapting the definitions in keeping with this interpretation. " (end quote) In a Appendix Payutto gives: "A note on interpreting the principle of Dependent Origination It has been mentioned that in the commentary to the Abhidhamma Pitaka (Sammohavinodani), the principle of Dependent Origination is shown occurring entirely within the space of one mind moment. This point needs to be reiterated because modern study of the teaching (at least in traditional scholastic circles) interprets it completely on a lifetime-to-lifetime basis. Accordingly, when there are attempts to interpret the Dependent Origination cycle as a process occurring in everyday life, those who adhere to the traditional interpretations are want to dismiss them as baseless and in contradiction to the scriptures. For mutual comfort and ease of mind, therefore, I have included this reference to show that such an interpretation is not without scriptural basis. …… One final point deserves a mention: In the Vibhanga of the Tipitaka, the section which describes the lifetime-to-lifetime interpretation occupies only five pages of material. The section which describes the principle of Dependent Origination in one mind moment contains seventy-two pages. But in the Sammohavinodani, Buddhaghosa's commentary, it is the reverse. Namely, the section dealing with the lifetime-to-lifetime interpretation is long, containing 92 pages, whereas the section dealing with the one-mind-moment interpretation contains only 19 pages. Why the commentary on the one-mind-moment version of Dependent Origination is so short is possibly because the author did to have much to say about it. Or perhaps he thought it had already been explained sufficiently in the Tipitaka, there being no need for further commentary. Whatever the case, we can affirm that the interpretation of Dependent Origination in everyday life is one that existed from the very beginning and is founded on the Tipitaka, but only traces of it remain in the Commentaries. " (end quote) (See www.buddhismtoday.com/english/philosophy/thera/002- dependent10.htm) It's too long to quote it completely, but I hope to made have clear that D.O. can also be understood within one lifetime, and doing this is stuff for comtemplation enough for me. Metta Joop 59059 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 9, 2006 2:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Rely on yourself" to what? sarahprocter... Hi Andrew (Leong), This is a punchy intro to DSG! I'll leave it to Phil to respond if he feels inclined. --- Andrew Leong wrote: > HI Phil, > > Put aside what you have read and learned... > perform some charity... meditate... Just do it... > > then compare what you experience with what was in the scriptures... > > don;t think... just live it.. > > May you have contentment. .... S: I just had to double-check you're not our other Andrew L. I think this is your first post here? On the subject of charity, pls give us a brief intro if that's cool and tell us where you live so we don't get you mixed up with the other Andrews here.... May you also have contentment....and wisdom. Metta and welcome here, Sarah ======= 59060 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 9, 2006 2:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.1 difficulty of understanding visible object sarahprocter... Hi Larry & all, --- LBIDD@... wrote: > Hi Phil, > > If you experienced visible object as 7 rupas it would be a concept, void > of own nature (sabhava). .... S: Agreed. ... >That would be excellent! ... S: Are you sure???:-/#@ .... >What could be less > desirable than an empty concept? ... S: Is the aim to have thoughts about undesirable empty concepts or to understand what exactly is experienced right now? It's true that some people and schools think that wisdom can be developed just by thinking about concepts and this can even be taken for enlightenment, but it's mistaken as I see it. Metta, Sarah ..... > Phil: "Hi all > I find again and again how little understanding > there is of visible object. 59061 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Tue May 9, 2006 3:02am Subject: Re: Nothing but nama and rupa - scary? If no, why not? sarahprocter... Hi Phil, This was another of those pesky messages that didn't reach my in-box: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > Right off the bat in the new series of talks (see Sarah's "Audio > Dana" post for link) there is an interesting point. > > If we understand that there are only conditioned dhammas, only > nama and rupa, is it scary? It isn't for me, but why? Two possible > explations - a) panna is so developed that it sees that there is > ultimately nothing to be scared about, it is a relieving of burdens > to be free from clinging to people and things and b) I am just > clinging to a shallow appreciation of understanding that there is > nama and rupa - there isn't a deep enough understanding yet to find > it scary. > > Obviously in my case it is b) .... S: Perhaps there is a c) to account for different accumulations. Like you, hearing about nama and rupa is just like having a load lifted from my back....always has been. But, I know for many, it is very scary. Scary to give up the idea of self. Perhaps I'm really a b) justifying it as a c):-). Btw, Maeve is a very old friend of ours who lived in Bangkok in the 70s and studied with K.Sujin then. We hadn't seen her for about 20 years or met John before, so it was a real delight to have them with us. ... > I often suspect that I am clinging for comfort by studying > abhihdamma in the same way I used to cling for comfort by thinking > about metta. ... S: Oh, well ....clinging will go on finding objects for a good long time to come....sounds like pretty harmless clinging as clinging goes:). Keep picking out bits from the audio....it's really interesting to hear your angles. Howard, Chris, Tep, anyone else? Metta, Sarah ======= 59062 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 9, 2006 3:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Do mind objects have an intrinsic nature? sarahprocter... Hi Larry & Fab, --- LBIDD@... wrote: > Fabrizio: "As a matter of fact what we call memory falls in two groups > in the teaching of the Buddha. One is Sati that may be considered as the > strike of a stick over a gong, and the other is Sankhara that may > considered as the sound being produced for some time after the gong has > been stricken. " > > Hi Fabrizio, > > Thanks for your reply. I'm not familiar with this simile; could you site > a source? I could only find two cases of sticks striking gongs: one > having to do with vitakka and vicara, and the other an illustration of > how the breath becomes more and more subtle in anapanasati. In terms of > cetasikas, I usually rely on sa~n~naa to explain a good part of memory, > rather than sati. .... S: Perhaps he was thinking of the simile of the gong and the sense door and mind door experiencies of an object: CMA p163 "Just as when a gong is struck once by a baton, the gong sends forth a continuous stream of reverberations, so when one of the five sense doors has been impinged upon once by a sense objec, after the five-door process has ceased the past sense object comes into range at the mind door and sets off many sequences of mind-door processes." I'm not sure if this is from a text or is a simile used by Ledi Sayadaw. Let me just look at the commentary: No, I don't see it there (which doesn't mean it's not somewhere!) Metta, Sarah ======= 59063 From: Daniel Date: Tue May 9, 2006 3:26am Subject: Re : Creator? daniell@... Hey all, > You could also have asked the opposite to buddhists: what arguments > can be posited pro the existence of a creator. > Why first suppose there is a creator and then ask questions about him > or her? What about a feeling of mystery? A feeling of awe in the face of the universe? A feeling that a higher being exists, that there is something beyond us? Is anyone familiar with this feeling? It arises when looking at the stars at night, or when looking from a high mountain and seeing the clouds... I do not think that one can deny this feeling. Perhaps, one can say that this specific feeling can be conceptualized and explained in different ways than "a higher being"... If so, in what way do you conceptualize it? As "attachment"??? And also - I do not know much about scientific theories.Are they really able to explain the complexity of the world? The complexity of plants, for example. In case that it is all explainable by evolution, fine - no problem with that. But to posit that all those plants just evolved out of simple molecules is not trivial. Perhaps it is true, but if not - what alternative is there but a creator? >>> What do you mean by "a creator"? And "existence"? Tricky question... Creator - a higher being, the only characteristic of whose we can ascertain is that he caused the world to appear out of nothing. Existence - frankly, I do not know. Do you think that it is neccessary to be able to posit a definition for every word that I am using? Why? Are you able to posit a definition for every word that you use? And what is a definition??? The idea of a creator makes sense for me on one hand. On the other hand, it contradicts for me the idea of karma, the idea that one is totaly responsible for his own actions. And it also can imply the idea of some values which are given by a higher being, and not found by ourselves... So, actually I would be very glad if someone could show me that such a creator does not exist :) Good day to all, Daniel 59064 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 9, 2006 3:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bodhisattva Ideal sarahprocter... All, an error in my reply yesterday: --- sarah abbott wrote: > "The aspiration, made by one endowed with these eight factors, is in > denotation the act of consciousness (cittuppaada) occurring together > with > the collection of these eight factors (S: the paramis). ... S: Not the paramis, because there are ten of them. The 8 factors must refer to the 8 qualifications necessary for the aspiration to succeed, starting with being human, male, sight of the Buddha etc. Metta, Sarah ======== 59065 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 9, 2006 3:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.1 difficulty of understanding visible object sarahprocter... Hi Paul & all, I thought your comments in this thread were very good. --- Paul wrote: > Consider this from the Aditta Pariyaya Sutta:> > > > > "The eye is burning, forms are burning, eye-consciousness is burning, > > eye-contact is burning, also whatever is felt as pleasant or painful > or > > neither-painful-nor-pleasant that arises with eye-contact for its > > indispensable condition, that too is burning. Burning with what? > Burning > > with the fire of lust, with the fire of hate, with the fire of > delusion. I > > say it is burning with birth, aging and death, with sorrows, with > > lamentations, with pains, with griefs, with despairs." > > > > There are indispensable conditions here, but they are all burning. .... S: True! In your other post to Phil on visible object, you also made a lot of excellent comments. I would just add that just as we say for the sake of simplicity we say we experience through the body-sense when really 'tangible object' is more accurate, so with colour through the eye-sense. It's correct to say we see 'colour', but visible object which includes light, colour and just what is seen is less misunderstood perhaps. Lots of posts on 'visible object' in U.P. From Dhammasangani, 'Ruupa Ka.n.da', U Kyaw Khine transl: "What is the corporeality which is visible object that causes the arising of Eye-consciousness? Dependent on the four primary elements, there is the Corporeality which is visible, which arises with impingement, and is of various colours: dark blue, pale yellow..........; long, short, small, large, shperical....; low, high; shade, sunshine, light, darkness; cloud, snow, smoke, mist; moonlight, sunlight, starlight, light from a looking glass; colour of a precious stone..... Apart and different from the above visible objects and depending on the four Primary Elements, there are also other visible objects which are visible and which arise with impingement." S: Just that which is seen now as we speak. Visbile object or datum. If there weren't such a multitude of uncountable different visible objects, there wouldn't be a multitude of uncountable different concepts on account of what's seen. Of course, it's easy to misunderstand definitions like the one above and to take the concepts of mist, smoke and so on for visible object. Thanks again for all your well-considered and deep comments, Metta, Sarah p.s Have you got a copy of 'Survey of Paramattha Dhammas' by A.Sujin? If not and you'd like one sent, pls let me or Sukin know. Also, are you able to access the audio discussions on www.dhammastudygroup.org? If not, let me know if you'd like some c.d.s in mp3 format. ========================== 59066 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 9, 2006 0:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Meditation, Alone & Thinking.... upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Neil) - In a message dated 5/9/06 4:55:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > Reply from Neil which I'm forwarding. Sarah > ****** > Dear Sarah... > > Thank you, as always, for your response. The crux of it-- > "Whenever there is a growth of wisdom, a growth of mental > development...that...is...meditation"-- is trenchant and compatible with > experience. > ===================== It is an easy-to-remember and succinct statement, but not, IMO, entirely accurate. When wheat or some other crop is to be planted, the soil is cultivated. It is tilled, aerated, fertilized, and watered, and then, with adequate sun and protection from marauders, it will produce the crop. The growing of the wheat, or whatever the crop may be, is not the cultvation. It is the result of the cultivation. Likewise, the growth of wisdom is not meditation, it is the result of meditation (and its supports and other factors). With respect, a smearing of the lines between means and ends isn't helpful as I see it. A side issue, providing some missing details: There are occasions at which some of the crop may be folded back in to serve to further enrich the soil. Likewise, wisdom, the product, is also used as support for meditation that fosters the growth of further wisdom. 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) 59067 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 9, 2006 4:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana ... What lies dormant? sarahprocter... Hi Tep (& James), --- indriyabala wrote: >So what can the worldlings do to avoid (or outsmart) the self > demon, while they are not Sotapanna yet? Can you tell us, Sarah? .... S: As you rightly point out, the wrong idea of self is only eradicated at the stage of sotapatti magga. However, right ideas and understandings have to develop in order for wrong ideas to be eradicated, wouldn't you agree? This development of the 'right' views and practice can only be done by the development of satipatthana. .... > Tep: Sarah may say that is what James thinks, and she prefers the > "ancient commentaries". But are all ancient commentaries 100% > accurate? .... S: It depends. I have no reason to doubt those which have been 'certified' and recited at the various early (Theravada) councils. But the test is always in the direct understanding of what is taught. (Btw, I don't believe the Vimuttimagga is included here). .... > >Sarah (#58897): > >For example, In the sutta we read: > > "If, bhikkhus, one does not intend, and one does not plan, but one > still has a tendency towards something, this becomes a basis for the > maintenance of consciousness........Such is the origin of this whole > mass of suffering." > > >"Spk (commentary): .... As long as the underlying tendencies exist, > they become a condition for the kammic consciousness, for there is no > way to prevent its arising." > > Tep: Can the "tendency toward something" be just a characteristic of > the mind, say inclination and volition? MN 19 does not use the term > "tendency" to describe the same process. .... S: Good question. Yes, this kind of tendency can just be 'a characteristic of the mind....an inclination and voliton'. This is different from 'anusaya'. This is like 'habit' or 'accumulation'. As you pointed out to John, thoughts of desire lead to more thoughts of desire and so on. ... > MN 19: "Whatever a monk keeps pursuing with his thinking & pondering, > that becomes the inclination of his awareness. If a monk keeps > pursuing thinking imbued with sensuality, abandoning thinking imbued > with renunciation, his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with > sensuality. (Similarly with thinking imbued with ill will & > harmfulness.) [endquote] .... S: Yes, there is no mention of 'anusaya' here. These aren't 'underlying tendencies', but arising tendencies. Thanks for your good comments, Tep. I have many of your other detailed posts to respond to but keep getting distracted by new ones that come in...:-). A bit like trying to catch all the good waves in surf talk.... Metta, Sarah ======== 59068 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue May 9, 2006 5:22am Subject: Fulfilled First ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: What mental qualities initiate the development of the Noble 8-fold Way? The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, even as dawn is the forerunner & messenger of the rising sun, similarly is Fulfillment the forerunner & messenger of the emergence of this Noble 8-fold Way. Fulfillment of what? Fulfillment of Morality... Fulfillment of Motivation... Fulfillment of Determination... Fulfillment of View... Fulfillment of Alertness... Fulfillment of Rational Attention... When a Bhikkhu is accomplished in these qualities including rational attention, one can expect that he will initiate & refine this Noble 8-fold Way! How does a Bhikkhu, who is accomplished in these mental qualities develop and cultivate this Noble 8-fold Way? In this he develops: Right View so the final goal is the removal of Greed, Hate and Ignorance. Right Motivation so the final goal is the removal of Greed, Hate and Ignorance. Right Speech so the final goal is the removal of Greed, Hate and Ignorance. Right Action so the final goal is the removal of Greed, Hate and Ignorance. Right Livelihood so the final goal is the removal of Greed, Hate and Ignorance. Right Effort so the final goal is the removal of Greed, Hate and Ignorance. Right Awareness so the final goal is the removal of Greed, Hate and Ignorance. Right Concentration so the final goal is the removal of Greed, Hate and Ignorance. It is in this way, friends, that a Bhikkhu who is fulfilled, consummated and accomplished in morality, motivation, determination, view, alertness and rational attention develops, cultivates, and completes this Noble Eightfold Path… Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V:31-2] section 45: The Way. 57: Fulfilled ... 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 !!! <...> 59069 From: "Joop" Date: Tue May 9, 2006 5:53am Subject: Re: a "happy" proposition ... Metta and Devas jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" wrote: > > > Hallo Joop (and Sarah) - > > Thank you for the following "feedback" : > >Joop: I will not react on everything you say because it has partly a > "you had to belief …" character. > > Tep: I didn't know it sounded that bad to you. From now I will have to > be more careful. Sorry! .............. Hallo Tep No reason to say sorry And no reason to be scared. I already reacted on your D.O-remark in #59058 Te others topics in your message #59050 about taken literal or metaphorical parts of the Teachings, on this moment I prefer to say: lets agree to disagree. T: " There are several cosmological discourses that you might want to study for example : DN 26, DN 27, MN 129, and MN 130. Study them carefully and you may change your mind about the cosmos. If not, then put the blame on me." J: I did reread them, thanks for mentioning them. To me they are mythological stories, the Buddha told to influence, to awaken, his audience. When I want to know more about the cosmos (but I don't have that need on this moment) I prefer to read a (naturalscientific) astrophysics-text. But there is also no reason to put any blame on you. Metta Joop 59070 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue May 9, 2006 6:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Samatha and vipassana 1 jonoabb Hi Eric Thanks for coming back on this. ericlonline wrote: >>From a friend... >Visuddhimagga distinguished b/w samatha-kammathana and vipassana- >kammathana. Kammathana = basis of kamma or workplace, and originally >refereed to the object on which one meditates & trains, e.g., >breathing in & out. Later, kammathana was dropped. So, samatha came >to mean kinds of meditation w/ a samatha orientation, objective, or >focus; and vipassana came to mean kinds of meditation w/ a vipassana >orientation, objective, or focus. All along samatha and vipassana >have continued to mean tranquility/serenity and insight, but the >application of these literal meanings shifted. > >So, it seems in the early Buddhist teachings, >bhavana was serenity/insight and later commentary >separated the two. You can see this in the 3rd & >4th and 7th & 8th steps in Anapanasati. Serenity >is developed and insight in the later steps also. > > I'm afraid I'm not not following you here. I thought the point was the meaning of samatha and vipassana as those terms appear in the suttas. As far as I know the suttas treat the two as separate and distinct matters. For a start there is the 'Tranquillity and Insight' sutta in AN Fours that has been cited here often. Would any of these references be of interest to you? Jon 59071 From: "Dan D." Date: Tue May 9, 2006 8:33am Subject: Re: Re : Creator? onco111 Hi Daniel, Comments follow... > >>> What do you mean by "a creator"? And "existence"? > > Tricky question... Creator - a higher being, the only characteristic of whose we > can ascertain is that he caused the world to appear out of nothing. Existence - > frankly, I do not know. Do you think that it is neccessary to be able to posit > a definition for every word that I am using? Why? Are you able to posit a > definition for every word that you use? And what is a definition??? I always find it helpful to know what I mean when I use a word. Don't you? I find your question about the existence of God to be almost identical to a question about the existence of Self. It seems perfectly rational and consistent to either believe in both or disbelieve both, but to believe in one and not the other seems almost schizophrenic. God exists every bit as much as you or I exist. ;-) How so? The mind perceives a vast array of characteristics and has an irresistable urge to build conceptual models of what is perceived. One such conceptual model is the "Self", which houses some subset of the properties of volition, cognition, perception, sensation, and materiality. Once the conceptual model is constructed, it is very easy to lose sight of the fact that it is simply a conceptual model and then to ascribe other properties to the model (such as real existence, everlastingness, purity, etc.) Another such model is "God". The mind perceives a vast array of properties of the world and its workings. Properties that are clearly outside the scope of power of the "Self" are sometimes ascribed to "God." There isn't anything to "God" outside of the properties we ascribe to Him, so in a discussion about whether there is a God, there has to be some clarity about the properties that we are going to ascribe to him. Metta, Dan 59072 From: "Dan D." Date: Tue May 9, 2006 8:35am Subject: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition onco111 Hi Ken, I haven't forgotten about you! Some posts are easy to respond to, and some take more thought. I'd put your in the latter category. More thought requires more time, and more time requires more time. Response to come before too long... Thanks. Dan --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" wrote: > > Hi Dan, > > If I understand correctly, you have been saying that some of the great > non-Buddhist teachers had a degree of direct right understanding (of > conditionality). You explain the apparent inconsistencies in their > beliefs (creator gods, eternal rewards and so on) as being mere > conceptualisations of their right understanding. I think you say that > the apparent wrongness of their beliefs is inconsequential - relying > on the fact that concepts are neither inherently right nor inherently > wrong. > > What are the ramifications of your theory? I don't know whether to > argue against it or to let it go. :-) I should have another look at > your conversations with Sarah (which I couldn't follow at the time) > because I might be asking you to repeat explanations you have already > given at length. Instead, however, I will press on: > > ------------------ > . . . > KH: > > I don't think there can be partial right view, (or, as you > suggested, "partially understood conditionality"). > > > > D: > I would say that any understanding short of full penetration of > the 4NT at the level of arahatta magga is "partial". > ------------------ > > True, there are many levels of samma-ditthi, but that is not what I > meant. I meant there was no cetasika that was part samma-ditthi and > part miccha-ditthi. I also meant that there can be no direct > understanding of conditionality at any level whatsoever unless there > is right intellectual understanding of conditionality in depth. You, > of course, would agree with the former, but aparently not with the latter. > > I don't know where you go from there. Do you say that Jesus (for > example) had right view at some moments alternating with wrong view at > other moments? Or do you say he had right view at some moments and > mere conceptualisations at others? > > I would have no argument with either opinion, except that I find it > hard to imagine how a person could have blatantly wrong view > alternating with any degree of right view. > > This might explain why you have been talking to Sarah about right and > wrong understanding of concepts. I think you have been claiming there > are no such realities (that a view cannot take a concept as its > object) and therefore that any attitude we might have towards the > concept of an almighty creator (shock, horror!) is of no ultimate > consequence. > > Moving on: > > -------------- > <. . .> > D: > LOL!! I've been rightly accused of many sins, but an accusation > of me being a party man is laughable. > -------------- > > There are worse sins! :-) > > ---------------------- > KH: > > The present moment is all there is - the all. When we don't > understand that, we tend to study or meditate with the idea of > creating something other than the all. > > > > D: > Agreed. > > KH: > > Even so, it is perfectly possible to study Dhamma for reasons > other than wanting to create something other than the all. However, I > couldn't say the same for formal practice. > > > > D: > When conditions are ripe, a bhikkhu or lay following may find > himself or herself at the foot of a tree, eyes closed, sharp focus, > etc. Or one may find himself or herself seeking out refuge in a > monastery or meditation center, with samma intention and effort > driving the action. No need to doubt it. > > --------------- > > Agreed. But at such moments sitting meditation cannot be called formal > practice. I assume you agree, but we should be clear on this. Many > long-term DSG members continue to equate jhana development with formal > practice, WHICH IT MOST CERTAINLY IS NOT! :-) > > Ken H > 59073 From: connie Date: Tue May 9, 2006 9:44am Subject: Re:siila and satipa.t.thaana. .. riddle? nichiconn dear Tep, > Tep: Certainly, Dhamma discussion has great benefits. Practicing > according to the Noble Eightfold Path has even much greater benefits > than discussions(as mountains to rocks). > ........................... > connie: not just dhamma discussion, the good companions altogether > practicing with utmost propriety 'giving' 'mental dvlpmnt' 'virtuosity', > else it is 'wrongness'. not so much what it looks like but what is > feeding it. The so-called folds /constituents /factors /limbs are > cetasikas and there's great benefit anytime the practice of even 5 > arises. Tep: What is feeding it? Which 5 cetasikas? Let me guess: phassa, vedana, sanna, cetana, vinnana [Miln. 87]? connie: i meant, what feeds the "it" we might call practice; like with the channa example, it's not easy to say what's feeding another's actions or whether theirs might be the way leading to the cessation of suffering. but the five path factors i had in mind: right view, thought, effort, mindfulness and concentration. peace, connie 59074 From: "ericlonline" Date: Tue May 9, 2006 10:18am Subject: Re: A little chat about nothing ericlonline Hi Herman, From another poster on another list. Dont know if it 100% applies to what you are getting at. Assumed location is neccessary for the assumption of self, and volition can then be attributed to "action from the located center." H> I would appreciate your thoughts on the following. > > On coming out of some non-conscious state, be that from anaesthetic, deep > sleep, cessation, whatever, is there an innate sense that knows there was > absence of mind, or is that knowing arrived at by thinking about it? > > Also, perceptual objects are delineated by what is not-that- object. You have > x in all directions until you get to non-x and that marks the boundary of > the object. I am hoping for the purposes of the next question that we all > have a sense of "thereness", which I find hard to describe. It is just a > basic, low-level, non-discriminating level of awareness. I am wondering, is > this thereness delineated by not-thereness? 59075 From: "ericlonline" Date: Tue May 9, 2006 10:20am Subject: [dsg] Re: Samatha and vipassana 1 ericlonline Hi Jon, > I'm afraid I'm not not following you here. I thought the point was the > meaning of samatha and vipassana as those terms appear in the suttas. > As far as I know the suttas treat the two as separate and distinct > matters. For a start there is the 'Tranquillity and Insight' sutta in > AN Fours that has been cited here often. Would any of these references > be of interest to you? > > Jon Yes, please. Thanks!! E 59076 From: "ericlonline" Date: Tue May 9, 2006 10:14am Subject: [dsg] Re: Samatha and vipassana 2 ericlonline Hi Jon, E: "It is not my formulation it is the Buddha's, I am just applying it to each step." J>Well this is the very point we are discussing, whether your version of the Buddha's formulation is the same as the original. I say it differs materially ;-)) Oh my god jon, you really are splitting hairs with this post. J> The Buddha's formulation of this/that conditionality is: 'With A as condition, there occurs B' or, as we might say: 'A is a condition for B'. > The formulation you are applying is: 'If A is, B is. If no A, no B' Here is a pretty simple translation. Again, it is not 'MY' translation. http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebsut057.htm When this is, that is. From the arising of this, that arises. When this is not, that is not. From the ceasing of this, that ceases. J>There is a very material difference between the Buddha's formulation and yours. To take one of the examples you give: Again, it is not mine Jon. It is a common translation. E> "Clearly you have to experience some sort of suffering for faith in the path to arise." J> OK, accepting that statement for a moment, it is of course also true that not everyone who experiences suffering has faith in the path, right? In fact faith in the teachings arises only in a small minority of such cases. So the formulation must allow for that fact too. Thus to say: 'Suffering is a condition for faith.' would be correct, but 'If suffering is, faith is.' would not (because it means 'whenever there is suffering there is faith'). Lets plug it into the whole law. When suffering is, faith is. From the arising of suffering, faith arises. When suffering is not, faith is not. From the ceasing of suffering, faith ceases. Seems pretty straight forward. You want to condense this to 'Suffering is a condition for faith.' OK, what is the big whoop? J>Likewise, taking the next link (Faith -> gladness), the kusala factor of gladness can arise in one who has not heard the teachings. Thus, the statement 'If not faith, no gladness' is not correct, but the statement: 'With the non-arising of faith as a condition, gladness does not arise' is correct because it does not imply the 'whenever' connection. Again, so what?! J> On the sukha -> jhana link, you explain that "Without sukha there is no jhana." Two comments from me on that: 1. True for some levels of jhana, but not all. 2. Even so, it cannot be said that whenever there is sukha there is jhana, and thus your formulation is materially different to the Buddha's formulation. J> The difference between the 2 formulations is that yours implies that B necessarily follows from A in every instance, whereas the Buddha's does not. > How say you now? I say you are splitting hairs. You know what I have been saying and now you are merely avoiding the issue we have been talking about all along. A more prudent use of our time would be investigating sentence 2 & 3 below i.e. WHY? When concentration is, insight is. From the arising of concentration, insight arises. When concentration is not, insight is not. From the ceasing of concentration, insight ceases. metta E 59077 From: "Andrew Leong" Date: Tue May 9, 2006 7:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Rely on yourself" to what? ascleong Hi Sarah, Yup. I am new here... just my second or third post. Sorry. don't mean to punch in like this... never was my intention to make a splash. I am from Malaysia.. if it causes too much confusion. I'll be happy to shut up or sign as Andrew Leong in future post. Intro... sure.. was born a Buddhist... now a born-again-Buddhist... ..not much into ceremonies and chanting.. mainly because I can never understand Pali... ...Buddha bless all the venerable who translated the scriptures & dhama talks... .. I am into Ajhan Chah and his disciples, especially Ajhan Bhram... . that all.. May you have contentment. Andrew Leong 59078 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue May 9, 2006 3:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A little chat about nothing egberdina Hi Paul, On 09/05/06, Paul wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > Interesting questions Herman which I have no idea how to answer, but for > fun, I'll conjecture a few points. Thanks for your thoughts on the matter. > > Yes, but even the object x is broken by inconsistencies, blind spots, etc. > (a sort of shimmering of otherness, or a never quite attaining to that > which > it attests to attain). I'd imagine if the object ever could be fully the > thing that nominal thinking would like to make it, the mind would most > certainly become so enamored by it that it would never come out of its > Platonic daze. The alternative is quite different, a kind of daze or > constant distraction or dispersel that undercuts the object x before the > mind ever reaches its edge. Well put. > There is a sense of being there precisely > because attention is already frought through with distraction, and > distraction with attention. Conventional object boundaries at this point > would be only secondary. I'm not sure how applicable this is to any > larger > dhamma question, but its just a speculation. I appreciate what you have said. Even an undifferentiated visual field, like when looking at a smooth wall of one colour, is totally awash. On coming out of some non-conscious state, be that from anaesthetic, deep > > sleep, cessation, whatever, is there an innate sense that knows there > was > > absence of mind, or is that knowing arrived at by thinking about it? > > An enormously complex pondering. I'd be really interested in hearing what > Budhism has to say about this. I'd imagine that a mind element upon > lapsing > out of non-consciousness would first avert to whatever is "there" and > after > a succession of mind states would at some point bring about a concept that > "construe" that there has been moments without consciousness. In other > words, at some point certain minds states will have to be conscious of the > fact that there was an absence of consciousness. How this is possible, I > do > not know, but I think the question is more tricky than it appears. > Evolutionarily speaking, I wouldn't doubt if there is a quick streamlined > brain/body mechanism in which the mind makes damn sure that the person > knows > its been unconscious and now its conscious, but I'll have to think more > about this. I am always puzzled by the (I think it is Abhidhammic) contention that mind "moments" are contiguous, that mind rises and falls without gaps. I would also like to hear more about why this held. Hope someone else can do better than this. > Thanks, Paul -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 59079 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue May 9, 2006 3:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A little chat about nothing egberdina Hi Eric, On 10/05/06, ericlonline wrote: > > Hi Herman, > > From another poster on another list. > Dont know if it 100% applies to what you > are getting at. > > > Assumed location is neccessary for the assumption of self, and > volition can then be attributed to "action from the located center." Wow, that is a very nice, clear, concise statement of something very profound. Thanks Eric. -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 59080 From: "indriyabala" Date: Tue May 9, 2006 3:57pm Subject: Re: a "happy" proposition ... Metta and Devas indriyabala Hi Joop, I have my simple last word below. >Joop: > Te others topics in your message #59050 about taken literal or > metaphorical parts of the Teachings, on this moment I prefer to say: > lets agree to disagree. > >When I want to know more