59400 From: "ericlonline" Date: Tue May 16, 2006 8:25am Subject: Re: Emptying... ericlonline Hi Tep, > How should I read your poem : 'me and mine" makes stream appear not > emptying into river, or streams and rivers are emptying and empty? {:>) 'all is emptying (impermanent and interdependent) and empty (of inherent self nature)' only `me and mine' makes it appear not so you have to read between the lines a bit, feel your way into the open spaces :-) peace e 59401 From: "Joop" Date: Tue May 16, 2006 9:23am Subject: Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 445- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame/hiri & ottap jwromeijn Hallo Tep, Han, Sarah Tep, if you state that there are two kinds of 'metta': - the kind that can be radiated by wordlings AND - the purest, most advanced metta that is called 'adosa', then I don' agree with you. This is a personal opinion of me, but I also cannot believe you have any Sutta-quotes about this differentiation. Metta Joop --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" wrote: > > > Hello Joop (Han, Fabry, ...) - > > You made a few good points about metta. > > >Joop: > > a 'worldling' can radiate metta, his or her mind can be pure enough > to do so during the moments of metta-meditation. > > I don't agree with the idea that it's the opposite of something > negative that had to be eradicted: it's something positive that had to > be strengthened. > ............. > > Tep: In short you say metta is a positive dhamma and it has a wide > range. I agree. Han focused on the purest, most advanced metta that is > called 'adosa' in the Anaagaami. His focus defines the context of the > original "too personal" discussion. > > Thanks for the opinion. > > > Sincerely, > > > Tep 59402 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue May 16, 2006 2:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on Cooran egberdina Hi Scott, On 16/05/06, Scott Duncan wrote: > > Dear Herman, > > "I would like to ask you whether the death of your wife was a gestalt" > > The death of my wife was, as far as this existence, an utter and > complete falling away. The last breath is something to contemplate. > > A gestalt is a term from a school of psychology of perception, if I > recall, and is like "aggregate." I think you may be misunderstanding > the way in which I am referring to reality; perhaps we should clarify > terms here. > > I hope I have not insulted you at some point. I fear I may have, > since I did find that last question to be a bit harsh. You might have > chosen a less sensitive subject with which to make your point, in my > opinion. Nonetheless, what is the point you wish to make? Of course > I experienced her death. You seem to be misunderstanding me to be > saying that experience is not real. Please clarify if you would. In gestalt, I believe it is vital in order for an effective conversation to take place, that those who are discussing are in the same place (not physically, you understand). I think we are in the same place now. I apologise a thousand times that you were upset by my question, but I did not create the situation that made the question upsetting. The reality is that in the long run, everything that is gained will be lost. I am not talking theoretically here. I have been bankrupt, had to deal with infidelity, been divorced, have a child in the local cemetery. This is not conceit about loss or suffering, not comparing one's suffering to another. But craving and suffering is our shared reality, and dissociation into pointilistic dhammas is not a solution of any merit. Seeing things as they really are is, and when vigorously pursued it will be realised that not anything you or I can experience is worth a pinch of shit, including pointilistic dhammas. The end of suffering is the end of craving, in which case I wouldn't have all that money, all that marital fidelity, all those children anyway. If I could convince you in some way that you are not offending me, believe me, I would, but to date I am not having any luck :-) Kind Regards Herman 59403 From: "indriyabala" Date: Tue May 16, 2006 3:02pm Subject: Re: the monk's siila. Skillful Side-stepping ? indriyabala Hi Sarah, I listened to the audio files for a few minutes. My computer system can receive the audio signals alright. I am interested in Khun Sujin's response to your questions on the Kundliya Sutta, and plan to listen to the whole files when I have more time later. Thanks. Tep ====== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > --- indriyabala wrote: > > > Hi Sarah, > > > > I am not sure what you talk about here : > > > > S: .. Besides the track in Srinagar I mentioned on the > > Kundaliya Sutta, I came across another one - the 4th one in Bodh Gaya hotel restaurant. If you listen to them and have any comments, pls discuss them further. > > > > What and where are these tracks? > .... > S: http://www.dhammastudygroup.org/ > ... > > a)Srinagar day 2 afternoon, 01, 02 > .... > > b)Bodh Gaya (hotel) 04 > (snipped) 59404 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue May 16, 2006 3:03pm Subject: Re: Suffering doesn't always announce itself. (Was [dsg] Re: More on Cooran egberdina Hi Phil, Thnaks for your post. On 15/05/06, Phil wrote: > > > Hi Herman and all > > > Herman >> One thing that you will never need to take on faith, and > it would be silly > to do so, is the reality of suffering. Suffering announces itself. > > > Surely the suffering implicit in forms, for example, doesn't > announce itself. Oh, it will. The insidious nature of dhammas is that they lend themselves to craving or aversion. If each dhamma could be seen as having a dirty great big fishhook attached, we'd soon learn not to go there. But we don't see it, and that is why we become shredded, torn, and ripped asunder. > I will take it on faith, because for now there is > certainly not insight of the degree that would allow me to > understand the suffering that is described in the sutta above. I > will take it on faith - there is no other way to understand it - not > yet, and not yet by a long shot. If you were to take it on faith, would you also take it on faith that you need to develop concentration for there to be guarding of your senses from alluring dhammas? Kind Regards Herman 59405 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue May 16, 2006 3:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 433- mindfulness/sati (o) egberdina Hi Phil, On 16/05/06, Phil wrote: > > > > It seems trivial to say that with the arising of a thought "I'm > cold", and > > with the knowledge of how to light a fire, and the availability of > fuel, > > blah,blah,blah that a being can bring about the arising of warmth > where > > there was none. But you seem to have a fundamental objection to > this, which > > I would like to understand (refute would be even better, but I > won't get > > ahead of myself :-)) > > > Ph: I don't understand the lighting a fire analogy, Herman. > Lighting a fire is not a dhamma. It's a concept. Jon was talking > about dhammas. What, heat is not a dhamma? Dhammas involved in lighting a fire cannot be > mastered. There might be aversion for some, lust for others, > probably both. There could be karuna or metta if one is lighting a > fire for someone. This cannot be mastered. In fact, the dhammas > involved in lighting a fire would be so jumbled up and multifarious > that only the Buddha could know which were arising at which moment. > But even the Buddha couldn't master their arising. It goes against > his teaching of anatta, as stated pretty clearly in the anatta > sutta, as far as I can see. (Which isn't far.) I'll quote the following, but shudder at what T-shirt slogan it could prompt :-) From MN20 (read the whole lot, I suggest) "Now when a monk... attending to another theme... scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts... paying no mind and paying no attention to those thoughts... attending to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts... beating down, constraining and crushing his mind with his awareness... steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it and concentrates it: He is then called a monk with mastery over the ways of thought sequences. He thinks whatever thought he wants to, and doesn't think whatever thought he doesn't. He has severed craving, thrown off the fetters, and — through the right penetration of conceit — has made an end of suffering and stress." Kind Regards Herman 59406 From: "indriyabala" Date: Tue May 16, 2006 4:01pm Subject: Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 445- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame/hiri & ottap indriyabala Hi Joop (also Han, Sarah, ..) It seems that you have read my reply to mean so much different from what I intended! Maybe it is due partly to my inability to communicate clearly. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joop" wrote: > > Hallo Tep, Han, Sarah > > Tep, if you state that there are two kinds of 'metta': > - the kind that can be radiated by wordlings AND > - the purest, most advanced metta that is called 'adosa', > then I don' agree with you. > > This is a personal opinion of me, but I also cannot believe you have > any Sutta-quotes about this differentiation. > Dear Joop, please give me a chance to re-communicate. You just described two extreme endpoints of the metta spectrum; there are many uncountable states between the two ends. According to the suttas, the highest level of metta is known as the "limitless release of mind" [MN 127]. Tep ======= 59407 From: "Phil" Date: Tue May 16, 2006 5:01pm Subject: Suffering doesn't always announce itself. (Was [dsg] Re: More on Cooran philofillet Hi Herman > Oh, it will. The insidious nature of dhammas is that they lend themselves to > craving or aversion. If each dhamma could be seen as having a dirty great > big fishhook attached, we'd soon learn not to go there. But we don't see it, > and that is why we become shredded, torn, and ripped asunder. This is related to something that I often think about but have not yet asked about. When I study all the suttas about how we are led astray by forms, it always seems to me it is not the visible object but the mental object that is conceived, the concept. So if I am led into lewd reveries by the sight of a bare thigh straining forward on a bicyle seat, as I was the other day, it is not visible object, it is a concept "thigh straining on bicycle seat" - I don't understand how we are led astray by visible object only, which is so void of meaningful content. But nevermind, that is another topic. > If you were to take it on faith, would you also take it on faith that you > need to develop concentration for there to be guarding of your senses from > alluring dhammas? Yes, I am well aware of the suttas that say that phenomena become known only when there is concentration. I've posted before that it is an area in which I don't yet understand. There is concentration with every kusala citta yes, but it still doesn't feel to me to be the concentration taught in the suttas as being necessary condition for understanding. On the otherhand, a worldling full of desire for results sitting down on a cushion to "concentrate" on something is also not right concentration - I know that much. It is just thinking hard, eith attachement. I am still staying open on this point - not expecting to understand it any day soon. Phil 59408 From: han tun Date: Tue May 16, 2006 5:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 445- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame/hiri & ottap hantun1 Dear Joop (Tep, Sarah, Fabrizio), (1) The present discussions started with Sarah’s presentation of Moral Shame (Hiri) & Fear of Blame (Ottappa) taken from Nina’s Cetasikas. (2) In support of Sarah’s presentation I quoted a passage from SN 45.1 Avijjaa sutta, where the Buddha said: [“Bhikkhus, true knowledge (vijjaa) is the forerunner in the entry upon wholesome states, with a sense of shame (hiri) and fear of wrongdoing (ottappa) following along.] (3) I also quoted Bhikkhu Bodhi explaination on the above statement: [True knowledge (vijjaa) is a forerunner for hiri and ottappa in two modes, as a conascent condition (sahajaatavasena, a condition for simultaneously arisen states) and as a decisive-support condition (upanissayavasena, a strong causal condition for subsequently arisen states).] (4) And based on the above passages, I said that when true knowledge (vijjaa) arises hiri and ottappa will also arise, and if there is no vijja there also will not be hiri and ottappa. (5) Then, Tep said vijja is opposite to avijja, and avijja is found only in the arahant, and he raised the question, “So, only the arahants have hiri-ottappa?” (6) I should have answered his question directly, but instead, I put up a counter question, “A lot of discussions had been going on in this forum about radiating "metta". Now, metta is opposite to dosa or vyaapada, and dosa or vyaapada is eradicated only by anaagaami. So, would you say that only anaagaami can radiate metta?” It was my fault that instead of answering Tep’s question directly, I put up a counter question unnecessarily. I apologize to all for drawing you into the present discussions. Respectfully, Han --- Joop wrote: > Hallo Tep, Han, Sarah > > Tep, if you state that there are two kinds of > 'metta': > - the kind that can be radiated by wordlings AND > - the purest, most advanced metta that is called > 'adosa', > then I don' agree with you. > > This is a personal opinion of me, but I also cannot > believe you have > any Sutta-quotes about this differentiation. > > Metta > > Joop 59409 From: "Phil" Date: Tue May 16, 2006 5:14pm Subject: Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 433- mindfulness/sati (o) philofillet Hi Herman > What, heat is not a dhamma? gaargh. just wrote a long reply and lost it. nevermind. of course heat is a dhamma. "I'm cold," "I know how to light a fire" and "there is fuel" are not, that was my point. Yes, there are suttas that get at the importance of concentration. I am well aware of them and am not yet satisfied with the teaching that the concentration that is present with every citta is what is intended by those suttas. but I also know that sitting down on a cushion and "concentrating" on something with attachment is not right concentration. Still staying open on this point. Re the MN sutta you quoted, be aware that the "he" is conventional speech used for the sake of teaching. Found this from Bhikkhu Bodhi in a notebook this morning. "Although Artahands have abandoned talk that implies belief in a self, they do not violate concentional discourse by saying 'the aggregates eat, the aggregates sit, the aggregates bow' for no on would understand them." Bowl? Did BB really write that? Anyways, "he masters this or that" is obviously referring the dhamma processes at work. Back to work today, so I will slip out of this thread in which I am in way over my head. Phil 59410 From: "Phil" Date: Tue May 16, 2006 5:20pm Subject: Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 433- mindfulness/sati (o) philofillet Hi again > "Although > Artahands have abandoned talk that implies belief in a self, Even for someone who makes a ton of typos when writing in a hurry, this is too much. Of course I arhahdohnts. pHil 59411 From: LBIDD@... Date: Tue May 16, 2006 6:01pm Subject: Re: Suffering doesn't always announce itself. (Was [dsg] Re: More on Cooran lbidd2 Phil: "When I study all the suttas about how we are led astray by forms, it always seems to me it is not the visible object but the mental object that is conceived, the concept. So if I am led into lewd reveries by the sight of a bare thigh straining forward on a bicycle seat, as I was the other day, it is not visible object, it is a concept "thigh straining on bicycle seat" - I don't understand how we are led astray by visible object only, which is so void of meaningful content." Hi Phil, In dependent arising it is the pleasant feeling (vedana) associated with the object, and latent tendency (anusaya) that condition tanha (craving). When this happens over and over clinging (upadana) to that combination of object and feeling arises for an assumed self that is believed to be annihilated at death. See Vism. thread in about a year. Notice the feeling when you are lusting after legs. Larry 59412 From: "indriyabala" Date: Tue May 16, 2006 6:02pm Subject: Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 445- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame ..Conclusion indriyabala Hi Han & Sarah (Joop, Fabry, James and all) - This post is more like my final rebuttal after reading all replies from you two, Fabry & Joop ... It is a long one. The very fact that the Buddha said in MN 39 that there are other things to do beyond tells me that "this hiri-ottappa" is at a much lower level than the hiri-ottappa in SN 45.1, i.e. "Bhikkhus, true knowledge (vijjaa) is the forerunner in the entry upon wholesome states, with a sense of shame (hiri) and fear of wrongdoing (ottappa) following along. My conversation below attempts to explain why. ................... >Han (#59315): >You also asked how to make it work without falling prey to lobha & self-view? The answer is in the sutta itself. A person with true knowledge would take up the noble eightfold path which would prevent lobha and self-view and other kilesas as well. >Again, the same sutta extract ["Bhikkhus, true knowledge (vijjaa) is the forerunner in the entry upon wholesome states, with a sense of shame (hiri) and fear of wrongdoing (ottappa) following along.] shows that hiri and ottappa will follow true knowledge. Therefore, there will not be any question of NO hiri-ottappa. If there is true knowledge there will be hiri-ottappa. Tep: With "vijjaa" being interpreted as true knowledge, I fail to follow your explanation, dear Han, because if we already have vijja, we are already arahants. Aren't we? The reason I asked ".. can we the worldlings begin our path of no-craving (alobha) and not-self (anatta) with only "understanding" and NO hiri-ottappa?" because Sarah (among others here) always says that understanding always come first. But MN 39 says hiri-ottappa comes first and after that there are more things to do (e.g. the next step from hiri-ottappa is 'We will be pure in our bodily actions, open and without a flaw; ...'). So it is clear that SN 45.1 does not describe hiri-ottappa in the non-ariyans. Period. ............... > > >Han(#59363) > > >A lot of discussions had been going on in this forum about radiating "metta". Now, metta is opposite to dosa or vyaapada, and dosa or vyaapada is eradicated only by anaagaami. So, would you say that only anaagaami can radiate metta? {(:>)} > >Tep(# 59367): > > The metta that an anaagaami radiates is pure 'adosa', while the > >metta of a worldling is a make-believed (faked) 'adosa'. > >Technically, I would reject the faked adosa and answer you with a > >'yes'. >Han(#59368) : >This is the first time I hear the metta of a worldling as a make-believed (faked) 'adosa'. Will a worldling be then never able to practice metta bhaavanaa? Tep: My answer (#59406) to Joop might be a good answer for you too. The metta of a worldling in contrast with the metta with no aversions (adosa) of the anagaami is like rusting iron being compared to a stainless steel. That's why I call such metta as "faked", not adosa yet! But the metta bhavana being practiced by the worldling would polish the impure metta more and more, until it could completely become pure (adosa) when the worldling finally turns into anagaami. .............. >Sarah(#59378): > I'd just like to point out that hiri and ottappa arise with all wholesome states, all sobhana cittas as does saddha. So they always arise together whenever there is dana, sila or bhavana. This is true for those with and without any saddha in the Buddha. Of course there are degrees and different kinds of hiri, ottappa and saddha. Tep: Dear Sarah, you are repeating the same book-knowledge pattern I have seen for years. You are, in effect, saying that you can build the top floor (paññaa) of a tall Bodhipakkiya building along with the other floors down to the basement(hiri-ottappa and sila) at the same time. The arising together of all great dhammas you mention above ("all wholesome states, all sobhana cittas as does saddha") is only possible in the arahant, I think. It is very much like claiming to have all eight magga factors arising together with the magga citta by virtue of intellectual understanding (through listening to dhamma tapes and discussion with "good friends"). I think I have made this point clear and will not say it in any future discussion, after the 3 long years of repeating all this. {:-|] .................... >S: Right Understanding is a path factor, the leader in the development of vipassana. Hiri and ottappa are the 'guardians of the world' arising with all sobhana. When right understanding (of satipatthana) develops, so will all kinds of wholesome states with hiri and ottappa. .... Tep: Again, you give the same 'mental fabrication' of the whole building in which all floors (right understanding, hiri-ottappa, sobhana) are constructed simultaneously. In MN 39 the monks were not taught satipatthana yet; they were told to start with hiri-ottappa. Hiri-ottappa must be trained until it becomes the first floor, onto which the bhikkhu builds other floors as stated by MN 39 as follows: "Bhikkhus, people call us recluses and you too acknowledge that we are recluses. Bhikkhus, you, who have promised to be recluses, should take upon yourself to live in the ways that make you a true recluse and brahmin. In so doing, your vows will be fulfilled. Then it will be meritorious to those who offer us robes, alms food, dwellings and medicine. Thus our going forth be fruitful and full of results. "Bhikkhus, what are the things that make you a true recluse and brahmin? Bhikkhus, you should train thus: 'We will be endowed with shame and fear of doing wrong.' Bhikkhus, it might occur to you: 'We are endowed with shame and fear of doing wrong. With this much, the goal of recluseship has been reached' and you rest satisfied, thinking there is nothing more to do. Bhikkhus, I inform you, I declare to you, there is more to do; do not fall short of the goal of recluseship. "Bhikkhus, what more needs to be done? Bhikkhus, you should train thus: 'We will be pure in our bodily actions, open and without a flaw; and we will not praise ourselves or disparage others on account of that purity of bodily actions.' Bhikkhus, it might occur to you: 'We are endowed with shame and fear of doing wrong and our bodily actions are pure.' With this much, the goal of recluseship has been reached' and you rest satisfied, thinking there is nothing more to do. Bhikkhus, I inform you, I declare to you, there is more to do; do not fall short of the goal of recluseship. [verbal actions, mental actions, pure in livelihood] "Bhikkhus, what more needs to be done? Bhikkhus, you should train thus: 'We will guard the doors of our senses: On seeing a form with the eye, we will not grasp at any theme or details by which -- if we were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the eye -- evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress might assail us. On hearing a sound with the ear... On smelling an odor with the nose... On tasting a flavor with the tongue... On touching a tactile sensation with the body... On cognizing an idea with the mind, we will not grasp at any theme or details by which -- if we were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the mind -- evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress might assail us.' Bhikkhus, it might occur to you: 'We are endowed with shame and fear of doing wrong, our bodily actions are pure, our verbal actions are pure, our mental actions are pure. Our livelihood is pure and we guard the doors of our senses. With this much, the goal of recluseship has been reached' and you rest satisfied, thinking there is nothing more to do. Bhikkhus, I inform you, I declare to you, there is more to do; do not fall short of the goal of recluseship. ... ..... Tep: Up to this step the training is still not about Satipatthana or the Noble Eightfold Path yet. ............ Sincerely, Tep, your friend, who will shut up completely. No more barking at the wrong tree ! {:>)) =========== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Tep (& Han), > > A little more to add to Han's good answers. > > --- indriyabala wrote: > > Tep: Prior to 'shame and fear of doing wrong', new monks must have > > saddha in the Buddha and determination to become a recluse(samana). > .... (snipped) > > I'll be glad if Han or yourself adds any further comments or corrections > anytime to anything I write. After inserting a few Pali lines in a post > yesterday, Han, it occurred to me that I could have asked you to point out > any errors. > > Metta, > > Sarah > p.s Thanks to both of you for your interest in this section of 'Cetasikas' > ===== > 59413 From: "indriyabala" Date: Tue May 16, 2006 6:23pm Subject: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 445- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame/hiri & ottap indriyabala Dear Friends Han & Joop (and all) - Han wrote to Joop : > I apologize to all for drawing you into the present > discussions. > Tep: I don't see anything wrong at all, dear Han. Discussion forums are for discussion. And so far, our discussions have been fruitful, except for the sad fact that I still keep on barking at the wrong tree (after the three long years) and have wasted my time for nothing. That, I think, is the only wrong thing I have seen! With appreciation of your presence, always. Sincerely, Tep ======== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Joop (Tep, Sarah, Fabrizio), > > (1) The present discussions started with Sarah's > presentation of Moral Shame (Hiri) & Fear of Blame > (Ottappa) taken from Nina's Cetasikas. > 59414 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue May 16, 2006 6:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 433- mindfulness/sati (o) egberdina Hi Phil, The following are things that come to mind. On 17/05/06, Phil wrote: > > > > > Yes, there are suttas that get at the importance of concentration. I > am well aware of them and am not yet satisfied with the teaching that > the concentration that is present with every citta is what is intended > by those suttas. but I also know that sitting down on a cushion > and "concentrating" on something with attachment is not right > concentration. Still staying open on this point. Cushions are neither here nor there. But what is important to realise is that what you do in your daily abiding that is not concentrated and mindful, will work against the possibility of concentration and mindfulness arising. You seem to be saying that because there is room for lobha in purposeful mindfulness, that therefore anything and everything else you do throughout your day is a better way to spend it. Re the MN sutta you quoted, be aware that the "he" is conventional > speech used for the sake of teaching. Found this from Bhikkhu Bodhi in a notebook this morning. "Although > Artahands have abandoned talk that implies belief in a self, they do > not violate concentional discourse by saying 'the aggregates eat, the > aggregates sit, the aggregates bow' for no on would understand them." > > Bowl? Did BB really write that? > > Anyways, "he masters this or that" is obviously referring the dhamma > processes at work. When you are an arahant, you are entitled to say. Until such time, repetition of what you do not know is just that and only that. No different to me reminding you that "gkjdhlbbh dfjvbajb jgajr". And that goes for the renowned Pali scholar, BB as well. Be careful out there, it's a jungle of dhammas :-) Kind Regards Herman 59415 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Tue May 16, 2006 8:02pm Subject: Visible object at Cooran / Was Suffering doesn't always announce itself. ken_aitch Hi all, Phil wrote to Herman: -------- > This is related to something that I often think about but have not yet asked about. When I study all the suttas about how we are led astray by forms, it always seems to me it is not the visible object but the mental object that is conceived, the concept. So if I am led into lewd reveries by the sight of a bare thigh straining forward on a bicyle seat, as I was the other day, it is not visible object, it is a concept "thigh straining on bicycle seat" - I don't understand how we are led astray by visible object only, which is so void of meaningful content. --------- This reminded me of another of our Cooran discussions, which, as requested, I will duly report on. Experiences of sense objects are the fruits of our kamma. They are the "rewards" for deeds well done and the "punishments" for deeds wrongly done (if I may use those terms). How, then, could the objects of those experiences be just meaningless blobs? How, for example, could visible objects be nondescript blobs of colour? I argued that, far from being mere blobs, sense objects came packed with information. Quoting K Sujin, from the best of my memory, I said, "Visible object is the reality that appears at the eye - nothing more, nothing less." To me, this means that all the information we glean from our eyesight is contained in visible object. Admittedly, there are no tree-rupas, for example, but the very specific information that causes us (with our long memories) to think, "Tree" is contained in various forms of visible object. However, mine was not the unanimous view. There were those (no names no pack drill) who supported the "meaningless blob" argument. And their views were well argued. They said that one blob of colour came from one part of the tree, followed by another blob from another part, and so on until, after billions of blobs were experienced, the thinking mind came to the conclusion, "Tree!" After being momentarily swayed, I couldn't accept that argument. Sense objects - the objects of vipaka consciousness - can be desirable, moderately desirable or undesirable. A simple colour cannot be any of those things (at least, not to any profound degree). I know it is futile to try to imagine a rupa, such as visible object, but I think we can understand it as coming packed with information - not as being nondescript. Corrections welcome. Ken H 59416 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue May 16, 2006 8:47pm Subject: [dsg] Re: More on Cooran scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Good one! H: "In gestalt, I believe it is vital in order for an effective conversation to take place, that those who are discussing are in the same place (not physically, you understand). I think we are in the same place now. I apologise a thousand times that you were upset by my question, but I did not create the situation that made the question upsetting." No, I'm upset that my wife is dead not by your question. I only asked if you had been insulted to check to see if my experience of the question (a bit negative or harsh) was the result of recent akusula kamma (i.e. insulting you). I know you are made of stiffer stuff than that. So you've convinced me already. By the way, I'm trying to be mindful in my interactions and so I'll always check; then there's the fact that I'm Canadian - politeness runs rampant in the Great White North. H: "The reality is that in the long run, everything that is gained will be lost. I am not talking theoretically here. I have been bankrupt, had to deal with infidelity, been divorced, have a child in the local cemetery. This is not conceit about loss or suffering, not comparing one's suffering to another. But craving and suffering is our shared reality, and dissociation into pointilistic dhammas is not a solution of any merit." Frankly I get tired of arguments that keep downplaying or minimizing or dismissing as so much intellectualizing, the teachings put down in the form they are from the Abhidhamma pi.taka. I don't expect that the teachings in this basket of the Dhamma should get you off but they do me, and not because of the thrill of intellectualising. There are experiences - noble ones, awesome ones, flawless ones, deep ones, inconceivable ones - which do indeed arise and fall away in a moment. These experiences change everything. These are the experience of pristine dhammas. The way of the abhidhamma analysis merely is a painstakingly beautiful way of setting out a vision of what can be experienced. If only I could practise with such vigour such as to be in the position again to experience such things. "Seeing things as they really are is, and when vigorously pursued it will be realised that not anything you or I can experience is worth a pinch of shit, including pointilistic dhammas. The end of suffering is the end of craving, in which case I wouldn't have all that money, all that marital fidelity, all those children