about the cosmos (but I don't have > that need on this moment) I prefer to read a (naturalscientific) > astrophysics-text. > But there is also no reason to put any blame on you. All that sounds good, Joop ! Thanks. Best wishes, Tep ======== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joop" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" > wrote: > > > > > > Hallo Joop (and Sarah) - > > (snipped) > .............. > > Hallo Tep > > No reason to say sorry > And no reason to be scared. > I already reacted on your D.O-remark in #59058 > T: " There are several cosmological discourses that you might want to > study for example : DN 26, DN 27, MN 129, and MN 130. Study them > carefully and you may change your mind about the cosmos. If not, then > put the blame on me." > > J: I did reread them, thanks for mentioning them. To me they are > mythological stories, the Buddha told to influence, to awaken, his > audience. (snipped) > > Metta > > Joop > 59082 From: "indriyabala" Date: Tue May 9, 2006 4:48pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A little chat about nothing ... How does that work? indriyabala Hi Eric (and Herman), I wonder if you might be willing to elaborate a bit more on the following? > Eric: > Assumed location is neccessary for the assumption of self, and > volition can then be attributed to "action from the located center." > How might that knowledge be used to remove the 20 personality views (sakkaaya ditthi)? Warm regards, Tep ========= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ericlonline" wrote: > > Hi Herman, > > From another poster on another list. > Dont know if it 100% applies to what you > are getting at. > > > Assumed location is neccessary for the assumption of self, and > volition can then be attributed to "action from the located center." > > > > H> I would appreciate your thoughts on the following. > > > > On coming out of some non-conscious state, be that from > anaesthetic, deep sleep, cessation, whatever, is there an innate sense that knows there was absence of mind, or is that knowing arrived at by thinking about it? > > > > Also, perceptual objects are delineated by what is not-that- > object. You have> x in all directions until you get to non-x and that marks the boundary of the object. I am hoping for the purposes of the next question that we all have a sense of "thereness", which I find hard to describe. It is just a basic, low-level, non-discriminating level of awareness. I am wondering, is > > this thereness delineated by not-thereness? > 59083 From: LBIDD@... Date: Tue May 9, 2006 5:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Do mind objects have an intrinsic nature? lbidd2 Fabrizio: "Yet it seems to me the word Sati does not appear as such in the "Abhidhammattha Sangaha": in fact it is substituted by the word "Manasikara" that is one of the seven universal cetasikas and thus belongs to all cittas (either wholesome, unwholesome, resultant or functional)." Hi Fabrizio, If only it were so it would solve many problems. In "A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma", which is a translation with the original Pali by Bhikkhu Bodhi of "Abhidhammatha Sangaha" sati is listed as one of the "universal beautiful factors" (sobhanasaadhaara.na). Manasikaaro is listed as a universal (sabbacittasaadhaara.na). I wonder if you are thinking of a list in the Dhammasanga.nii (which I don't have). Even if that were the case we would need powerful arguments to overtake Aacariya Anuruddha. Nina may have a thought on this issue. I'll bring it up when she gets back. Larry 59084 From: LBIDD@... Date: Tue May 9, 2006 5:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Do mind objects have an intrinsic nature? lbidd2 Sarah: "Perhaps he was thinking of the simile of the gong and the sense door and mind door experiencies of an object:" Hi Sarah, Fabrizio said in a subsequent post that the simile was an original, from him, inspired by the simile of the breath becoming more subtle in anapanasati like the sound of a gong becoming more subtle. Ledi Sayadaw's simile is also a good gong simile but it seems to me all these similes are problematic as descriptions of memory. LS: "Just as when a gong is struck once by a baton, the gong sends forth a continuous stream of reverberations, so when one of the five sense doors has been impinged upon once by a sense objec, after the five-door process has ceased the past sense object comes into range at the mind door and sets off many sequences of mind-door processes." Larry ----------------------- Fabrizio: "As a matter of fact what we call memory falls in two groups in the teaching of the Buddha. One is Sati that may be considered as the strike of a stick over a gong, and the other is Sankhara that may considered as the sound being produced for some time after the gong has been stricken. " 59085 From: "indriyabala" Date: Tue May 9, 2006 5:46pm Subject: D.O. in three lifetimes and/or within one [was:Re: a "happy" proposition... indriyabala Hi Joop (& Sarah, Connie, James), Thanks 0.5 time for giving me a homework to do. It is now clear to me that you seem to like reading other sources more than the suttas which are the original source of the Buddha's Teachings. (|<-:}?? >Joop: >An essay that gives good information about both aspects (DO in three lifetimes and DO within one), is: Dependent Origination; The Buddhist Law of Conditionality by P. A. Payutto.. Translated from the Thai by Bruce Evans ... ... "The description of Dependent Origination given in the previous chapter is that most often found in the scriptures and commentaries. It seeks to explain Dependent Origination in terms of the samsaravatta, the round of rebirth, showing the connections between three lifetimes -- the past, the present and the future. Those who do not agree with this interpretation, or who would prefer something more immediate, can find alternatives not only in the Abhidhamma Pitaka, where the principle of Dependent Origination is shown occurring in its entirety in one mind moment, but can also interpret the very same words of the Buddha used to support the standard model in a different light, giving a very different picture of the principle of Dependent Origination, one which is supported by teachings and scriptural references from other sources. The arguments used to support such an interpretation are many. .." >Joop: >It's too long to quote it completely, but I hope to made have clear that D.O. can also be understood within one lifetime, and doing this is stuff for comtemplation enough for me. ................ Tep: I have no idea why there are people who "do not agree with" the explanation of DO "in terms of the samsaravatta, the round of rebirth, showing the connections between three lifetimes -- the past, the present and the future". Doesn't the "standard model", which is based on "the very same words of the Buddha", explain DO in a very natural, logical and realistic way? Why do they look elsewhere to "find alternatives" such as the Abhidhamma Pitaka's "one mind moment" or a "very different picture of the principle of Dependent Origination"? Where is their saddha in the Buddda? How is it possible that those 'DO substitutes' are better than the real, original explanation given by the Buddha? I can never ever understand it!! ??{:->|).... (|<-:}?? [Can you see that my 'avatar' is getting confused?] Maybe my friends Sarah, Connie and James who have deeper knowledge of the DO can tell me why. Yours truly, Tep ======== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joop" wrote: > > Hallo Tep, all > > >>Joop: > >>Dependent Origination has primarely to do with what happens within > >>this lifetime, as Ven. Buddhadasa and others had explained. > > >Tep: You, Ven. Buddhadasa and others, may not be aware of the various > >Suttas that are referenced by Thanissaro Bhikkhu in the "Wings to > Awakening". > >www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part1.html#part1 > -b > > It's a good idea to discuss this now (I know Sarah, many mesages > about it on U.P.) > An essay that gives good information about both aspects (DO in three > lifetimes and DO within one), is: > Dependent Origination; The Buddhist Law of Conditionality > by P. A. Payutto Translated from the Thai by Bruce Evans > (www.buddhismtoday.com/english/philosophy/thera/002-dependent.htm) > (snipped) 59086 From: LBIDD@... Date: Tue May 9, 2006 5:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.1 difficulty of understanding visible object lbidd2 Hi Sarah, Thanks for your reply, response below: S: "Hi Larry & all, --- LBIDD@... wrote: Hi Phil, If you experienced visible object as 7 rupas it would be a concept, void of own nature (sabhava). .... S: Agreed. ... L: That would be excellent! ... S: Are you sure???:-/#@ .... L: What could be less desirable than an empty concept? ... S: Is the aim to have thoughts about undesirable empty concepts or to understand what exactly is experienced right now? It's true that some people and schools think that wisdom can be developed just by thinking about concepts and this can even be taken for enlightenment, but it's mistaken as I see it." Larry: The aim, as you know, is to find the end of dukkha. This presumably entails finding the end of the cause of dukkha, i.e., desire. So the question is, what do we desire? In my view the Buddha's method for answering this question is to take a concept and reduce it to ultimate dhammas. This suggests to me that, from the point of view of ignorance, the object of desire is a concept. Analyzed with insight, that concept is seen to be a formation of paramattha dhammas. Paramatta dhammas, seen as such, are in themselves undesirable because they are impermanent. Another way of looking at this is that the formation of paramattha dhammas is undesirable because there is nothing to desire. A formation has no defining characteristic (sabhaava). It is empty of self. This is true of any kind of formation, not just a formation of paramattha dhammas. If you experience your body as 2 arms, 2 legs, a head, and a torso, you will experience the emptiness of your body. If Phil experiences visible object as a formation of eye, object, and consciousness, or even as a formation of various colors, he will experience visible object as empty of self and, I'm sure, attain stream entry in no time at all. Agreed ;-) Larry 59087 From: "indriyabala" Date: Tue May 9, 2006 6:00pm Subject: Re:siila and satipa.t.thaana. .. riddle? indriyabala Dear Connie - Thanks for the reply. > >Tep: What is feeding it? > >Which 5 cetasikas? Let me guess: phassa, vedana, sanna, cetana, > > vinnana [Miln. 87]? > > connie: i meant, what feeds the "it" we might call practice; >like with the channa example, it's not easy to say what's feeding >another's actions or whether theirs might be the way leading >to the cessation of suffering. > but the five path factors i had in mind: right view, thought, >effort, mindfulness and concentration. Tep: So you say only these five path factors lead to the cessation of suffering? Are the three sila path factors assumed as requisites? BTW now I can see an error I made earlier: vinnana is not cetisika. Warm regards, Tep ======= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, connie wrote: > > dear Tep, > > > Tep: Certainly, Dhamma discussion has great benefits. Practicing > > according to the Noble Eightfold Path has even much greater benefits > > than discussions(as mountains to rocks). > > ........................... > > connie: not just dhamma discussion, the good companions altogether > > practicing with utmost propriety 'giving' 'mental dvlpmnt' 'virtuosity', > > else it is 'wrongness'. not so much what it looks like but what is > > feeding it. The so-called folds /constituents /factors /limbs are > > cetasikas and there's great benefit anytime the practice of even 5 > > arises. > (snipped) 59088 From: "indriyabala" Date: Tue May 9, 2006 6:32pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana ... What lies dormant? indriyabala Hi Sarah (& James), The 'idea of self' is quite dormant. >Tep: So what can the worldlings do to avoid (or outsmart) the self > demon, while they are not Sotapanna yet? Can you tell us, Sarah? .... S: As you rightly point out, the wrong idea of self is only eradicated at the stage of sotapatti magga. However, right ideas and understandings have to develop in order for wrong ideas to be eradicated, wouldn't you agree? This development of the 'right' views and practice can only be done by the development of satipatthana. Tep: Of course right ideas and understanding have support the development of any knowledge, and the 'idea of self' is always there until we finally attain the stream-entry. Remember that the discussion was about James' idea : "first satipatthana must be planned and then it will become natural". And you said : "Satipatthana which arises "naturally" is better than satipatthana which is planned because the former doesn't involve the `idea of self'." ............. >Tep: But are all ancient commentaries 100% accurate? .... S: It depends. I have no reason to doubt those which have been 'certified' and recited at the various early (Theravada) councils. But the test is always in the direct understanding of what is taught. (Btw, I don't believe the Vimuttimagga is included here). Tep: Good point, although I am not sure what "direct understanding" means to you. You didn't mean 'direct knowledge', did you? ................ >S: >I have many of your other detailed posts to respond to but keep getting distracted by new ones that come in...:-). A bit like trying to catch all the good waves in surf talk.... Tep: That's a good metaphor. {:->|) Sincerely, Tep ==== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Tep (& James), > > --- indriyabala wrote: > >So what can the worldlings do to avoid (or outsmart) the self > > demon, while they are not Sotapanna yet? Can you tell us, Sarah? > .... > S: As you rightly point out, the wrong idea of self is only eradicated >at the stage of sotapatti magga. However, right ideas and >understandings have to develop in order for wrong ideas to be >eradicated, wouldn't you agree? > This development of the 'right' views and practice can only be done by the development of satipatthana. > .... (snipped) 59089 From: "indriyabala" Date: Tue May 9, 2006 6:47pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana ... What lies dormant? Typo ! indriyabala Hi Sarah & James , Please delete 'have' from the following sentence: > Tep: Of course right ideas and understanding have support the > development of any knowledge, and the 'idea of self' is always there > until we finally attain the stream-entry. Thanks. Tep ========= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" wrote: > > > Hi Sarah (& James), > > The 'idea of self' is quite dormant. > (snipped) 59090 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue May 9, 2006 7:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition ... Metta and Devas egberdina Hi Tep, > Tep: Indeed, a rebirth in a lower realm is very scary to me, because > the Buddha's Teachings have taught me so well. > > Tep: I love good methaphors because they help me get the idea quicker > than without them. The literal sense of a Pali word is absolutely > critical for my precise understanding of the 37 bodhipakkhiya dhammas > and the Paticcasamuppada in the various suttas. The Buddha used both > metaphorical meaning and literal meaning in the Teachings, so we have > to be smart enough to know which meaning is to be taken exactly or as > metaphorical comparison. Of course, sometimes some wordings in a sutta > (e.g. DN 15) are not clear to me either. But I don't too quickly put > down the 31 planes of existence like you. {:->|) > > There are several cosmological discourses that you might want to study > for example : DN 26, DN 27, MN 129, and MN 130. Study them carefully > and you may change your mind about the cosmos. If not, then put the > blame on me. ^_* I find it very difficult, to the point of impossible, to reconcile the countless elaboration of Buddhist cosmology with the teachings of the Buddha. In the Hemavata Sutta, the Buddha expounded the entire cosmos very simply, thus: 'In what has the world originated?'--so said the Yakkha Hemavata,--'with what is the world intimate? by what is the world afflicted, after having grasped at what?' 17. 'In six the world has originated, O Hemavata,'--so said Bhagavat,--'with six it is intimate, by six the world is afflicted, after having grasped at six.' 18. Hemavata said: 'What is the grasping by which the world is afflicted? Asked about salvation, tell (me) how one is released from pain?' 19. Bhagavat said: 'Five pleasures of sense are said to be in the world, with (the pleasure of) the mind as the sixth; having divested oneself of desire for these, one is thus released from pain. 20. 'This salvation of the world has been told to you truly, this I tell you: thus one is released from pain.' All worlds and the six senses are the same. It is not 31 worlds that need to be understood, it is the craving for the senses, from which all worlds are born, that needs to be understood. I don't blame you for any of it :-) -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 59091 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Tue May 9, 2006 8:14pm Subject: Cooran /was Re: [dsg] Bodhisattva Ideal ken_aitch Hi all, Topics discussed at the recent Cooran meeting (attended by Christine, Andrew T, Steve, myself and four non-DSG-members) included the bodhisatta ideal and whether Mahayana was basically the same as Theravada. We looked at an article by Jeffrey Samuels - 'The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada Buddhism' - the conclusion of which reads: "Hence, it should be stressed that the change introduced by the Mahaayaana traditions is not so much an invention of a new type of saint or a new ideology, but rather a taking of an exceptional ideal and bringing it into prominence." If I understood it correctly, the article was concerned mainly with bringing the two schools closer together - showing that the seed of Mahayana's bodhisatta ideal is found in the Pali Canon (specifically, in the Nidhika.n.da-sutta). This seed, we were told, led to a succession of kings, in Sri Lanka Burma and Thailand, declaring themselves to be bodhisattas. But what importance should we attach to that? No king would want his subjects asking, "If he is so great why isn't he an arahant?" Nor would he want to give up his wealth, power and wives in order to live as a [supposedly arahant] monk. He would much rather have his cake and eat it too - stay on as king and declare himself to be a bodhisatta. I think the point Samuels wants to make is that these kings were taken seriously by the Theravadin monks of their eras and therefore the bodhisatta ideal must have been accepted dogma. Humph! Then there was this bombshell: "The celebrated commentator Buddhaghosa, for example, was viewed by the monks of the Anuraadhapura monastery as being, without doubt, an incarnation of Metteyya." (Cuu.lava.msa 37:242.) I think DSG has decided Buddhaghosa was an arahant has it not? To keep it brief: that, for what it is worth, was one of our discussions. Comments welcome! Ken H 59092 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 9, 2006 5:20pm Subject: Re: Cooran /was Re: [dsg] Bodhisattva Ideal upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 5/9/06 11:15:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > I think DSG has decided Buddhaghosa was an arahant has it not? ===================== I guess I was out sick that day and missed the vote! ;-) 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) 59093 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 9, 2006 9:50pm Subject: Re: Cooran /was Re: [dsg] Bodhisattva Ideal sarahprocter... Hi KenH & Howard, --- upasaka@... wrote: > ken_aitch@... writes: > > > I think DSG has decided Buddhaghosa was an arahant has it not? > ===================== > I guess I was out sick that day and missed the vote! ;-) > .... S: Me too! ;-). Ken H, I think the texts just make it clear that he was an ariyan of some kind. There is a reference in a postscript at the back of the Vism and elsewhere to how he was at least a sotapanna. Who knows if this was added later (as suggested by some)? In any case, he must have had extraordinarily profound knowledge of the dhamma imho. Metta, Sarah ======= 59094 From: "Paul" Date: Tue May 9, 2006 10:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A little chat about nothing ... How does that work? paulgrabiano... Hi Eric, Herman, Tep, Assumed location is neccessary for the assumption of self, and >> volition can then be attributed to "action from the located center." Yes, I am wondering about this too. This is profound in that it points to something psychologically fundamental, but it remains rather cryptic. It also does not say what this assummed location is. So, if we are watching a movie and picture ourselves as desiring to act upon the characters in the movie (perhaps to stop the character from making the same dumb mistake of locking himself in a dark room to escape from a psycho killer), our assumed location would be in the silver screen and not in the movie theatre seat or the livingroom sofa? It seems that assumed location and volition can become quite abstracted here. Paul 59095 From: "Paul" Date: Tue May 9, 2006 10:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A little chat about nothing paulgrabiano... > I am always puzzled by the (I think it is Abhidhammic) contention that > mind > "moments" are contiguous, that mind rises and falls without gaps. I would > also like to hear more about why this held. Hi Howard. I'm wondering about this now too. It would be nice if someone could get some Abhidhamma in here to back up or refute any of this. Just some preliminary thoughts: I seemed to have misplaced some of my texts, so I will try my best. At least the way I understand it, dependent arising would require this kind of gapless contiguity of mind states. This of course does not mean that there are minds states like billiard balls smashing into one another in rapid succession or radio waves emanating from an essential core. Where and when (to what temporal spatial plane) would the mind go to if it where no longer linked in any way to dependent arising? Would this be Nibanna, a kind of anti-nibanna? Citta, if it did not continue to perform the function that it performs in the universe, would no longer be anything. This would be a kind of nihilism by default. On the other hand, one could perhaps understand each citta from the standpoint of emptiness, kind of turn the "indispensable conditions" (kamma / vipaka?) of its arising inside out and get quite a different understanding about it. What is continuity then? What are moments? The sun shines brightly and lights up the world, but look at it directly aside from starting to burn your eyes out (I used to stare at the sun thinking I was Superman when I was 6 years old--unfortunately). The sun is a necessary condition for the illumination of objects, but looked at a different way it is something quite different. No one looking directly at the sun (I hope no one else does this) would say that the sun its succession of rays is merely continuous or that it is comprised of moments of sunlight. Perhaps "mind moments" are a little like this, but who knows. The non-Arahat, I would imagine cannot look at and comprehend the intricate complexity of each "mind moment", so we look at the manner of their dependent arising--their conditions. But, it would be nice to understand this more. Paul 59096 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue May 9, 2006 10:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re : Creator? egberdina Hi Daniel, So, actually I would be very glad if someone could show > me that such a creator does not exist :) > > My father reminded me that 66 years ago today, the Nazis invaded the Netherlands and laid waste to Rotterdam (my birthplace), a civilian target. On the belt buckle of every German soldier was the slogan "Gott mit uns" (God with us). Is it the case that a creator has the same qualities as his creations? Or is it the case that man makes god in his own image? -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 59097 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue May 9, 2006 10:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A little chat about nothing egberdina Hi Paul and (Howard), On 10/05/06, Paul wrote: > > > I am always puzzled by the (I think it is Abhidhammic) contention that > > mind > > "moments" are contiguous, that mind rises and falls without gaps. I > would > > also like to hear more about why this held. > > Hi Howard. I'm wondering about this now too. It would be nice if someone > could get some Abhidhamma in here to back up or refute any of this. Just > some preliminary thoughts: I'm thinking you meant Herman, not Howard. More food for thought. Thanks. I will reply in more detail later. -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 59098 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 9, 2006 11:47pm Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 441- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame/hiri & ottappa(c) 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;-) ========================================== Moral Shame & Fear of Blame (hiri & ottappa) contd ***** Moral shame and fear of blame always arise together but they are two different cetasikas with different characteristics. The Atthasåliní (I, Part IV, Chapter I, 125-127) gives a similar definition as the Visuddhimagga of moral shame and fear of blame and illustrates their difference. The Atthasåliní explains that moral shame (hiri) has a subjective origin, that its proximate cause is respect for oneself. Fear of blame (ottappa) has an external cause, it is influenced by the “world”; its proximate cause is respect for someone else (1). *** 1) See also Chapter 14, where I deal with their opposites, shamelessness and recklessness. ***** Ch27 - Moral Shame & Fear of Blame(hiri & ottappa) to be continued Metta, Sarah ====== 59099 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed May 10, 2006 0:25am Subject: Re: Meditation, Alone & Thinking.... bhikkhu_ekamuni Sarah wrote: > In a deeper sense we're all alone all the time. We're alone with the > experiences through the five senses now and alone in our world of thinking... Sadhu! Well spoken! Where-ever the being goes right there starts and ends his/her world... ; - ] 59100 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 10, 2006 0:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Please don't run away yet, DAN 1.ii sarahprocter... Hi Dan, (Charles D at end of post in p.s) I just looked in my g-mail account as I couldn't find your post and saw that our thread is beginning to look like a small book there:-). (Some threads like the happy one, a meditation one and a KenH one are close to reaching 100 mails!!). Back to business and thank you for your further helpful comments....i always learn a lot from our discussions, Dan. --- "Dan D." wrote: > If I reflect on "nibbana" as the "unconditioned" element, I am not > reflecting on nibbana as the unconditioned element because my > conception of these are uninformed by experience. .... S: OK. You'd surely say the same for reflections on many subtle rupas or cetasikas not directly known. I'd say there can be wise or unwise reflecting, nonetheless. Nina and I had long discussions with Howard on jivitindriya and other mental factors which we accept wisely or unwisely. ... D:> There is a difference between "reflecting" on awareness of a past > reality than speculating about an awareness that has never arisen. > Don't you agree? .... S: So when you reflect on jivitindriya or heart-base or akasa rupa, are you reflecting on 'awareness of a past reality'? If not, when we read about such dhammas or reflect on them, does it have to be akusala speculation as I think would follow from your line of reasoning, Dan? .... > > S: hey Dan, of course I don't want you to 'give up trying to > understand' > > anything. I'm just running out of different ways to express how I > see it. > > Cittas and cetasikas are different kinds of dhammas with different > > characteristics. Seeing consciousness does not have the > characteristic of > > feeling or contact or perception or concentration or life faculty or > > volition! > D:> Seeing consciousness inevitably arises with feeling, contact, > perception, and other cetasikas. Can it arise without these? ... D:> But that's more abstract than I what I was thinking. Instead, what > about, say, the unwholesome cittas? One is rooted in greed (lobha, a > cetasika) with joy (a cetasika), associated with wrong view (a > cetasika). What's wrong with saying that the arising of lobha, > somanassa, and ditthi is characteristic of that citta? Or even that > that moment is charaterized by the arising of those cetasikas? Or > those cetasikas are characteristics of that moment? Or those > cetasikas are characteristics of that citta? .... S: You won't find it said in the texts that 'cetasikas are characteristics of' any 'citta'. Yes, citta is characterised by the arising of particular cetasikas, but it also has its own characteristic, function and so on. It's not abstract. Seeing now is not the same as sanna which arises with it. Awareness can be aware of them as having their own distinct characteristics. .... ***** D:> I see people who know nothing of suttas and abhidhamma and Buddha's > words but have a deeper understanding of rupas, cittas, cetasikas, > tilakkhana, etc. than I or virtually any Buddhist on the planet. If > we approach life with an open mind, we find that we can learn much > from others. ... S: As HenH said (I think), it sounds very broad-minded. But would these people agree with what you suggest? Would they agree that their understanding of the 'all' comes down to rupas, cittas and cetasikas with no soul, no beings, no me or you? Would they agree that all dhammas are anatta, beyone anyone's control? .... > S:> > Do you have any difficulty with this sutta? > > > > AN, 10s, 123-7, Not Outside the Buddha's Discipline (Bodhi transl): > > > > "Ten things, monks, do not have purity and clarity outside the > Discipline > > of the Sublime Master. What are the ten? > > > > Right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right > livelihood, > > right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration, right > knowledge and > > right liberation.* > > > > And if these ten things have not arisen, they will not arise > outside the > > Discipline of the Sublime Master. > > > > Outside the Discipline of the Sublime Master, these ten things will > not be > > of great fruit and benefit. > > > > Outside the Discipline of the Sublime Master, these ten things will > not > > end in the elimination of greed, hatred and delusion. > > > > Outside the Discipline of the Sublime Master, these ten things will > not > > conduce to complete disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, peace, > direct > > knowledge, enlightenment and Nibbana." .... D:> I have no problem with these, Sarah. Only within the dispensation are > these ten things developed with sufficient clarity and purity to lead > to enlightenment and nibbana. As I have said over and over, I agree. .... S: Doesn't this disagree with your comment above about what many people understand who've never heard the Buddha's teachings? Ah, you say, these ten things refer to 'developed ......nibbana' and at the point of enligtenment they need to hear the Buddha's teachings. The way I understand this and other texts is that there can be no path whatsoever outside the Buddha's teachings. There cannot even be the beginning of the development of satipatthana. There cannot be any insight at all. That's why all the great arahants, all the teachers who had attained the highest jhanas and so on, all had to hear the Buddha in their final lives to develop insights leading to enlightenment. .... S:> > * BB's footnote: "These are the eight factors of the Noble <...> >>According to the Buddha, other spiritual systems might > teach > > wholesome practices conducive to a good rebirth, but the path to > final > > liberation - Nibbana, release from the whole round of rebirths - is > > available only through his Teaching." > > ***** > > S: I know you agree with this note, Dan. Is there anything in the > sutta > > you disagree with? > D:> Nothing. .... S: So what is meant by the path to final liberation here? I think it includes the path from the very beginning of the development of satipatthana. .... ***** S:> > p.s. I've been following the 'happiness' threads. Do you think that > the > > development of wisdom leads to more or less happiness as we think > of it > > conventionally, i.e pleasant feeling? > D:> More, assuming you mean kusala-vipaka with somanassa or sukka. > More, assuming you mean kusala citta accompanied by somanassa. > But I'd also throw in kusala and kusala-vipaka with upekkha > as 'happiness' (more along the lines of happy as 'content' as opposed > to happy as 'joyful'). .... S: Is this what the radio commentator you mentioned (Prager?) was referring to when talking about a duty to be happy? How can kusala vipaka be considered as a duty? When people conventionally talk about being happy, aren't they usually referring to lobha with happy feeling most the time? In the Ab.Sangaha (or commentary), it refers to there being less happy feeling rather than more when insight develops I believe:-) Metta, Sarah p.s Charles D and other kung fu Buddhists - the Shaolin Buddhist kung fu school you were asking about is opening in Hong Kong (Tai O, Lantau) in July. In the newspaper, it says it'll have a website and an international program. You can visit when you next come here. Maybe Dan's son too:). ========= 59101 From: connie Date: Wed May 10, 2006 0:56am Subject: Re:siila and satipa.t.thaana. .. riddle? nichiconn > but the five path factors i had in mind: right view, thought, > effort, mindfulness and concentration. dear fellow imhotep, Tep: So you say only these five path factors lead to the cessation of suffering? Are the three sila path factors assumed as requisites? BTW now I can see an error I made earlier: vinnana is not cetisika. con-strained: you do not follow, partner and i'm sorry, but from where i stand, it is like we are dancing in the square ring and you are liable to go down for the count. let's back up a few steps. maybe back as far as your side-stepping my question about what constitutes half the good life. for now, cinderella. > > Tep: Certainly, Dhamma discussion has great benefits. Practicing > > according to the Noble Eightfold Path has even much greater benefits 59102 From: connie Date: Wed May 10, 2006 0:55am Subject: re: conditions, God willing ... Ignorance nichiconn Oh Sarah! I do apologize for my bad manners, but what's out of character for me? o, i know - selflessness, sobriety, nobility, &... not totally and always, of course. there are nicer moments. but ho hum... because of ignorance there is activity; also because of activity there is ignorance... because of feeling there is faith... decision ... becoming ... thus ... this whole mass of suffering... wherein, we moved appliances and clothes yesterday after syvia died in her sleep. i imagine if she was dreaming, it was {... there but for the grace...} of "going home" ... but if it was dreamless, hurrah! surely that relinking must be in this human desire realm rather than one of the devil king's other gocara. but what is Acme of Being? [58770, 425... but the ? was rhetorical, really... leading to:] Pitaka Disclosure 469. Herein, ignorance, as murk and gloom, has the characteristic of not understanding how things are (cf.#472); it is the footing for determinations. Determinations have the characteristic of determinative acts, and their manifestation is implanting, amassing, and renewal of being; they are the footing for consciousness. Consciousness has the characteristic of causing the physical body to give intimation; it is the footing for name-and-form. Name-and-form has the characteristic of plurality of dependence; it is the footing for the sixfold base. The sixfold base has the characteristic of causing the [separate] defining of the faculties [beginning with the eye]; it is the footing for contact. Contact has the characteristic of causing occurrence of the three [namely pair of bases and appropriate consciousness]; it is the footing for feeling. Feeling has the characteristic of the co-existing [of pleasure, etc.;] it is the footing for craving. Craving has the characteristic of cleaving to; it is the footing for assuming. Assuming has the characteristic of destroying [by consumption of] what is taken up; it is the footing for craving. [118] Being has the characteristic of flinging [into one or another] among the different types of destination; it is the footing for ageing. Ageing has the characteristic of overripening of essentials of existence; it the footing for death (cf.#17). Death has the characteristic of exhausting the life-span and causing life's surcease (cf.#17); it is the footing for pain. Pain has the characteristic of oppressing the body (#17); it is the footing for grief. Grief has the characteristic of oppressing cognizance (#17); it is the footing for sorrow. Sorrow has the characteristic of sorrowing (smouldering) (cf.#17); it is the footing for lamentation. Lamentation has the characteristic of speech-utterance (cf.#17); it is the footing for despair. Despairs (upaayaasaa) are any kinds of hopelessness (aayaasaa) (cf.