anyway." I'm truly sorry that you've experienced all this. I can say that because I've lived life to age 47 and, as you point out, "ouch." I beg to differ with utmost stringency with what you state about the worthlessness of experience; there are things that can be experienced that are extremely valuable. They are gone and over and all that but of immense value. I share your understanding of the unsatifactoriness of life, from all three viewpoints. What do you think? (Now we're getting going). Sincerely, Scott. > 59417 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 16, 2006 5:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Visible object at Cooran / Was Suffering doesn't always announce it... upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 5/16/06 11:03:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > > Hi all, > > Phil wrote to Herman: > -------- > >This is related to something that I often think about but have not > yet asked about. When I study all the suttas about how we are led > astray by forms, it always seems to me it is not the visible object > but the mental object that is conceived, the concept. So if I am led > into lewd reveries by the sight of a bare thigh straining forward on a > bicyle seat, as I was the other day, it is not visible object, it is a > concept "thigh straining on bicycle seat" - I don't understand how we > are led astray by visible object only, which is so void of meaningful > content. > --------- > > This reminded me of another of our Cooran discussions, which, as > requested, I will duly report on. > > Experiences of sense objects are the fruits of our kamma. They are the > "rewards" for deeds well done and the "punishments" for deeds wrongly > done (if I may use those terms). How, then, could the objects of > those experiences be just meaningless blobs? How, for example, could > visible objects be nondescript blobs of colour? > > I argued that, far from being mere blobs, sense objects came packed > with information. Quoting K Sujin, from the best of my memory, I said, > "Visible object is the reality that appears at the eye - nothing more, > nothing less." To me, this means that all the information we glean > from our eyesight is contained in visible object. Admittedly, there > are no tree-rupas, for example, but the very specific information that > causes us (with our long memories) to think, "Tree" is contained in > various forms of visible object. > > However, mine was not the unanimous view. There were those (no names > no pack drill) who supported the "meaningless blob" argument. And > their views were well argued. They said that one blob of colour came > from one part of the tree, followed by another blob from another part, > and so on until, after billions of blobs were experienced, the > thinking mind came to the conclusion, "Tree!" > > After being momentarily swayed, I couldn't accept that argument. Sense > objects - the objects of vipaka consciousness - can be desirable, > moderately desirable or undesirable. A simple colour cannot be any of > those things (at least, not to any profound degree). > > I know it is futile to try to imagine a rupa, such as visible object, > but I think we can understand it as coming packed with information - > not as being nondescript. > > Corrections welcome. > > Ken H > ======================== Ken, you may wish to rethink your position, because it happens that I am entirely in agreement with you on this matter! ;-) The perception and further mental processing, including conceptual processing, following upon the consciousness of a visible object is a kind of discovery procedure that lays bare structure and relationship already present in the original object. (The form into which the mind puts that information is faulty, of course, embodying substance and "thingness" and self-existence based on ignorant reification, but that is a side issue.) 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) 59418 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 16, 2006 11:56pm Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 448- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame/hiri & ottappa(j) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== Moral Shame & Fear of Blame (hiri & ottappa) contd ***** We read in the Gradual Sayings (Book of the Fives, Chapter IX, § 4) about the factors which, if a monk possesses them, hinder the attainment of the goal of monkhood, and about the factors which lead to the goal: * "Monks, possessed of five qualities, an elder becomes not what he ought to become.... He is without faith (saddhå), modesty (hiri), fear of blame (ottappa), he is lazy and lacks insight....… Monks, possessed of five qualities an elder becomes what he ought to become....… He has faith, modesty, fear of blame, he is diligent and develops insight....." *… This sutta can remind both monks and laypeople that if there is no development of understanding of the reality appearing at this moment, people will not become what they ought to become: a person who has eradicated defilements. If we remember the shortness of life there will be more often moral shame and fear of blame which abhor laziness as regards kusala. The Buddha reminded people not to be heedless, but to be earnest, mindful at this very moment. ***** Ch27 - Moral Shame & Fear of Blame(hiri & ottappa) to be continued Metta, Sarah ====== 59419 From: "kelvin_lwin" Date: Wed May 17, 2006 0:33am Subject: [dsg] Re: Please don't run away yet, DAN 1.ii kelvin_lwin Hi Sarah (Dan), I somehow missed the original post from a year ago so here's my belated reaction. > making on this topic and discussed it in detail with K.Sujin. See: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/45763 The major link in your reasoning is this: >Visuddhimagga that having >attained the 2nd stage of insight (paccaya-pariggaha ~naa.na), one is >referred to as a lesser (cula) sotapanna with a fixed destiny in >heavenly planes. In other words, even on the attainment of the second >stage, there will be no rebirth in hell planes as I understand. Kel: Statement about cula-sotapanna only applies to the very next life only otherwise there's no difference to a regular sotapanna. After that all bets are off unless the practice continues even for a Bodhisatta and ours made a few mistakes that caused rebirth in all realms except the lowest hell. My Abhidhamma teacher was clear in definition of cula-sottapanna since some people asked the same question and I've read it explained as such in a few places. I think that position is pretty self consistent. So I don't think your conclusion holds and we should read the text as it's stated: *** Having become well-established in the fourfold purity of virtue, learned the Tipi.taka -- the Buddha-word, undertaken the thirteen austerities, and entered the forest, they fulfil the duty [of maintaining their meditation subject] while going out [for alms] and coming back, perform the dhamma of a sama.na, and cause insight to grow up to conformity knowledge, [but] stopping [there] they do not undertake any striving for the sake of the path and fruit. This is just what Jotipaala did. *** I think Dan's point of panna being able to develop outside of a Buddha sansana is supported by existence of pacceka-Buddhas. Also during a Bodhisatta's career, he only has very limited exposure to living Buddhas. Actually in a lot of the tales he would obtain abhinnas which usually means rebirth in arupa bhumis so spends a bit of time contemplating by himself given the lifespan of those realms. We also read that even in animal existence, Bodhisatta continued developing paramis despite inability to obtain magga. So it must be possible to develop panna anytime by anybody. There are only 4 kusala and 9 jhana cittas to categorize development of panna to until magga is reached. So all those cannot have "lasting" effect since they're merely mundane and my contention is all the insights below anuloma are mundane. - Kel 59420 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 17, 2006 0:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Cooran sarahprocter... Hi Ken H, --- ken_aitch wrote: > Can we say that panna, at satipatthana, balances the indriyas, or is > the case that the indriyas are already balanced before satipatthana? ..... S: I think we can say that the indiryas become balanced naturally as satipatthana and the foundation of satipatthana develops. As you say, panna always plays a key role. In a text I checked on this point (Sammohavinodani, transl as 'Dispeller'), it also stressed the role of sati too, 'like the salt-seasoning in all curries and like the minister-of-all-work in all the king's affairs.......For what reason? Because the mind has its refuge in mindfulness, and mindfulness is manifested as protection. And there is no exerting or restraining of the mind without mindfulness.' (1317). .... > > 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. .... S: Well, I think you were right that when it's panna of satipatthana, it can't be out of balance. ..... >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. .... S: I think it's along the right tracks - the balancing is within a moment of consciousness, primarily through the development of panna in satipatthana which directly knows realities for what they are. .... > > 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). .... S: I think in the other posts we gave the examples of unquestioning devout faith and intellectual knowledge of details leading to craftiness and mana. In other words, all the things some of us get accused of here, lol:-) ... > 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! :-) .... S: Remember those examples of grasping the snake in the wrong way etc. I agree with you, Ken, I think it's a subtle area. Easy to give glib answers, but not so easy to really appreciate the conditioned nature of dhammas in this regard at any level. But I think we do see examples in the texts and in our encounters of following the teachings blindly (I think the texts give Vakkali as the example, the one who followed the Buddha everywhere) or getting bogged down with Abhidhamma or Pali details which we can't comprehend....There is some kusala saddha and panna, but it's weak because it's not balanced. I'm sure all your reflections were and are good ones, Ken H. Let me know if you have anything else to add, now you're 'in stride'. Metta, Sarah ==== 59421 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 17, 2006 0:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on Cooran sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- Phil wrote: > > Hi Sarah, and all > > >S: 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. .... S: No telling as you say, but I've been very glad to read your comments like this one and to see that you're having fun even with the posts which would have annoyed you most in the past (inc. my oh-so-friendly ones in response, lol). .... > > >S: 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! :) .... S: Well said..... .... > Just a quick lobha-rotted look at the sutta. Does what I wrote > seem correct? ... S: Very 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. .... S: That's true....we read what we want to read in it. I think our other posts have addressed the 'shoulds' to our satisfaction at least. Metta, Sarah ========= 59422 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 17, 2006 1:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] James' Long Response (Re:what is sati.) sarahprocter... Hi James, Another late response.... (not intended as an 'ambush':-)) --- buddhatrue wrote: > James: Thanks for the reply to this post. I thought it had died a > quiet death. ;-)) .... S: And that was a month ago ;-)) ... > James: I did some research and I agree with you because of this > teaching that I found: > > "Furthermore, the monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of > themselves with reference to the seven factors for Awakening. And > how does he remain focused on mental qualities in & of themselves > with reference to the seven factors for Awakening? There is the case > where, there being mindfulness as a factor for Awakening present > within, he discerns that 'Mindfulness as a factor for Awakening is > present within me.' Or, there being no mindfulness as a factor for > Awakening present within, he discerns that 'Mindfulness as a factor > for Awakening is not present within me.' He discerns how there is > the arising of unarisen mindfulness as a factor for Awakening. And > he discerns how there is the culmination of the development of > mindfulness as a factor for Awakening once it has arisen…" > > This clearly points to the fact that sati can be the object of > sati. I stand corrected- thanks for pointing out my error. :-) .... S: This was good research on your part and a graceful comment. .... <...> > > S: And yet it is only when the wrong idea of self is eradicated > that other > > kinds of wrong view are also eradicated and the release from > samsara is > > assured. I agree with you that craving (and ignorance) are what > leads to > > the cycle, but it is particularly craving with wrong view. > > James: Here I don't agree with you. You seem to be rewriting > dependent origination to put an emphasis on the 'wrong idea of self' > which the Buddha didn't teach. You would have to show me some > evidence that when the Buddha taught craving of the Four Noble > Truths, he particularly meant craving with the wrong view of self. > This is what the Buddha taught: > > "And this, monks is the noble truth of the origination of dukkha: > the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion > & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for > sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming." > > Here I don't see evidence of "particularly craving with wrong view" > I see equal credit being put to craving for sensual pleasure and > craving for becoming/non-becoming. Frankly, I believe the Buddha > places the emphasis on craving for "passion and delight, relishing > now here and now there" "craving for sensual pleasure". Sarah, your > emphasis seems to be in the wrong direction. .... S: Remember that the grossest kinds of craving are eradicated first, starting with wrong view. For the sotapanna who has eradicated all wrong view, inc. wrong view of self, the end of samsara is just a matter of timing and a max of 7 lifetimes away as you know. In the Brahmajala Sutta (the first sutta recited at the First Council), DN1, all the various wrong views are enumerated and we can read elsewhere that these all depend on self-view. At the end of this sutta, the Buddha stresses the net we're trapped in while we hold these views. They are the leash that tie us to samsara. This is why, I believe the path factors start with right view - the view that clearly understands what is right and what is wrong, what is Truth and what is not. However, I think you've made valid points about all craving as being the cause of Dukkha and I agree with you that all aspects need to be stressed. Metta, Sarah ======= 59423 From: Bhikkhu samahita Date: Wed May 17, 2006 0:57am Subject: Re: Coreless and Transient Appearances... bhikkhu_ekamuni Friend Upasaka wisely pointed out: >1: sankhara-dukkha = what is put together or fabricated falls apart due to impermanence >2: sankhara-dukkha = what is conditioned, dependent is unkeepable, insubstantial, without essence >Do you think I'm making too much of this, Bhante? No, not at all. Well seen actually. Keep digging right there! Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. Friendship is the Greatest ... Let there be Calm & Free Bliss !!! <...> 59424 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue May 16, 2006 11:06pm Subject: The 4 kinds of Clinging ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: There are these four kinds of Clinging (Upadana): The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, there are these four kinds of Clinging. What four? The Clinging to Sense-Pleasures... The Clinging to Various Views... The Clinging to Rituals & Superstition… The Clinging to Ego-Concept… These are the four kinds of Clinging! This Noble 8-fold Way is to be developed for the direct experience of the four kinds of Clinging, for the full understanding of them, for their complete elimination, and for their final overcoming, abandoning and leaving all behind…The Noble 8-fold Way is developed for the ceasing of all Clinging! Comment: The first kind of Clinging to sights, sounds, smells, flavours, touches, & thoughts is fairly obvious… Clinging is to Views is like thinking: Doing good deeds are useless… Doing evil have no consequences… Clinging to rituals & superstition is like thinking that fire, bathing, & various rituals can purify mind… Clinging to Ego-concept, personality-belief, & self is the assuming an unchanging internal entity ‘I-Me’… The proximate cause of all Clinging is Craving, which have to be left! This is the second Noble Truth! Clinging means: adherence, attachment, clasping, cleaving, clutching, grasping, grip, & stubbornly stick to. The word ‘upadana’ literally means ‘uptake’ indicating that as soon as one takes up!, then Clinging occurs! Sariputta once said: When, friends, a Noble Disciple understands Clinging, the cause of Clinging, the ceasing of Clinging, and the way leading to the ceasing of Clinging, in that way he is one of right view, whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence in the Dhamma, and has arrived at this true Dhamma. And what is Clinging, what is the cause of Clinging, what is the ceasing of Clinging, what is the way to the cease Clinging? There are these four kinds of Clinging: Clinging to sense-pleasures, Clinging to views, Clinging to rituals & superstition, & Clinging to the concept of self. With the arising of craving, Clinging also arises. With the ceasing of craving, Clinging ceases too. The way leading to the ceasing of Clinging is just this Noble 8-fold Way; that is, right view, right motivation, right speech … , … , … , & right concentration… http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn-009-nb0.html Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V:59] section 45: The Way. 173: The 4 Clingings ... 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 !!! <...> 59425 From: "Joop" Date: Wed May 17, 2006 2:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bodhisattva Ideal jwromeijn Hallo Sarah, Are you serious? And do you have any quote from the Tipitaka (not commentaries) to proof this? Anyhow: to me bodhisattas are enlightened Metta Joop --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Charles D, > > .... > S: Bodhisattas are not enlightened. They therefore cannot show others the > path to liberation in spite of having developed such incredible qualities > over aeons and aeons of lifetimes. > .... > > Metta, > > Sarah 59426 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 17, 2006 4:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bodhisattva Ideal sarahprocter... Hi Joop, --- Joop wrote: > Are you serious? And do you have any quote from the Tipitaka (not > commentaries) to proof this? > Anyhow: to me bodhisattas are enlightened <...> > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott > wrote: > > > S: Bodhisattas are not enlightened. They therefore cannot show > others the > > path to liberation in spite of having developed such incredible > qualities > > over aeons and aeons of lifetimes. .... S: Well, I'm wondering where you got the idea that bodhisattas are enlightened. I'll be interested to see any quote from the Tipitaka to support this too! I'm not sure where to begin, but here are two brief quotes that come to mind (BB translations): SN56:11 Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta "And what, bhikkhu, is that middle way awakened to by the Tathaagata, which gives rise to vision...which leads to Nibbaana? It is this Noble Eightfold Path....." "'This is the noble truth of suffering': thus, bhikkhus, in regard to things unheard before, there arose in me vision, knowledge, wisdom, true knowledge, and light." SN6:1 Brahma's Request "....On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Uruvela on the bank of the river Neranjara at the foot of the Goatherd's Banyan Tree just after he had become fully enlightened...." etc etc S: Until this time when he became fully enlightened under the Bodhi Tree, he was a bodhisatta, unenlightened. I'm sure you're also familiar with the detailed descriptions of his enlightenment too, Joop. For example, MN36, Mahaasaccaka Sutta: "I directly knew as it actually is: 'This is suffering.....This is the way leading to the cessation of the taints.' "When I knew and saw thus, my mind was liberated from the taint of sensual desire, from the taint of being, and from the taint of ignorance. When it was liberated there came the knowledge: 'it is liberated.' I directly knew: 'Birth id destroyed, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of being.' " What are the passages you have in mind for your comments? Metta, Sarah p.s Around the time you left on your walking trip, I sent you a couple of brief messages which you may not have seen - #58093, #58095 (no need to respond, but I came across a note I made to draw them to your attention on return.) ======= 59427 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 17, 2006 4:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition ... Metta and Devas sarahprocter... Hi Joop, --- Joop wrote: > > >J: But I have more problems with Theravada-orthodoxy than only this > > > dimension. > > .... > > S: We all have problems whilst lost in ignorance. > > .... > > Hallo Sarah > > Of course I don't agree with this remark of you > Although you did not ask which problems I have, a kind of an answer > to this i my message #59376 .... S: What I meant was that whatever the problems we have in life, whether with Theravada-orthodoxy or anything else, they are caused by ignorance. When ignorance is eradicated, no problems with anything anyone or any text says! Do you still disagree? Apologies if my comment sounded flippant! Metta, Sarah ======= 59428 From: "Charles & Linda DaCosta" Date: Wed May 17, 2006 5:36am Subject: RE: [dsg] Bodhisattva Ideal dacostacharles Hi Joop, Bodhisattvas are most important in Mahayana Buddhism, and they can not be enlightened to the level of a Buddha because that would violate their vow. They may be enlightened to the level of and Arhat but this is not the case for all (it is a graded path, not an all or nothing). In Theravada, Bodhisattvas seem unimportant. Regards, Charles DaCosta -----Original Message----- From: Joop [mailto:jwromeijn@...] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 11:05 To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [dsg] Bodhisattva Ideal Hallo Sarah, Are you serious? And do you have any quote from the Tipitaka (not commentaries) to proof this? Anyhow: to me bodhisattas are enlightened <...> 59429 From: "Charles & Linda DaCosta" Date: Wed May 17, 2006 5:46am Subject: RE: [dsg] D.O. in three lifetimes and/or within one [was:Re: a "happy" proposition.. dacostacharles When the Buddha began his ministry, he taught based on a Hindu View of life to Hindus. The "rounds of rebirth" were the same to the 5 Ascetics as they were to most other Hindus, including the Buddha. What are "real Teachings"? What are "teaching substitutes"? EX 1: If you view the "soul" (what gives rise to this mind-&-form) as "rebirth-consciousness" you will find that it does not contradict... Charles D Regards, Charles DaCosta _____ From: indriyabala [mailto:indriyabala@...] Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 20:10 To: Subject: [dsg] D.O. in three lifetimes and/or within one [was:Re: a "happy" proposition.. Hi Charles D. - Whenever we are foolish enough to believe that 'teaching substitutes' are better than the real Teachings, it shows that we have real troubles (wrong views). >Charles D. : > > You also asked: "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?" > > To answer this question, I also have one of my usual one-liners: > --- Only if you believe in reincarnation/rebirth, e.g., of a soul. > e.g., Some times I view DO as a 3-life-times cycle (giving rise to the concept of reincarnation); Some times I view DO as a 1-life (giving rise to a concept that summarises existence); Some times I view DO as a 1-mind-moment event (giving rise to a concept that summarises the behavor of emotions, etc.); and then there are others, some I have even made up my self. T: Charles, reincarnation of a soul is NOT rebirth by the Buddha's definition of 'jaati'. "The birth of beings belonging to this or that order of beings, their being born, their conception (okkanti) and springing into existence, the manifestation of the groups (khandha), the acquiring of their sensitive organs: this is called birth" [DN 22]. ............. <...> 59430 From: "Charles & Linda DaCosta" Date: Wed May 17, 2006 5:56am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana ... Meditation Practices dacostacharles Hi Tep, Thanks for the complement; I have benefited from both, a long retreat and the discussion with our friends here on DSG. We must relinquish (giving up; abandon) the attachment that causes craving. The Labeling process may continue. Charles Dacosta your friend Regards, Charles DaCosta PS: I don't know what is going on with my email program. -----Original Message----- From: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of indriyabala Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 19:55 To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: [dsg] Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana ... Meditation Practices Hi Charles D. - I must say that your Dhamma understanding has now become more advanced, since the last time we talked. Is that because you have learned from the discussion with our friends here, or did you just come back from a long vipassana retreat? [:-|) <...> 59431 From: "Charles & Linda DaCosta" Date: Wed May 17, 2006 6:05am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana ... What lies dormant? dacostacharles It is hiding in the mind (memory, intellect, feelings, and therefore in form--nerve impulses-- and at times in consciousness). Regards, Charles DaCosta -----Original Message----- From: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ericlonline Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2006 00:45 To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: [dsg] Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana ... What lies dormant? Hi Charles, > "The 'idea of self' is quite dormant." > > The Self is sometimes dormant, like an egg a-waiting fertilization for its activation/becoming. Really! Where is it hiding and lying in wait? Please let me know so I can find mine and slit its throat! peace E <...> 59432 From: "Charles & Linda DaCosta" Date: Wed May 17, 2006 6:08am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana ... What lies dormant? dacostacharles HI Tep, The effects of kamma can lie dormant. And yes, the potential for the ultimate constituents of a whole exists (I think). CharlesD Regards, Charles DaCosta -----Original Message----- From: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of indriyabala Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 19:32 To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: [dsg] Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana ... What lies dormant? Dear Charles D. (and Joop) - Of course, everything is relative and there is no absolute except Nibbana. Charles D.: > The Self is sometimes dormant, like an egg a-waiting fertilization >for its activation/becoming. T: Isn't that true for 'kamma' as well? ................. >Charles D.: > Weather we say dormant, inherent, or etc. we mean: at least the >potential for it exists. > T: Isn't that true for all dhaatu (ultimate constituents of a whole -- Nyanatiloka)? ................... >Charles D.: > Oh ya, the mind is a container, form is a container, feelings can be > consider a container, consciousness can be consider a container, >memory can be consider a container, etc. > T: That is figurative (metaphorical) so to speak. Joop may like that. <...> 59433 From: Daniel Date: Wed May 17, 2006 6:28am Subject: Re: Creator ? daniell@... Dear Steven and All, > Hmmm... I really don't understand why is such... such > that a creator create the created which not able to > understand the creator. Imperfection ?? I think, the reason is not neccessarily "imperfection". I do not think that it is a neccessity that a created being cannot understand the creator - but it is a possibility. It is possible because of the different status between the creator and the created... If it is like the case of a human being that has cockroaches in his house - can the cockroach understand a human being? In the same way, can a created understand the creator? > It is an easy way out to answer that one can not > question or do not understand the quality thus no > answer is given. This is called ignorance... or "not > knowing". And that is the first link to the law of > dependant origination. And thus the cycle of suffering > exist. If I would say that a creator is known to us, but it's qualities are not known to us. The only quality that is known is its existence. It is not total "ignorance", only partial ignorance - we do know about his existence, but we do not know his qualities. Can you contradict the existence of Such a creator somehow? Yours, Daniel 59434 From: "Dan D." Date: Wed May 17, 2006 10:15am Subject: Re: Please don't ... onco111 Hi Ken, I much appreciate your comments and considering. > D: > 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. > -------------- > > KH: As you say, the notion, "Self is incapable of generating kusala," can > coexist with the notion, "God alone is the author of kusala." However, > (and I don't think I am being pedantic in this) the former notion is > no more 'in the middle' than the latter. A truly middle notion would > be along the lines of, "There are only dhammas, and all dhammas are > not-self." That cannot coexist with the notion of a Potent God can it? I'm not thinking in terms of a "person" who "has" a "belief"; instead, I'm thinking of right view and understanding as cetasikas. When right view arises and understands, say, that "Self is incapable of generating kusala", the mind subsequently scrambles to conceptualize the understanding and create "notions", such as "there are only dhammas, and all dhammas are not-self" or "God alone is the author of kusala." The Christian does not *see* God or *understand* God but only sees that "Self" is utterly corrupt and powerless, but the insightful Christian does see a degree of purity (kusala) and power (conditionality) that is beyond his/her control (anatta). After such an understanding arises and passes away, the mind is bound to seek and construct a conceptual framework around the understanding. > KH: > > What are the ramifications of your theory? I don't know > whether to argue against it or to let it go. :-) > > > > D: > 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: There is no need to rationalise the various doctrines to make them all > appear the same. (Sorry if I am misrepresenting your position.) Yes, I believe you are misrepresenting my position. The various doctrines are different, sometimes quite different. "Salvation" is distinctly different from "enlightenment"; "God" is quite a different from "anatta" as a description of the Self's corruption and impotence. "Detachment" plays a front a central role in Buddhism, whereas "love" is central to Christianity. However, there are some similarities below the surface. > Other doctrines, which do not teach this understanding, can attract > people with varying degrees of accumulated kusala - many much greater > than mine, I am sure. However, their kusala is not the product of > their doctrines: rather, their doctrines are the product of their kusala. Two different kinds of doctrines are: i. doctrines that arise from understanding; and ii. doctrines that arise from speculation. Generally speaking, "Self is incapable of generating kusala" would be one that arises from understanding; "God alone is the author of kusala" would be one that arises from speculation. However, I don't think we can make any hard and fast rules about the origins of doctrines because, depending on what precisely is meant by the word "God", the second could well be associated with understanding and the former with speculation. > Have you missed the question I was trying to ask? (Maybe you have been > answering it all along.) Do you think a person could have blatantly > wrong view (for example, of an almighty god in control of kamma and > vipaka) at some moments and any level of right view (of the > conditioned nature of kamma and vipaka) at other moments? I think it > is theoretically possible, but very unlikely. No question it is possible; and I'd even say it's not unusual. The concept "almighty God in control" is a concept. Sometimes it is the object of cognition; sometimes it is not. At its best, the concept "almighty God in control" is an after thought and rationalization of an understanding of "Self not in control". > <. . .