#17). <> to be continued... c. 59103 From: "Phil" Date: Wed May 10, 2006 1:09am Subject: Re: "Rely on yourself" to what? philofillet Hi Andrew Welcome to DSG. > > Put aside what you have read and learned... > perform some charity... meditate... Just do it... > > then compare what you experience with what was in the scriptures... > > don;t think... just live it.. Yes, absolutely right. We all enjoy discussing this and that here, but there is always seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, smelling and thinking to be studied through the six doors. Quite right. Phil 59104 From: "Phil" Date: Wed May 10, 2006 1:24am Subject: [dsg] Re: Commentaries online? philofillet Hi Herman > I bet you were just waiting to hear from me about commentaries :-) Yes, I posted at 8.44 and at 8.48 wrote the following in my diary: "Oh dear, Herman hasn't responded yet. I really am *aching* to know what he thinks about the commentaries! Why doesn't he respond, oh why, oh why. My life is empty without Herman responding to every single one of my posts! (sigh!)" Fortuntately, at 8.50, you responded. > One of my beefs with commentaries is that they are written at all. I don't > think it is controversial to say that the teachings of the Buddha are aural. > They were spoken, heard and remembered as spoken and heard. I happen to > believe that the coming to be of writing has totally altered the way memory > works. And that the shift from an aural tradition to a written tradition has > made the aims of the aural tradition unreachable. Because reading/writing > has so fundamentally altered the way the mind works. Yes, this is a very interesting point. One of the factors that makes it unlikely that we today could possibly understand the Buddha's teaching to the degree that his conetemporaries did. And then there is translation, with all the connotations that throw people off. I *do* believe that the discourses are the purest source of Buddha wisdom that ever existed, but the passing millenia have made that purity very difficult to access. This despite the very well- intentionned efforts of people like Thannisaro Bhikkhi to make suttas available to a wide audience. Still, I would never be foolish enough to say that we should stop reading suttas. That would be idiotic. But we really do have to keep in mind the great filter of accumulated ignorance (dissipated wisdom?) that we are reading them through, I think. But who cares what I think. I certainly don't, so I hope nobody else does! :) > Would I be too extreme in saying that the very act of writing something down > is rooted in greed? If not, what is the purpose of writing other than to > unnaturally preserve or keep or hang onto ? Very interesting. It *could* be chanda, of course, the "zeal" that is, in its wholesome form, a factor that can motivate us to do things such as writing. But lobha seems more likely. Quite often in the morning I transcribe bits of suttas and things I have jotted down, from pocket notebooks into a main notebook. Such pleasure! Such greed, such comfort in those little notebooks. And a wee bit of wholesome zeal and wisdom involved as well. And that wee bit accumulates. Phil p.s I'm trying to recall something interesting I posted here from one of Nina's books - how it is chanda that motivates us to do something like writing poetry, even when it is rooted in lobha. Something like that, as though the chanda involved could override the lobha. I don't understand how that could be, so have probably misunderstood. 59105 From: "Phil" Date: Wed May 10, 2006 1:31am Subject: Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 441- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame/hiri & ottappa(c) philofillet Hi all > Moral shame and fear of blame always arise together but they > are two different cetasikas with different characteristics. The > Atthasålin?E(I, Part IV, Chapter I, 125-127) gives a similar definition > as the Visuddhimagga of moral shame and fear of blame and > illustrates their difference. > > The Atthasålin?Eexplains that moral shame (hiri) has a subjective origin, > that its proximate cause is respect for oneself. Fear of blame (ottappa) > has an external cause, it is influenced by the "world?E its proximate > cause is respect for someone else (1). I recall that there is a very colourful simile - I don't think it's in Nina's book (though it may be) so I will post it now. Hiri and otappa are compared to two ends of a metal rod. One is smeared with excrement, and one is burning red hot, if I recall correctly. Phil 59106 From: "Joop" Date: Wed May 10, 2006 1:32am Subject: D.O. in three lifetimes and/or within one [was:Re: a "happy" proposition... jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" wrote: > > > Hi Joop (& Sarah, Connie, James), > > Thanks 0.5 time for giving me a homework to do. It is now clear to me > that you seem to like reading other sources more than the suttas which > are the original source of the Buddha's Teachings. (|<-:}?? > Hallo Tep (and Sarah, Connie, James, RobM) Tep: "I have no idea why there are people who "do not agree with" the explanation of DO "in terms of the samsaravatta, the round of rebirth, showing the connections between three lifetimes -- the past, the present and the future". Doesn't the "standard model", which is based on "the very same words of the Buddha", explain DO in a very natural, logical and realistic way? Why do they look elsewhere to "find alternatives" such as the Abhidhamma Pitaka's "one mind moment" or a "very different picture of the principle of Dependent Origination"? Where is their saddha in the Buddda? How is it possible that those 'DO substitutes' are better than the real, original explanation given by the Buddha? I can never ever understand it!! ??{:->|).... (|<-:}?? [Can you see that my 'avatar' is getting confused?] Joop: There are people who do not disagree with the explanation (primarely of Buddhaghosa) in terms of the round of rebirth. I think Buddhadasa is one of them. (With me it's not 'disagree' but 'disbelief', that's something else: I'm agnostic on rebirth) Payutto states something else: that there are two levels of using DO by the Buddha: in three lifetimes AND within one. Because it toke too much space I did not quote his Sutta-examples, but I do now: (Source: http://www.buddhismtoday.com/english/philosophy/thera/002- dependent5.htm) "Udayi, whosoever can recall the khandhas he has previously occupied in great number, of such a person would it be fitting to question me about past lives, or I could so question him; that person could satisfy me with an answer thereof, or I him. Whosoever sees the passing away of beings and their subsequent arisings, of such a person would it be fitting to ask me about future lives, or I could so question him; that person could satisfy me with an answer thereof, and I him. "Enough, Udayi, of former times and future times. I will teach you the essence of the Dhamma: When there is this, there is that. With the arising of this, that arises. When there is not this, that cannot be; when this ceases, so does that." [M.II.31] * * * The householder, Gandhabhaga, having sat down at a respectful distance, addressed the Blessed One thus, "May the Blessed One teach me the origin and the cessation of suffering." The Blessed One replied, "Householder, if I were to teach you the origin and the cessation of suffering by referring to the past thus, 'In the past there was this,' doubt and perplexity would arise in you thereof. If I were to teach you the origin and the cessation of suffering by referring to the future thus, 'In the future there will be this,' doubt and perplexity would arise in you thereof. Householder, I, here and now, shall teach you, here and now, the origin and the cessation of suffering." [S.IV.327] * * * "Sivaka, some feelings arise on account of irregularities in the bile ... some on account of irregularities in the phlegm ... some on account of wind ... some on account of the confluence of numerous factors ... some on account of changes in the weather ... some on account of irregular exercise ... some on account of external dangers ... some on account of kamma results. That feelings arise dependent on these different causes is something you can see for yourself and that people everywhere acknowledge. On this account, any recluse or holy man who claims that 'All feelings that arise, be they pleasant or unpleasant, are entirely the result of previous kamma,' can be rightly said to have spoken in excess of what is obvious to people everywhere, and I say that such views are wrong." [S.IV.230] * * * "Monks, when there is intentional, fixed and steady deliberation on any theme, that theme becomes an object for sustaining consciousness. Where there is an object, consciousness has an abiding. When consciousness is so firmly established and developed, birth in a new sphere (bhava) ensues. When there is arising into a new sphere of existence, birth, old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair follow. Thus is there the arising of this whole mass of suffering." [S.II.65] " And about 'Birth and death in the present moment' Payutto gives this quote: "Those who would like to see a reference to the cycle of rebirth in the present moment, in the present life, might like to refer to the Sutta presented below: ""The deep-grained attachment to the feeling of self does not arise for one who is endowed with these four conditions (pañña, wisdom; sacca, integrity; caga, generosity; and upasama, calm.). With no perception of self clouding one's consciousness one is said to be a muni, a peaceful one." On what account did I say this? Perceptions such as 'I am,' 'I am not,' 'I will be,' 'I will not be,' 'I will have form,' 'I will not have form,' 'I will have no form,' 'I will have perception,' 'I will not have perception,' 'I will neither have nor not have perception,' monks, are an affliction, an ulcer, a dart. By transcending these perceptions one is a muni, a peaceful one. "Monks, the muni is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not confused, nor does he yearn. There are no longer any causes for birth in him. Not being born, how can he age? Not aging, how can he die? Not dying, how can he be confused? Not being confused, how can he be desirous? "The deep-grained attachment to the feeling of self does not arise for one who is endowed with these four conditions. With no perception of self clouding one's consciousness, one is a muni, a peaceful one" -- It was on this account that this statement was made. (M.III.246; see also M.III.225; S.III.228; S.IV.14; (old age = degeneration or loss); Thag.247.) " Homework? To me too. I have one special point: "within one lifetime" is not exactly the same as "within the present moment" as Abhidhammikas prefer as their timescale. Do you think - with me - that D.O. can be used also to explain things happening within one life? Metta Joop 59107 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Wed May 10, 2006 2:19am Subject: Cooran /was Re: [dsg] Bodhisattva Ideal christine_fo... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi KenH & Howard, > > --- upasaka@... wrote: > > ken_aitch@... writes: > > > > > I think DSG has decided Buddhaghosa was an arahant has it not? > > ===================== > > I guess I was out sick that day and missed the vote! ;-) > > > .... > S: Me too! ;-). Ken H, I think the texts just make it clear that he was an > ariyan of some kind. There is a reference in a postscript at the back of > the Vism and elsewhere to how he was at least a sotapanna. Who knows if > this was added later (as suggested by some)? In any case, he must have had > extraordinarily profound knowledge of the dhamma imho. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======= > Hello all, I am going to the 4th Global Conference of Buddhism over in Perth, Western Australia next month ~ "CONFRONTING THE CONTROVERSIES .. To create a Better World", and I have just received the programme. Some interesting topics ... Conference Sub-Themes: Buddhism's Answer to Fundamentalism The Future of Buddhism: Lay or Sangha Does Buddhism Have a Role in Politics? Women in Buddhism – how to make gender irrelevant? -->-->The Bodhisattva Way or the Arahat Way – does it matter?<--<-- Jhana, Vipassana, Satori or Mahamudra – cutting through the confusion? Is Euthanasia Ethical – will it help with issues of illness and aging? http://www.globalconferenceonbuddhism.org/modules/content/?id=6 metta Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- 59108 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 10, 2006 2:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Rely on yourself" to what? sarahprocter... Hi Andrew (Leong), --- Andrew Leong wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Yup. I am new here... just my second or third post. ... S: Oh, that's not quite new, but thanks for jogging my memory. I did think your name was familiar but then decided I'd imagined it:-). ... > > Sorry. don't mean to punch in like this... never was my intention to > make a > splash. ... S: Please splash as much as you like.... .... > > I am from Malaysia.. if it causes too much confusion. I'll be happy to > shut > up or sign as Andrew Leong in future post. ... S: Certainly don't shut up....may sign off as you suggest...but it's in your email add anyway, so we shouldn't get confused. .... > > Intro... sure.. was born a Buddhist... now a born-again-Buddhist... > ..not much into ceremonies and chanting.. mainly because I can never > understand Pali... > ...Buddha bless all the venerable who translated the scriptures & dhama > talks... > .. I am into Ajhan Chah and his disciples, especially Ajhan Bhram... > . that all.. .... S: Sounds like you're really questioning it all a lot more in the born-again-Buddhist phase...I'm also not much of a ceremony person. Are you in Penang, KL or where? Have you met our Rob M living in K.L.? I look forward to more splashes. I once gave a dana to Ajahn Chah (and Ven Sumedho) in London and there was lots of laughter and friendliness, especially when I was introduced as being seriously into Abhidhamma rather than meditation:-))lol. A friend (Vince) who I didn't know at the time, was told a funny story about the occasion several months later, but I forget how the story he got went. I've mentioned before here the biggest splash of laughter was when A.Chah calmly indicated that the apple crumble I'd prepared could be mixed into the curries I'd slaved away preparing (I think it was the last time I ever cooked a proper meal) and he saw my looks of consternation. He thought this was really funny and we all ended up laughing over it (i.e my consternaion and attachment to food being taken in a particular way):-). It made the point. Anyway....just your mention of splashes and A.Chah set me off. Metta, Sarah ======== 59109 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed May 10, 2006 2:14am Subject: Seeds of Good ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: Based on What do advantageous mental states grow out of the Noble 8-fold Way? The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, even as any seed and plant grows, increases, and expands, based upon the Earth, established upon the Earth, so too, similarly here, based upon Morality, established upon Morality, do any Bhikkhu develop and cultivate the Noble 8-fold Way, and thereby he attains to growth, to increase, & expansion in all advantageous states. And how does a Bhikkhu do so? Here, friends, the Bhikkhu develops: Right View, which is based upon seclusion, disillusion, ceasing, and culminating in release. Right Motivation, which is based upon seclusion, disillusion, ceasing, and culminating in release. Right Speech, which is based upon seclusion, disillusion, ceasing, and culminating in release. Right Action, which is based upon seclusion, disillusion, ceasing, and culminating in release. Right Livelihood, which is based upon seclusion, disillusion, ceasing, and culminating in release. Right Effort, which is based upon seclusion, disillusion, ceasing, and culminating in release. Right Awareness, which is based upon seclusion, disillusion, ceasing, and culminating in release. Right Concentration, which is based upon seclusion, disillusion, ceasing, and culminating in release. It is in this way, friends, that a Bhikkhu, based upon Morality, established upon Morality, develops and cultivates this Noble 8-fold Way, and thereby he attains to growth, to increase, and to expansion in and of any advantageous mental state !!! Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V:46-7] section 45: The Way. 100: Seeds ... 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 !!! <...> 59110 From: Ng Boon Huat Date: Wed May 10, 2006 2:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re : Creator? mr39515 Dear All Hi there... I think the easier way out is to think that there is such a creator. In reliality, there is NO creator. This raise a question "how do we exist?". In reliality again, we don't exist. There is only Mind/Matter or 5 Aggregrates which all of the 5 Aggregrate came together and with ignorance (not knowing that all 5 exist by itself), we call this (coming and stick together) a self thus we thoughts we exist. We have been in this ignorance stage for so long that we don't reliaze that we actually don't exist. The simple way out to answer "where do we came from?" question is to turn to a simple answer of a creator. In fact, this idea (of a creator) came from the Maha Bharma (one of the lowest of the Rupa Plane). So your question is "Do a creator really exist?". To answer this question, we need to do some analysis. We ask ourself: 1. If a creator exist, then who created the creator? Where do the chain begins? 2. If there is such a creator, why do he create us? It is because he is boring or he wanted to test us? 3. If we were created to be tested, then why some were born in rich family while some were born in war zone area where they are tempted to do horrible stuff just to live a living. 4. What will happen to those beings who do not believe in the concept of the creator or follow his advices? Will they go to hell. If so, then what happen to the beings created before the idea of creator exist. Beings created 5000 years ago for example. 5. What happen to all the animals which we eat? Are they created as well and if they (assuming they are intellinge enough to acknowledge a creator) believe in a creator, will they be born in heaven? What is the purposes of those animals? Are they created for us to eat? If so, then they should be happy when we kill them for food as they are fulfilling their destiny. Why are we created not equal? Why this and why that.... and why why why ....?? If one were to investigate properly, one will find out the concept of a creator is faulty. So is there such a creator ?? The answer is NO. There is no creator. Only Buddhism can answer to all those question above. Only Buddhism can answer the question of the Beginning and explain why there is no such Beginning. And why there is Impermanance, Suffering and Non-Self (Anicca, Dukka, Anata). Everything that has a Beginning has an End... and if there is no Beginning, there is no End. Metta mr39515 --- Herman Hofman wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > So, actually I would be very glad if someone could > show > > me that such a creator does not exist :) > > > > > > My father reminded me that 66 years ago today, the > Nazis invaded the > Netherlands and laid waste to Rotterdam (my > birthplace), a civilian target. > On the belt buckle of every German soldier was the > slogan "Gott mit uns" > (God with us). > > Is it the case that a creator has the same qualities > as his creations? > > Or is it the case that man makes god in his own > image? <..> 59111 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 10, 2006 4:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Creator? sarahprocter... Hi Larry, Dan & Daniel, --- LBIDD@... wrote: > Vism.XVII,282: "This Wheel of Becoming consists in the occurrence of > formations, etc., with ignorance, etc., as the respective reasons. > Therefore it is devoid of a maker supplementary to that, such as a > Brahmaa conjectured thus, 'Brahmaa the Great, the Highest, the Creator' > (D.i,18), to perform the function of maker of the round of rebirths; and > it is devoid of any self as an experiencer of pleasure and pain > conceived thus, 'This self of mine that speaks and feels' (cf.M.i,8). > This is how it should be understood to be without any maker or > experiencer." ... S: This is a very good and relevant quote and I also thought Dan's comments were very clear and well set out. Whilst we believe in a Self, we're bound to believe in other Selves, Gods and so on. Good questions, Daniel. (I haven't read some of the later comments in the thread). Metta, Sarah ======= 59112 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 10, 2006 4:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.1 difficulty of understanding visible object sarahprocter... Hi Paul & all, typo --- sarah abbott wrote: > S: True! > > In your other post to Phil on visible object, you also made a lot of > excellent comments. > > I would just add that just as we say for the sake of simplicity we say > we > experience through the body-sense ..... .... S: I had meant to say, 'experience hardness, for example, through the body-sense.....' Metta, Sarah ======= 59113 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 10, 2006 4:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bodhisattva Ideal sarahprocter... Hi Joop (Chris & all), --- Joop wrote: > You're making me happy with your quote: > " As friends (like Joop) were discussing 'skilful means', I'll also > add that here skilful means (upaayakosalla) are also given as > conditions. "Therein, 'skilful means' is the wisdom which transforms > giving (and the other nine virtues) into requisites of enlightenment. > Through their great compassion > and skilful means, the Great Men devote themselves to working > uninterruptedly for the welfare of others without any concern for > their own happiness and without any fear of the extremely difficult > course of conduct that great bodhisattvas must follow." .... S: I'm so glad it made you happy:-). .... > > It's clear that 'skilful means' are also according Theravada used by > the Buddha for the welfare of others. I think the text does not > continue and does not give examples of which means the Buddha used? > And Sarah, why do you say the skilful means are given as conditions? > Isn't that a Abhidhammic interpretation? .... S: It was in the quote I gave that skilful means are part of the conditions for the development of the paramis. This isn't an Abhidhamma text. A lot more detail is given. For example, the paragraph above continues: "And their nature (bodhisattas)is such that they are able to promote the welfare and happiness of beings even on occasions when they are merely seen, heard of, or recollected, (since even the sight, report, or thought of them) inspires confidence. Through his wisdom the bodhisattva perfects within himself the character of a Buddha, through his compassion he leads others across. "Through wisdom he understands the suffering of others, through compassion he strives to alleviate their suffering. Through wisdom he becomes disenchanted with suffering, through compassion he accepts suffering. Through wisdom he aspires for nibbana, through compassion he remains in the round of existence. Through compassion he enters samsara, through wisdom he does not delight in it. "Through wisdom he destroys all attachments, but because his wisdom is accompanied by compassion he never desists from activity that benefits others. Through compassion he shakes with sympathy for all, but because his compassion is accompanied by wisdom his mind is unattached. Through wisdom he is free from 'I-making' and 'my-making.' Through compassion he is free from lethargy and depression." (I gave part of that last time). Joop, I think you'd really enjoy this 'Treatise on the Paramis' as translated by B.Bodhi and contained in 'The All-embracing Net of Views- Brahmajala Sutta and its commentaries, BPS'. We can also refer to the development of the paramis which are not the Bodhisatta's and all the reminders of the Bodhisatta's great qualities are wonderful reminders, I find. Perhaps this is an area where you can find all the 'social cittas':-) Nina posted the whole of K.Sujin's books on the Paramis that she translated here before. I forget if you were around. It's very good, I think. Metta, Sarah p.s Chris, thx for telling us about the conference you'll be attending. I know Nina especially asked for reports from Cooran. Anything to add to Ken H's? ======== 59114 From: "indriyabala" Date: Wed May 10, 2006 5:47am Subject: D.O. in three lifetimes and/or within one [was:Re: a "happy" proposition... indriyabala Hi Joop, You asked : > Do you think - with me - that D.O. can be used also to explain >things happening within one life? Of course, Joop, of course. Yours truly, Tep ======= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joop" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Joop (& Sarah, Connie, James), > > (snipped) > > > Homework? To me too. I have one special point: "within one lifetime" > is not exactly the same as "within the present moment" as > Abhidhammikas prefer as their timescale. 59115 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 10, 2006 1:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] A little chat about nothing upasaka_howard Hi, Paul (and Herman) - In a message dated 5/10/06 1:09:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, paulgrabianowski@... writes: > > >I am always puzzled by the (I think it is Abhidhammic) contention that > >mind > >"moments" are contiguous, that mind rises and falls without gaps. I would > >also like to hear more about why this held. > > Hi Howard. I'm wondering about this now too. It would be nice if someone > could get some Abhidhamma in here to back up or refute any of this. > -------------------------------------------- Howard: It was Herman you meant to address, Paul. He wrote the foregoing material you quoted. ----------------------------------------- Just > > some preliminary thoughts: > > I seemed to have misplaced some of my texts, so I will try my best. At > least the way I understand it, dependent arising would require this kind of > gapless contiguity of mind states. This of course does not mean that there > are minds states like billiard balls smashing into one another in rapid > succession or radio waves emanating from an essential core. Where and when > (to what temporal spatial plane) would the mind go to if it where no longer > linked in any way to dependent arising? Would this be Nibanna, a kind of > anti-nibanna? Citta, if it did not continue to perform the function that > it performs in the universe, would no longer be anything. This would be a > kind of nihilism by default. On the other hand, one could perhaps understand > > each citta from the standpoint of emptiness, kind of turn the "indispensable > > conditions" (kamma / vipaka?) of its arising inside out and get quite a > different understanding about it. What is continuity then? What are > moments? The sun shines brightly and lights up the world, but look at it > directly aside from starting to burn your eyes out (I used to stare at the > sun thinking I was Superman when I was 6 years old--unfortunately). The sun > > is a necessary condition for the illumination of objects, but looked at a > different way it is something quite different. No one looking directly at > the sun (I hope no one else does this) would say that the sun its succession > > of rays is merely continuous or that it is comprised of moments of sunlight. > > Perhaps "mind moments" are a little like this, but who knows. The > non-Arahat, I would imagine cannot look at and comprehend the intricate > complexity of each "mind moment", so we look at the manner of their > dependent arising--their conditions. But, it would be nice to understand > this more. > > Paul > ======================== Some musings of mine on this: It seems to me that, experientially, with no awareness, there also is no time passage. If that is so, there could not be gaps within a mindstream from the internal perspective of that mindstream, as a gap presupposes duration. What I have noticed at times of unconsciousness (or consciousness so subliminal as to seem like unconsciousness), is that there appears to be a "consciousness spike", an instant of change-over in the flavor/state of mind, that serves as a clue that there has been "loss of consciousness". The state of the newly awakened consciousness often seems to be such as to suggest to the person how long s/he was "out". Of course *losing* conscious and *regaining* consciousness are not instances of unconsciousness, and they are processes that are observable. Ever "watch oneself" going under anaesthesia? I have. So, to sum up, it seems to me that there never is a gap of non-zero duration in the consciousness of a person from the "internal perspective", but there are consciousness spikes for him/her causing sudden clue-leaving state changes that correspond to what others might observe as periods of unconsciousness of varying duration for that person. 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) 59116 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed May 10, 2006 5:56am Subject: [dsg] Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana ... What lies dormant? buddhatrue Hi Sarah (and Tep), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Tep (& James), I have read your three posts on this thread. Thank you for your efforts in responding; however, I don't feel very inspired to respond. The more I consider the subject, the more I think neither one of us truly know what we are talking about. Metta, James 59117 From: "indriyabala" Date: Wed May 10, 2006 6:04am Subject: Re:siila and satipa.t.thaana. .. riddle? indriyabala Dear Cinderella Connie, Thanks always for the nice discussion we had. > con-strained: you do not follow, partner and i'm sorry, but from where i stand, it is like we are dancing in the square ring and you are liable to go down for the count. let's back up a few steps. maybe back as far as your side-stepping my question about what constitutes half the good life. Imho-Tep: It seems that my lack of dancing skill (stepped on her foot a few times?) has caused Cinderella to suddenly leave the dance floor (and on her way back home). You can be sure of one thing -- I never side-step any question. Maybe the question was coded like a riddle, rather than in the ordinary language. Still learning, Tep ======== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, connie wrote: > > > but the five path factors i had in mind: right view, thought, > > effort, mindfulness and concentration. > > dear fellow imhotep, > > Tep: > So you say only these five path factors lead to the cessation of > suffering? Are the three sila path factors assumed as requisites? > > BTW now I can see an error I made earlier: vinnana is not cetisika. > >(snipped) > > for now, > cinderella. > 59118 From: "Phil" Date: Wed May 10, 2006 6:48am Subject: Re: A little chat about nothing philofillet Hi Paul, Herman and all > >I am always puzzled by the (I think it is Abhidhammic) contention that > >mind > >"moments" are contiguous, that mind rises and falls without gaps. I would > >also like to hear more about why this held. > > Hi Howard. I'm wondering about this now too. It would be nice if someone > could get some Abhidhamma in here to back up or refute any of this. Contiguity condition connects one citta to the next, doesn't it? Of course this can't be confirmed by our grand attempts at figuring things out experientially, so the talk will go on and on and on and on... Abhidhamma is to be accepted, or not to be accepted - if attempts are made to prove it expirientially, it is a farce. It is the Buddha's wisdom. (Or that of the arahants who came after him, if one prefers - I have no problem with that.) There are aspects of Abhidhamma that can be understood directly, but the subtle workings of contiguous cittas are not of such ilk. We are a bunch of folks hanging out on the internet. We are not able to see into citta processes to that degree and to think that we can is foolish, frankly speaking. But my saying that won't stop anyone from thinking that they can, so I should shut up. Perhaps I will learn to do so someday! :) Phil 59119 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 10, 2006 7:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition ... Metta and Devas sarahprocter... Hi Tep, (Joop, Scott, Herman & all), Thanks for your comments and quotes in this thread, Tep. I agree with them all and in subsequent posts on other realms, dependent origination over lifetimes as well as at this moment and in this life and so on. No contradiction from the Abhidhamma that I know of. It's true that life exists at one moment, this moment now, but that's also how it's been over aeons and aeons of lifetimes and will continue to be in future too. Without past causes from past lives such as avijja, there wouldn't be the results in this life, starting with patisandhi citta. ... --- indriyabala wrote: > > S:...... People think that they can extend metta to all > > > beings, including devas, but this is not so. > > > > > Joop: > > There is only one problem: devas don't exist, they are the product > of the mind of some human beings (in the past) .... Tep, you gave a good answer below: > Question: Was our Lord Buddha just daydreaming about extending metta > and imagining devas in the following suttas? > > "Here, bhikkhus, a certain person abides with his heart imbued with > loving-kindness extending over one quarter, likewise the second > quarter, likewise the third quarter, likewise the fourth quarter, and > so above, below, around, and everywhere, and to all as to himself; he > abides with his heart abundant, exalted, measureless in > loving-kindness, without hostility or ill-will, extending over the > all-encompassing world. .... S: My comment was a little clumsy. I meant that it's not true that we can extend metta to all beings now as we'd like without an understanding and high development of samatha with metta (to jhana level). We are not the 'certain person' in the sutta quote here. When people think they are radiating metta for all beings including devas, for example, it's not really so. I was also thinking of this extract from K.Sujin's book which Nina quoted recently which indicates it's not such a simple matter, I think: ***** "Question: Can one extend mettå to devas (heavenly beings)? Khun Sujin: In respect to this, people should carefully consider which cause brings which effect. In which way do we extend mettå to devas? In the human plane mettå can be developed by dåna, by giving other people useful things, or by síla, by abstaining from harming others, by abstaining from anger and malevolence. As regards developing mettå towards devas, the situation is different. Birth as a deva is produced by kusala kamma and the lifespan of devas is extremely long. Its length depends on the degree of kusala kamma which produced birth in that plane. Therefore we cannot extend mettå to devas by abstaining from killing them or by abstaining from other kinds of akusala kamma which could harm them. We can think with appreciation of their good deeds which conditioned birth as a deva, thus, there can be ``anumodhana dåna'' . Or when we do good deeds we can extend merit to the devas so that they can have anumodhana dåna, kusala cittas with appreciation. These are ways of extending mettå to devas. "Question: I do not understand yet how we can extend merit to devas when we perform dåna or other kinds of kusala. Khun Sujin: When we perform a good deed devas can appreciate such a deed. However, one should not hope for their protection just by reciting texts. When we have expectations there is lobha and that is different from performing kusala and extending merit so that devas can appreciate one's kusala and also have kusala cittas." ***** S: And as Joop likes U.P. homework (lol), here's some: See posts saved under: 'Transference of Merit', 'Anumodana' and maybe for those who are really into homework, 'Realms of Existence', 'Devas', 'Metta' and more....:-)). Metta, Sarah ========== 59120 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 10, 2006 7:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Commentaries online? sarahprocter... Hi Phil (& Herman), --- Phil wrote: > Hi Herman > > > I bet you were just waiting to hear from me about commentaries :-) > > Yes, I posted at 8.44 and at 8.48 wrote the following in my diary: > > "Oh dear, Herman hasn't responded yet. I really am *aching* to > know what he thinks about the commentaries! Why doesn't he respond, > oh why, oh why. My life is empty without Herman responding to every > single one of my posts! (sigh!)" > > Fortuntately, at 8.50, you responded. .... S: LOL....Jon and I were reading out posts together and I think we must have laughed for 5 minutes. Well, maybe I did anyway, Jon's was more muted ....I bet Herman was laughing too. I do think it's good when we can laugh about our different views and understandings:-). I remember your 'Dear Abhi' posts when you first joined too - classics:-). Maybe under the 'Zany' section in U.P,, we should have another section just for 'Phil's zanies':-). .... > > Would I be too extreme in saying that the very act of writing > something down > > is rooted in greed? If not, what is the purpose of writing other > than to > > unnaturally preserve or keep or hang onto ? ..... S: Hi Herman, about about in order for people like you and I to 'hear' the Dhamma today? .... > P:> Very interesting. It *could* be chanda, of course, the "zeal" > that is, in its wholesome form, a factor that can motivate us to do > things such as writing. But lobha seems more likely. Quite often in > the morning I transcribe bits of suttas and things I have jotted > down, from pocket notebooks into a main notebook. Such pleasure! > Such greed, such comfort in those little notebooks. And a wee bit of > wholesome zeal and wisdom involved as well. And that wee bit > accumulates. > > Phil > > p.s I'm trying to recall something interesting I posted here from > one of Nina's books - how it is chanda that motivates us to do > something like writing poetry, even when it is rooted in lobha. > Something like that, as though the chanda involved could override > the lobha. I don't understand how that could be, so have probably > misunderstood. .... S: I like the translation which K.Sujin has started using recently of 'interest' for chanda. We can have wholesome or unwholesome interest in writing things down. Why do some people who are interested in the dhamma speak and others write or others discuss? Because of different (let's say wholesome) chanda. Of course, interest or chanda rooted in lobha also shows up in different ways. So nice to see all your friendly posts, Phil. We talk a lot about metta, but if there's no metta now when we're discussing dhamma with friends who hold different views, then when (as K.Sujin would say)? Metta (when I'm not laughing:-)), Sarah ======= 59121 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed May 10, 2006 7:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Samatha and vipassana 1 jonoabb Hi Eric I am giving below extracts from 2 suttas (DN 33, AN IV, 165) which mention samatha and vipassana, and also from the entry for 'bhavana' in Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary. Looking forward to your comment on these in the light of your stated understanding that there is no difference between the two.. Jon ************************************* DN 33 'Sangiiti Sutta' Translation: The Long Discourses of the Buddha (Maurice Walsh) "1.9 There are [sets of] two things that were perfectly proclaimed by the Lord ... Which are they? ... (23) Calm and insight (samatho ca cvipassanaa)." ************************************* ************************************* AN IV, 165 Translation 'Numerical Discourses of the Buddha' 83. Ways to Arahantship "Friends, whatever monks or nuns declare before me that they have attained the final knowledge of arahantship, all these do so in one of four ways. What four? "Here friends, a monk develops insight preceded by tranquillity. While he thus develops insight preceded by tranquillity, the path arises in him. He now pursues, develops and cultivates that path, and while he is doing so the fetters are abandoned and the underlying tendencies eliminated. "Or again, friends, a monk develops tranquillity preceded by insight. While he thus develops … "Or again, friends, a monk develops tranquillity and insight joined in pairs. While he thus develops … "Or again, friends, a monk's mind is seized by agitation caused by higher states of mind. But there comes a time when his mind becomes internally steadied, composed, unified and concentrated; then the path arises in him. . He now pursues, develops and cultivates that path, and while he is doing so the fetters are abandoned and the underlying tendencies eliminated." ************************************* ************************************* Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary Entry for 'bhavana' " Bhavana: 'mental development' (lit. 'calling into existence, producing') is what in English is generally but rather vaguely called 'meditation'. One has to distinguish 2 kinds: * development of tranquillity (samatha-bhÄ?vanÄ?), i.e. concentration (samÄ?dhi), and * development of insight (vipassanÄ?-bhÄ?vanÄ?), i.e. wisdom (paññÄ?). These two important terms, tranquillity and insight, are very often met with and explained in the Sutta, as well as in the Abhidhamma. Tranquillity (samatha) is the concentrated, unshaken, peaceful, and therefore undefiled state of mind, whilst insight (vipassanÄ?) is the intuitive insight into the impermanence, misery and impersonality (anicca, dukkha, anattÄ?; s. tilakkhana) of all bodily and mental phenomena of existence, included in the 5 groups of existence, namely, corporeality, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness. Tranquillity, or concentration of mind, according to Sankhepavannana (Commentary to Abhidhammattha-sangaha), bestows a threefold blessing: favourable rebirth, present happy life, and purity of mind which is the condition of insight. Concentration (samÄ?dhi) is the indispensable foundation and precondition of insight by purifying the mind from the 5 mental defilements or hindrances (nÄ«varana), whilst insight (vipassanÄ?) produces the 4 supra mundane stages of holiness and deliverance of mind. The Buddha therefore says: "May you develop mental concentration, o monks; for who is mentally concentrated, sees things according to reality" (S.XXII.5). And in Mil. it is said: "Just as when a lighted lamp is brought into a dark chamber, the lamp-light will destroy the darkness and produce and spread the light, just so will insight, once arisen, destroy the darkness of ignorance and produce the light of knowledge. ..." ************************************* ericlonline wrote: >Hi Jon, > > > >>I'm afraid I'm not not following you here. I thought the point >> >> >was the > > >>meaning of samatha and vipassana as those terms appear in the >>suttas. >> >>As far as I know the suttas treat the two as separate and >>distinct matters. For a start there is the 'Tranquillity >>and Insight' sutta in AN Fours that has been cited here often. >>Would any of these references be of interest to you? >> >>Jon >> >> >Yes, please. > >Thanks!! > >E > > 59122 From: "Paul" Date: Wed May 10, 2006 8:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] A little chat about nothing paulgrabiano... I'm very Sorry about that Herman. This seems to be my fault. Talk about distraction . . . I can't seem to get names right on this list. 59123 From: "Dan D." Date: Wed May 10, 2006 9:57am Subject: Re: Please don't run away yet, DAN 1.ii onco111 Hi Sarah, Some snipping of things on which we agree--probably because I just wnat to highlight our disagreements to help me dodge future accusations of being a True Believer in the Party Line of the Great Leader. Some other snipping as well... > D:> There is a difference between "reflecting" on awareness of a past > > reality than speculating about an awareness that has never arisen. > > Don't you agree? > .... > S: So when you reflect on jivitindriya or heart-base or akasa rupa, are > you reflecting on 'awareness of a past reality'? If not, when we read > about such dhammas or reflect on them, does it have to be akusala > speculation as I think would follow from your line of reasoning, Dan? I use the word 'akusala' in reference to cittas and cetasikas. What makes a citta or cetasika 'kusala' or 'akusala' is not the object of cognition but the mode of cognizing. If there is lobha/dosa/moha at a particular moment, it is akusala. Most of the time for me, there is a relentless deluge of akusala. That's just the way it is. When I read suttas or Abhidhamma, most of the reading is done with akusala, whether I'm reading or thinking about jivitindriya or heart-base or nibbana or kamma-vipaka or 8FP or 4NT or citta or kusala or Devadatta. And some moments of kusala arise on occasion as well, whether I'm reading or thinking about jivitindriya or heart-base or...or kusala or Devadatta. As with any sense objects, the pages in front of me & the objects of cognition are not the determining factor for kusala/akusala. However, I would indeed say that there is a distinction between reflecting on and conceptualizing about a past awareness and speculation about someone else's conceptual model. Just as kusala or akusala may arise while sitting in a corner, eyes closed, focussing on a kasina or touch of the breath or some nimitta, kusala or akusala may arirse while speculating (forward) or reflecting (backward) on jivitindriya or heart-base or akasa rupa. > S: You won't find it said in the texts that 'cetasikas are characteristics > of' any 'citta'. Yes, citta is characterised by the arising of particular > cetasikas, but it also has its own characteristic, function and so on. > It's not abstract. Seeing now is not the same as sanna which arises with > it. Awareness can be aware of them as having their own distinct > characteristics. 1. You don't think the word 'characteristic' is appropriate for something (cetasika) that is invariably associated with a phenomenon (citta). That's fine. 2. You must have specially reserved the word 'characteristic' for a particular Pali word or usage, like I have kusala/akusala reserved for cittas and cetasikas. That's fine too. > D:> I see people who know nothing of suttas and abhidhamma and Buddha's > > words but have a deeper understanding of rupas, cittas, cetasikas, > > tilakkhana, etc. than I or virtually any Buddhist on the planet. If > > we approach life with an open mind, we find that we can learn much > > from others. > ... > S: As HenH said (I think), it sounds very broad-minded. But would these > people agree with what you suggest? Would they agree that their > understanding of the 'all' comes down to rupas, cittas and cetasikas with > no soul, no beings, no me or you? Certainly not! People, whether Buddhist or Christian or Jewish or Whatever tend to love their own conceptual models and regard the models of others as being empty, misguided, foolish, wrong, devoid of insight, etc. Rupas, cittas, and cetasikas are Buddhist models and would be rejected outright by most Christians, whether there has been a degree of development of understanding or not. The model (concept) is not the same as the understanding (reality). Don't you agree that the distinction between concept and reality is central to Buddha's teaching? > Would they agree that all dhammas are anatta, beyone anyone's control? Very interesting question, Sarah. It is a standard Christian doctrine that the Self is utterly incapable of kusala and beyond anyone's control. Some Christians would agree with that because it is standard doctrine. Some Christians would agree because they have hammered it out by reason, and it fits with their conceptual understanding of the Self. And some Christians have a deeper understanding of the impotence of Self. However, despite these cases, most Christians would just reject it altogether -- unless it were worded in a familiar Biblical formulation. They would accept the familiar formulation or conceptual framework on faith but reject the doctrine itself because of lack of understanding of what the words are really pointing to. Also, it is standard Buddhist doctrine that all dhammas are anatta, beyond anyone's control. Some Buddhists would agree with that because it is standard doctrine. Some Buddhists would agree because they have hammered it out by reason, and it fits with their conceptual understanding of the Self. And some Buddhists have a deeper understanding of the impotence of Self. However, despite these cases, most Buddhists would just reject it altogether -- unless it were worded in a familiar sutta formulation. They would accept the familiar formulation or conceptual framework on faith but reject the doctrine itself because of lack of understanding of what the words are really pointing to. > S:> > Do you have any difficulty with this sutta? > > > > > > AN, 10s, 123-7, Not Outside the Buddha's Discipline (Bodhi transl): > > > > > > "Ten things, monks, do not have purity and clarity outside the > > Discipline > > > of the Sublime Master. What are the ten? > > > > > > Right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right > > livelihood, > > > right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration, right > > knowledge and > > > right liberation.* > > > > > > And if these ten things have not arisen, they will not arise > > outside the > > > Discipline of the Sublime Master. > > > > > > Outside the Discipline of the Sublime Master, these ten things will > > not be > > > of great fruit and benefit. > > > > > > Outside the Discipline of the Sublime Master, these ten things will > > not > > > end in the elimination of greed, hatred and delusion. > > > > > > Outside the Discipline of the Sublime Master, these ten things will > > not > > > conduce to complete disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, peace, > > direct > > > knowledge, enlightenment and Nibbana." > .... > D:> I have no problem with these, Sarah. Only within the dispensation are > > these ten things developed with sufficient clarity and purity to lead > > to enlightenment and nibbana. As I have said over and over, I agree. > .... > S: Doesn't this disagree with your comment above about what many people > understand who've never heard the Buddha's teachings? Ah, you say, these > ten things refer to 'developed ......nibbana' and at the point of > enligtenment they need to hear the Buddha's teachings. The way I > understand this and other texts is that there can be no path whatsoever > outside the Buddha's teachings. There cannot even be the beginning of the > development of satipatthana. There cannot be any insight at all. That's > why all the great arahants, all the teachers who had attained the highest > jhanas and so on, all had to hear the Buddha in their final lives to > develop insights leading to enlightenment. Yup. Outside the dispensation, these things are not known in sufficient purity and clarity to conduce to complete elimination of greed, hatred, and delusion, to complete disenchantment, enlightment, Nibbana. That's why Sariputta needed to hear a few words from the Buddha to attain magga and phala. But his understanding BEFORE he heard even a whisper from the Buddha was much greater than mine or yours after studying the Buddha's words and conceptual formulations for decades. How can that be if there is no light at all outside the dispensation, not any insight at all? How is it that there were so many people in the Buddha's time who were so close to enlightenment before hearing the Buddha that they were fully enlightened right after hearing him? They went from absolutely no insight whatsoever to enlightment in the blink of an eye?! Understanding develops gradually, Sarah, in baby steps. Before hearing the Buddha's words, Sariputta had highly refined, highly developed insight. He was only one small step from enlightenment. Without Buddha, he most likely would not have been able to take the final step or two, but with Buddha's help he was able to make the leap to the final insights leading to enlightenment. Are you saying there are no insights--not even mundane satipatthana--before the insights leading to enlightenment? That wouldn't square with the model of the insight knowledges culminating in insight leading to emergence (vutthanagaminivipassana, e.g., in CMA IX:34)--unless even a brief moment of satipatthana eventually and inevitably starts a chain of events leading to full liberation. Or that for some utterly benighted people the development from total ignorance to full enlightenment takes place in a very short time? How can that be? It really makes no sense, Sarah. The other possibility is to take the sutta for what it says, viz. that outside the dispensation there is no development of understanding to the level of arahatta. > S: So what is meant by the path to final liberation here? I think it > includes the path from the very beginning of the development of > satipatthana. > .... Path to final liberation is the magga citta of the fledgling arahat. You seem to be strongly wedded to the notion of a conventional, conceptual understanding of "path" and "samma". Not always so wedded, but in this case, yes. > S:> > p.s. I've been following the 'happiness' threads. Do you think that > > the > > > development of wisdom leads to more or less happiness as we think > > of it > > > conventionally, i.e pleasant feeling? > > > D:> More, assuming you mean kusala-vipaka with somanassa or sukka. > > More, assuming you mean kusala citta accompanied by somanassa. > > But I'd also throw in kusala and kusala-vipaka with upekkha > > as 'happiness' (more along the lines of happy as 'content' as opposed > > to happy as 'joyful'). > .... > S: Is this what the radio commentator you mentioned (Prager?) was > referring to when talking about a duty to be happy? Please, Sarah, neither I nor Mr. Prager ever mentioned anything about 'duty'. Instead, the term was 'moral obligation'. The difference is that 'duty' is a thing-to-do, and we were both rejecting that notion in the formulation of 'moral obligation.' > How can kusala vipaka be considered as a duty? It can't be. Instead, the formulation is that there is a moral obligation to be happy. If unhappiness arises (dosa or pure moha), then the consciousness is immoral (akusala). To be called 'moral' (kusala), the citta must be 'happy' (with either somanassa or upekkha). There is also a conventional, social understanding of 'moral obligation', which is necessarily looser: unhappiness is contagious, and it also happens to be a function of how the world is viewed. In other words, unhappiness tends to spread misery to others, so, if we are concerned about the well-being of others, we have an obligation (loosely speaking) to be happy. > When people conventionally talk about being happy, aren't they usually referring to lobha with happy feeling most the > time? Perhaps. And that is why I (and Mr. Prager) were more careful about defining what we mean by 'happy'. > In the Ab.Sangaha (or commentary), it refers to there being less happy > feeling rather than more when insight develops I believe:-) Again, Sarah, you are not discussing the ideas that I have spent pages and pages outlining in detail. I presume that you mean that with development of insight, there is less lobha with somanassa. Fine. But I am defining 'happy' as kusala with somanassa (joy) or upekkha (contentment), which, incidentally, is closer to what Mr. Prager had in mind (he was careful to say that taking pleasure in wrongdoing [like gluttony or cruelty] is not true happiness). It's easy to say that it would be wrong for me to think x-y-z (when I am really thinking p-d-q); it's much harder to really consider what I am saying. Dan 59124 From: "ericlonline" Date: Wed May 10, 2006 11:40am Subject: [dsg] Re: A little chat about nothing ... How does that work? ericlonline Hi Tep, Paul (and Herman), Tep> I wonder if you might be willing to elaborate a bit more on the following? > > Eric: Quoting Dan Berkow from another list > > > Assumed location is neccessary for the assumption of self, and > > volition can then be attributed to "action from the located center." Tep> How might that knowledge be used to remove the 20 personality views (sakkaaya ditthi)? Excellent question Tep! I am glad someone picked up on this. Awareness is selfreflexive. This leads to selfreference i.e to reification of self. But Dan seems to be questioning the selfreflexiveness itself that leads to selfreference. That selfreflexiveness arises with an assumed loaction. I am in my body, I am in awareness, etc. Basically to a subject/object split. With 'me' located somewhere and everything else elsewhere. First comes this selfreflexive locating which manifests into the 20 personality views. So, going even further, if we can see the falseness of the location itself (i.e. I am in my body, etc.) and the selfreflexiveness, then not only does the 20 personality beliefs become untenable but the coneit 'I am' also begins to lose its hold. We could call this a gateway into emptiness. Any thoughts? metta E 59125 From: "ericlonline" Date: Wed May 10, 2006 0:02pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Samatha and vipassana 1 ericlonline Hi Jon, J> I am giving below extracts from 2 suttas (DN 33, AN IV, 165) which mention samatha and vipassana, and also from the entry for 'bhavana' in Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary. > > Looking forward to your comment on these in the light of your stated understanding that there is no difference between the two.. > > Jon > > > ************************************* > DN 33 'Sangiiti Sutta' > Translation: The Long Discourses of the Buddha (Maurice Walsh) > > "1.9 There are [sets of] two things that were perfectly proclaimed by > the Lord ... Which are they? ... > (23) Calm and insight (samatho ca cvipassanaa)." > ************************************* Flip a coin and call it in the air. Heads or tails? Heads, start your investigation with insight. Tails, start your investigation with samatha. The coin nonetheless is one and you cannot 'really' separate the two sides. But you can take impressions of each side and separate them and make definitions and posit this and that and whole systems of thought and meditation. And factions grow around the one sided image. On and on it goes. That is what thought does, it divides and multiplies! Unification of mind however is in the other direction. It shuns one sided views with the stilling of vicara and vitaka and unifies samatha and vipassana. (I see you cant help but sneak in commentary :-) ) PEACE E > ************************************* > AN IV, 165 > Translation 'Numerical Discourses of the Buddha' > 83. Ways to Arahantship > > "Friends, whatever monks or nuns declare before me that they have attained > the final knowledge of arahantship, all these do so in one of four ways. > What four? > > "Here friends, a monk develops insight preceded by tranquillity. While he > thus develops insight preceded by tranquillity, the path arises in him. > He now pursues, develops and cultivates that path, and while he is doing > so the fetters are abandoned and the underlying tendencies eliminated. > > "Or again, friends, a monk develops tranquillity preceded by insight. > While he thus develops … > > "Or again, friends, a monk develops tranquillity and insight joined in > pairs. While he thus develops … > > "Or again, friends, a monk's mind is seized by agitation caused by higher > states of mind. But there comes a time when his mind becomes internally > steadied, composed, unified and concentrated; then the path arises in > him. . He now pursues, develops and cultivates that path, and while he is > doing so the fetters are abandoned and the underlying tendencies > eliminated." > ************************************* > > ************************************* > Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary > Entry for 'bhavana' > > " Bhavana: 'mental development' (lit. 'calling into existence, > producing') is what in English is generally but rather vaguely called > 'meditation'. One has to distinguish 2 kinds: > * development of tranquillity (samatha-bhÄ?vanÄ?), i.e. concentration > (samÄ?dhi), and > * development of insight (vipassanÄ?-bhÄ?vanÄ?), i.e. wisdom (paññÄ?). > > These two important terms, tranquillity and insight, are very often met > with and explained in the Sutta, as well as in the Abhidhamma. > > Tranquillity (samatha) is the concentrated, unshaken, peaceful, and > therefore undefiled state of mind, whilst insight (vipassanÄ?) is the > intuitive insight into the impermanence, misery and impersonality > (anicca, dukkha, anattÄ?; s. tilakkhana) of all bodily and mental > phenomena of existence, included in the 5 groups of existence, namely, > corporeality, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness. > > Tranquillity, or concentration of mind, according to Sankhepavannana > (Commentary to Abhidhammattha-sangaha), bestows a threefold blessing: > favourable rebirth, present happy life, and purity of mind which is the > condition of insight. Concentration (samÄ?dhi) is the indispensable > foundation and precondition of insight by purifying the mind from the 5 > mental defilements or hindrances (nÄ«varana), whilst insight (vipassanÄ?) > produces the 4 supra mundane stages of holiness and deliverance of mind. > The Buddha therefore says: "May you develop mental concentration, o > monks; for who is mentally concentrated, sees things according to > reality" (S.XXII.5). And in Mil. it is said: "Just as when a lighted > lamp is brought into a dark chamber, the lamp-light will destroy the > darkness and produce and spread the light, just so will insight, once > arisen, destroy the darkness of ignorance and produce the light of > knowledge. > ..." > ************************************* 59126 From: "ericlonline" Date: Wed May 10, 2006 0:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re : Creator? ericlonline Hi Herman, H> My father reminded me that 66 years ago today, the Nazis invaded the > Netherlands and laid waste to Rotterdam (my birthplace), a civilian target. > On the belt buckle of every German soldier was the slogan "Gott mit uns" > (God with us). > > Is it the case that a creator has the same qualities as his creations? > > Or is it the case that man makes god in his own image? Most focus on the creator but few ponder his shadow side, the destroyer. PEACE E 59127 From: "Joop" Date: Wed May 10, 2006 0:19pm Subject: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition ... Metta and Devas jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Tep, (Joop, Scott, Herman & all), > > Thanks for your comments and quotes in this thread, Tep. I agree with them > all and in subsequent posts on other realms, dependent origination over > lifetimes as well as at this moment and in this life and so on. .... Hallo Sarah, Tep J: This time you make Tep happy, Sarah S: And as Joop likes U.P. homework (lol), here's some: See posts saved under: 'Transference of Merit', 'Anumodana' and maybe for those who are really into homework, 'Realms of Existence', 'Devas', 'Metta' and more....:-)). J: I like but before I start and knowing your good memory: Are there any messages in U.P. in which the author states - like me - that the beings in 29 of the 31 realms only exist in the mind of some human beings? And whereby it's still possible to see "things as they really are" and to awaken? Sarah, I will at this moment also respond on your message in #59113 to me. Thanks for the 'Treatise on the Paramis', I downloaded it and started to read it. But I'm afraid you are mixing two different things: - Paramis (skills) we can try to develop: there is the 'treatise' about - Skills (upaya in sankrit) the Buddha and possibly other teachers (for example bodhisatta) can use: to apply the way a teaching is given to the properties of the audience. But perhaps these two are the same in your opinion; do you mean that I can use skillful means in trying to explain (atheistic!) people in my environment the Dhamma? Metta Joop No > contradiction from the Abhidhamma that I know of. It's true that life > exists at one moment, this moment now, but that's also how it's been over > aeons and aeons of lifetimes and will continue to be in future too. > Without past causes from past lives such as avijja, there wouldn't be the > results in this life, starting with patisandhi citta. > ... > --- indriyabala wrote: > > > S:...... People think that they can extend metta to all > > > > beings, including devas, but this is not so. > > > > > > > Joop: > > > There is only one problem: devas don't exist, they are the product > > of the mind of some human beings (in the past) > .... > Tep, you gave a good answer below: > > > Question: Was our Lord Buddha just daydreaming about extending metta > > and imagining devas in the following suttas? > > > > "Here, bhikkhus, a certain person abides with his heart imbued with > > loving-kindness extending over one quarter, likewise the second > > quarter, likewise the third quarter, likewise the fourth quarter, and > > so above, below, around, and everywhere, and to all as to himself; he > > abides with his heart abundant, exalted, measureless in > > loving-kindness, without hostility or ill-will, extending over the > > all-encompassing world. > .... > S: My comment was a little clumsy. I meant that it's not true that we can > extend metta to all beings now as we'd like without an understanding and > high development of samatha with metta (to jhana level). We are not the > 'certain person' in the sutta quote here. When people think they are > radiating metta for all beings including devas, for example, it's not > really so. I was also thinking of this extract from K.Sujin's book which > Nina quoted recently which indicates it's not such a simple matter, I > think: > ***** > "Question: Can one extend mettå to devas (heavenly beings)? > > Khun Sujin: In respect to this, people should carefully consider which > cause brings which effect. In which way do we extend mettå to devas? In > the human plane mettå can be developed by dåna, by giving other people > useful things, or by síla, by abstaining from harming others, by > abstaining from anger and malevolence. As regards developing mettå towards > devas, the situation is different. Birth as a deva is produced by kusala > kamma and the lifespan of devas is extremely long. Its length depends on > the degree of kusala kamma which produced birth in that plane. Therefore > we cannot extend mettå to devas by abstaining from killing them or by > abstaining from other kinds of akusala kamma which could harm them. We can > think with appreciation of their good deeds which conditioned birth as a > deva, thus, there can be ``anumodhana dåna'' . Or when we do good deeds we > can extend merit to the devas so that they can have anumodhana dåna, > kusala cittas with appreciation. These are ways of extending mettå to > devas. > > "Question: I do not understand yet how we can extend merit to devas when > we perform dåna or other kinds of kusala. > > Khun Sujin: When we perform a good deed devas can appreciate such a deed. > However, one should not hope for their protection just by reciting texts. > When we have expectations there is lobha and that is different from > performing kusala and extending merit so that devas can appreciate one's > kusala and also have kusala cittas." > ***** > S: And as Joop likes U.P. homework (lol), here's some: > > See posts saved under: 'Transference of Merit', 'Anumodana' and maybe for > those who are really into homework, 'Realms of Existence', 'Devas', > 'Metta' and more....:-)). > > Metta, > > Sarah > ========== > 59128 From: "Joop" Date: Wed May 10, 2006 0:25pm Subject: Cooran /was Re: [dsg] Bodhisattva Ideal jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christine Forsyth" wrote: > .... > Hello all, > > I am going to the 4th Global Conference of Buddhism over in Perth, > Western Australia next month ~ "CONFRONTING THE CONTROVERSIES .. To > create a Better World", and I have just received the programme. > Some interesting topics ... > > Conference Sub-Themes: > > Buddhism's Answer to Fundamentalism > The Future of Buddhism: Lay or Sangha > Does Buddhism Have a Role in Politics? > Women in Buddhism – how to make gender irrelevant? > -->-->The Bodhisattva Way or the Arahat Way – does it matter?<--<-- > Jhana, Vipassana, Satori or Mahamudra – cutting through the > confusion? > Is Euthanasia Ethical – will it help with issues of illness and > aging? > http://www.globalconferenceonbuddhism.org/modules/content/?id=6 > > metta > Christine Hallo Christine Sounds good! Wish (not the first time in my life) that I'm in Australia now Metta Joop 59129 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Wed May 10, 2006 2:18pm Subject: Was the Lord Buddha a sexist? christine_fo... Was the Lord Buddha a sexist? By METTANANDO BHIKKHU, Bangkok Post, May 9, 2006 Mettanando Bhikkhu is a Thai Buddhist monk and a former physician. He studied at Chulalongkorn University, Oxford and Harvard, and received a PhD from Hamburg. He is special adviser on Buddhist affairs to the secretary-general of the World Conference of Religions for Peace. This article comes from The Buddhist Channel site http://www.buddhistchannel.tv This question is not intended as a blasphemy against the Lord Buddha or his teachings, but it is pertinent to the survival and progress of Buddhism in the modern world Bangkok, Thailand -- Determining the Lord Buddha's attitude towards women is directly related to the very nature of Buddhism itself, and whether or not Buddhism supports the human rights movement for equality and democracy. In answering this question, one can always argue that there is no way to verify the answer, since the Lord Buddha has long since passed away into Nirvana. However, passages in the Tripitaka, which is the largest body of religious teaching in the world, serve as a good reference in our quest. In order to find out whether or not the Buddha discriminated against women, the Tripitaka is the only appropriate historical source for reference. Nevertheless, the method is not simple. The interpretation of Buddhist texts depends largely on the method employed in the reading, i.e., taking the words literally as many traditionalist Buddhists do, or using a more holistic approach to understanding, as many modern scholars do. The latter also requires critical analysis and the art of reading between the lines. Like most religious texts handed down from antiquity, the Tripitaka offers conflicting information regarding the status of women. One of the key references that strongly discriminates against women is the legend of the origin of the nuns (bhikkhuni), in which the Buddha showed his strong disapproval of women's ordination as requested by Prajapati Gautami, his aunt and stepmother. Ananda, the Buddha's close attendant stepped in and negotiated on her behalf. As a result, the Buddha laid down a set of special rules, or the so- called Eight Heavy Duties (Garudhammas) that established the conditions for women's ordination, and nuns were required to strictly adhere to them for the rest of their lives. The Eight Heavy Duties are: 1. A nun, even if she has been ordained for 100 years, must respect, greet and bow in reverence to the feet of a monk, even if he has just been ordained that day. (Monks pay respect to each other according to their seniority, or the number of years they have been ordained.) 2. A nun is not to stay in a residence where there is no monk. (A monk may take an independent residence.) 3. A nun is to look forward to two duties: asking for the fortnightly Uposatha (meeting day), and receiving instructions by a monk every fortnight. (Monks do not depend on nuns for this obligatory rite, nor are they required to receive any instruction.) 4. A nun who has completed her rains-retreat must offer herself for instruction to both the community of monks and to the community of nuns, based on what is seen, what is heard and what is doubted. (Monks only offer themselves to the community of monks.) 5. A nun who is put on probation for violating a monastic rule of Sanghadisesa must serve a 15-day minimum probation, with reinstatement requiring approval from both the monk and nun communities. (The minimum for monks is a five-day probation with no approval by the nuns required for reinstatement.) 