> > D: > 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. > --------------------------------- > > KH: Agreed: remembering, of course, that detachment cannot arise in the > same moment as wrong view. Any attitude that looked to God would have > to be a narrowly confined attitude if it was to exist in a moment of > kusala consciousness. It could not envisage anything in control of > nama or rupa. I wouldn't think that the concept of a grand Being that sits on a cloud and acts as the traffic director of the world could be the object of consciousness in a moment of right view (as satipatthana or vipassana), and especially not in a moment of clinging to that concept. Dan 59435 From: "Dan D." Date: Wed May 17, 2006 10:18am Subject: Re: Please don't ... onco111 Hi Sukin, I'm glad you jumped on board! I always appreciate hearing from you. Good comments, but, as usual, I have a few questions and comments still. Comments interspersed... > Suk: > There is a distinction of course, between mundane and supramundane right > view. What I was saying though, was that for a Savaka, satipatthana could > not have arisen without first hearing the Teachings. And for a Buddha, the > discovery of the Path must coincide more or less with enlightenment itself. > This is not saying that in either of these cases, there was no satipatthana > developed in previous lives. There must have been satipatthana to the max, > possibly experiencing even some level of vipassana nana. > > However, in the particular life that enlightenment did occur, say in the > case of the Savaka, satipatthana couldn't have arisen without first hearing > the Teachings, as far as I can see. Once heard about and arisen, then yes, > one informs the other. I would agree that there must have been "satipatthana [nearly] to the max" before enlightenment and that "discovery of the [supramundane] Path must coincide...with enlightenment itself." It also goes without saying that discovery that the mundane path is a really a "path to enlightenment" requires either enlightenment or the words of an Enlightened One, but, e.g., mundane right view, right effort, etc. can arise in one who does not know the final destination. Right? > Satipatthana as you know is a level of panna much higher than intellectual understanding based on hearing or reading. I don't think it makes any sense to say satipatthana is a much higher level of panya than conceptual understanding (based on hearing, reading, or cogitating). Satipatthana and conceptual knowing are completely different modes of knowing. There is a relationship between them, but it isn't one of higher vs. lower. Any description of satipatthana or vipassana must be conceptual because words are strictly in the realm of the conceptual. Absent any insight, what is an "intellectual understanding"? An understanding of what? In no sense can it be called an understanding of the reality that is speculated about. It is speculation about the path. Insight does not arise from speculation, so the setup of intellectual speculation and satipatthana as "higher" and "lower" "levels" is artificial. And according to such a model, it would appear that genuine insight springs from the thoroughly conventional practice of conceptual speculation about doctrine. But just as the notion that genuine insight arises from the thoroughly conventional practice of formal meditation is a fetter to be broken (silabbataparamasa), the notion that insight arises from the thoroughly conventional practice of conceptual speculation about doctrine is also a fetter to be broken (ditthi). How would you describe the difference between ditthi and samma-ditthi? > Sukin: Don't you think that had Satipatthana arisen on several occasions before hearing any Dhamma that it would have at least begun to realize the distinction between reality and concept? D: Yes, I think he did. > Sukin: The concept of God for example is a proliferation at a level way beyond the simple 'thing' and 'I' making at the level of sense perception. D: Not necessarily. To some, "God" may simply mean "unexplained cause". > What would have stopped any "right" concepts from issuing forth from the experience of these mundane path moments having been accumulated to the extent that it > has? Wouldn't at least this proliferated idea of God start to be unreliable to fall back onto? What is a "right" concept? You surely don't mean "samma" as it is used in samma-ditthi, samma-vayama, etc. > Yet Augustine, Paul, Luther and so on have ended up only further adding > attributes to this concept or refining it, no? Though they may have on the > conventional level made some good observations regarding human nature, they > couldn't help falling back on to the idea of God and any theory related to > this. God controls all that goes on, so it is up to grace that any good can > happen to man, is this an understanding of anatta? The little 'self' has > only given the bigger 'SELF' credit. In Augustine, Paul, and Luther, the understanding of anatta is that kusala and panya are beyond the control of the little "Self". But they see that there is kusala and panya and seek an explanation for what controls it. Not finding any explanation within themselves, they conceptualize "God" as the controller. And, yes, credit for kusala and panya is given to the bigger "SELF" instead of the little "Self". I agree that this conceptualization of the understanding must be relinquished if enlightenment is to be achieved, but the diminution in the attachment to "Self" (ditthi) is real and beneficial--beyond what any purely conceptual understanding of anatta might bring, whether outside the dispensation or not. The measure of understanding is the degree of detachment from Self, not skill in intellectual games. > And you can't blame Jesus for filling their heads with this God idea, we all > have accumulated much wrong view. Augustine, Paul, Luther 'love' the idea of > God. Yes, they were strongly attached to their conceptions of God, and from their writing it seems that their love of God sprang from recognition of the impotence and utter corruption of Self, the emptiness of "Self". That insight into anatta was real (vipassana), but it was not of sufficient purity and clarity to lead to eradication of views (sotapattimagga). > Sukin: But like Ken H, I don't think there is any 'partial rt. View'. This is why I asked whether you saw any distinction between mundane and supramundane right view. The latter is pure and clear enough to constitute enlightenment; the former is not pure and clear enough (partial?) to constitute enlightenment. But beyond that, I don't see your point. > Besides wrong/right concepts inform how we would view our experience Oh, I see now! You must be thinking of samma-ditthi as "right opinion/conceptualization" rather than as a cetasika (sort of like some people conceive of intensive meditation retreats as "right effort"). Samma-ditthi is a cetasika of a moment's experience of reality with clear vision. Ditthi is clinging to concept as Truth. > Sukin: I think that the God idea will only increase any accumulated wrong view. I agree that as long as God is clung to, there will be no enlightenment. As for "only increas[ing] ... wrong view", I'd say it's impossible to say. Sometimes, yes. Sometimes, no. Metta, Dan 59436 From: "Dan D." Date: Wed May 17, 2006 10:17am Subject: [dsg] Re: Please don't ... onco111 Hello Sarah, > .... > S: We will have to differ in how we read the sutta I quoted, Dan (AN 10s, > 123-127). Yes, there are several ways to read the sutta. One is to read it as it is written. Another is to read it in the inimitable Sarah style (we'll say SarahI for the inimitable one): Sutta: "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." SarahI: "Ten things, monks, do not 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." Dan: "Outside the dispensation, the pure, supramundane eightfold path and full liberation do not arise." I get to "supramundane path" because of: (i) the "purity and clarity" clause; (ii) the full eightfold path PLUS right knowledge and right liberation emphasize that he's not talking mundane sammas. I can't imagine he'd include "right liberation" in a statement about mundane panya or simple satipatthana or mundane vipassana. Would he? In the next several stanzas, he makes it even more clear that he is talking about supramundane insight. .... Sutta: "And if these ten things have not arisen, they will not arise outside the Discipline of the Sublime Master." SarahI: "...they will not arise outside the Discipline of the Sublime Master." .... Sutta: "Outside the Discipline of the Sublime Master, these ten things will not be of great fruit and benefit." SarahI: "Outside the Discipline of the Sublime Master, these ten things will not be of fruit and benefit ." Dan: "Outside the Discipline of the Sublime Master, these ten things will not be of great fruit and benefit." Without purity and clarity, the great fruits are precluded. .... Sutta: "Outside the Discipline of the Sublime Master, these ten things will not end in the elimination of greed, hatred and delusion" SarahI: " Outside the Discipline of the Sublime Master, these ten things will not end in the elimination of greed, hatred and delusion. Can't you understand that 'elimination of greed, hatred and delusion' means 'no arising of any satipatthana or insight at all?!" Dan: "Outside the Discipline of the Sublime Master, these ten things will not end in the elimination of greed, hatred and delusion. In other words, outside the dispensation there are not arahants." ... Sutta: "Outside the Discipline of the Sublime Master, these ten things will not conduce to complete disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, peace, direct knowledge, enlightenment and Nibbana." SarahI: "Outside the Discipline of the Sublime Master, these ten things will not conduce to complete disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, peace, direct knowledge, enlightenment and Nibbana. " Dan: "Outside the Discipline of the Sublime Master, these ten things will not conduce to complete disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, peace, direct knowledge, enlightenment and Nibbana. It is disenchantment and enlightenment that distinguish Buddha's teachings." > Sarah: I've also given other references in the past to indicate that it is not > just 'understanding to the level of arahatta' that is meant. > > For example, commentary to Mahaparinibbana Sutta (PTS): > > "Of dhamma, the method (~naa.nassa): of dhamma which is the noble path. > Wandering in the domain: practising even partial insight meditation > (padesa = vipassanaa). Outside this: outside my teachings. There is no > true ascetic: this is equal to saying that there is no one who practises > even partial insight meditation, there is not even the first renunciate, > namely a stream-enterer." I think the AN sutta discussed earlier refers to understanding at the level of arahatta (right liberation), but the step to "no sotapannas outside the dispensation" in the commentary you cite is uncontroversial too. > > 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: There is the mundane path at moments of satipatthana, then there are > the supramundane path moments. All are samma. None have anything to do > with anything conventional. > .... You are strongly wedding the arising of mundane satipatthana to a thoroughly conventional, speculative understanding of Buddha vacana. > D:> 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). > .... > S: And to know the distinction between moments of kusala with somanassa vs > moments of akusala with somanassa and likewise for upekkha would take a > really great amount of wisdom, wouldn't you think? "really great"? In a commentary you cited above, sotapatti magga is classified as "partial insight" and the degree of wisdom developed outside the dispensation is said to be so shallow that there is "not even...a stream-enterer." In the suttas, the Buddha is said to have "really great wisdom." I'm not sure Sariputta is said to have "really great wisdom", but, even if he is, I don't think the term would apply to all arahants. But I don't know for sure. Is there any reference to any non-arahant in the suttas possessing "really great wisdom" or that all arahants have "really great wisdom"? Metta, Dan 59437 From: "Dan D." Date: Wed May 17, 2006 10:19am Subject: Re: Please don't ... onco111 O, Sera, sera! > > So, you seem to be saying that people who have heard the Buddha > > vacana but have understood it only at a conceptual level wouldn't be > > said to really have heard the Buddha vacana. > ... > S: It depends whether there is any understanding at all (at any level) or > whether it's just a kind of rote repetition or following of rituals. Some > people in a Buddhist country, for example, may repeat all the right Pali > words, but have their own cultural idea of the meaning of these terms, > like 'patipatti', 'bhavana' etc If there is no insight, then our understanding of the terms is just our cultural idea what they mean. And, although such cultural ideas may be comfortable, they are not insight-inducing. > >And the > > Buddhists who have heard it and accepted it but not understood it are > > the ones who haven't really heard it and are outside the dispensation? > ... > S: If there hasn't been any understanding of the meaning at all, they > haven't really heard it. I'd say instead that if there hasn't been understanding, then there hasn't been understanding; and if there hasn't been hearing, then there hasn't been hearing. .... > Sarah: And from an earlier post of yours which amounts to much the same, I think: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/28696 > "There can be no movement along the path unless the > difference between path and not-path can be discerned.* That > discernment will not take hold unless there is first a well- > considered and correct understanding of samma-ditthi (Right view) and > samma-vayama (Right effort). > <...> > * By "path", I am referring to the mundane path." I agree with myself. A slight elaboration to clarify further: a correct understanding of samma-ditthi and samma-vayama is as cetasika, not concept. There can be no movement along the path unless the distinction between concept and cetasika is understood, unless samma-ditthi is not confused with "samma"-speculation or "samma"- opinion and samma-vayama is not confused with "samma"-activity- envelope or "samma"-ritual. > And to repeat a quote I've given before (the one I meant to give the other > day again), from the commentary to the Mahaparinibbana Sutta" > > " 'There a [true] renunciate (samana) is not found': it is meant that > there a first ascetic, namely a stream-enterer, does not exist....'Others' > doctrines are devoid of true renunciates': others' doctrines are vain, > empty, devoid of the twelve renunciates, namely the four who undertake > insight meditation (vipassanaa) for the sake of the four paths, the four > who are on the paths, the four who have fruition......'If they live > rightly': If a stream-enterer explains what he has attained to another > person, and makes him attain stream-entry, then he is said to live > rightly. The same thing applies to a once-returner and the rest. If one > is on the path of stream-entry.....If one practises insight meditation for > the sake of the path of stream-entry.....lives rightly....". > ..... Yet again, you cite where the texts explictly and unambigously emphasize that insight at the level of sotapattimagga and deeper are excluded outside the dispensation. Big honking deal. We agree. Furthermore, the very notion of sotapattimagga and deeper do not exist outside the dispensation. Again, big honking deal! We agree. "Enlightenment" is strictly a Buddhist concept and understood only inside the dispensation. Metta, Dan 59438 From: "Joop" Date: Wed May 17, 2006 10:36am Subject: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition ... Metta and Devas jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Joop, > >> .... > S: What I meant was that whatever the problems we have in life, whether with Theravada-orthodoxy or anything else, they are caused by ignorance. > When ignorance is eradicated, no problems with anything anyone or any text > says! Do you still disagree? > Apologies if my comment sounded flippant! > > Metta, > > Sarah Hallo Sarah Yes, that's better: when there is no ignorance, then there are no problems.