6. A woman must be ordained by both monks and nuns and may be ordained only after a two-year postulancy, or training in six precepts. (Men have no mandatory postulancy and their ordination is performed by monks only.) 7. A nun may not reprimand a monk. (A monk may reprimand a monk, and any monk may reprimand a nun.) 8. From today onwards, no nun shall ever teach a monk. However, monks may teach nuns. (There are no restrictions on whom a monk may teach.) The legend recalls that, after memorising the Eight Heavy Duties, the Lord Buddha's disciple Ananda returned to inform Prajapati the aunt, of the Buddha's words. She accepted all eight rules without reservation. Delighted, she said: ''I accept all the Eight Heavy Duties, and shall abide by them without fail throughout my life, like a young girl or boy who enjoys her beauty, having bathed and shampooed, accepts a garland of jasmine or lilac, accepts it with her hands and puts it on her head.'' Apart from these discriminatory regulations against women, the Buddha further prophesised that because of the women's ordination the core teaching of his religion would be cut short from 1,000 to 500 years. This is stated in the following passage in Tripitaka: At that time, the Venerable Ananda went to see the Lord. Having sat at one side, he said to the Lord, ''Lord, Mahaprajapati Gautami has accepted the Eight Heavy Duties. The aunt of the Lord has now been ordained.'' The Lord said to Ananda, ''Ananda, if women had not renounced their household lives and ordained in the religion of the Tathagata, the holy life would have lasted long, the core teaching of Buddhism would have remained for a thousand years. Because the ordination of women has occurred in this religion of the Tathagata, the holy life will not last long; the True Dharma will last for only 500 years. Ananda, in whatever religion women are ordained, that religion will not last long. As families that have more women than men are easily destroyed by robbers, as a plentiful rice-field once infested by rice worms will not long remain, as a sugarcane field invaded by red rust will not long remain, even so the True Dharma will not last long. Ananda, as a man builds a large surrounding dike to prevent the flow of water, I prescribe the Eight Heavy Duties for the nuns to adhere to for the rest of their lives without fail. (Vin. II, 256) Of course, Buddhists who are traditionally trained take for granted that the passage above is an actual quotation from the Buddha. Therefore, they take it to mean that women are inferior to men, and they are cause of destruction of the religion. If this is true, then there is only one conclusion: the Buddha was a sexist. However, the word ''sexist'' is too strong for most Buddhists. No traditional Buddhist would want to acknowledge the Buddha's prejudice. Instead, they usually stand up to defend the message of the Eight Heavy Duties, claiming, ''This is the way things are. This is the Dharma of the Universe, and there is nothing we can do but accept them [the Heavy Duties] as they are authentic messages of the Buddha.'' This fundamentalist interpretation has isolated Buddhists from the belief in democracy based on human rights and gender equality. Buddhism has become a tool used to marginalise half of the world's population. Educated people often turn away from Buddhism in repugnance since they see the religion as a part of the problem rather a solution for social progress. However, another way of answering the question is through a critical reading of the Tripitaka. This is the methodology of modern scholars. It clearly shows a different picture of the Buddha's attitude towards women. According to other parts of the Tripitaka, the Eight Heavy Duties are against the Buddha's principles of compassion and the nature of humanity. According to the Buddha's version of the Genesis, male and female characters emerged as a result of continuous decay of the physical world, i.e., they do not belong to the true nature of what we are. Since gender is only the external appearance of our true nature, both men and women are enabled with an equal ability to attain the highest enlightenment. Moreover, when this particular part of the Tripitaka _ the legend of the origin of the order of nuns and the Eight Heavy Duties _ is compared to other parts of the Tripitaka, there are many discrepancies and contradictions. For example, in the Books of Theragatha and Therigatha (psalms composed by enlightened monks and nuns) we see a situation in which a monk became enlightened by the teachings of a nun who, as a result, was respected as his mother. This contradicts the last rule of the Eight Heavy Duties, which prohibits a nun from teaching a monk. Also, the phrase ''from today onwards'' suggests that there had been nuns who were previously teaching monks, and the rule was issued to stop the activity in the name of the Buddha. This is also supported by the metaphor of the ''dike'' used in a later part of the story. This part of the story tells of a dike that was built to quarantine rice and sugarcane fields in India once a farmer saw the fields being infested by rice worm or red dust. The dike had to be built as soon as the farmer spotted the pests, but not earlier than that. The use of the metaphor is against the logic of the condition that the rules were set before the community of nuns was formed. Rather, these eight rules were post-dated some time after the foundation of the order of nuns. These small hinges suggest that the legend of the Eight Heavy Duties were interpolated in the Tripitaka as a part of the Buddha's teaching. It seems, then, that the Duties were the work of a younger generation of monks who had negative attitudes towards women. Elsewhere in the Tripitaka, we see no evidence of nuns acting as a cause of decay to Buddhism. On the contrary, several sutras, dated before the passing of the Buddha, never describe a visit of a king to a monk in order to learn the Dharma. However, three references in the Tripitaka mention visits of a king to see a nun while the Buddha was alive. In one episode, King Pasenadi of Kosala praised the teaching ability of nun Khema in front of the Buddha; he claimed that her teaching was as good as the Lord's himself! Also, in the Books of Theragatha and Therigatha, we see that Buddhist nuns were more active than monks in the promotion of the Dharma. While monks tended to enjoy living a solitary life rather than living in a community, the nuns had stronger community ties where they were very much engaged in teaching and learning. One passage even describes a nun who professed boldly to the public, come and listen to my teaching! Such evangelical expression is not described in regard to any monk in the Tripitaka. The Book of Therigatha was the first religious literature in the world known ever known to be composed by women. It shows the period at the earliest history of Buddhism when women enjoyed equal rights with their male counterparts. These small pieces of evidence scattered in the Tripitaka confirm that the original teaching of the Buddha did not favour men over women. Unfortunately, however, elements of sexism found their way into the Buddhist community soon after the passing away of the Lord Buddha in order to reinforce men's superior status over women. The Eight Heavy Duties, as formatted in the legend of the origin of the order of nuns, became a social tool to gain control over the nuns, many of whom were outstanding teachers and successful enough to enlighten some monks. The rules were not just a part of the Buddhist canon, but were enforced in the nuns' community through repetition and affirmation every fortnight. The period of suppression of the nuns is suspected to have lasted a few generations before the nuns' order finally disappeared from India. It was not long before Buddhism disappeared also. This hypothesis is substantiated when Buddhism is compared to the Jainism, or the sister religion of Buddhism, founded by Mahavira, a contemporary spiritual leader of the Buddha. Like Buddhism, Jainism was seen as heterodox by the Hindus and later by the Muslims. The Buddhist community and Jain community share the same structure, being composed of monks, nuns, laymen and laywomen; Buddhists worship statue of the Buddha, whereas Jains worship the statue of Mahavira. While Buddhism disappeared from India, Jainism did not. Many historians blame the extinction of Buddhism in its own motherland to the Muslim oppression, but this theory cannot explain why Jainism was not also destroyed since the two religions held the same position for Muslims. The significant difference lies in the treatment of the nuns: in Jainism, the nuns were not discriminated against as in Buddhism. Even now, nuns in Jainism enjoy their liberty in teaching equal to their male fellows. There are no such rules as the Eight Heavy Duties in the teaching of Mahavira. In this light of analysis, the evidence points to the fact that sexism in the Buddhist community was responsible for the destruction and extinction of the Buddhist religion from its own motherland. It was the result of the karma committed by sexist monks of later generations soon after the passing away of the Buddha. Sexual discrimination or sexism was not at all a part of the original teaching of the Buddha, who excluded no one. The Lord Buddha, we may conclude, was not a sexist. Sadly, the karma of sexism is still healthy and strong today in most Buddhist countries, such as Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Laos and Cambodia. Only some communities in Sri Lanka ordain women. Elsewhere in Southeast Asia, ordination of women is illegal. The Ecclesiastical Council of Thailand, for example, announced publicly that any monk who supports the ordination of women will be subject to severe punishment. Nevertheless, in the Theravada tradition as a whole, the Eight Heavy Duties are followed faithfully as authentic words of the Lord Buddha. In Theravada countries, Buddhist religion has never been in support of human rights and social justice. As long as there is no reformation of the religious education system in Buddhism and the Tripitaka, the religion will remain the biggest obstacle for the development of democracy and social justice in these countries. ------------------------------ 59130 From: "indriyabala" Date: Wed May 10, 2006 2:24pm Subject: Re: A little chat about nothing ... How does that work? indriyabala Hi Eric (Paul & Herman & James)- I have often thought about the choices between explaining the dhammas(discovered and expounded by the Greatest-Sage Buddha) in our own words versus using quotes from the commentaries (or from numerous articles of many authors, online and offline). One clear benefit from using our own words is that we can defend them (if we know what we are talking about). On the other hand, if we depend (too much) on the commentaries or other wise people's words, we cannot. To explain to me in your own words why the "assumed location" leads to the "assumtion of self" you say that "selfreflexiveness" leads to "selfreference" (i.e to reification of self). >Eric: That selfreflexiveness arises with an assumed loaction. I am in my body, I am in awareness, etc. Basically to a subject/object split. With 'me' located somewhere and everything else elsewhere. First comes this selfreflexive locating which manifests into the 20 personality views. Tep: You must have done a very good job in explaining, because it helped me recall the following passage from one of my favorite suttas. 'It's with possessiveness, friend Ananda, that there is "I am," not without possessiveness. 'And through possessiveness of what is there "I am," not without possessiveness? 'Through possessiveness of form there is "I am," not without possessiveness. Through possessiveness of feeling... perception... fabrications... Through possessiveness of consciousness there is "I am," not without possessiveness. 'Just as if a young woman — or a man — youthful, fond of adornment, contemplating the image of her face in a mirror, pure & bright, or in a bowl of clear water, would look with possessiveness, not without possessiveness. 'In the same way, through possessiveness of form there is "I am," not without possessiveness. 'Through possessiveness of feeling... perception... fabrications... 'Through possessiveness of consciousness there is "I am," not without possessiveness. [SN XXII.83 Ananda Sutta] Tep: It is worth noting that the Arahant Punna Mantaniputta (who said the above) used the term "possessiveness", while you used "selfreflexiveness". But both terms work fine for me. Thank you one hundred times, Eric. ................... >Eric: >So, going even further, if we can see the falseness of the location itself (i.e. I am in my body, etc.) and the selfreflexiveness, then not only does the 20 personality beliefs become untenable but the coneit 'I am' also begins to lose its hold. We could call this a gateway into emptiness. Any thoughts? Tep: I would say the "seeing" of falseness (of the location itself and the selfreflexiveness) & the elimination of the 20 personality beliefs only follow extensive contemplation of the five aggregates (form, feeling, ..., formations, consciousness) with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.' With appreciation, Tep ======= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ericlonline" wrote: > > Hi Tep, Paul (and Herman), > > Tep> I wonder if you might be willing to elaborate a bit more on the > following? > > > > Eric: Quoting Dan Berkow from another list > > > > > Assumed location is neccessary for the assumption of self, and > > > volition can then be attributed to "action from the located > center." > > > Tep> How might that knowledge be used to remove the 20 personality > views (sakkaaya ditthi)? > > Excellent question Tep! I am > glad someone picked up on this. > > Awareness is selfreflexive. This leads > to selfreference i.e to reification of > self. But Dan seems to be questioning > the selfreflexiveness itself that leads > to selfreference. That selfreflexiveness > arises with an assumed loaction. I am in my > body, I am in awareness, etc. Basically to a > subject/object split. With 'me' located > somewhere and everything else elsewhere. > First comes this selfreflexive locating > which manifests into the 20 personality > views. So, going even further, if we can > see the falseness of the location itself > (i.e. I am in my body, etc.) and the > selfreflexiveness, then not only does > the 20 personality beliefs become untenable > but the coneit 'I am' also begins to lose > its hold. We could call this a gateway into > emptiness. Any thoughts? > > metta > > E > 59131 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed May 10, 2006 2:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Commentaries online? egberdina Hi Phil, On 10/05/06, Phil wrote: > > > > Hi Herman > > > I bet you were just waiting to hear from me about commentaries :-) > > Yes, I posted at 8.44 and at 8.48 wrote the following in my diary: > > "Oh dear, Herman hasn't responded yet. I really am *aching* to > know what he thinks about the commentaries! Why doesn't he respond, > oh why, oh why. My life is empty without Herman responding to every > single one of my posts! (sigh!)" > > Fortuntately, at 8.50, you responded. You are a funny man, Phil. Very good! :-) -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 59132 From: "indriyabala" Date: Wed May 10, 2006 3:01pm Subject: Re: a "happy" proposition ... Metta and Devas indriyabala Hi Sarah (also Joop) - When you said that you agreed with the quotes I extracted from a number of suttas on Dependent Origination, it is a clear indication of your correct understanding of the DO. And that made me glad (or happy, as Joop put it). >Sarah: >It's true that life exists at one moment, this moment now, but that's also how it's been over aeons and aeons of lifetimes and will continue to be in future too. Without past causes from past lives such as avijja, there wouldn't be the results in this life, starting with patisandhi citta. Tep: In other words, the present moment is just an instantaneous cross section of the continuity that will continue (until the Nibbana). You said it very well. Thank you 101 times, Sarah. .............. >S: My comment was a little clumsy. I meant that it's not true that we can extend metta to all beings now as we'd like without an understanding and high development of samatha with metta (to jhana level). Tep: This again has made me glad; thank you for metioning samatha & jhana. .............. Tep: Thank you for quoting those questions & answers from Khun Sujin's book. I am not clear about her following answer on extending mettaa to devas. Could you please elaborate why the 'anumodhana daana' can be broadcatsed (like video signals) to devas? KS: We can think with appreciation of their good deeds which conditioned birth as a deva, thus, there can be ``anumodhana dåna'' . Or when we do good deeds we can extend merit to the devas so that they can have anumodhana dåna, kusala cittas with appreciation. These are ways of extending mettå to devas. With appreciation, Tep ===== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Tep, (Joop, Scott, Herman & all), > (snipped) > "Question: Can one extend mettå to devas (heavenly beings)? > > Khun Sujin: In respect to this, people should carefully consider which cause brings which effect. In which way do we extend mettå to devas? In the human plane mettå can be developed by dåna, by giving other people useful things, or by síla, by abstaining from harming others, by abstaining from anger and malevolence. As regards developing mettå towards devas, the situation is different. Birth as a deva is produced by kusala kamma and the lifespan of devas is extremely long. Its length depends on the degree of kusala kamma which produced birth in that plane. Therefore we cannot extend mettå to devas by abstaining from killing them or by abstaining from other kinds of akusala kamma which could harm them. We can think with appreciation of their good deeds which conditioned birth as a > deva, thus, there can be ``anumodhana dåna'' . Or when we do good deeds we can extend merit to the devas so that they can have anumodhana dåna, kusala cittas with appreciation. These are ways of extending mettå to devas. > > "Question: I do not understand yet how we can extend merit to devas when we perform dåna or other kinds of kusala. > > Khun Sujin: When we perform a good deed devas can appreciate such a deed. However, one should not hope for their protection just by reciting texts. > When we have expectations there is lobha and that is different from > performing kusala and extending merit so that devas can appreciate one's kusala and also have kusala cittas." > ***** 59133 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed May 10, 2006 3:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Commentaries online? egberdina Hi Sarah (and Phil), > > ..... > S: Hi Herman, how about in order for people like you and I to 'hear' the > Dhamma today? I would very much like to agree with you, and you know what, I think I will, but with conditions attached.:-) I watched a video the other day of a talk by BB on a sutta. The most salient features of that presentation, for me, were how everything in that setting worked to create gladness in the mind of the watcher/hearer. Calmness, gentleness, gentle conviction oozed out from every pore of that man's body, all inducing a receptive state. Then, the rhythmic chanting of some Pali verses from that sutta. All these factors work together to bypass any analytical part of the brain, any filters as Phil rightly said, any view, and then Whammo, understanding arises. All of these factors tend to be lost in the way we are taught to read. (But a little more about that below). How many years do we actively spend learning to read and write? And then how long do we re-inforce all that learning? I shudder to think what would happen if we actively learned to pacify the mind for even a tenth of the time we willingly spend on being mindless. Let us face a fact square on. In any moment of reading there can be no mindfulness, at all. Reading is the art of seeing what is not there. The moment there is the seeing of meaning in a pattern of black dots, the mind is off on a tangent. Panna cannot be recorded in or extracted from a book. But one who understands, can transmit that understanding. Books are just not the way to do it. But there is a way that reading a sutta can be of benefit. The following is an ancient Christian method. " *Lectio Divina* The ancient Christian meditation practice of *lectio divina*, or "sacred reading," has recently gained newfound popularity (particularly among Roman Catholics). Although lectio divina is best learned with a community of other practitioners, the four basic steps involved are easy to learn: 1. *Lectio (reading)—*Slow, contemplative reading of a text. Do not spend much time rationally analyzing the text, and do not try to work through it quickly; instead, let your mind linger on the individual words as if you're listening to someone speak slowly and calmly. 2. *Meditatio (meditation)—*At some point during the process of *lectio*, one passage should speak to you more than others. Spend time repeating the passage, silently or aloud, letting it sink in. 3. *Oratio (prayer)—*With your mind still focused on *meditatio*, recite the passage over and over. The words become random syllables, voice music, nothing more. But on some level, the idea behind the words is still rattling around in my mind. If the words begin to mean something again, if they register as if another person is speaking them, I recite them more quickly until they become syllables again; if I completely lose focus, I recite the passage more slowly so that the idea can sink in again. 4. *Contemplatio (contemplation)—*If you feel yourself drifting into a meditative state, let go of all words and silently settle into the experience. " Note the complete lack of intentional cross-referencing, catalogueing, indexing, theoretical / conceptual understanding, grasping. Do we have agreement ? :-) -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 59134 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed May 10, 2006 3:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A little chat about nothing egberdina Hey, Paul, On 11/05/06, Paul wrote: > > I'm very Sorry about that Herman. This seems to be my fault. Talk about > distraction . . . I can't seem to get names right on this list. No worries at all dear friend. I have had many acutely embarrassing moments while introducing people I have known for years and years, and my mind has just gone blank. At those times, I would have found it useful to travel through solid objects, and just hide for a while :-) -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 59135 From: "Paul" Date: Wed May 10, 2006 3:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A little chat about nothing paulgrabiano... Hi Herman and others, Excellent points Herman: H: Some musings of mine on this: It seems to me that, experientially, with no awareness, there also is no time passage. I'm not sure I quite follow. How about sleep? One comes to awareness on the other side of time, say 7 hours later. What were the mind states inbetween doing and what level of consciousness if any was there? The Abhidhamma talks about "life continuum" mind states and bhavanga cittas which fill in much of the gaps we experience as unconscious states. There is still mind, but perhaps not consciousness. An interesting question here might be. If one is not aware of what occured in moment a,b in moments c,d, e does that mean that moments a and b were not conscious is some way that c,d,e are unable to access beyond the mere experience that an unconscious state occured, or does it mean that there was no consciousness at all. H: If that is so, there could not be gaps within a mindstream from the internal perspective of that mindstream, as a gap presupposes duration. Very interesting. Henri Bergson contrasts experiential time (duration) with conventional measurable time. One could say that there are gaps in measureable time but not in experiencal time. Experiential would always be an experience of duration. But, I'm not sure how you are using duration here. H: What I have noticed at times of unconsciousness (or consciousness so subliminal as to seem like unconsciousness), is that there appears to be a "consciousness spike", an instant of change-over in the flavor/state of mind, that serves as a clue that there has been "loss of consciousness". P: Precisely my experience too. H: The state of the newly awakened consciousness often seems to be such as to suggest to the person how long s/he was "out". Of course *losing* conscious and *regaining* consciousness are not instances of unconsciousness, and they are processes that are observable. Ever "watch oneself" going under anaesthesia? I have. P: I'd like to underscore the importance of this. Does then this flavor of a return to consciousness have a certain disjunctness and cumbersomeness about it? In other words, if your being anaesthitized, or being brought out of it, does consciousness subside all at once or does it happen in fits and starts? Is it different when being put under or being brought back out? H: So, to sum up, it seems to me that there never is a gap of non-zero duration in the consciousness of a person from the "internal perspective", but there are consciousness spikes for him/her causing sudden clue-leaving state changes that correspond to what others might observe as periods of unconsciousness of varying duration for that person. P: I'm still a little confused about the use of the term duration here, and especially non-zero duration. Paul 59136 From: "Paul" Date: Wed May 10, 2006 4:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A little chat about nothing paulgrabiano... Hi Phil, Phil : Contiguity condition connects one citta to the next, doesn't it? > Of course this can't be confirmed by our grand attempts at figuring > things out experientially, so the talk will go on and on and on and > on... Paul: This is perhaps the direction where we will uncover some of the most interting insights here. Phil : Abhidhamma is to be accepted, or not to be accepted - if attempts > are made to prove it expirientially, it is a farce. Paul: This is a much too exlusive and religious sounding for me; I disagree. At what point does someone just accept it? Let's say I didn't accept it yesterday (perhaps I've never heard of the Abhidhamma). So, now today, I investigate what it says and try to put it into practice. But, if I can have no understanding of citta as you suggest below, then on what grounds would I accept it? Phil: It is the > Buddha's wisdom. (Or that of the arahants who came after him, if one > prefers - I have no problem with that.) There are aspects of > Abhidhamma that can be understood directly, but the subtle workings > of contiguous cittas are not of such ilk. We are a bunch of folks > hanging out on the internet. We are not able to see into citta > processes to that degree and to think that we can is foolish, > frankly speaking. But my saying that won't stop anyone from thinking > that they can, so I should shut up. Perhaps I will learn to do so > someday! :) Points well taken Phil. I can't say that I wholly disagree. What I would say is that Buddhism has a very specific purpose--the cessation of suffering. The path that leads to the cessation of suffering is essentially, I believe, beyond the ken of language. So much so, that no matter what one says, if it does not resound with another person's experience, then it is meaningless (at least at the moment that it is spoken). However, I find that Buddhism informs all aspects of my experience and my experience informs my understanding of Buddhism. I too would caution against placing to rigid of an emphasis on science, philosophy, psychology, or any particular school of Buddhist dogma. The Dhamma is much too real, in need of direct experience, for any of these to provide a full answer. Continual practice with increased discernment is certainly key. Paul 59137 From: "Paul" Date: Wed May 10, 2006 4:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A little chat about nothing ... How does that work? paulgrabiano... Wonderfully said Eric. Thanks. It's quite interesting how this assumed location gets us into so much trouble; it's amazing how much we become entrenched in certain kinds of assumption of space. This question of assumption of location and assumption of self makes much more sense to me now. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "ericlonline" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 2:40 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: A little chat about nothing ... How does that work? > Hi Tep, Paul (and Herman), > > Tep> I wonder if you might be willing to elaborate a bit more on the > following? > >> > Eric: Quoting Dan Berkow from another list >> >> > Assumed location is neccessary for the assumption of self, and >> > volition can then be attributed to "action from the located > center." > > > Tep> How might that knowledge be used to remove the 20 personality > views (sakkaaya ditthi)? > > Excellent question Tep! I am > glad someone picked up on this. > > Awareness is selfreflexive. This leads > to selfreference i.e to reification of > self. But Dan seems to be questioning > the selfreflexiveness itself that leads > to selfreference. That selfreflexiveness > arises with an assumed loaction. I am in my > body, I am in awareness, etc. Basically to a > subject/object split. With 'me' located > somewhere and everything else elsewhere. > First comes this selfreflexive locating > which manifests into the 20 personality > views. So, going even further, if we can > see the falseness of the location itself > (i.e. I am in my body, etc.) and the > selfreflexiveness, then not only does > the 20 personality beliefs become untenable > but the coneit 'I am' also begins to lose > its hold. We could call this a gateway into > emptiness. Any thoughts? > > metta > > E 59138 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 10, 2006 0:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A little chat about nothing upasaka_howard Hi, Paul (and Herman too! ;-) - In a message dated 5/10/06 6:32:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, paulgrabianowski@... writes: > Hi Herman and others, > > Excellent points Herman: ------------------------------------ Howard: LOLOL! This time it's Howard you're quoting [me, that is], and not Herman! ;-)) ----------------------------------- > > H: Some musings of mine on this: It seems to me that, experientially, > with no awareness, there also is no time passage. > > I'm not sure I quite follow. How about sleep? One comes to awareness on > the other side of time, say 7 hours later. What were the mind states > inbetween doing and what level of consciousness if any was there? > ------------------------------------------ Howard: If there is dreamless sleep, upon awakening it will seem that no time has passed at all. ------------------------------------------ The > > Abhidhamma talks about "life continuum" mind states and bhavanga cittas > which fill in much of the gaps we experience as unconscious states. There > is still mind, but perhaps not consciousness. ------------------------------------------- Howard: The *Buddha* does *not* talk of this. I don't think it's in any sutta. I'm not really certain that it's in the Abhidhamma either, but is commnetarial only. ---------------------------------------- An interesting question here > > might be. If one is not aware of what occured in moment a,b in moments c,d, > > e does that mean that moments a and b were not conscious is some way that > c,d,e are unable to access beyond the mere experience that an unconscious > state occured, or does it mean that there was no consciousness at all. ----------------------------------------- Howard: No, of course there is forgetting. ----------------------------------------- > > > H: If that is so, there could not > be gaps within a mindstream from the internal perspective of that > mindstream, > as a gap presupposes duration. > > Very interesting. Henri Bergson contrasts experiential time (duration) with > > conventional measurable time. One could say that there are gaps in > measureable time but not in experiencal time. Experiential would always be > an experience of duration. But, I'm not sure how you are using duration > here. > > H: What I have noticed at times of unconsciousness > (or consciousness so subliminal as to seem like unconsciousness), is that > there appears to be a "consciousness spike", an instant of change-over in > the > flavor/state of mind, that serves as a clue that there has been "loss of > consciousness". > > P: Precisely my experience too. > > H: The state of the newly awakened consciousness often seems to be such > as to suggest to the person how long s/he was "out". Of course *losing* > conscious and *regaining* consciousness are not instances of > unconsciousness, and > they are processes that are observable. Ever "watch oneself" going under > anaesthesia? I have. > > P: I'd like to underscore the importance of this. Does then this flavor of > a return to consciousness have a certain disjunctness and cumbersomeness > about it? In other words, if your being anaesthitized, or being brought out > > of it, does consciousness subside all at once or does it happen in fits and > starts? Is it different when being put under or being brought back out? -------------------------------------- Howard: I'm not that good at mindful attention yet to answer this. ;-) -------------------------------------- > > H: So, to sum up, it seems to me that there never is a gap of non-zero > duration in the consciousness of a person from the "internal perspective", > but > there are consciousness spikes for him/her causing sudden clue-leaving state > changes that correspond to what others might observe as periods of > unconsciousness of varying duration for that person. > > P: I'm still a little confused about the use of the term duration here, and > especially non-zero duration. ---------------------------------- Howard: I don't mean to imply an objective means of measurement by this. By non-zero duration, I merely mean a detectable time lapse that is subjectively more than an instant. ---------------------------------- > > Paul > > ================= 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) 59139 From: "Phil" Date: Wed May 10, 2006 6:12pm Subject: Re: A little chat about nothing philofillet Hi Paul > Phil : Contiguity condition connects one citta to the next, doesn't it? > > Of course this can't be confirmed by our grand attempts at figuring > > things out experientially, so the talk will go on and on and on and > > on... > > Paul: This is perhaps the direction where we will uncover some of the most > interting insights here. Ph: I suppose it's possible. But how do we know whether what we take for insights are not just lobha-rooted cittas clinging on to notions that comfort? I guess that takes more insight, so fair enough. > > Phil : Abhidhamma is to be accepted, or not to be accepted - if attempts > > are made to prove it expirientially, it is a farce. > > Paul: This is a much too exlusive and religious sounding for me; I disagree. Ph: Yeah, a bit overstated. I was irritated becaues *Randy Johnson Sucks* (I think you live in Rochester, don't you? If you are a Yankees fan, I will love you deeply.) Still, we have to know our limits. It is simply impossible for us to confirm or deny the truth of conditional relations through our own experience. No way. But by learning about them by rote it can deepen our appreciation of the anattaness of it all. We really have to understand our limits, and accept them, I strongly feel. Then we can begin to directly undestand such things as seeing, hearing etc. Things that are arising here and now for awareness to possibly experience. Vedana is another area I think we can begin to direcly understand. I wrote this down this morning, a passage I like very much from one of Nina's books, I think: "We are inclined to confuse bodily pleasant feeling, which is vipaka, and the pleasant feeling which arises shortly afterwards, otgether with attachemnt to the pleasant feeling." This is the kind of thing where I think our level of understanding can find fruitful exercise, first hand. Understanding conditional relations directly? No way. That is what the Buddha did, and we can learn about second hand. This is how I see it. Phil 59140 From: "Dan D." Date: Wed May 10, 2006 7:50pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Commentaries online? onco111 Hi Herman, I've been listening to some of the KS recordings and have been struck at how different the listening is from reading, writing, and thinking. She has a meditative style of talking, of bringing the attention continually back to what is happening now and turning off of the analysis and cogitation and struggling with conceptualizations. Listening is quite different from reading and cogitating and analyzing. And the 'lectio divina'? I like it. Kudos, Dan --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Sarah (and Phil), > > > > > ..... > > S: Hi Herman, how about in order for people like you and I to 'hear' the > > Dhamma today? > > > I would very much like to agree with you, and you know what, I think I will, > but with conditions attached.:-) I watched a video the other day of a talk > by BB on a sutta. The most salient features of that presentation, for me, > were how everything in that setting worked to create gladness in the mind of > the watcher/hearer. Calmness, gentleness, gentle conviction oozed out from > every pore of that man's body, all inducing a receptive state. Then, the > rhythmic chanting of some Pali verses from that sutta. All these factors > work together to bypass any analytical part of the brain, any filters as > Phil rightly said, any view, and then Whammo, understanding arises. > > All of these factors tend to be lost in the way we are taught to read. (But > a little more about that below). How many years do we actively spend > learning to read and write? And then how long do we re-inforce all that > learning? I shudder to think what would happen if we actively learned to > pacify the mind for even a tenth of the time we willingly spend on being > mindless. Let us face a fact square on. In any moment of reading there can > be no mindfulness, at all. Reading is the art of seeing what is not there. > The moment there is the seeing of meaning in a pattern of black dots, the > mind is off on a tangent. Panna cannot be recorded in or extracted from a > book. But one who understands, can transmit that understanding. Books are > just not the way to do it. > > But there is a way that reading a sutta can be of benefit. The following is > an ancient Christian method. > > " > > *Lectio Divina* > > The ancient Christian meditation practice of *lectio divina*, or "sacred > reading," has recently gained newfound popularity (particularly among Roman > Catholics). Although lectio divina is best learned with a community of other > practitioners, the four basic steps involved are easy to learn: > > 1. > > *Lectio (reading)?*Slow, contemplative reading of a text. Do not spend > much time rationally analyzing the text, and do not try to work through it > quickly; instead, let your mind linger on the individual words as if you're > listening to someone speak slowly and calmly. > 2. > > *Meditatio (meditation)?*At some point during the process of *lectio*, > one passage should speak to you more than others. Spend time repeating the > passage, silently or aloud, letting it sink in. > 3. > > *Oratio (prayer)?*With your mind still focused on *meditatio*, recite > the passage over and over. The words become random syllables, voice music, > nothing more. But on some level, the idea behind the words is still rattling > around in my mind. If the words begin to mean something again, if they > register as if another person is speaking them, I recite them more quickly > until they become syllables again; if I completely lose focus, I recite the > passage more slowly so that the idea can sink in again. > 4. > > *Contemplatio (contemplation)?*If you feel yourself drifting into a > meditative state, let go of all words and silently settle into the > experience. > > " > > Note the complete lack of intentional cross-referencing, catalogueing, > indexing, theoretical / conceptual understanding, grasping. > > Do we have agreement ? :-) > > > > > -- > Kind Regards > > > Herman > 59141 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Wed May 10, 2006 10:46pm Subject: More on Cooran ken_aitch Hi all, At Cooran, we listened while Reg read from a booklet called The Way of Wisdom (I think it was one of the Bodhi Leaves). As is usual with modern Buddhist publications, it covered several Dhamma topics without specifically referring to conditioned dhammas. I was losing concentration, and I suspect others were too: no one interrupted with brilliant comments - or with any comments! When the topic turned to 'balancing the five spiritual faculties' I asked Reg to pause, to facilitate discussion. But even then, there was virtually nothing - certainly nothing inspirational. This comes as no surprise to me. I don't wish to sound disrespectful, but the Dhamma, in its purely conventional form, can be quite uninspiring. There seem to be two ways of making conventional Dhamma remarkable: relate it to self, or relate it to Abhidhamma. (See Phil's post on this today - 59118.) I tried to do the latter but it was a tricky topic: In what sense is there a need to balance wholesome faculties? Can there really be too much of a good thing? We needed someone who could explain this in a way that made perfect, inspirational, Abhidhamma, sense. My consoling thought was that, when I got home, I could look it up in Useful Posts. But no, as it turned out they contained not a word (unless I was looking in the wrong place). It's a bleak day indeed when UP's let you down! :-) Ken H 59142 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed May 10, 2006 11:57pm Subject: How to Escape ... ??? bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: Direct Experience of Understanding, Leaving, Realization & Development of the Noble 8-fold Way: The Blessed Buddha once said: What, friends, should be fully understood by direct experience? The Five Clusters of Clinging. What five? The cluster of clinging to form... The cluster of clinging to feeling... The cluster of clinging to perception... The cluster of clinging to construction... The cluster of clinging to consciousness... These are the five things, which should be fully understood by direct experience! And what, friends, are the two things, which should be overcome & left behind by direct experience? Ignorance and Craving for Becoming... These are the two things, which should be overcome & left behind by direct experience! And what, friends, are the two things, which should be realized by direct experience? Complete Understanding and Full Freedom... These are the two things, which should be realized by direct experience! And what, friends, are the two things, which should be developed by direct experience? Calm and Insight... These are the two things, which should be developed by direct experience. And how does a Bhikkhu do so? Here, friends, the Bhikkhu develops: Right View, which is based upon seclusion, disillusion, ceasing, and culminating in release. Right Motivation, which is based upon seclusion, disillusion, ceasing, and culminating in release. Right Speech, which is based upon seclusion, disillusion, ceasing, and culminating in release. Right Action, which is based upon seclusion, disillusion, ceasing, and culminating in release. Right Livelihood, which is based upon seclusion, disillusion, ceasing, and culminating in release. Right Effort, which is based upon seclusion, disillusion, ceasing, and culminating in release. Right Awareness, which is based upon seclusion, disillusion, ceasing, and culminating in release. Right Concentration, which is based upon seclusion, disillusion, ceasing, and culminating in release. It is in this way, friends, that a Bhikkhu, comes to fully understand, what should be all understood; comes to overcome, abandon and leave behind, what should be left all behind; comes to realize by direct experience, what should be all realized, and comes to develop, what should be all developed… Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V:52-3] section 45: The Way. 160: The Guest-House ... 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 !!! <....> 59143 From: "Fabrizio Bartolomucci" Date: Thu May 11, 2006 0:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Do mind objects have an intrinsic nature? fbartolom Dear LIBDD --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > If only it were so it would solve many problems. In "A Comprehensive > Manual of Abhidhamma", which is a translation with the original Pali by > Bhikkhu Bodhi of "Abhidhammatha Sangaha" sati is listed as one of the > "universal beautiful factors" (sobhanasaadhaara.na). Manasikaaro is > listed as a universal (sabbacittasaadhaara.na). I wonder if you are > thinking of a list in the Dhammasanga.nii (which I don't have). Even if > that were the case we would need powerful arguments to overtake Aacariya > Anuruddha. Nina may have a thought on this issue. I'll bring it up when > she gets back. You are right. That is again a sign of the optimistic nature of the Abhidhamma or, perhaps, of the less vicious times of the Buddha respect to ours... In fact the Abhidhamma, at least as reported in the Sangaha that is also my source, tends to explore more fully wholesome processes rather than unwholesome ones. I already mentioned the registration cittas with roots that only appear in the wholesome flavor. On this matter just (Samma)Sati is listed like a 'trump' over "manasikara" in the universal beautiful like there were no Demons in the world that could commit some evil mindfully (please excuse me if my mind runs to presidente Bush Jr...). 59144 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu May 11, 2006 0:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Cooran sarahprocter... Hi Ken H & all, --- ken_aitch wrote: > Hi all, > > At Cooran, we listened while Reg read from a booklet called The Way of > Wisdom (I think it was one of the Bodhi Leaves). As is usual with > modern Buddhist publications, it covered several Dhamma topics without > specifically referring to conditioned dhammas. I was losing > concentration, and I suspect others were too: no one interrupted with > brilliant comments - or with any comments! When the topic turned to > 'balancing the five spiritual faculties' I asked Reg to pause, to > facilitate discussion. But even then, there was virtually nothing - > certainly nothing inspirational. > > This comes as no surprise to me. I don't wish to sound disrespectful, > but the Dhamma, in its purely conventional form, can be quite > uninspiring. .... S: and to my mind, this is when reading on an internet discussion group has a big advantage over listening -- when it's uninspiring (for whatever reason), we can speed forward, zap or ignore:-). if it doesn't relate to present conditioned dhammas, what's the use, I wonder? .... > There seem to be two ways of making conventional Dhamma remarkable: > relate it to self, or relate it to Abhidhamma. (See Phil's post on > this today - 59118.) .... S: Yes! .... >I tried to do the latter but it was a tricky > topic: In what sense is there a need to balance wholesome faculties? > Can there really be too much of a good thing? We needed someone who > could explain this in a way that made perfect, inspirational, > Abhidhamma, sense. .... S: I'll leave Phil and others to provide the inspiration, but surely when one views the faculties (indriyas) from a 'need to do' something, one is falling off that middle path again? People have different inclinations -- some have a lot of devotional faith, some study a lot and so on, but at moments of satipatthana, the indriyas are balanced. So it comes back to the development of satipatthana/vipassana again. .... > > My consoling thought was that, when I got home, I could look it up in > Useful Posts. But no, as it turned out they contained not a word > (unless I was looking in the wrong place). It's a bleak day indeed > when UP's let you down! :-) ... S: Oh dear! When this happens, there are two solutions- a) write one, b)check in another place. Not much, I grant you, but try: 'Faculties - Balancing' and 'Indriyas' for a small start. I'll let you know if I find other inspiration. Ah, yes, a few minutes later....also look under 'saddha', maybe starting with this post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/26622 Oh, why don't I give an extract from it: S: ".....in the commentary and sub-commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta (SS), which we went through on DSG, we read (p.139 Soma transl): “He who is very strong in faith and feeble in wisdom becomes a person who believes in foolish people who have no virtue, persons who are not trustworthy. He who has very strong wisdom and feeble faith gets crafty-minded, and is like a drug-produced disease that cannot be cured. Such a person thinks that wholesome karma arises with just the intention to do good. Going along the wrong way, by a species of thought beyond the limits of reason, and doing neither almsgiving nor other similar good deeds, he is born in a state of woe. By the equipollence of faith and wisdom one believes only in those like the Buddha who are worthy of trust because there is a reason for trusting them........” Many other examples are given in the text for the other states. ***** My question, which I raised in Bangkok, was how there can be too much confidence or too much wisdom, for example. Also, surely saddha cannot develop without wisdom and so often if there are thoughts about ‘balancing faculties’, it is with an idea of self or selection again. There were further questions too. We had several discussions and many examples were given. Just like in this example above from the Tika to the SS, people may think they know more than they really do,’beyond the limits of reason’, having studied a lot from the Abhidhamma or other texts or being able to recite in Pali, for example, but with little saddha or sati. It may be panna, but at an intellectual level only, so that there are bound to still be lots of doubts and wavering an no real insight. Conversely, someone may prostrate before a Buddha image many times a day and have a lot of saddha, but very little understanding of the teachings. The saddha is genuine, but there can be lots of wrong understanding in between, leading to the following of foolish people etc as mentioned in the Tika. A.Sujin mentioned that at moments of satipatthana, the faculties are balanced already, not just at noble path moments as I’d understood. Presumably this is why we read about the examples in the Tika to the SS. When there is no satipatthana, they are unbalanced." ***** S: Thx in advance for sharing any 'let downs' in U.P. It's good to know so we can look at re-organising so you can find that quick inspiration:-). Metta, Sarah ======= 59145 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu May 11, 2006 1:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition ... Metta and Devas sarahprocter... Hi Joop, --- Joop wrote: > J: This time you make Tep happy, Sarah .... S: Ah well, sometimes it's impossible to make everyone happy:-). .... > J: I like but before I start and knowing your good memory: > Are there any messages in U.P. in which the author states - like me - > that the beings in 29 of the 31 realms only exist in the mind of some > human beings? > And whereby it's still possible to see "things as they really are" > and to awaken? .... S: How about seein beings in 31 of the 31 realms as only existing in the mind? Would that count? By seeing 'things as they really are' and 'to awaken?'. Besides a good recent post of Herman's on 'Worlds', try more under 'Worlds' in U.P. Or 'Alone', 'Seclusion'.....When we think of any beings anywhere, it is only the 'thinking' which can be known, that exists in the mind. Understanding such thinking or seeing or other present dhammas is the way to 'see things as they really are'. So, I agree with you and I agree with Tep:-) Everyone happy now? ... > Sarah, I will at this moment also respond on your message in #59113 > to me. > Thanks for the 'Treatise on the Paramis', I downloaded it and started > to read it. .... S: Well, thank you for pointing out that all my typing was unnecessry!! I had no idea it was on line. For others, I don't have the link but easy to find by keying in 'Bodhi treatise paramis' in google. Yesterday I was coughing the whole time I typed because of using my old musty text....no more!! ..... > But I'm afraid you are mixing two different things: > - Paramis (skills) we can try to develop: there is the 'treatise' > about > - Skills (upaya in sankrit) the Buddha and possibly other teachers > (for example bodhisatta) can use: to apply the way a teaching is > given to the properties of the audience. > > But perhaps these two are the same in your opinion; do you mean that > I can use skillful means in trying to explain (atheistic!) people in > my environment the Dhamma? .... S: The paramis refer to the 10 wholesome qualities that have to be developed with satipatthana - none neglected along the path. I'm not very familiar with the 'skilful means' referred to by you and in the texts, as in the quote I gave. Just checking the Buddhadatta dict., it gives: 'upaaya - way, means, resource', 'upaaya kusala - clever in resources', 'upaaya kosalla- cleverness in expedient'. In the quote I gave, it was 'upaaya kosalla' that was used and it referred to the skilful means (upaaya kosalla) as being the wisdom necessary for the other qualities to become paramis. Giving on its own, for example, is not a parami. So 'skilful means' here is not just upaaya, but upaaya kosalla, if that makes sense. Now we both have access to this great text, I'm very happy to discuss any parts of it further with you or others. It may be the missing link you've been looking for, Joop:-). Hope you're happy now! Metta, Sarah ======== 59146 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu May 11, 2006 1:04am Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 442- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame/hiri & ottappa(d) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== Moral Shame & Fear of Blame (hiri & ottappa) contd ***** Moral shame, as the Atthasåliní explains, can arise because of consideration of one’s birth, one’s age, heroism (courage and strength) and wide experience. Moral shame arises from consideration of one’s birth when someone of a respectable family does not want to act as someone who has not had a proper education. Moral shame arises from consideration of one’s age when someone who is an adult does not want to behave like a child. Moral shame arises from consideration of heroism when someone does not want to act like a weakling but feels that he should have courage and strength. Moral shame arises from consideration of wide experience when one does not want to act like a fool who has not learnt anything. It may happen that, although we have listened to the Dhamma and see the value of having less attachment to self, we are still selfish, disinclined to help others, or still easily inclined to anger. However, there may also be moments that we remember that the Dhamma we studied should be applied and that it is foolish to give in to selfishness and anger. At such moments moral shame arises because of consideration of what we have learnt, because of the understanding we have acquired from the study of the Dhamma. ***** Ch27 - Moral Shame & Fear of Blame(hiri & ottappa) to be continued Metta, Sarah ====== 59147 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu May 11, 2006 1:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Cooran sarahprocter... Hi KenH & all, This old post of Jon's is also an interesting one, relevant to the 'balancing of the faculties', I think: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/28276 Extract: Jon: "As we know, one of the main conditions for the future development of panna is previously accumulated panna, which means that each presently arising moment of panna will be a condition for panna to arise again in the future. However, presently arising panna is not the only necessary condition for the future arising of panna. Other conditions are also required. As Kom mentions, the Buddha gave 4 factors all of which must be developed and cultivated if panna is to be developed to the level of sotapanna: association with a wise person, listening to the true dhamma, wise consideration, and practice according to the dhamma (the last one being panna, as I understand it). Although these factors are given in a graduated order, they are not factors to be accomplished and then abandoned /forgotten, one never gets beyond them. No matter what the level of panna, the need for each of these supporting factors continues: association with wise persons/good friends, hearing/studying /discussing the teachings, considering/questioning what has been heard an understood, as well as the panna that is 'practice according to the dhamma'. It seems to me that the person who has relatively more panna than saddha may easily get the notion that these other factors are not so necessary for him/her, and that he/she can develop the path without the assistance/reminders/admonition of others etc. Once the seed of this conceit has been sown, the 'craftiness' will rationalise it and find ways to bring it not effect, so that previously established habits and practices will be dropped for 1 reason or another. As a result, the development of panna is no longer sustainable. For the person in whom saddha predominates the position is the opposite. Undue emphasis may be given to attending talks, visiting the temple, observing moon days and the like, but without the critical consideration and questioning that is one of the necessary factors, so that there is an uncritical acceptance of whatever is heard. Panna cannot be sustained under these conditions either." ***** S: I'll look forward to anyone's comments as usual. Metta, Sarah ======= 59148 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu May 11, 2006 1:57am Subject: Audio (was: Re: Commentaries online?) sarahprocter... Hi Dan & all, --- "Dan D." wrote: > I've been listening to some of the KS recordings and have been struck > at how different the listening is from reading, writing, and > thinking. .... S: Dan, if you come across anything of special interest, I'd be glad to hear. Thx also for your detailed reply to me. I'll look f/w to getting back to it in the next few days. All, We're preparing a mailing of c.d.s from the recently edited India discussions to send out at the weekend. If you'd like a copy, pls let me have your snail mail add off-list in the next couple of days (unless I've already heard from you). If you'd like a copy of any of the other ones (on www.dhammastudygroup.org), pls indicate at the same time. (Pls let me know when they arrive and if there's any damage). Metta, Sarah ======== 59149 From: "Joop" Date: Thu May 11, 2006 2:33am Subject: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition ... Metta and Devas jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Joop, > > --- Joop wrote: > > J: This time you make Tep happy, Sarah > .... > S: Ah well, sometimes it's impossible to make everyone happy:-). > .... > > J: I like but before I start and knowing your good memory: > > Are there any messages in U.P. in which the author states - like me - > > that the beings in 29 of the 31 realms only exist in the mind of some > > human beings? > > And whereby it's still possible to see "things as they really are" > > and to awaken? > .... > S: How about seein beings in 31 of the 31 realms as only existing in the > mind? Would that count? By seeing 'things as they really are' and 'to > awaken?'. Dear Sarah, and all interested in "Paramis" and 'Wheels' and 'Skilful means' If I had knew you did the typing of parts of the Treatise by hand, I had said it more skilful. I found it as Wheel 409/411: 'A Treatise on the Påramis' by Acariya Dhammapåla; translated from the Pali by Bhikkhu Bodhi See http://www.abhidhamma.org/Paramis-%20perfections%20of%20insight.htm or http://www.abhidhamma.org/Paramis-%20perfections%20of%20insight.htm Yes there are hundreds of essays in the Wheel-series; many written by Bhikkhu Bodhi but also by others: orthodox and a little bit less orthodox Theravadin; and very readable! Many of them in: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-title.html Of the rest of your message, Sarah: S: How about seein beings in 31 of the 31 realms as only existing in the mind? Would that count? By seeing 'things as they really are' and 'to awaken?'. J: Stuff for contemplation! But for this moment I (wordling) still think: All concepts are unreal but 'animals' and 'homo sapiens sapiens' are less unreal than inhabitants of the other 29 realms. (Free paraphrase of "all animals are equal but some anima;ls are more equal") S: In the quote I gave, it was 'upaaya kosalla' that was used and it referred to the skilful means (upaaya kosalla) as being the wisdom necessary for the other qualities to become paramis. S: So 'skilful means' here is not just upaaya, but upaaya kosalla, if that makes sense. J: 'Skilful means' as translation of the sankrit upaya has an other meaning than 'upaaya kosalla'. Both are important but not the same! Below I quote a part of my message about it (to Tep) of some weeks ago. S: Now we both have access to this great text, I'm very happy to discuss any parts of it further with you or others. It may be the missing link you've been looking for, Joop:-). J: I like your optimism, Sarah. Till now I only read the introduction of BB, not the treatise itself. As soon as it give me ideas that maybe important for other reader, I will give them. It seems correct that it's a kind of missing link according the social dimension that not only is important in Mahayana but also in this Theravada-text. But I have more problems with Theravada-orthodoxy than only this dimension. Metta Joop UPAYA - SKILFUL MEANS A useful essay about it is: 'Nagarjuna and the doctrine of "skillful means" ' by John Schroeder (http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR- PHIL/ew103934.htm) It's mainly a Mahayana idea, important sutras in which it's a central concept are the Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra and the Lotus Sutra In the Pali Canon there is the wish of the Buddha (I don't know in which sutta) that the monks had to speak to their audiences in the own language of their audience. … And there is the well-known idea that the Buddha has used the (mainly) conventional language of the Suttas to teach audiences that like that kind of languages with many similes etc in it. And that He used the (mainly) ultimate language of the Abhidhamma for other audiences (for example Sariputta, …) who can understand this more abstract language. … My conclusion: even with this danger and with the fact that it's hardly mentioned in the Pali Canon, 'upaya' (skt) is an important topic, also for Theravadins I think: to make the Teaching of the Buddha understandable for audiences in the 21th century, and understandable for people who think more in terms of the natural science than in that of religions like christianity; we need a kind of translation of the Dhamma in modern language, with modern metaphoes and similes. I have discussed with Nina several times about this topic (she did not agree with me) 59150 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Thu May 11, 2006 2:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Cooran christine_fo... Hello Howard (KenH), I was surprised to read your 'appreciation' of the Cooran weekend ~ hardly recognising the proceedings from your description. I'm not at all sure that the majority of others attending would agree with your assessment. I'm sorry you seemed to find it unproductive. The five of us travelling back to Brisbane in the one vehicle felt the weekend had been deeply satisfying and rewarding, and were grateful for Andrew and Sandra for giving us the opportunity for fellowship and support. The Brisbane contingent plan to meet a couple of times over the next few weeks to continue discussing 'conventional' dhamma. The book which Reg read to us, and which most of us found of interest, was The Way of Wisdom by Edward Conze, and can be accessed: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/conze/wheel065.html metta and karuna, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- 59151 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu May 11, 2006 2:46am Subject: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 433- mindfulness/sati (o) jonoabb Hi Herman This is one of the messages that didn't get through to my inbox in the recent Yahoo hiccup. Sorry for the delay in replying. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: ... > > I find this question of the 'naturalness' of awareness a fascinating one > > (and I brought it up in India also). > > > > I have not come across descriptions of natural and unnatural arising in the > Suttas. I have come across descriptions of dependent arising. Is natural > arising an abhidhammic or commentarial notion? The subject of the 'naturalness' of awareness arises in the context of whether it is necessary (or even possible) to bring awareness about by undertaking particular actions or directing the mind in a particular way, or whether on the other hand awareness occurs spontaneously and undirected on our part. As I have come to see things, the development of kusala in general and awareness and understanding in particular spoken of in the teachings is something that occurs gradually and imperceptibly over a long period of time by virtue of hearing the teachings and what for want of a better word I might call 'studying' which means relating, comparing or testing what has been heard and understood conceptually to the dhammas of the present moment. With that as a basis, understanding will gradually grow or accrue, but any moments of awareness of dhammas will occur at a time not of our choosing and will take an object not of our choosing. I think the general concept just outlined can be found in the suttas, but it may take me time to find references because I'm not well organised in that regard. There comes to mind the sutta with the analogy of the hen sitting on her eggs. Does anyone have a reference? > But there is kusala that arises naturally in > > our daily life now (if there wasn't we wouldn't be here having this > > discussion), and it is at such moments that the characteristic of kusala > > can be known better, and the kusala quality itself developed. > > > Does this naturally arising kusala differ from dependently arising kusala? Again, this comment is made in the context of the widely held idea that unless we make a deliberate effort to have kusala there cannot be the development of kusala, especially of the levels of samatha and bhavana. In fact there are for all of us moments of tranquillity (samatha) occurring unbidden (= 'arising naturally') in our lives that we are probably not aware of. Jon 59152 From: "Joop" Date: Thu May 11, 2006 2:58am Subject: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition ... Metta and Devas jwromeijn Addition on #59149 Hallo Sarah, all The source I wanted to mention on the 'Treatise on the Påramis' was: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel409.html I looked especially on the idea of skilful means. My conclusion, till now: most skilfulness in the 'Treatise' is applied to oneself: to develop ones paramis. I'm interested in skilfulness applied to other persons. About how I can try to help awakening, by bringing the Dhamma, to other persons? In fact I found onely one quote about that: (4) Wisdom is mentioned immediately- after renunciation: (a) because renunciation is perfected and purified by wisdom; (b) to slow that there, is no wisdom in the absence of meditation (jhana), since concentration is the proximate cause of wisdom and wisdom the manifestation of concentration; (c) in order to list the causal basis for equanimity immediately after the causal basis for serenity; and (d) to show that skilful means in working for the welfare of others springs from meditation directed to their welfare. My question is: when can I - according this treatise - start in my work for the welfare of all beings? The impression this Treatise gives: after having developed the paramis, so after billions of years. I don't have a concrete plan for the rest of my life, but I think I want to start earlier. Metta Joop 59153 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu May 11, 2006 3:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Please don't run away yet, DAN 1.ii egberdina Hi Sarah, .... > S: Doesn't this disagree with your comment above about what many people > understand who've never heard the Buddha's teachings? Ah, you say, these > ten things refer to 'developed ......nibbana' and at the point of > enligtenment they need to hear the Buddha's teachings. The way I > understand this and other texts is that there can be no path whatsoever > outside the Buddha's teachings. There cannot even be the beginning of the > development of satipatthana. There cannot be any insight at all. That's > why all the great arahants, all the teachers who had attained the highest > jhanas and so on, all had to hear the Buddha in their final lives to > develop insights leading to enlightenment. > .... I think you sell the non-Indian world very short, Sarah. The following is from the Bible (Ecclesiastes 1:7-8); All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again. All things are wearisome, more than one can say. The eye never has enough of seeing, nor the ear its fill of hearing. There are a few people, from any culture, at any time, who do come to understand the reality of suffering, and the causes for it. And there are vast multitudes, from those same cultures, at any time, who remain totally oblivious to these realities. You express enormous faith in the path of the Buddha, and claim some vicarious kudos because of the enlightenment of the Buddha and some of his contemporary followers. And rightly so, though there is no vicarious benefit in that fact. But what is the track record of recent millenia? Who, standing on the bedrock of the Abhidhamma, has come within a bull's roar of living up to the promise of the Buddha? Given that, what has gone wrong? You say there can be no path outside the Buddha's teachings. I say that particular Abhidhamma based understandings of anatta render the notion of path meaningless, and all that is left is to wander ainlessly. -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 59154 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu May 11, 2006 4:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] A little chat about nothing egberdina Hi Paul, Where and when > (to what temporal spatial plane) would the mind go to if it where no > longer > linked in any way to dependent arising? As I consider it, if mind is what knows, then in the absence of mind there is no knowing, which of course includes not knowing that there is no knowing. Whether the continuity/contiguity of mind is illusory or not cannot be known by the mind. Which is why the Abhidhammic claim puzzles me. -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 59155 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu May 11, 2006 4:15am Subject: Re: Was the Lord Buddha a sexist? buddhatrue Hi Christine, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christine Forsyth" wrote: > > Was the Lord Buddha a sexist? > > By METTANANDO BHIKKHU, Bangkok Post, May 9, 2006 > Mettanando Bhikkhu is a Thai Buddhist monk and a former physician. > He studied at Chulalongkorn University, Oxford and Harvard, and > received a PhD from Hamburg. He is special adviser on Buddhist > affairs to the secretary-general of the World Conference of > Religions for Peace. > This article comes from The Buddhist Channel site > http://www.buddhistchannel.tv > > This question is not intended as a blasphemy against the Lord Buddha > or his teachings, but it is pertinent to the survival and progress > of Buddhism in the modern world > Bangkok, Thailand -- Determining the Lord Buddha's attitude towards > women is directly related to the very nature of Buddhism itself, and > whether or not Buddhism supports the human rights movement for > equality and democracy. In answering this question, one can always > argue that there is no way to verify the answer, since the Lord > Buddha has long since passed away into Nirvana. However, passages in > the Tripitaka, which is the largest body of religious teaching in > the world, serve as a good reference in our quest. Sadhu, Sadhu, Sadhu for providing this article!!! I completely agree with the conclusions of this article. Where the Tipitaka (specifically the Vinaya texts) state that the Buddha created 8 special rules for nuns and predicted the early demise of the Buddhasasana because of women nuns is absolutely bogus! The Buddha could not have possibly taught such a thing!! If the Buddha did teach such a thing, Buddhism is a sham because the Buddha could not have been enlightened- the Buddha would have been a sexist pig! And, anyone who believes that the Buddha could have taught such a thing is very far away from understanding Buddhism- and will incur negative karma for such twisted beliefs. I remember arguing this specific topic a long time ago with Sarah and how she supported the accuracy of the texts. Really, I just couldn't believe it!!! It was like a Jew proclaiming the wisdom of Hitler! Unbelievable! Do not trust everything in the texts and the commentaries- they have gone through soiled hands and soiled minds for 2,500 years! We must think for ourselves. Metta, James 59156 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Thu May 11, 2006 4:16am Subject: Re: More on Cooran ken_aitch Hi Christine and all, I want to make clear that I was talking about just one of the weekend's activities - the one where we listened to "The Way of Wisdom." I don't think the others would resent my account of it. We often discuss the pros and cons of reading from a book. One drawback (Is that a pro or a con?) is that people nod off. Ken H the other Howard :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christine Forsyth" wrote: > > Hello Howard (KenH), > > I was surprised to read your 'appreciation' of the Cooran weekend ~ > hardly recognising the proceedings from your description. 59157 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu May 11, 2006 4:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 433- mindfulness/sati (o) jonoabb Hi Phil Phil wrote: > Hi Jon > >... > > Ph: You'll recognize that I am parroting that "usually when there >is seeing, or hearing, thinking follows immediately" from the >excellent talk you had in 2001 in India, when you asked about some >Thai term that sounds like "Ben Pookity satipatthan." I think it's >good that these lines sink in - someday perhaps they will contribute >to conditioning real understanding. > > Yes, the phrase you heard on that recording is the Thai translation of a Pali term that has to do with being a person for whom the development of satipatthana is 'natural' or has become part of his/her nature. I'm not sure exactly how it should be translated into English. Relevant to the message I just posted to Herman, I think, but I didn't mention it there because I don't have the reference to hand. For us, lobha, dosa and moha are our 'nature'. For those of who have developed satipatthana to the higher levels, sati is their nature. It's a long journey! Reminders such as the one you have quoted above are very useful. We cannot hear this kind of thing often enough! Jon 59158 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu May 11, 2006 0:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Cooran upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 5/11/06 1:46:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > > Hi all, > > At Cooran, we listened while Reg read from a booklet called The Way of > Wisdom (I think it was one of the Bodhi Leaves). As is usual with > modern Buddhist publications, it covered several Dhamma topics without > specifically referring to conditioned dhammas. I was losing > concentration, and I suspect others were too: no one interrupted with > brilliant comments - or with any comments! When the topic turned to > 'balancing the five spiritual faculties' I asked Reg to pause, to > facilitate discussion. But even then, there was virtually nothing - > certainly nothing inspirational. > > This comes as no surprise to me. I don't wish to sound disrespectful, > but the Dhamma, in its purely conventional form, can be quite > uninspiring. > > There seem to be two ways of making conventional Dhamma remarkable: > relate it to self, or relate it to Abhidhamma. (See Phil's post on > this today - 59118.) I tried to do the latter but it was a tricky > topic: In what sense is there a need to balance wholesome faculties? > Can there really be too much of a good thing? We needed someone who > could explain this in a way that made perfect, inspirational, > Abhidhamma, sense. > > My consoling thought was that, when I got home, I could look it up in > Useful Posts. But no, as it turned out they contained not a word > (unless I was looking in the wrong place). It's a bleak day indeed > when UP's let you down! :-) > > Ken H ========================= I repeat here the central theme of your post: "This comes as no surprise to me. I don't wish to sound disrespectful, but the Dhamma, in its purely conventional form, can be quite uninspiring." My, my , my - how sad it was that so many poor followers of the Arahant had to put up with his suttas, 99% of which were (ugh!) "conventional" and thus "uninspired"! Ken, you like what you like and have every right to it, but I strongly urge you to look again at what you have written in this post and examine it carefully to see where it has taken you with regard to the Dhamma and being a Buddhist. 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) 59159 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu May 11, 2006 4:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Meditation, Alone & Thinking.... sarahprocter... Hi Howard (& Neil), Thanks for your reply which I also drew to Neil's attention. --- upasaka@... wrote: N:>> The crux of it-- > > "Whenever there is a growth of wisdom, a growth of mental > > development...that...is...meditation"-- is trenchant and compatible > with > > experience. > > > ===================== H:> It is an easy-to-remember and succinct statement, but not, IMO, entirely accurate. .... S: I had mentioned bhaavanaa in this context and Nyantiloka gives this definition in his dictionary: "bhaavanaa: 'mental development' (lit. 