(Perhaps it's my limited knowledge of the english language, but 'eradicated' sounds to aggressive to me) Metta Joop 59439 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed May 17, 2006 2:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on Cooran egberdina Hi Scott, On 17/05/06, Scott Duncan wrote: > > Dear Herman, > > Good one! > > then there's the > fact that I'm Canadian - politeness runs rampant in the Great White North. Worse things have happened :-) H: "The reality is that in the long run, everything that is gained > will be lost. I am not talking theoretically here. I have been > bankrupt, had to deal with infidelity, been divorced, have a child in > the local cemetery. This is not conceit about loss or suffering, not > comparing one's suffering to another. But craving and suffering is our > shared reality, and dissociation into pointilistic dhammas is not a > solution of any merit." > > Frankly I get tired of arguments that keep downplaying or minimizing > or dismissing as so much intellectualizing, the teachings put down in > the form they are from the Abhidhamma pi.taka. I don't expect that > the teachings in this basket of the Dhamma should get you off but they > do me, and not because of the thrill of intellectualising. Scott, I would sincerely appreciate it if you would tell me directly when you think I am intellectualising. I understand that may be against your polite nature, but I am rather thick skinned, and any subtlety is quite lost on me. The reason I would so dearly like you to be straight with me, is that if I am intellectualising I am wasting my time and everyone else's. It would be like talking pure mathematics in a physics class. If there is no rubber hitting the road (I will always be indebted to Dan D for that one) we may as well be off with the fairies. There are experiences - noble ones, awesome ones, flawless ones, deep > ones, inconceivable ones - which do indeed arise and fall away in a > moment. These experiences change everything. These are the > experience of pristine dhammas. The way of the abhidhamma analysis > merely is a painstakingly beautiful way of setting out a vision of > what can be experienced. If only I could practise with such vigour > such as to be in the position again to experience such things. I would not want to dissuade you from any of that. I guess it's a matter of how much crap one is prepared to wade through to find a gem. I find the whole cycle of existence neatly summarised in every breath I take. It boils down to craving / satisfaction. "Seeing things as they really are is, and when vigorously pursued it > will be realised that not anything you or I can experience is worth a > pinch of shit, including pointilistic dhammas. The end of suffering is > the end of craving, in which case I wouldn't have all that money, all > that marital fidelity, all those children anyway." > > I'm truly sorry that you've experienced all this. I can say that > because I've lived life to age 47 and, as you point out, "ouch." I > beg to differ with utmost stringency with what you state about the > worthlessness of experience; there are things that can be experienced > that are extremely valuable. They are gone and over and all that but > of immense value. I share your understanding of the unsatifactoriness > of life, from all three viewpoints. > > What do you think? (Now we're getting going). Again, I wouldn't want to dissuade you from finding gems in your life that make/made it all worthwhile. And just so you know, the worthlessness of experience I talk about is not from a point of view of the bad things outweighing the good. My life is rather very good in terms of worldly standards. But if experience ceased this very moment, nothing would be lost. Kind Regards Herman 59440 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed May 17, 2006 2:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Herman seeking to understand Jon (was Re: Samatha and vipassana 1) egberdina Hi Jon, Thanks for your reply. > >I would sincerely like to understand your position better. > > > > > > Thanks. And I'd like to understand yours. > > >If I understand correctly, you are saying, and have consistently said, > that > >you study only certain authorative texts, and that you do not wish to > >digress beyond them. > > > > Nope, never said by me (but have doubtless said things that could be > taken for that). > > What I would say is that I consider certain texts to be authoritative as > regards a proper understanding of the Tipitaka, and I am more interested > in those texts -- or texts that help me understand those texts -- than > any others. > > >Can I ask you why you study these texts? And if I can ask you that, let > me > >ask you that; why do you study these texts, and only those texts? > > > > Answers > Q.1: To help gain a better understanding of the Dhamma. > Q.2: I have no rule about not reading other texts. Thanks for clarifying. Can you explain what you mean by the Dhamma, it being what you are seeking to understand better? I don't know if this is a sting in a tail, but were you oblivious to the Dhamma (whatever that will turn out to be) before you chanced on the texts? > Hope I've answered what you wanted to have answered. Waiting now for > the follow-up questions (the sting in the tail?). > > Meanwhile a question for you, to help me understand your position > better: Do you see a distinction between the Buddha's words when > encountered in aural form and the Buddha's words when encountered in > written form? Yes, I do. KInd Regards Herman 59441 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed May 17, 2006 3:16pm Subject: Re: Re: Re: [dsg] Morality / Mindfulness (was ‘Cetasikas' stu =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?dy_co... egberdina Hi Howard and all, > > > > Just as a bye-the-bye, this is Vishahka's take on nudity "Impure, Lord, > is > > nakedness, disgusting, and revolting". (I'm glad I'm not married to her > :-)) > > ----------------------------------- > Howard: > LOLOL! (Of course, we never saw the men in her family!) > ----------------------------------- :-) :-) Howard: > What upsets people's sensibiltities is strongly culturally > influenced, > I suppose. But the basic sila outlined by the Buddha, refraining from > killing, stealing, engaging in harmful sexuality and so on is pretty clear > and pretty > standard. > ---------------------------------- Yes, point well taken. I'm going to digress into something different (but prompted by this), and if you or others are inclined to comment, please do so. I was actually very surprised by the story of Vishakha, who wanted to bestow robes on the Sangha for reasons we have discussed. (Impure, Lord, is nakedness, disgusting, and revolting). The Buddha assented to her request and praised her for her charity. What startled me, was that the Buddha did not go into an analysis of the body with her, so that she could understand that pubic hair is only pubic hair, willies are only willies, breasts are only breasts, in short, he doesn't exhort her to mindfulness, but instead says "yeah, cover up". And this seems to me very unBuddhist. It is like how the problem of male lust is dealt with in Muslim countries. Make women cover up. And if a woman exposes her arm, ankle, or even face in some places, she is the whore (and not the man leering at her), and will be stoned to death. The actual problem remains unidentified and not dealt with at the root, lust in the male. It seems to me that the moral requirements we place on other people are nothing but examples of our own mindlessness. Because there is no offence in the world, the offence is in our head. And the creation of the rule removes our responsibility to be mindful, and places it on the shoulders of others. Kind Regards Herman 59442 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 17, 2006 11:49am Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: [dsg] Morality / Mindfulness (w =?WINDOWS-... upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 5/17/06 6:17:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > Hi Howard and all, > > > >> > >>Just as a bye-the-bye, this is Vishahka's take on nudity "Impure, Lord, > >is > >>nakedness, disgusting, and revolting". (I'm glad I'm not married to her > >:-)) > > > >----------------------------------- > >Howard: > > LOLOL! (Of course, we never saw the men in her family!) > >----------------------------------- > > > > :-) :-) > > Howard: > > What upsets people's sensibiltities is strongly culturally > >influenced, > >I suppose. But the basic sila outlined by the Buddha, refraining from > >killing, stealing, engaging in harmful sexuality and so on is pretty clear > >and pretty > >standard. > >---------------------------------- > > > Yes, point well taken. I'm going to digress into something different (but > prompted by this), and if you or others are inclined to comment, please do > so. > > I was actually very surprised by the story of Vishakha, who wanted to bestow > robes on the Sangha for reasons we have discussed. (Impure, Lord, is > nakedness, disgusting, and revolting). The Buddha assented to her request > and praised her for her charity. What startled me, was that the Buddha did > not go into an analysis of the body with her, so that she could understand > that pubic hair is only pubic hair, willies are only willies, breasts are > only breasts, in short, he doesn't exhort her to mindfulness, but instead > says "yeah, cover up". And this seems to me very unBuddhist. It is like how > the problem of male lust is dealt with in Muslim countries. Make women cover > up. And if a woman exposes her arm, ankle, or even face in some places, she > is the whore (and not the man leering at her), and will be stoned to death. > The actual problem remains unidentified and not dealt with at the root, lust > in the male. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Well, carnal lust [Whew! I'm excited already! LOL!], according to the Buddha, has two interesting characteristics: 1) It is nowhere as destructive as hatred and other forms of aversion, but 2) It is much harder to relinquish! Meanwhile, as a practical matter, avoiding what is titillating, or at least moderating it, can be helpful. There are degrees to things, of course. The radical Moslem position is extreme, counterproductive, and antifeminist. But public nudity is, at least in most societies, also a bit of an extreme. Viewing nakedness as impure, disgusting, and revolting is an extreme, and is, I believe, absurd. But recognizing that nudity lends itself to lust is not unreasonable. The Buddha was concerned that calm, and not excitement, be cultivated in people and most especially in the Bhikkhu and Bhikkhuni Sanghas. ---------------------------------------------- > > It seems to me that the moral requirements we place on other people are > nothing but examples of our own mindlessness. Because there is no offence in > the world, the offence is in our head. And the creation of the rule removes > our responsibility to be mindful, and places it on the shoulders of others. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Doesn't that depend on what requirements one is talking about? We require that people not murder, steal, destroy property. I'd say we have a *right* to require that. Other areas are less certain. We do not have the right to prohibit actions that effect just the actor, in my opinion, but it isn't always crystal clear what effects others and what does not. What of sex in public? What of releaving oneself in public? ---------------------------------------------- > > > 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) 59443 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed May 17, 2006 4:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner =?windows-1252... egberdina Hi Phil, On 16/05/06, Phil wrote: > > > Hi Herman > > > > > > But the sheer weight of accumulations is real, right? > > > > > > Riiiiight. :-) > > > > Right. I think it's natural decisive support condition. > Well, I guess the paccayas are not dhammas, per se, but the dhammas > involved are...dhammas. But whatever, it's all very real, in the terms > that the Buddha taught for our liberation. It all sounds pretty technical to me :-) I guess the Buddha teaching all that is also just conditions. And if everything is just conditions, well, then I understand your oft repeated position of having no expectations. (I hope that translates to your real life, otherwise your stating it is very misleading). So this all reduces the Dhamma to Que sera, sera. Whatever will be, will be. The future's not ours to see. Que sera, sera. What will be, will be. This might be what Doris Day meant, and what you mean, but I don't think that's what the Buddha teaching to worldlings is, at all. But I see that you are pretty sure about the matter, so I will refrain from casting a different light on things. Have a great epoch :-) Kind Regards Herman 59444 From: "Phil" Date: Wed May 17, 2006 5:51pm Subject: Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner =?windows-1252... philofillet Hi Herman and all Just checking in to say hi. I want to respond more thoroughly to the important visible object post Ken put up. > It all sounds pretty technical to me :-) It is quite technical, isn't it, abhidhamma. As long as we don't get worked up trying to figure it all out we're ok. We understand what we can and let the rest slide and who knows perhapsb there will be understanding on other points next time they come to one's attention. That's the way I see it. Other people like to bear down on technical points and they can benefit from it. I guess the Buddha teaching all > that is also just conditions. And if everything is just conditions, well, > then I understand your oft repeated position of having no expectations. (I > hope that translates to your real life, otherwise your stating it is very > misleading). No expectations re kusala citta. I have tons of conventional expectations re daily life ranging from what I will eat for lunch to the glorious success I will have as a writer someday. They are proliferations, natural enough. But I have no expecations about sati, about metta, about any other forms of kusala. Not know. Perhaps I will someday. It is very comforting to sit and intend to have metta - feels great, and may condition metta in daily life. I may do it again someday. I have done it a couple of times in the last year or so when I was intensely stressed out. Sensed that I needed that balm. The Buddha helps us in so many different ways. So this all reduces the Dhamma to Que sera, sera. Whatever will > be, will be. The future's not ours to see. Que sera, sera. What will be, > will be. Hmm. I think that has a nice melodic feeling to it. Do you have any friends who are songwriters. You could do something with that. > > This might be what Doris Day meant, and what you mean, but I don't think > that's what the Buddha teaching to worldlings is, at all. But I see that you > are pretty sure about the matter, so I will refrain from casting a different > light on things. > > Have a great epoch :-) Don't you mean aeon? There is nothing hopeless about Dhamma. There are opportunities to develop kusala and abandon akusala at every moment of every day. The opportunities arise, and we make what we can of them. It goes on all the time. There is nothing hopefess about this. But I will not intend to have kusasala because there is too much greed and desire for comfort involved in that from what I can see now. But that is what I can see now and I am just a hack on the internet writing off the top of my head so don't pay any attention to it. Phil p.s Back as soon as possible, Ken, to that visible object post. Very, very important. 59445 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed May 17, 2006 6:04pm Subject: [dsg] Re: More on Cooran scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Me: "Frankly I get tired of arguments that keep downplaying or minimizing or dismissing as so much intellectualizing, the teachings put down in the form they are from the Abhidhamma pi.taka. I don't expect that the teachings in this basket of the Dhamma should get you off but they do me, and not because of the thrill of intellectualising." No, no. You are not intellectualising. My grammatical failure above caused that misreading. I meant that I'm tired of people who dismiss the Abhidhamma Pi.taka as "so much intellectualising." Not you. Not at all. I think you think that the abhidhammic method is "intellectualising" not to mention pedantic and beside the point but you are not merely intellectualising. Whew. Now, I'm late for the second period of the hockey game. (See Canadian reference last post). Sincerely, Scott. 59446 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed May 17, 2006 6:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Please don't run away yet, DAN 1.ii egberdina Hi Sukin, On 17/05/06, sukinder wrote: > > Hi Herman, > > ---------------------------------- > > > 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. > > > > Suk: It is up to you of course. However, know that I only ask to know the > reality (if any), the words are pointing to. There is no interest in any > poetic effect. I choose not to elaborate, because I thought I was up against a brick wall, and would be wasting my time. It is a bit silly to think of the above quote in terms of poetic effect. It comes from the Bible and was written at least 2200-2400 years ago. I can, but won't, quote you 20 different translations, they will all be different in some aspect. I can quote you the various Latin and Hebrew versions that preceded the English versions. But of course it is not about which words are used, or the sequence of the words, or how closely they match the "original". It is about their meaning. And that meaning is not in the words. It is in the understanding. The way I understand these little verses is as statements of the cyclic nature of existence, and the impossibility of finding satisfaction in it. ------------------------ > > Herm: > Are you suggesting that only Buddhists can be aware of suffering and the > causes of it? And that a book like Ecclesiastes is actually an instance of > plagiarism? > > Suk: No 'Buddhist'. The Buddha's Teachings is for anyone, anywhere to > understand if they can. And this can be much or little, so I wouldn't > know, > nor need to label anyone Buddhist. Whether or not those of us who study > the > Dhamma *know* suffering, I think you have an idea already. However knowing > it at the level I do, I don't think that outside the Buddha's Teachings, > there are any descriptions of Suffering which coincide with Dukkha of the > 4NT. The concept of Suffering outside of Dhamma does not lead to direct > realization of Dukkha in any form. Well, I disagree. And I think that the various reasonings that some Buddhists have about anyone that shows any understanding of reality "must have heard the Dhamma in a previous life" are immature and tribal. The 4 NTs are Ariyan Truths, whereas other religions are teachings of > 'worldlings'. Good! Buddhism as religion is as devoid of understanding the 4NT as any other religion whose main purpose is, in the words of those famous philosophers, the BeeGees, "ah ah ah ah staying alive staying alive". Plagiarism; didn't enter my mind at all. (And you forget that I even asked > for an explanation of the quote you gave.) In any case it makes absolutely > no difference if others took out ideas from, and tried to develop upon the > Teachings. It is about "Right Understanding" and no amount of trying to > copy > or intellectual analyses even by a team of the best minds taking the best > part out of it, can anything close to Dhamma come out. If indeed there has > been any plagiarism, sooner or later contradictions will emerge. I don't think I need to point to the enormous diversity of views that come under the "Buddhist" umbrella. I am not trying to divide and conquer. But assumptions of unity of Buddhist view are ill-founded. Right Understanding can only be considered to have been in place when the goal is reached. > > > Herm: > Please tell me what the proper understanding of Anatta is. > > Suk: Me, I am just a beginner. However I think I have learnt something > from > my own struggles, and I present them for you to consider: > > Anatta being a characteristic of "realities" goes together with the other > two of the three universal characteristics, namely, anicca and dukkha. It > is > not about coming to see the "impersonality" of conventional realities and > standing back and making observations about the world, all the while > oblivious to the fact that even this "thinking" is conditioned and anatta. > Nor is it about coming to see the powerlessness of the non-existent > 'self'. > Neither is the realization that the idea of a self arises only with > 'thought', enough. Sounds good to me. As an aside, in the absence of thought, though temporary, there is at least the absence of ideas, right? Thanks for further clarifying your take on anatta. I have interspersed some comments. Also in the case of one who has heard the Dhamma, this understanding is not > got from intellectually breaking down the concept of 'self' into component > parts, such as, this is feeling, this is perception; this is form and so > on. > > > I think the understanding comes from the 'application' on to the > experience, > "NOW". That makes sense to me. But if I understand the views of the dsg core correctly, this application must conform to certain rigourous requirements. It is not allowed to be accompanied by any knowing that it is going to be applied, because then it wouldn't be anatta anymore. Is that right? That is when it begins to develop. If there is any idea about another > place and time for 'observing', then it is not happening. And by the time > we > do make any observation, it will only be a story *about* impersonal > phenomena and not about anatta and conditionality. > > I believe, that it is this kind of application which is the precursor to > direct experience, even if this would then still be far from direct > experience of the three characteristics, hence truly understanding anatta. I understand what you are saying. But I see a major difference between an idea of another time and place of observation, and reading and writing and studying. The first is quite natural and unforced, the other is totally unnatural and very forced. The idea that there is the possibility of progression from the unnatural and forced intellectual digestion of concepts to an understandlingless understanding of anatta is without foundation in reality, IMHO. > > Herm: > Is there anything that you know about the Buddha that was directly > experienced? Why do you think anything you have learnt is superior to what > the manyfolk around the world have learned? > > Suk: Are you saying that since I understand all this only at the > intellectual level, that I am not qualified to prove other religions > wrong? Proving things wrong sounds like an intellectual exercise to me. I'm thinking that if there was a twinkle of experiential understanding, there would be a recognition in conversation with others of any persuasion, that they too have a twinkle of experiential understanding when that is apparent. Well, at the intellectual level, what others say just appear wrong to me. > :-) And just because I haven't experienced directly the truth about > conditionality and the tilakkhana, this does not mean that I should doubt > myself. Doubt does arise, but in relation to the nature of the present > moment experience itself, not when faced with other teachings. In the > meantime, even this doubt can be known, and this itself proves to me the > rightness and superiority of the Buddha's teachings. The greatest tribute you can pay to the Buddha is to realise what he says. But if you say to him, before I can realise what you are saying I have to study the Abhidhamma and what Buddhagosa has to say about it, you are not paying him much of a compliment. More like an insult, if he was sensitive :-) > > > Herm: > Do you understand kamma/vipaka? I suggest you think carefully before > answering. > > Suk: Are you testing me? ;-) And no I haven't thought about it carefully, > it > is not in my nature to do so. :-( > > Like most of Dhamma, this I understand at a low intellectual level and > involving much reasoning. > > It makes sense to me that out of all the experiences, the sense door > experiences of seeing, hearing etc. and Birth and Death are *results* of > something. And of all the possible candidates for the *cause* of these, > "intention" is the one that stands out. This I believe, is another great > discovery by the Buddha, and is far superior to the Hindu and Jain > understanding of the same. > > Again, this points to the experience "now" and therefore any religion or > philosophy which does not teach this, cannot be said to know anatta, > conditionality or the 4 NT. I have mentioned before the saying "As you sow, so shall you reap". Do you want a commentary on that one too :-) > Herm: > If track records don't come into it, then you are simply blind in your > faith. In that respect there is no difference between the "One Way Jesus" > and the "One Way Buddha" crowd. > > Suk: You mean to say that if I was told that 23,472 people in the last > hundred years got enlightened from studying the Abhidhamma, "saddha" would > arise, and that I would then follow and begin to "understand" the > Abhidhamma? Why do you think the people had confidence in the Buddha? Was it because they had no expectations, and he promised them nothing, and they got nowhere and therefore he was right? How about confidence in this, because it was borne out everywhere you cared to look? "Indeed, bhikkhus, whosoever practises these four satipatthanas in this manner for seven years, one of two results is to be expected in him: Arahatship in this very existence, or if there yet be any trace of clinging, the state of an Anagami. Let alone seven years, bhikkhus, whosoever practises these four satipatthanas in this manner for six years, five years, four years, three years, two years, or one year. Let alone one year, bhikkhus, whosoever practises these four satipatthanas in this manner for seven months, one of two results is to be expected in him: Arahatship in this very existence, or if there yet be any trace of clinging, the state of an Anagami. Let alone seven months, bhikkhus, whosoever practises these four satipatthanas in this manner for six months, five months, four months, three months, two months, one month, or half a month. Let alone half a month, bhikkhus, whosoever practises these four satipatthanas in this manner for seven days, one of two results is to be expected in him: Arahatship in this very existence or if there yet be any trace of clinging, the state of an Anagami." If you are inclined to reply to this with the standard line about accumulations, please don't harm yourself and just refrain from doing so. Kind Regards Herman 59447 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed May 17, 2006 6:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner =?windows-1252... egberdina Hi Phil, > There is nothing hopeless about Dhamma. There are opportunities to > develop kusala and abandon akusala at every moment of every day. The > opportunities arise, and we make what we can of them. It goes on all > the time. There is nothing hopefess about this. Just for the sake of correctness, I said nothing about hopeless. But you are right, what you write makes no sense at all, to me, and I will ignore it. Have a good aeon, dude. Herman 59448 From: "Phil" Date: Wed May 17, 2006 6:22pm Subject: Re: More on Cooran philofillet Hi Scott > Now, I'm late for the second period of the hockey game. (See Canadian > reference last post). I had to laugh when I read this because I'm listening to the 8th inning of a rather tense baseball game at the moment and had one ear on it as I wrote to Herman. I was a Habs fanatic back in the 70s (grew up in Montreal) but now I don't even know who's in the playoffs. If the Habs are in there, go Habs. And Go Oilers. (Oops..) OK. How can I justify this post as being something to do with Dhamma. What dhammas are involved in a slapshot? "It's impossible to take anything for granted in baseball?" The radio play by play guy just said this. Is this true in Dhamma? OK, I've said enough. Phil 59449 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed May 17, 2006 6:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on Cooran egberdina Hi Scott, > No, no. You are not intellectualising. My grammatical failure above > caused that misreading. I meant that I'm tired of people who dismiss > the Abhidhamma Pi.taka as "so much intellectualising." Not you. Not > at all. > > I think you think that the abhidhammic method is "intellectualising" > not to mention pedantic and beside the point but you are not merely > intellectualising. Whew. > > Now, I'm late for the second period of the hockey game. (See Canadian > reference last post). Thanks for clarifying. I see where I misread. I think a conversation with someone who is so intent on being polite is very testing :-) Enjoy the game. Herman 59450 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed May 17, 2006 6:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition ... Metta and Devas egberdina Hi Sarah, > .... > 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). Best as I can tell, these two are commentarial notions. Is that correct? And is it true that the weight given to dana in Buddhist societies in general is also not based directly on the suttas, but later commentarial works? Kind Regards Herman 59451 From: "Phil" Date: Wed May 17, 2006 6:24pm Subject: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner =?windows-1252... philofillet Hi Herman > But you are right, what you write makes no sense at all, to me, and I will > ignore it. This is often the best thing! We're writing a lot to each other these days but please feel no need to reply to every post and I won't either. > > Have a good aeon, dude. I won't be there, Herman! :) Phil 59452 From: "indriyabala" Date: Wed May 17, 2006 6:56pm Subject: [dsg] Re: the monk's siila. Skillful Side-stepping ? indriyabala Hi Sarah - I listened to only one audio file, Srinagar, day 2, afternoon : 01, which is the record of your discussion with Khun Sujin about establishing sila and satipatthana as stated in the Kundliya sutta. The following is a sample of the 'questions & answers' along with my comments. -- Question: Does the restraining of the five senses refer to just sati, not satipatthana? Answer: There are many levels of developing panna. .. Anyone without good conducts would not be interested in developing satipatthana... bad person .. not seeing advantages of the value of sila at all. Tep: What she said is correct, but it did not answer the question. Practicing restraint of the sensing faculties also develops sati, because when sati is not working well, no-one can restrain the five senses. Yet, this level of sati is less than satipatthana since restraint sensing faculties only lead to preventing bad conducts to arise; however, there is no guarantee that three wholesome conducts would be fully developed at the same time. .......... -- Question: restraint of the five senses ..you say ..is not referring to satiaptthana, just any kusala with sati ? Answer: Sometimes the Buddha taught from the very beginning; even the thinking that 'I will not do that' can be condition for sammappadhana (and satipatthana).. we think about satipatthana but how come those factors without any developing at all ... (Tep: I didn't catch the whole sentence) -- Question: Haven't we said that sila is only established by the sotapanna? Answer: It depends on what level we are talking about.. for those who do not know anything about the development of satipatthana at all, but they have accumulation for good conducts and sila .... Tep: I guess she said that sila could be developed by those who have good accumulations, even though they do not know satipatthana. But I have never seen any sutta that states like that. .................... --Q: Here it is talking about development of sati and panna before any degree of satipatthana .. Answer: Wholesome realities can condition and become very complex that nobody can know what's the beginning and what's the end . Tep: To me she meant to say, 'I don't know'. ..................... --Question: when the three-fold good conducts are cultivated & frequently practiced ...the satipatthana will be established .. What does that mean..? just develop satipatthana or really establish ...