'calling into existence, producing') is what in English is generally but rather vaguely called 'meditation'. One has to distinguish 2 kinds: development of tranquillity (samatha-bhaavanaa), i.e concentration (samaadhi) and development of insight (vipassanaa-bhaavanaa), i.e wisdom (pa~n~naa)." S: In fact pa~n~naa is esential for any kind of bhaavanaa. Without vipassanaa bhaavanaa, no development of the path. ... >When wheat or some other crop is to be planted, the > soil is > cultivated. It is tilled, aerated, fertilized, and watered, and then, > with > adequate sun and protection from marauders, it will produce the crop. > The growing of > the wheat, or whatever the crop may be, is not the cultvation. It is the > > result of the cultivation. Likewise, the growth of wisdom is not > meditation, it is > the result of meditation (and its supports and other factors). ..... S: In 'The Simile of the Field', SN42:7, the Buddha refers to the various kinds of fields as an analogy for those who can benefit from hearing his teachings. He gives the same excellent teachings to all, but like the farmer who selects the most fertile field first, the Buddha selects the most fertile audience first. The fertile audience are those that have confidence and have taken refuge in the Triple Gem. The seed that is sown is 'the Dhamma that is good in the beginning, good in the Middle, and good in the end,with right meaning and phrasing'; and 'the holy life that is perfectly complete and pure'. Therfore, using your analogy, I take the cultivated soil to be the right accumulations to be able to hear the teachings, the planting and fertilizing to be the hearing of the teachings and the crop to be the growth of wisdom as you say. .... >With > respect, a > smearing of the lines between means and ends isn't helpful as I see it. .... S: I agree. No growth of wisdom or development of the path without the 'fertile' accumulations, encountering the teachings, listening and considering them. All of this is expressed in the sutta. .... > A side issue, providing some missing details: There are occasions > at > which some of the crop may be folded back in to serve to further enrich > the > soil. Likewise, wisdom, the product, is also used as support for > meditation that > fosters the growth of further wisdom. .... S: A good further analogy. I'd put it a little different and say that 'wisdom, the product, is also used as support for further listening, considering, reflecting that fosters the growth of further wisdom or bhaavanaa (mental development/meditation). Metta, Sarah ======== 59160 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu May 11, 2006 4:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] A little chat about nothing egberdina Hi Howard, On 10/05/06, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Paul (and Herman) - > > Some musings of mine on this: It seems to me that, experientially, > with no awareness, there also is no time passage. Yes, this makes sense. But the emphasis is on experientially. And as we know, what seems to be experienced can be very far removed from the way things are. (eg notions of persistence and self). My suggestion is that the contiguity of experience could also be mentally constructed. If that is so, there could not > be gaps within a mindstream from the internal perspective of that > mindstream, > as a gap presupposes duration. Periods of deep sleep, unconsciousness or anaesthesia are unaccounted for as experience. That could mean that the mind knew, but "choose" to not represent what it knew (as in the case of post-traumatic amnesia) , or that there was no mind during those periods. But whatever the case, the mindstream does present itself as having been contiguous, and whether that is an illusory representation or not is not a candidate for introspection to verify or falsify, I suggest. We'll just have to accept from our wives that we were there, and that we were snoring :-) -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 59161 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu May 11, 2006 0:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Cooran upasaka_howard Hi, Chris - In a message dated 5/11/06 5:37:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, cforsyth1@... writes: > Hello Howard (KenH), > > I was surprised to read your 'appreciation' of the Cooran weekend ~ > hardly recognising the proceedings from your description. I'm not at > all sure that the majority of others attending would agree with your > assessment. I'm sorry you seemed to find it unproductive. The five of > us travelling back to Brisbane in the one vehicle felt the weekend had > been deeply satisfying and rewarding, and were grateful for Andrew and > Sandra for giving us the opportunity for fellowship and support. The > Brisbane contingent plan to meet a couple of times over the next few > weeks to continue discussing 'conventional' dhamma. > > The book which Reg read to us, and which most of us found of > interest, was The Way of Wisdom by Edward Conze, and can be accessed: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/conze/wheel065.html > > metta and karuna, > Christine > ========================= Whew!! Thank goodness! :-) 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) 59162 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu May 11, 2006 5:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Cooran egberdina HI Sarah (and KenH), > > > This comes as no surprise to me. I don't wish to sound disrespectful, > > but the Dhamma, in its purely conventional form, can be quite > > uninspiring. > .... > S: and to my mind, this is when reading on an internet discussion group > has a big advantage over listening -- when it's uninspiring (for whatever > reason), we can speed forward, zap or ignore:-). if it doesn't relate to > present conditioned dhammas, what's the use, I wonder? > .... I don't experience surprise anymore on reading Ken's posts. But I still do when I read yours, Sarah :-) I am wondering what to do with all those reminders you have written over the years about how there is only the present moment, and how ridiculous it would be to want that moment to be different. Now you tell us that it is OK to make the moment different by looking for the texts you like. How about seeing the being uninspired for what it is? How about seeing the craving for Abhidhamma as it is? How about the mindfulness that is so freely available on the subways of Hong Kong being extended to the bushland of Cooran? -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 59163 From: Daniel Date: Thu May 11, 2006 5:24am Subject: Re: Re : Creator? daniell@... Hey All, > 1. If a creator exist, then who created the creator? > Where do the chain begins? > 2. If there is such a creator, why do he create us? It > is because he is boring or he wanted to test us? > 3. If we were created to be tested, then why some were > born in rich family while some were born in war zone > area where they are tempted to do horrible stuff just > to live a living. > 4. What will happen to those beings who do not believe > in the concept of the creator or follow his advices? > Will they go to hell. If so, then what happen to the > beings created before the idea of creator exist. > Beings created 5000 years ago for example. > 5. What happen to all the animals which we eat? Are > they created as well and if they (assuming they are > intellinge enough to acknowledge a creator) believe in > a creator, will they be born in heaven? What is the > purposes of those animals? Are they created for us to > eat? If so, then they should be happy when we kill > them for food as they are fulfilling their destiny. > Why are we created not equal? Why this and why > that.... and why why why ....?? > If one were to investigate properly, one will find out > the concept of a creator is faulty. What if I give the following answer : a created being is very different from a creator. Therefore, we cannot be sure that we can understand the creator. Therefore, the creator's behaviour & intenttion & motivation cannot be explained by us. What will the reply be? By the way, dear Dan D. it seems that you were talking about a "God" which is inside the world, or perhaps "is" all of the world... I was meaning a "god" which created the world, but is distinct from it... "Transcendent"... Yours, Daniel 59164 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu May 11, 2006 5:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 433- mindfulness/sati (o) egberdina Hi Jon, On 11/05/06, jonoabb wrote: > > Hi Herman > > This is one of the messages that didn't get through to my inbox in > the recent Yahoo hiccup. Sorry for the delay in replying. No worries :-) > > > I have not come across descriptions of natural and unnatural > arising in the > > Suttas. I have come across descriptions of dependent arising. Is > natural > > arising an abhidhammic or commentarial notion? > > The subject of the 'naturalness' of awareness arises in the context > of whether it is necessary (or even possible) to bring awareness > about by undertaking particular actions or directing the mind in a > particular way, or whether on the other hand awareness occurs > spontaneously and undirected on our part. > > As I have come to see things, the development of kusala in general > and awareness and understanding in particular spoken of in the > teachings is something that occurs gradually and imperceptibly over > a long period of time by virtue of hearing the teachings and what > for want of a better word I might call 'studying' which means > relating, comparing or testing what has been heard and understood > conceptually to the dhammas of the present moment. With that as a > basis, understanding will gradually grow or accrue, but any moments > of awareness of dhammas will occur at a time not of our choosing and > will take an object not of our choosing. As I have come to see things (I am not mocking you by using the selfsame line as you, it's just another rhetorical device to bolster my case :-)), akusala is natural and kusala is not. It ought not to surprise anyone that the world abounds in akusala because akusala is whatever leads to becoming. What leads to becoming leads to becoming, it does not lead to cessation. In the same way, it ought to surprise noone that kusala is poorly represented in the statistics, because kusala leads to cessation, and that's what it does, and having ceased it's gone. Everything in all our existences is geared for more becoming, Jon, and waiting for spontaneous renunciation and seclusion whilst busily pursuing sensuality is not exactly what the Buddha had in mind when he said that his teachings go against the flow. Although I must admit that your plan is pretty out there :-) -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 59165 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Thu May 11, 2006 6:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Cooran ken_aitch Hi Howard, I am sorry that my opinions of conventional Dhamma are offensive to conventional Buddhists. But if I can't discuss the real Dhamma at DSG, where can I discuss it? It was never the intention of the Buddha that we should accept the conventional, mind-numbingly ordinary, run-of-the-mill meaning of words as Dhamma. I will never convince you of that, but that's fine with me. Let's, each of us, continue the way he sees fit. Ken H > My, my , my - how sad it was that > so many poor followers of the Arahant had to put up with his suttas, 99% of > which were (ugh!) "conventional" and thus "uninspired"! > Ken, you like what you like and have every right to it, but I strongly > urge you to look again at what you have written in this post and examine it > carefully to see where it has taken you with regard to the Dhamma and being a > Buddhist. > 59166 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu May 11, 2006 6:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Cooran egberdina Hi Ken, On 11/05/06, ken_aitch wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > I am sorry that my opinions of conventional Dhamma are offensive to > conventional Buddhists. But if I can't discuss the real Dhamma at DSG, > where can I discuss it? > > How curious that you feel a need to discuss the real Dhamma. Who are you discussing it with? Warnings by well-meaning DSG'ers about the dangers of the medittating cushion are happily a thing of the past, but I think you are making a good case for warnings to be issued in relation to Abhidhamma abuse. -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 59167 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu May 11, 2006 6:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Cooran sarahprocter... Hi Herman, --- Herman Hofman wrote: > I don't experience surprise anymore on reading Ken's posts. But I still > do > when I read yours, Sarah :-) .... S: Ah, that's to make sure there's no nodding off:-) .... >I am wondering what to do with all those > reminders you have written over the years about how there is only the > present moment, and how ridiculous it would be to want that moment to be > different. .... S: Frame them in gold? .... >Now you tell us that it is OK to make the moment different by > looking for the texts you like. .... S: No, I'd never say that. The moment would have long since gone by the time we found the right text. .... >How about seeing the being uninspired > for > what it is? How about seeing the craving for Abhidhamma as it is? How > about > the mindfulness that is so freely available on the subways of Hong Kong > being extended to the bushland of Cooran? .... S: Exact! (as Ic would say) I see no conflict at all in what you rightly write say and what I (rather frivolously) mentioned regarding preferences for reading, discussing and listening to dhamma. This was just following up on a couple of current themes about the value of listening compared to reading and also what I'd mentioned to Phil on chanda -- we all have different kinds of interest, even for our dhamma activities. Personally, I've never been very inclined to listen to lectures or books/articles being read out, but as you rightly point out, if that's what one's doing in the Cooran bushland, then that's the occasion for awareness. Any idea of another occasion or another dhamma (other than the uninspired one, the abhidhamma craving one, the seeing, the hearing or whatever one right then)would be moving away from the present reality. Thanks for emphasising the point. I think you can rest assured that Ken H wouldn't have thought for a minute I was suggesting otherwise or finding him a loophole in the whole Abhidhamma edifice:-). OK, I'll look for more surprises tomorrow for you... Metta, Sarah p.s On one of your other threads, no surprise to hear from me too that cittas have to arise continuously - whether awake, in deep sleep, in the womb, or under anaesthesia...without continuous cittas by contiguity condition (anantara paccaya) [as Phil and Paul have said] and other conditions too, there'd be no life. Like when we come out of a deep sleep, there are sense door experiences and thinking immediately. Sometimes it may seem to others that we're in a deep sleep, but in fact there is some consciousness or some dreaming... ======== 59168 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu May 11, 2006 7:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Cooran jonoabb Hi Herman Herman Hofman wrote: >Hi Ken, > >On 11/05/06, ken_aitch wrote: > > >>Hi Howard, >> >>I am sorry that my opinions of conventional Dhamma are offensive to >>conventional Buddhists. But if I can't discuss the real Dhamma at DSG, >>where can I discuss it? >> >> >How curious that you feel a need to discuss the real Dhamma. Who are you >discussing it with? > > If we're not here to discuss the real Dhamma, what are we here to discuss (or do)? >Warnings by well-meaning DSG'ers about the dangers of the medittating >cushion are happily a thing of the past, but I think you are making a good >case for warnings to be issued in relation to Abhidhamma abuse. > > Herman in favour of warnings? I can hardly believe my eyes! Jon 59169 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu May 11, 2006 7:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Cooran jonoabb Hi Chris Christine Forsyth wrote: >Hello Howard (KenH), > >I was surprised to read your 'appreciation' of the Cooran weekend ~ >hardly recognising the proceedings from your description. > I do know how you feel. I had exactly the same reaction when reading your 'appreciation' of the last set of discussions in Bangkok ;-)). >I'm not at >all sure that the majority of others attending would agree with your >assessment. I'm sorry you seemed to find it unproductive. > And this bit too ;-)) Jon >The five of >us travelling back to Brisbane in the one vehicle felt the weekend had >been deeply satisfying and rewarding, and were grateful for Andrew and >Sandra for giving us the opportunity for fellowship and support. The >Brisbane contingent plan to meet a couple of times over the next few >weeks to continue discussing 'conventional' dhamma. > >The book which Reg read to us, and which most of us found of >interest, was The Way of Wisdom by Edward Conze, and can be accessed: >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/conze/wheel065.html > >metta and karuna, >Christine >---The trouble is that you think you have time--- > > 59170 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu May 11, 2006 3:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Cooran upasaka_howard Hi, Jon (and Herman) - In a message dated 5/11/06 10:05:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: > >Warnings by well-meaning DSG'ers about the dangers of the medittating > >cushion are happily a thing of the past, but I think you are making a good > >case for warnings to be issued in relation to Abhidhamma abuse. > > > > > > Herman in favour of warnings? I can hardly believe my eyes! > > Jon > ======================= LOLOL! It seems we all issue warnings from within our own bunkers! ;-) What is a happy aspect of this, though, is that, so far at least, it seems to me that all the "warnings" we give are given out of metta and karuna. That is, the warnings are all well meaning "cautionaries" aimed at helping our friends avoid (what we see as) mistakes and, for the most part, not assertions of "self". 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) 59171 From: "Dan D." Date: Thu May 11, 2006 7:59am Subject: Re: Re : Creator? onco111 Hi Daniel, Regarding your answer: > Daniel: What if I give the following answer : a created being is very different from a > creator. Therefore, we cannot be sure that we can understand the creator. > Therefore, the creator's behaviour & intenttion & motivation cannot be > explained by us. What will the reply be? Dan: I think the response from a Theist of any stripe would be "You are exactly right. That's why we need to rely on divine revelation as recorded the God-inspired Bible/Koran/Gita." > Daniel: By the way, dear Dan D. it seems that you > were talking about a "God" which is inside the world, or perhaps "is" all of > the world... I was meaning a "god" which created the world, but is distinct > from it... "Transcendent"... Dan: I use the capital "G" out of respect for Christians and Jews who conceive of a transcendent God who created the world but is distinct from it. Dan 59172 From: "Dan D." Date: Thu May 11, 2006 8:31am Subject: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition onco111 Hi Ken, Great comments (as usual). My comments are interspersed... > If I understand correctly, you have been saying that some of the great > non-Buddhist teachers had a degree of direct right understanding (of > conditionality). You explain the apparent inconsistencies in their > beliefs (creator gods, eternal rewards and so on) as being mere > conceptualisations of their right understanding. I think you say that > the apparent wrongness of their beliefs is inconsequential - relying > on the fact that concepts are neither inherently right nor inherently > wrong. Not at all, Ken. I'm saying that the language of a belief may or may not tell us very much about the understanding that the belief describes. Concepts are inherently wrong in that they are strictly imperfect reflections of the realities they are intended to describe. I am firmly of the mind that beliefs and ideas do have consequences. A consequence of interpreting, say, an understanding of anatta at a level that inspires a conceptual formulation of: "The Self is incapable of generating kusala" (reflecting understanding) with a rider that "God alone is the author of kusala" (reflecting a speculative hypothesis) is that the insight will never be of sufficient purity to constitute magga citta until the attachment to the speculative hypothesis as "reality" is relinquished. On the other hand, the pair of concepts "Impotent Self -- Potent God" can help bring about an understanding of anatta at a level of "Self is incapable of generating kusala", which is a deep insight. > What are the ramifications of your theory? I don't know whether to > argue against it or to let it go. :-) Hopefully, the ramifications would be to shake some conceptual timbers to make room for understanding, to build up an attitude of respect and compassion for people of other beliefs, and to open the mind to different descriptions of the same realities. > KH: > > I don't think there can be partial right view, (or, as you > suggested, "partially understood conditionality"). > > > > D: > I would say that any understanding short of full penetration of > the 4NT at the level of arahatta magga is "partial". > ------------------ > > True, there are many levels of samma-ditthi, but that is not what I > meant. I meant there was no cetasika that was part samma-ditthi and > part miccha-ditthi. I also meant that there can be no direct > understanding of conditionality at any level whatsoever unless there > is right intellectual understanding of conditionality in depth. You, > of course, would agree with the former, but aparently not with the latter. I'd argue that building up elaborate conceptual, speculative models is more of a hindrance than a help. The Dhamma should be conceptually easy at each and every step. If it's not, then there is too much dependence on theory and speculation. Understanding advances with little steps--little steps that may seem like big steps because each little advance in understanding violently rocks all the conceptual boats docked in the harbor, sinking some, loosing some from their moorings to be set adrift and forgotten about, and reconditioning others so that although their basic shape looks the same, they are so spruced up and transformed that they are unrecognizable as the same boat. > I don't know where you go from there. Do you say that Jesus (for > example) had right view at some moments alternating with wrong view at > other moments? Or do you say he had right view at some moments and > mere conceptualisations at others? > > I would have no argument with either opinion, except that I find it > hard to imagine how a person could have blatantly wrong view > alternating with any degree of right view. In any non-ariyan wrong view arises frequently. Right view arises too, but much, much less frequently. The views of the non-ariyan arise as wrong-wrong-wrong-wrong-wrong-wrong-wrong-wrong-right-wrong- wrong-wrong-wrong-wrong-wrong-wrong-wrong-wrong-wrong-wrong-wrong- wrong-right-wrong-wrong-wrong-wrong-wrong-wrong-wrong-wrong-wrong- wrong... Do you imagine otherwise? > This might explain why you have been talking to Sarah about right and > wrong understanding of concepts. I think you have been claiming there > are no such realities (that a view cannot take a concept as its > object) and therefore that any attitude we might have towards the > concept of an almighty creator (shock, horror!) is of no ultimate > consequence. No, Ken. Views certainly can take concept as object, but the rightness or wrongness of the view is not in the nature of the object itself but in the nature of the cognition, just as rightness or wrongness of any kamma does not hinge on the object of consciousness but the mode of consciousness. What attitudes might there be towards the concept of an almighty creator? Contempt? Scorn? "I'm right; You're wrong!"? No doubt that such an attitude would be a stumbling block. But an attitude that looks to God rather than Self as the author of kusala and wisdom is a step or two closer to an understanding "sabbe dhamma anatta" than a proper mouthing of the Buddhist formulations but with attachment to Self or contempt for Others. Metta, Dan 59173 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu May 11, 2006 2:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Cooran egberdina Hey Jon, On 12/05/06, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Herman > > Herman Hofman wrote: > >> > >How curious that you feel a need to discuss the real Dhamma. Who are you > >discussing it with? > > > > > > If we're not here to discuss the real Dhamma, what are we here to > discuss (or do)? You'll be able to help me on this. The real Dhamma was taught in the Tusita heaven to Mrs Buddha snr, if I recall. Is that a reality as per the real Dhamma? Or is that a mind-numbingly dull convention? (I'm not suggesting you would describe it as such). So, what sort of discussions are we here to have? Real discussions about real Dhamma (It would be good if pronoun usage could be dropped for such a discussion). Or are conventional discussions about the real Dhamma OK, it's just the conventional discussions about conventional Dhamma (is there such a thing?) that are the problem? >Warnings by well-meaning DSG'ers about the dangers of the medittating > >cushion are happily a thing of the past, but I think you are making a > good > >case for warnings to be issued in relation to Abhidhamma abuse. > > > > > > Herman in favour of warnings? I can hardly believe my eyes! Ah, but only in relation to abuse :-). Everything in moderation, Jon, even moderation :-) (Not referring to moderators or their role, of course) -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 59174 From: "Phil" Date: Thu May 11, 2006 3:03pm Subject: Be Here Now philofillet Hi all For anyone who hasn't read this, I recommend it. http://www.abhidhamma.org/be%20here%20now.htm Perhaps I will start posting passages from it as I am doing at another group. Phil 59175 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu May 11, 2006 3:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Cooran egberdina Hi Sarah, .... > >Now you tell us that it is OK to make the moment different by > > looking for the texts you like. > .... > S: No, I'd never say that. The moment would have long since gone by the > time we found the right text. Personally, I think there are times when it is fine to want to make the moment different. Like in the following example from MN02. And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by using? There is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, uses the robe simply to counteract cold, to counteract heat, to counteract the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles; simply for the purpose of covering the parts of the body that cause shame. "Reflecting appropriately, he uses almsfood, not playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on bulk, nor for beautification; but simply for the survival & continuance of this body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the holy life, thinking, 'Thus will I destroy old feelings [of hunger] and not create new feelings [from overeating]. I will maintain myself, be blameless, & live in comfort.' "Reflecting appropriately, he uses lodging simply to counteract cold, to counteract heat, to counteract the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles; simply for protection from the inclemencies of weather and for the enjoyment of seclusion. "Reflecting appropriately, he uses medicinal requisites that are used for curing the sick simply to counteract any pains of illness that have arisen and for maximum freedom from disease. "The fermentations, vexation, or fever that would arise if he were not to use these things [in this way] do not arise for him when he uses them [in this way]. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by using. So, perhaps, knowing which fermentations, vexation or fever would arise if there was no Abhidhamma handy, the person so afflicted could carry the Patthana with them wherever they went, and so reflecting appropriately, they use the Patthana simply to counteract uninspiredness ? :-) -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 59176 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu May 11, 2006 3:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition egberdina Hi Dan, KenH, > I am firmly of the mind that beliefs and ideas do have consequences. This is a topic which frequently has my attention. At this point in time, I am also of the belief that beliefs and ideas do have consequences, but that these consequences are limited strictly to the realm of ideas and beliefs. Beliefs condition further beliefs, they have no impact on what is real, though. As with dreaming, whatever curious plot develops based on the logic of imagination, the waking state, if it ever arrives, knows the unreality of all that was imagined. What do you think, Dan? I think it is Ken's contention that Buddhist dreams are superior in nature to other dreams, because they lead to waking up sooner? But do they, Ken? -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 59177 From: "Phil" Date: Thu May 11, 2006 4:44pm Subject: Re: a "happy" proposition philofillet Hi Herman and all The below are interesting - as usual. > Beliefs condition further beliefs, they have no impact on what is real, > though. I don't know how other people feel, but my approach to abhidhamma is that we experience what we can of it (not much) and believe the rest. By believing it, or learning it by rote, or parroting it, we may be laying down helpful conditions for eventual deeper understanding. When our understanding deepens, in addition to the paramattha objects of the understanding, there will be the previously believed conceptual understanding that will assist in confirming the understanding. But why would that be necessary - if there is direct understanding of a paramattha dhamma, why would the previous conceptual understanding be necessary? I don't know - maybe it wouldn't be. But I will go on accumulating conceptual understanding. No stopping that now. There are conditions for it to be happening now, clearly enough. But you are very right in warning that abhidhamma can be abused when we believe too readily that what we understand of it is direct, is anything more than our conceptual understanding. Actually, I don't know if that is what you mean by "abdhihamma abuse" - I didn't read the whole post - but that is what I assume you mean. Abhidhamma is so very deep. We can benefit from a shallow understanding of it, definitely. Very definitely. But it is only a shallow understanding, with very rare moments of something deeper and somewhat more direct. > I think it is Ken's contention that Buddhist dreams are superior in nature > to other dreams, because they lead to waking up sooner? But do they, Ken? Interesting. If dreams means concepts/conceptual understanding I think they could very definitely condition waking up sooner, but there is the danger I mention above. Confusing shallow concpetual understanding (just thinking about Abhidhamma) with something deeper. The same thing applies to almost everything in Dhamma. People might confuse thinking about sati with the real thing. I suspect it goes on all the time, especially when there are a lot of expecations. And while thinking about sati is de-agitating and makes one feel like one is being a proper Buddhist it *might* (I don't know) be an obstacle to waking up in the long run because there is so much attachemnt being accumulated, disguised as something wholesome. On the other hand, thinking about sati in an intentional way could possible condition the real thing. I don't know. I really don't know. There are many degrees of sati, and maybe thinking about sati is a form of sati. Maybe. I don't know. What do you (all) think? - is thinking about sati a form of sati? Phil 59178 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Thu May 11, 2006 5:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Cooran ken_aitch Hi Sarah, ------------------- . . . KH: > > We needed someone who could explain this in a way that made perfect, inspirational, Abhidhamma, sense. > > S: > I'll leave Phil and others to provide the inspiration, but surely when one views the faculties (indriyas) from a 'need to do' something, one is falling off that middle path again? People have different inclinations -- some have a lot of devotional faith, some study a lot and so on, but at moments of satipatthana, the indriyas are balanced. So it comes back to the development of satipatthana/vipassana again. ------------------ That's what we needed to hear. And thanks for referring me to message 26622; it was right on the money. Can we say that panna, at satipatthana, balances the indriyas, or is the case that the indriyas are already balanced before satipatthana? I did have a hazy memory of message 26622 on Saturday (I thought that panna, at satipatthana, balanced the indriyas) but I went off on a tangent. I said that panna could never be out of balance with the other indriyas. This made me look a bit stupid because the texts obviously said that it could. So I surmised that the texts were describing the balancing work that panna did within a moment of consciousness. I said if it didn't do that work then there *would be* the imbalance as described in the conventional language of the texts. That half-hearted suggestion didn't win any support, and I can see now that it didn't deserve to. So, when can there be too much of a good thing? The most obvious possibility is of too much faith in kusala. The doctrine of Dependent Origination lumps mundane kusala in with akusala, doesn't it? Therefore, faith in any kusala other than NEP kusala can quite easily lead to wrong view. It can lead to belief in an alternative way out, or even to the belief that there is no need for a way out. So too, can panna. (That is, ordinary panna that only knows the difference between kusala and akusala). However, it is not so easy to comprehend an imbalance of intellectual path-panna (either too much or too little in relation to the other indriyas). Well, actually, now that I think about it, it is quite easy to comprehend. Just when I was getting into stride! :-) Ken H 59179 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu May 11, 2006 7:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Cooran scottduncan2 Hey Lads, Can I play? What's with all the rhetoric? What are you discussing? "real Dhamma", "The real Dhamma was taught in the Tusita heaven to Mrs Buddha snr, if I recall." "Is that a reality as per the real Dhamma?" "Real discussions about real Dhamma" "conventional discussions about the real Dhamma" "a good case for warnings to be issued in relation to Abhidhamma abuse." Tell me to go away if this is between the two of you but I'm just curious as to what all this means. I'd like to join in if this is about anything. Sincerely, Scott. 59180 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu May 11, 2006 7:27pm Subject: memory lbidd2 Hi Fabrizio, Here is something I found in "The Buddhist Path to Awakening" by R.M.L. Gethin: p.41: "Clearly when we talk of 'memory' and 'remembering' in the context of Buddhist psychology we are dealing with quite subtle questions. From the point of view of Abhidhamma analysis it is apparent that many of one's so called 'memories' are simply conceptions or ideas based on a particular perspective of what occurred in the past. In short, they are misconceptions, the product of sa~n~naa associated with unskilful consciousness. The point is that as far as Abhidhamma is concerned our 'remembering' fails to reflect properly the way things truly are. This point is not particularly hard to appreciate, even conventional wisdom tells me that if I am brooding on some wrong done to me, my view of the world is likely to be coloured as a result. "What is important about sati/smrti in Buddhist thought is that it is seen as a particular kind of 'remembering'--when developed it 'remembers', as it were, properly. The Abhidharmadipa's explanation of the faculty of smrti as aviparitabhilapana or 'unperverted designating' would seem to be an allusion to the four viparyasas or 'perversions'. Rather interestingly the Nettippakara.na states: "One who dwells watching body with regard to body abandons the perversion [that sees] the beautiful in the ugly ... One who dwells watching feeling with regard to feelings abandons the perversion [that sees] happiness in suffering ... One who dwells watching mind with regard to mind abandons the perversion [that sees] the permanent in the impermanent ... One who dwells watching dhamma with regard to dhammas abandons the perversion [that sees] the self in what is not-self." "The point is clear, I think, in the Milindapanha account. Because sati 'remembers', it knows the full variety of dhammas, skilful and unskilful, and so on; because sati 'remembers' it knows how things stand in relation to one another; it, as it were, opens up one's view. In this way it tends towards a seeing of things that reflects what the Abhidhamma considers to be the way things truly are. This is the reason why sati/smrti is so intimately bound up with wisdom in the texts..." p.43: "Looked at in this way the difference between the Theravadin and Sarvastivadin conception of sati/smrti becomes rather finely balanced. For the Sarvastivadins a lack of proper remembering of the object of the mind is not conceived of as an absolute absence of smrti, but rather as smrti in a weak and attenuated form such that it cannot operate as it should, and is even perhaps 'perverted'' in some way. In this they preserve a straightforward understanding of the ancient canonical notion of 'wrong mindfulness' (miccha-sati/mitya-smrti), which the Theravadin Abhidhamma chose to understand as the absence of sati (As 250)." [As = Atthasaalinii] Larry 59181 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu May 11, 2006 8:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Cooran egberdina Hey Scott, On 12/05/06, Scott Duncan wrote: > > Hey Lads, > > Can I play? > > What's with all the rhetoric? What are you discussing? We are discussing a thicket of views, from within those thickets. Feel free to join in, but please bring your own thicket. My thicket isn't big enough for the both of us :-) You'll probably get the gist of the matter if you read the whole thread -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 59182 From: connie Date: Thu May 11, 2006 9:17pm Subject: herman nichiconn Ah, but only in relation to abuse :-). Everything in moderation, Jon, even moderation :-) (Not referring to moderators or their role, of course) connie: hohoho... don't forget excess... especially when it comes to abuse. especially when it is well meant, but misfortunately aimed. (don't tell tep i broke a heel the other night, please, but honestly...) our abuses are mostly hidden from us as such because we tend to take stock in our store of belief in my goodness. my righteousness. my dog. gotta flea, peace dude. 59183 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu May 11, 2006 10:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition ... Metta and Devas sarahprocter... Hi Tep (and those interested in devas and anumodana/mudita (sympathetic joy)), --- indriyabala wrote: > Tep: Thank you for quoting those questions & answers from Khun Sujin's > book. I am not clear about her following answer on extending mettaa to > devas. Could you please elaborate why the 'anumodhana daana' can be > broadcatsed (like video signals) to devas? > > KS: We can think with appreciation of their good deeds which > conditioned birth as a deva, thus, there can be ``anumodhana dåna'' . > Or when we do good deeds we can extend merit to the devas so that > they can have anumodhana dåna, kusala cittas with appreciation. These > are ways of extending mettå to devas. .... S: As you know, there are 10 kinds of 'pu~n~na kiriya vatthu' or 'bases of meritorious action'. These include a) transference of merit (pattaanuppadaana) and b) rejoicing in others' merit (abhaanumodana). When we encourage others to benefit or appreciate any kind of kusala, it is 'transference' (not literally, of course). When others rejoice in the merit, it is a kind of mudita or gladness that such merit has been performed. We don't know whether devas (or petas for that matter) may rejoice at any time or be able to tap into the 'video signal', but it can be pattaanuppadaana on our part to give them the opportunity. This is very common in Buddhist countries as you know. As I mentioned, for anyone interested, it may be helpful to look at posts saved under 'anumodana' and/or 'transference of merit' in 'useful posts'. [For newcomers, I hasted to add that these are just a personal selection by Jon & I from the archives ]. This is the first post under 'anumodana' which I think is very helpful. It's from Kom and was written to a member who'd just lost a friend: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/5313 > Recently one of my friends died and I have been > feeling a kind of gap about what can be done for the > dead, if anything. I have read about the transfer of > merit to the dead, and have wondered how this squared > with the fact that I alone can "save" myself, and > kamma. I hope this is not a silly question. Kom: "The Buddha listed 10 kinds of wholesome deeds that can be done, one of which is to rejoice (anumoddhana) when you know that other people have done wholesome deeds. When the Thais or other Buddhists say that "a merit can be transferred", what is actually done is: 1) The original doer of the wholesome deeds tells those that can know (human, devas, ghosts, etc) that a wholesome deed has been done. This dedication/making-known the wholesome deed is a "merit" accumulation for the doer. 2) The entity hearing about the deed rejoices (anumoddhana) the wholesome deeds of others. This rejoicing is a merit accumulation for the person rejoicing. There are many stories about the results of rejoicing other's wholesome deeds in the tipitakas including: 1) Being born from the human plane into a deva plane as a result of doing such 2) Being born from the ghost (peta) plan into a deva plane as a result of doing such Since other worlds (peta and ghosts) cannot be verified as facts for most people, what can be verified now are: 1) When telling other people about your own or other's good deeds giving the opportunities for the hearers to rejoice about the deeds, the mind is calm (with neutral or pleasant feelings) and is free of unwholesome qualities. 2) When rejoicing in other people wholesome deeds, the quality of the mind is similar." ***** S: May we all learn to share our good deeds and rejoice in others' good deeds. Tep, I know that none of this is new to you, but for others who don't come from Buddhist countries or who are not so familiar with the texts it may be. Is there anything else you (or anyone else) wishes to discuss on this topic? In appreciation of the opportunity to reflect further here. Metta, Sarah ========= 59184 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu May 11, 2006 10:41pm Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 443- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame/hiri & ottappa(e) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== Moral Shame & Fear of Blame (hiri & ottappa) contd ***** As we have seen, fear of blame, ottappa, fears the consequences of evil. These consequences are manifold. There are many degrees of akusala kamma and these produce different degrees of result, vipåka. Some akusala kammas produce their results in the course of our life by way of unpleasant experiences through the senses; when we are blamed by others or receive punishment it is the result of kamma. There is also akusala kamma which produces result by way of an unhappy rebirth. When we consider the consequences of akusala we should not only think of the vipåka it produces, but we should also see the danger of accumulating more and more tendencies to akusala. Because of defilements we are unhappy, we have no peace of mind. ***** Ch27 - Moral Shame & Fear of Blame(hiri & ottappa) to be continued Metta, Sarah ====== 59185 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu May 11, 2006 11:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 441- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame/hiri & ottappa(c) sarahprocter... Hi Phil & all, --- Phil wrote: > I recall that there is a very colourful simile - I don't think > it's in Nina's book (though it may be) so I will post it now. > > Hiri and otappa are compared to two ends of a metal rod. > > One is smeared with excrement, and one is burning red hot, if I > recall correctly. .... S: Yes, I find it very helpful, hiri being like the repugnance one would feel at taking the end smeared with excrement and ottappa being like the instant withdrawal from taking the end which is burning hot. How often in a day do we not really appreciate the 'filth' and 'heat' of all kinds of akusala? In the Atthasalini (PTS transl, Moral Consciousness), it refers to two iron balls, one smeared with dung, the other burning hot. "The wise man does not catch the cold one from loathing its being smeared with dung, nor the other one for fear of getting burnt. Here the not grasping the cold ball from loathing its being smeared with dung is like the not doing wrong from being sunk in an internal sense of shame. The not grasping the hot ball from fear of being burnt shuld be considered as the not doing evil from fear of purgatory." Sometimes (often) we notice others' deeds and lack of shame, but completely forget about our own lack of hiri and ottappa at these and other times. From the extract I just quoted from 'Cetasikas': "....we should also see the danger of accumulatig more and more tendencies to akusala. Because of defilements we are unhappy, we have no peace of mind." Good reminders, I think!! Thanks for the simile, Phil. Metta, Sarah ========= 59186 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu May 11, 2006 11:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Be Here Now sarahprocter... Hi Phil & all, --- Phil wrote: > For anyone who hasn't read this, I recommend it. > > http://www.abhidhamma.org/be%20here%20now.htm .... S: Yes, I think it's worth reading again too:-) Phra Dhammadharo/Alan Driver had a really good way of explanation. I look f/w to any quotes/extracts. He was a very dear friend to many of us as both a monk and a lay person in Thailand, Sri Lanka and Australia. His funeral(late 80s if I recall) - especially listening to KS's cheerful reminders about how useless it is to feel sad, adding wood to the funeral fire, touching his bones after the cremation and listening to Jon's eulogy - was an unforgettable experience for me. I arrived in floods of tears and left in floods of joy. When he'd been a monk, Jon used to take care of all his needs and travels(and those of many other foreign monks at the time). Once Alan said to me (before Jon & I were married) that Jon was the best friend one could ever have. How very true I've found it. Here are a couple of good quotes of his: "If we think that the way to be happy is to get what you want and to have nice things to look at, to hear, to taste and smell, we'll make lobha our God and devote lives to serving lobha...and that's the path to pain." "How can you blame Dosa?" Metta, Sarah ======== 59187 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu May 11, 2006 11:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition ... Metta and Devas sarahprocter... Hi Joop, Thank you for the links. Gradually, more and more of the translations, esp the wheel translations can be found on-line. I forget to check. --- Joop wrote: > S: How about seein beings in 31 of the 31 realms as only existing in > the mind? Would that count? By seeing 'things as they really are' > and 'to awaken?'. > > J: Stuff for contemplation! But for this moment I (wordling) still > think: > All concepts are unreal but 'animals' and 'homo sapiens sapiens' are > less unreal than inhabitants of the other 29 realms. > (Free paraphrase of "all animals are equal but some anima;ls are > more equal") .... S: At a moment of thinking about 'beings', it's just a concept thought about regardless of the realm:-). First, I wasn't extreme enough for you and now it seems I'm too extreme, lol:-). .... > J: I like your optimism, Sarah. Till now I only read the introduction > of BB, not the treatise itself. As soon as it give me ideas that > maybe important for other reader, I will give them. > It seems correct that it's a kind of missing link according the > social dimension that not only is important in Mahayana but also in > this Theravada-text. > But I have more problems with Theravada-orthodoxy than only this > dimension. .... S: We all have problems whilst lost in ignorance. You asked whether I meant that you 'can use skillful means in trying to explain (atheistic!) people in (your) environment the Dhamma?'. S: I think that the more understanding we develop ourselves, the more we'll be able to help others according to our different skills. Some are skilful at explaining, some at writing, some at helping with technical work or editing....it just depends. Sometimes the most skilful thing is to just keep quiet when people don't wish to hear. I appeciate your concern in this regard, Joop. ... > And there is the well-known idea that the Buddha has used the > (mainly) conventional language of the Suttas to teach audiences that > like that kind of languages with many similes etc in it. And that He > used the (mainly) ultimate language of the Abhidhamma for other > audiences (for example Sariputta, …) who can understand this more > abstract language. .... S: Yes, this is true. There's a lot written about this in the texts too, such as in the Katthavatthu. .... > … > My conclusion: even with this danger and with the fact that it's > hardly mentioned in the Pali Canon, 'upaya' (skt) is an important > topic, also for Theravadins I think: to make the Teaching of the > Buddha understandable for audiences in the 21th century, and > understandable for people who think more in terms of the natural > science than in that of religions like christianity; we need a kind > of translation of the Dhamma in modern language, with modern > metaphoes and similes. .... S: We've discussed this before. I have no trouble at all with what you write here. We have to use the language of the listeners. It just depends on our understanding when we make the translation as to how good it will be. Metta, Sarah ======== 59188 From: "Fabrizio Bartolomucci" Date: Thu May 11, 2006 11:50pm Subject: Re: memory fbartolom Dear LBIDD, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > > Hi Fabrizio, > > Here is something I found in "The Buddhist Path to Awakening" by R.M.L. > Gethin: I appreciate your kindness of talking to me for so long without quoting other people's opinions... 59189 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri May 12, 2006 0:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Cooran sarahprocter... Hey Herman,(Scott & all) Not really meaning to join in with the lads, but can't resist... --- Herman Hofman wrote: Scott:> > Can I play? > > > > What's with all the rhetoric? What are you discussing? .... H:> We are discussing a thicket of views, from within those thickets. Feel > free > to join in, but please bring your own thicket. My thicket isn't big > enough > for the both of us :-) .... S: Do you think it would help him to learn about sand-castles? Summer is heating up here in Hong Kong and it's definitely sand-castle weather, though I appreciate that sand-castles might be a bit of an unknown out in he Prairie cities of Canada....:-). For the uninitiated (not you or any oldies here of course, Herman), please read the Satta Sutta below. (funny thing, by mistake just now, instead of putting 'sand-castles sutta' in google, I just put in 'sand-castles' which took me to a site of serious sand-castle building with 'tips and tricks' about how to 'build taller, dig deeper' and details about a reality show where the sand-castle statues get smashed jup. Sounds like lots of fun. Metta, Sarah ..... SN XXIII.2 Satta Sutta A Being Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu PTS page: S iii 189 CDB i 985 I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then Ven. Radha went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?" "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up1 there, tied up2 there, one is said to be 'a being.'3 "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications... "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.' "Just as when boys or girls are playing with little sand castles:4 as long as they are not free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, that's how long they have fun with those sand castles, enjoy them, treasure them, feel possessive of them. But when they become free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, then they smash them, scatter them, demolish them with their hands or feet and make them unfit for play. "In the same way, Radha, you too should smash, scatter, & demolish form, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for form. "You should smash, scatter, & demolish feeling, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for feeling. "You should smash, scatter, & demolish perception, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for perception. "You should smash, scatter, & demolish fabrications, and make them unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for fabrications. "You should smash, scatter, & demolish consciousness and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for consciousness — for the ending of craving, Radha, is Unbinding." -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes 1. Satta. 2. Visatta. 3. Satta. 4. Lit.: "dirt houses." ...................... 59190 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri May 12, 2006 0:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Cooran sarahprocter... Hi Herman again, --- Herman Hofman wrote: > Personally, I think there are times when it is fine to want to make the > moment different. Like in the following example from MN02. > <...> > "The fermentations, vexation, or fever that would arise if he were not > to > use these things [in this way] do not arise for him when he uses them > [in > this way]. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by using. ... S: I see your point :-). The vexation which has yet arisen is not the present moment however. If there is vexation or wishing to have another moment, no amount of changing the garb or mosquito spray will make any difference. It is conditioned already and by the time you take out the spray, it will long since have fallen away. Now if you were to say to me that as all dhammas are conditioned anyway, we might as well sit around getting bitten and do nothing, I'd say that is not the middle way at all. .... > So, perhaps, knowing which fermentations, vexation or fever would arise > if > there was no Abhidhamma handy, the person so afflicted could carry the > Patthana with them wherever they went, and so reflecting appropriately, > they > use the Patthana simply to counteract uninspiredness ? :-) .... S: Well yes. If our friend had a pretty good idea he'd be nodding off, he might have his Patthana handy for quick relief. On the other hand, if you've ever tried reading the Patthana through even one chapter, you'd know that this could lead to even more nodding off. It's not a novel, I assure you:-). We can plan and make all sorts or arrangements, but we don't know what vipaka will arise, what dhammas will arise at any time. Knowing Ken H, I'm quite sure he wouldn't feel comfortable looking at his Patthana on such occasion in case it might give offence. He'd be giving his best attention and consideration to his friends, even at risk of nodding off. So in between the 'ininspiredness', there is I'm sure kindness and consideration and many moments of seeing, hearing, thinking and so on. All good fields for awareness. They're conditioned already -- they can't be made into anything else. I think this is turning into rather a good topic. Thanks for following up with it, Herman. Metta, Sarah p.s Hope you all had some nice celebrations at the weekend with Vicki and the grads. ============ 59191 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Fri May 12, 2006 0:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Cooran ken_aitch Hi Herman, I wrote a reply to this message, but it didn't do you justice. It mainly asked for an explanation of what you were asking me. But your question was probably rhetorical, was it? Also, the last statement about warnings went over my head. Quite seriously, I am one of those slow-witted people who need things spelt out for them. :-) Ken H > > How curious that you feel a need to discuss the real Dhamma. Who are you > discussing it with? > > Warnings by well-meaning DSG'ers about the dangers of the medittating > cushion are happily a thing of the past, but I think you are making a good > case for warnings to be issued in relation to Abhidhamma abuse. > > > > 59192 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri May 12, 2006 0:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Please don't run away yet, DAN 1.ii sarahprocter... Hi Dan, part 1 --- "Dan D." wrote: > Hi Sarah, > Some snipping of things on which we agree--probably because I just > wnat to highlight our disagreements to help me dodge future > accusations of being a True Believer in the Party Line of the Great > Leader. .... S: :-) lol. Heaven forbid Dan might follow the Party Line... Seriously, when we know we've asked hundreds of questions, listened to hours and hours of discussion, pulled out dozens of texts, taken all sides, pulled every word apart and so on on these difficult topics, we can just smile when we're accused of being unthinking followers or worse:-). ..... > I use the word 'akusala' in reference to cittas and cetasikas. What > makes a citta or cetasika 'kusala' or 'akusala' is not the object of > cognition but the mode of cognizing. If there is lobha/dosa/moha at a > particular moment, it is akusala. Most of the time for me, there is a > relentless deluge of akusala. That's just the way it is. When I read > suttas or Abhidhamma, most of the reading is done with akusala, > whether I'm reading or thinking about jivitindriya or heart-base or > nibbana or kamma-vipaka or 8FP or 4NT or citta or kusala or > Devadatta. And some moments of kusala arise on occasion as well, > whether I'm reading or thinking about jivitindriya or heart-base > or...or kusala or Devadatta. As with any sense objects, the pages in > front of me & the objects of cognition are not the determining factor > for kusala/akusala. > > However, I would indeed say that there is a distinction between > reflecting on and conceptualizing about a past awareness and > speculation about someone else's conceptual model. Just as kusala or > akusala may arise while sitting in a corner, eyes closed, focussing > on a kasina or touch of the breath or some nimitta, kusala or akusala > may arirse while speculating (forward) or reflecting (backward) on > jivitindriya or heart-base or akasa rupa. ... S: Agreed with everything, I'd just tag on 'or nibbana' after akasa rupa here for symmetry. No problem if you'd prefer not to. .... > 1. You don't think the word 'characteristic' is appropriate for > something (cetasika) that is invariably associated with a phenomenon > (citta). That's fine. .... S: What I've said is that I don't agree with your assertion that 'cetasikas are characteristics of any cittas'. Remember I gave the example of the jacket and trousers making up the suit. .... > 2. You must have specially reserved the word 'characteristic' for a > particular Pali word or usage, like I have kusala/akusala reserved > for cittas and cetasikas. That's fine too. .... S: I don't mind about the word. Whether you use lakkhana or anything else, cetasikas accompany cittas, they are not aspects of cittas. Otherwise nothing could be said about cittas alone or there couldn't be awareness of just cittas. See the Atthasalini(1, Book1, part11, 63) on 'citta' or K.Sujin's 'Survey', ch 8 ..... ***** > > S: As HenH said (I think), it sounds very broad-minded. But would > these > > people agree with what you suggest? Would they agree that their > > understanding of the 'all' comes down to rupas, cittas and > cetasikas with > > no soul, no beings, no me or you? > > Certainly not! ..... S: That's the point. It's not a question of the language. .... >The model (concept) > is not the same as the understanding (reality). Don't you agree that > the distinction between concept and reality is central to Buddha's > teaching? .... S: Yes, but he model and the understanding have to be in conformity with each other. .... > > > Would they agree that all dhammas are anatta, beyone anyone's > control? > > Very interesting question, Sarah. > > It is a standard Christian doctrine that the Self is utterly > incapable of kusala and beyond anyone's control. .... S: OK. I'll leave it there. Obviously my very Christian upbringing was lacking. .... <...> >>However, despite these cases, > most Buddhists would just reject it altogether -- unless it were > worded in a familiar sutta formulation. They would accept the > familiar formulation or conceptual framework on faith but reject the > doctrine itself because of lack of understanding of what the words > are really pointing to. .... S: True. But then they wouldn't be said to really have heard the Buddha vacana. ... <...> Have to go and do some editing with Jon. Will continue later with the interesting part about earlier insight and so on Metta, Sarah ======= 59193 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri May 12, 2006 0:50am Subject: Happy Wesak 2006 Friends! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: Know that: Helping Others helps Yourself! Harmlessness is the prime Protection! Meditation induces first Calm then Bliss! Dhamma Study assures doubtless Certainty! The Noble 8-fold Way makes Free & Deathless! Remember: At this Full Moon 2534 years ago the Blessed Buddha Awakened by Completely Perfect and Unsurpassable Self-Enlightenment! At that time a girl named Sujata Senani lived in Uruvela. When adult, she prayed before a certain Banyan tree, that she might get a husband equal to herself in caste and that her firstborn may be a son. Her prayer was successful, since so indeed did it happen. At the full moon day of the Vesak month, she rose at early dawn & milked the cows. As soon as new buckets were placed under the cows, their milk poured forth in streams spontaneously all by itself. Seeing this miracle, she knew something special was going on. Now at that very night the Future Buddha had 5 specific dreams that made him conclude: Certainly, without doubt, today is the very day, I will reach Enlightenment! His 5 colored radiance illuminated the whole tree. Then Sujata came & offered the cooked milk rice in the hands of the Great Being. After that a grass-cutter came going with a bundle of grass just harvested from nearby. He offered the Great Being 8 handfuls of Kusa grass, when he saw that this Sage was a Holy Man. The Future Buddha accepted the grass and proceeded to the foot of the Bo-tree. Reaching the imperturbable Eastern side, where all Buddhas take their seat, he sat down saying to himself: This is indeed the immovable spot where all the Buddhas have planted themselves! This is the very place for destroying the net of desire! Then the Future Buddha turned his back to the trunk and faced east. Right there he then made this mighty decision: Let just blood & flesh of this body dry up & let skin & sinews fall from the bones. I will not leave this seat before having attained the absolute supreme Enlightenment! So determined did he seat himself in this unconquerable seat, which not a 100 strikes of lightning could make him waver from. At this very moment the rebel deity Mara -the Evil One- raised exclaiming: Prince Siddhattha will pass beyond my power, but I will never allow it! And sounding the Mara's war shout, he prepared his army & went out for battle. Then Mara said to his militia: This Sakyamuni, son of Suddhodana, is far greater than any other man, so we will never succeed to fight him up front. We will therefore attack him from behind. Frustrated, being unable even to touch the Wielder of power with 9 mighty hurricanes of wind, rain, rocks, weapons, red coals, hot ashes, sand, mud, & darkness Mara somewhat in panic commanded his army: Why do you stand still? Seize, kill & drive away this prince. Mara yelled: Siddhattha, leave this seat. It is not yours but mine! Hearing this the Well-gone One replied: Mara, neither have you fulfilled the 10 perfections to the third degree nor have you given the 5 great donations. Neither have you striven for insight, nor for the welfare of the world, nor for enlightenment! Therefore does this seat not belong to you, but indeed to me. Suddenly overpowered by fear Mara's followers fled helter-skelter in all directions. Not two went the same way, but leaving their weapons in a chaos all behind, they fled terrified by panic. Seeing them flee, the great assembly of deities triumphantly shouted: Mara is defeated. Prince Siddhattha has Won! Let us celebrate the Victory! The deities then sang: The Victory has this illustrious Buddha Won. The Evil One, The End-maker is defeated & done. Thus they jubilantly circled the wisdom throne, the band of snakes singing their praises of the Seer, the flocks of birds singing their praises of the Sage, the assembly of Deities singing their praises of the Conqueror, the group of Brahmas singing their praises of the Worthy One. It was before the sun had set that the Tathagata thus conquered Mara & defeated his army. Then at the same night, after having bathed, while the Bo tree rained red sprigs on his robe, the Consummate One acquired knowledge of previous existences in the first watch of the night: With the mind thus concentrated, purified, bright, fixed, unified, focused, tractable, compliant, steady & imperturbable, I directed it to remembrance of my past lives. I recollected numerous past lives, i.e., one birth, two...five, ten...fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand, many eons of cosmic contraction, many eons of cosmic expansion: There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan & species, had such a body. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There I had such name, belonged to such a sort & family, had such a form. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here. Thus I remembered my various past lives in all their various modes & details. This was the first knowledge I attained in the first watch of the night. Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed; light arose as happens in one who is alert, aware, & determined. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind nor remain. With the mind thus still concentrated, purified, bright, intact, pliant, malleable, steady, & imperturbable, I directed it to the knowledge of the passing away & reappearance of beings. I saw by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human eye I saw beings passing away & re-appearing, and I realized how & why they are high & low, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate all in accordance with the intentions of their prior actions: 'These beings who were endowed with bad behaviour of body, speech, & mind, who reviled the Noble Ones, held wrong views and acted under the influence of wrong views, with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of misery, the bad destination, the lower realms, even in hell. But these beings who were gifted with good behaviour of body, speech & mind, who did not revile the Noble Ones, who held right views and acted under the influence of right views -- with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in happy destinations, even in a divine world.' Thus -- by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human -- I saw beings passing away & re-appearing, all in accordance with their particular mixture of good & bad kamma. But the satisfaction that arose in this way did not invade my mind nor remain. With the mind thus concentrated, fully absorbed, I directed it towards understanding the ending of the mental fermentations. I realized how it actually comes to be, that: Such is Misery... Such is the cause of Misery... Such is the end of Misery... Such is the way to end Misery... Such was the mental fermentations... Such is the cause of fermentation... Such is the end of fermentation... Such is the way leading to the end of fermentation.' When my mind saw that, realized that, it was freed of the fermentation of sense-desire, released from the fermentation of becoming, unobstructed by the fermentation of ignorance. Fully & perfectly Enlightened - The Buddha - perceiving this immense glory, spoke these 2 solemn verses, which never has been omitted by any of countless thousands of prior Buddhas: Through this round of countless existences have I searched yet failed to find 'the Creator', who framed this formation: What Misery! is such Endless Birth, Ageing, Decay & Death!! Now I see that 'the Constructor' of this structure is Craving...!!! Never shall this construction be build again, as all the rafters are shattered and the main beam is busted & broken... At this stilling of all Craving, mind has finally calmed… Then, friends, this vision of certainty arose in me: This release is irreversible, this is the last birth, this endless reappearance is finally ended... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 !!! <...> 59194 From: "Phil" Date: Fri May 12, 2006 3:24am Subject: Re: More on Cooran philofillet Hi Sarah, and all > Not really meaning to join in with the lads, but can't resist... Me too. And the nice thing is there is a spirit of fun now and hardly any getting upset about people having different views. I thought that this would happen if I were patient and rode out the bitter feelings. There was wisdom there, certainly, understanding the cause (clinging to dhamma) and effect (aversion when my views were opposed). There was hatred at times, but instead of trying to chase it away by practicing metta intentionally to my "difficult person" I rode it out, watched what was going on due to conditions. This gives me a confident feeling. But of course the aversion could return at any moment. There is no telling. > But when > they become free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for > those little sand castles, then they smash them, scatter them, demolish > them with their hands or feet and make them unfit for play. Ph: Interesting that this is what happens *when* they become free from passion, desire, love, thirst etc. It is not a matter of taking forceful action in order to get desired (or chanda-ed) results - the forceful actions become possible as a result of developed understanding. So a sense of description rather than prescription - haven't hear that in a while! :) Just a quick lobha-rotted look at the sutta. Does what I wrote seem correct? > > "In the same way, Radha, you too should smash, scatter, & demolish form, > and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for form. > > "You should smash, scatter, & demolish feeling, and make it unfit for > play. Practice for the ending of craving for feeling. Ph: Ah, here come the prescriptive-sounding "shoulds." What I wrote above would never fly with results-oriented folks. Phil 59195 From: "Phil" Date: Fri May 12, 2006 3:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Be Here Now philofillet Hi Sarah > S: Yes, I think it's worth reading again too:-) Phra Dhammadharo/Alan > Driver had a really good way of explanation. I look f/w to any > quotes/extracts. Ph: Are there any recordings of his talks. I do like to listen? > > He was a very dear friend to many of us as both a monk and a lay person in > Thailand, Sri Lanka and Australia. His funeral(late 80s if I recall) - > especially listening to KS's cheerful reminders about how useless it is to > feel sad, adding wood to the funeral fire, touching his bones after the > cremation and listening to Jon's eulogy - was an unforgettable experience > for me. I arrived in floods of tears and left in floods of joy. Ph: There will be more funerals soon, for all of us. I like what Nina wrote: "We wish to disregard the impermanence of conditioned dhammas." > > When he'd been a monk, Jon used to take care of all his needs and > travels(and those of many other foreign monks at the time). Once Alan said > to me (before Jon & I were married) that Jon was the best friend one could > ever have. How very true I've found it. Ph: I'm really looking forward to meeting you and Jon and everyone else in January in Bangkok. But who knows who will be dead or too sick too attend by then, or in prison for metamphetamines abuse? (Still worried about Jon on that count...) > > Here are a couple of good quotes of his: > > "If we think that the way to be happy is to get what you want and to have > nice things to look at, to hear, to taste and smell, we'll make lobha our > God and devote lives to serving lobha...and that's the path to pain." Ph: We become Mara's little servants, or something like that, in a sutta I vaguely rememner. > > "How can you blame Dosa?" Ph: No one to blame except our selves, and even then of course assigning guilty feelings just makes it worse. I have a bad sore throat today, took a day off, with a horridly busy weekend at work coming. A lot of dosa. It just happens. Too much interest in the story of Phil and his comforts. Phil p.s When I first came across "Be Here Now" I can remember having aversion - it was simply to strict, too joyless I found. Now I have grown so attached to it that I am thinking of reading it on to a cassette so I can listen to it. Someday perhaps I will begin to see some faults in it, for balance. 59196 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri May 12, 2006 5:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Cooran scottduncan2 Dear All, "We are discussing a thicket of views, from within those thickets. Feel free to join in, but please bring your own thicket. My thicket isn't big enough for the both of us." I looked and could find no thicket to bring (on the prairies you can see for miles and miles). Is this discussion about trying to understand the role of the various controlling faculties? Is it about how to read and understand "conventional" Dhamma, i.e. suttanta? Is it about the relative merits (or lack thereof) of study by the abhidhamma method? Sincerely, Scott. 59197 From: connie Date: Fri May 12, 2006 6:05am Subject: Re: Was the Lord Buddha a sexist? nichiconn Hi James, Christine, you might (not) want to see Amara's comments about the article: http://www.wfb-hq.org/Letter%20to%20the%20webmaster0006.html peace, connie 59198 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri May 12, 2006 6:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Cooran jonoabb Hi Herman Herman Hofman wrote: >>If we're not here to discuss the real Dhamma, what are we here to >>discuss (or do)? >> >> > >You'll be able to help me on this. The real Dhamma was taught in the Tusita >heaven to Mrs Buddha snr, if I recall. Is that a reality as per the real >Dhamma? Or is that a mind-numbingly dull convention? (I'm not suggesting you >would describe it as such). > > I admire your skill in innuendo, but I'm afraid you leave too much to be inferred for the less intelligent like myself ;-)) I was rather hoping you would spell things out for Scott so I could pretend I had caught your drift!! The tone of your post seems to be slightly anti-Abhidhamma. Perhaps you think that was what KenH meant by 'real Dhamma', but I believe he was referring to the whole of the Tipitaka and its commentaries (is there any other meaning of 'real Dhamma'?). >So, what sort of discussions are we here to have? Real discussions about >real Dhamma (It would be good if pronoun usage could be dropped for such a >discussion). Or are conventional discussions about the real Dhamma OK, it's >just the conventional discussions about conventional Dhamma (is there such a >thing?) that are the problem? > > You want to discuss what sort of discussions we are to have here? Give me a break ;-)) I prefer to talk about real Dhamma (whoops, sorry!). Jon PS I know, I know, the real Dhamma is what it is, and is not what is in the book or for that matter what fell from the Buddha's lips (strictly speaking). But that goes without saying. Is there some further point you have in mind? 59199 From: connie Date: Fri May 12, 2006 7:02am Subject: riddled nichiconn Imho-Tep: It seems that my lack of dancing skill (stepped on her foot a few times?) has caused Cinderella to suddenly leave the dance floor (and on her way back home). You can be sure of one thing -- I never side-step any question. Maybe the question was coded like a riddle, rather than in the ordinary language. you really are charming, prince imhotep, actually, i was out sitting on the missed-sTeps and remembered someone saying <> of course, i don't always see things for what they really are and might be carried away... indeed, i was on my way home the other night when things really started falling apart, but that's another story... anyway, i've got to see about a cart and some oxen and will get back with you. peace, c.