(you got interrupted by Khun Sujin) Answer: .. For those who know and who have accumulated understanding .. Tep: I have no comment. .................... --Question: ...people read this and they say this shows that there has to be sila before development of satipatthana ... so when it says purification of sila arises as the basis of development of satipatthana, what does it mean about purification of sila ..? Answer: ..(purify of sila) from time to time; otherwise how can there be such moment without any akusala at all? Impossible. Tep: I don't know what she meant. I think the suttas are more straightforward BTW. I do not plan to listen to the other auidio files, at least for now. Warm regards, Tep ======== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Tep, > (snipped). > > Tep, I don't know if you have broadband or can download easily. If not, pls let me know if you'd like me to send a cd. > > If you're too busy to listen, I understand too. > 59453 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed May 17, 2006 8:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner =?windows-1252... egberdina Hi Phil, On 18/05/06, Phil wrote: > > > Hi Herman > > But you are right, what you write makes no sense at all, to me, and I > will > > ignore it. > > > This is often the best thing! > > We're writing a lot to each other these days but please feel no need > to reply to every post and I won't either. I will wait for the conditons to not write to develop, and then it will happen, naturally, like a sotapanna falling of a slippery log. But I have no expectations. I'd hate there to be wrong view in our not writing :-) I just felt a condition, and perhaps its going to mature. I better press send real qui........ 59454 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed May 17, 2006 8:29pm Subject: [dsg] Re: More on Cooran scottduncan2 Dear Herman, "Thanks for clarifying. I see where I misread. I think a conversation with someone who is so intent on being polite is very testing :-) Enjoy the game." My team won. "My" team. So now I'm happy. So what. (Summary of our discussion.) I'll be in Calgary for a couple of days. Let's re-group and figure out what to discuss next. Oh so very politely, of course, my good man. Sincerely, Scott. 59455 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 17, 2006 4:48pm Subject: Re: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' st =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?udy_co... upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 5/17/06 11:16:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > I will wait for the conditons to not write to develop, and then it will > happen, naturally, like a sotapanna falling of a slippery log. But I have no > expectations. I'd hate there to be wrong view in our not writing :-) > > I just felt a condition, and perhaps its going to mature. I better press > send real qui........ > ====================== Hilarious! I just love it, bro!! ;-)) 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) 59456 From: "Phil" Date: Wed May 17, 2006 9:15pm Subject: Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner =?windows-1252... philofillet Hi Herman > I just felt a condition, and perhaps its going to mature. I better press > send real qui........ Ph: :) I can relate to this, though. Yesterday I had a sudden urge to write a friendly note to someone, but I didn't. I wish I had. Now the feeling to do so is no longer..here! But it is not conditions that propel us to do this or that - it is dhammas. Conditions are the relations between the dhammas, if I understand correctly. So we can't feel a condition. But we can feel metta, for example, as I do now as I 59457 From: "Phil" Date: Wed May 17, 2006 9:24pm Subject: Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner =?windows-1252... philofillet Hi again > But we can feel > metta, for example, as I do now as I > Sorry, I was overcome by metta. But you do make a good point. I often say "due to conditions" or "conditions permitting" but when you come down to it "due to dhammas" or "dhammas permitting" is more true, perhaps. I will think about this...dhammas permitting. Phil p.s I am meeting Rob M this Saturday and want to ask him about the relationship between the paccayas and D.O. I will report if, well, you know...:) p.p.s I do enjoy this exchange with you Herman. 59458 From: "Dan D." Date: Wed May 17, 2006 9:51pm Subject: [dsg] Re: More on Cooran onco111 Dear Scott, Your post inspired me to briefly reflect on the NHL playoffs. Among the 16 teams in the playoffs this year, I see Tampa Bay, San Jose, Nashville, Anaheim, Dallas, Carolina. When the once-in-a-decade frost hits any of these cities in January, wouldn't the price of orange juice skyrocket? Has it always been this way? I do see some frosty representation too (Edmonton, Calgary, Detroit, Buffalo). Also, as a statistician, I couldn't help notice that in the Western Conference, the 5, 6, 7, and 8 seeds won, and in the Eastern Conference it was the 1, 2, 3, and 4 seeds. I bet that has never happened before! Metta, Dan --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Herman, > > Me: "Frankly I get tired of arguments that keep downplaying or > minimizing or dismissing as so much intellectualizing, the teachings > put down in the form they are from the Abhidhamma pi.taka. I don't > expect that the teachings in this basket of the Dhamma should get you > off but they do me, and not because of the thrill of intellectualising." > > No, no. You are not intellectualising. My grammatical failure above > caused that misreading. I meant that I'm tired of people who dismiss > the Abhidhamma Pi.taka as "so much intellectualising." Not you. Not > at all. > > I think you think that the abhidhammic method is "intellectualising" > not to mention pedantic and beside the point but you are not merely > intellectualising. Whew. > > Now, I'm late for the second period of the hockey game. (See Canadian > reference last post). > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > 59459 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed May 17, 2006 10:52pm Subject: The 7 Latent Tendencies ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: There are these seven Latent Tendencies (Anusaya): The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, there are these seven kinds of Latent Tendency. What seven? 1: The Latent Tendency to Sense-Pleasure... 2: The Latent Tendency to Aversion & Ill-Will... 3: The Latent Tendency to Speculative Views… 4: The Latent Tendency to Skeptical Doubt… 5: The Latent Tendency to Conceiving “I Am”… 6: The Latent Tendency to Lust for Becoming… 7: The Latent Tendency to Ignorance… These are the seven kinds of Latent Tendency! The Noble 8-fold Way should be developed for the direct experience of these seven kinds of Latent Tendency, for the full understanding and elimination of them, and for their final overcoming, abandoning and leaving all behind…This Noble 8-fold Way is developed for the sake of the uprooting of all Latent Tendency! Explanation: Latent Tendency towards Pleasurable Sights, sounds, smells, flavours, touches, & thoughts is fairly obvious… Latent Tendency to Aversion is all hate, anger, irritation, opposition, resistance, rigidity and stubbornness… Latent Tendency to Speculative Views is believing that no action has future effects & rituals are purifying… Latent Tendency to Skeptical Doubt is the lack of faith & conviction in the fact of Buddha’s Enlightenment… Latent Tendency to Conceiving “I Am” is assuming the hidden existence of a constant core identity: ‘I-Me’… Latent Tendency to Lust for Becoming is the hoping for a future existence as this or that kind of being… Latent Tendency to Ignorance is not seeing, not understanding, and not knowing the Four Noble Truths… Latent Tendency means lurking liability, hidden inclination, underlying readiness, a recurring dormant drive! Buddha once emphasized: That a person, without eliminating the latent tendency to lust for any pleasant feeling, without abolishing the latent tendency to aversion towards any painful feeling, without uprooting the latent tendency to neglect and ignorance accompanying any neutral feeling, without extirpating ignorance & making clear understanding arise, should ever, here & now, in this very life, be able to cease suffering & awaken, that is indeed impossible…http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn148.html Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V:60] section 45: The Way. 175: The 7 Latent Tendencies ... 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 !!! <...> 59460 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 17, 2006 11:17pm Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 449- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame/hiri & ottappa(k) 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 ***** To the extent that understanding develops, moral shame and fear of blame develop as well and they can become powers (balas). As we have seen, the five sobhana cetasikas which are classified as faculties, indriyas, are also classified as powers, namely: confidence, energy, mindfulness, concentration and wisdom. However, in addition to these five powers also moral shame and fear of blame can be classified as powers. We read in the Dhammasangaùi (§ 30) about the power of moral shame, hiri, here translated as conscientiousness: * "The feeling of conscientious scruple which there is on that occasion when scruples ought to be felt, conscientious scruple at attaining to bad and evil states this is the power of conscientiousness that there then is." * We read (in § 31) about the power of fear of blame: * "The sense of guilt which there is on that occasion, where a sense of guilt ought to be felt, a sense of guilt at attaining to bad and evil states that is the fear of blame that there then is." * A power is unshakable by its opposite. The powers of moral shame and fear of blame cannot be shaken by their opposites shamelessness (ahirika) and recklessness (anottappa), which arise with each akusala citta. ***** Ch27 - Moral Shame & Fear of Blame(hiri & ottappa) to be continued Metta, Sarah ====== 59461 From: "Joop" Date: Thu May 18, 2006 0:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bodhisattva Ideal jwromeijn Hallo Sarah, Charles Sarah, my excuses; that was a stupid statement of me, I must have had a partly black-out. I could have known that according Theravada only a Buddha is enlightened. Most times I use the term more loosely. I was not talking about bodhisatta as a phase of getting a Buddha but as an ideal as such: not interested in own liberation but that of others. In fact there are two points: - Where on the 'spiritual scale' of worldling-streamenterer- oncereturner-nonreturner-arahant can a bodhisatta be placed? I have the impression it cannot, a bodhisatta is sometime the 'title' giving to a person who is aspiring something, not only when having reached that something. - Your remark that bodhisattas cannot show others the path to liberation because they are not enlightened. My question marks had to be placed with this remark. We, Sarah, can show the path; not perfect but in more or less the good direction, that better then nothing. Charles, thanks for your information. You say "In Theravada, Bodhisattvas seem unimportant". That's not completely correct, see the essay 'Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism' by Ven. Dr. W. Rahula (www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha126.htm) and 'The Bodhisattva Ideal In Theravada' by Jeffrey Samuels (www.buddhistinformation.com/bodhisattva_ideal_in_theravada.htm) But my interest is not theoretical but is about the question: do I want to be a boddisatta? Of course not "over aeons and aeons of lifetimes" but I talk about my intention in this life because here it can start. Metta Joop --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Joop, > > .... > S: Well, I'm wondering where you got the idea that bodhisattas are > enlightened. I'll be interested to see any quote from the Tipitaka to > support this too! > > I'm not sure where to begin, but here are two brief quotes that come to > mind (BB translations): ..... > Metta, > > Sarah 59462 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu May 18, 2006 0:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition ... Metta and Devas sarahprocter... Hi Herman & all, --- Herman Hofman wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > > .... > > 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). > > Best as I can tell, these two are commentarial notions. Is that correct? .... S: Well, if we're being guided by Nyantiloka, it's probably correct:-)I think they are also listed in the Abhidhamma (see CMA V,#24), but that probably doesn't make them anymore 'valid' for you, Herman:-). Generally speaking, a lot more detail is given in the commentaries, including those which you find more acceptable because somehow they've ended up being included in the Sutta Pitaka, such as the elaborations (often in great detail) by Sariputta, MahaKaccayana, Ananda and so on. You're not keen on intellectualising or book knowledge, so let me ask you a few questions to be answered from your experience: 1. Is dana (generosity) just to be understood as when one gives a gift of some article with good intentions? 2. Can the giving of good wishes (for example, for someone's health), the giving of kind words be included? 3. What about respect and assistance, such as for elderly people? 4. Or service/dutifulness, such as for one's parents (or for bhikkhus), again with good intentions of course? 5. What about if you plan to give assistance to someone in your work or community and you mention it to Vicki so that she can join in and help or be glad afterwards? [Phil, this is where the 'as when from a burning lamp a thousand lamps were lit' comes in which I think you've mentioned before] 6. What about when you are genuinely glad to hear about friends' kind wishes or gifts for Vicki when she's in hospital? Or any other examples of when you welcome others' kindnesses or generosity in anyway? Aren't these all different kinds of generosity, Herman? When we read in short suttas about dana, sila and bhavana, does dana have to be restricted to the first kind? .... > And > is it true that the weight given to dana in Buddhist societies in > general is > also not based directly on the suttas, but later commentarial works? ... S: I think that as the Theravada teachings have been preserved and handed down in 'Buddhist societies', the ancient commentaries have been studied and accepted along with the entire Tipitaka. But let's keep the focus on our appreciation of dana (generosity) here. Is your problem here with: a) letting others share our dana? b) genuinely rejoicing in others' dana? or c) anything to do with devas? I hope my examples above have helped with a) and b) from a practical rather than a book knowledge point of view. With regard to c), there is so much to be found in the suttas too. As a reminder of the value in appreciating all kinds of dana (generosity) for a start, here is a little from the reference Nyantiloka gives, AN 8s, 36 (PTS translation): "Take the case, monks, of a man who only on a small scale creates the base of meritorious action founded on gifts...virtue...making mind become. He, on the breaking up of the body after death, is reborn among men of ill luck." Then we have the one performs dana, sila and bhavana to a 'medium degree' and is 'reborn among men of good luck.' It goes on with the 'high degree' and being 'reborn among the company of the Four Royal devas', 'the devas of the Thirty', 'the Yama devas', 'the Tusita devas' and even higher ones. I've learned a lot from 'Good friends' about different aspects of generosity and I have a lot more to learn. I think I'm extremely fortunate to have examples shown to me on a daily basis and also to be able to reflect on them in the texts or in what people write here. For me, it's an aspect of how our understanding of various dhammas can help condition more kusala of all kinds. Of course, often when we set out to perform or develop kusala (and this applies to those in 'Buddhist societies' as well), there are the aspects of wishing to perform kusala, thinking of the results (even amongst the devas perhaps) -- all for oneself. Such self-centred motives have nothing to do with the 10 meritorious deeds of course. So, we have to be honest, we have to know when kusala is for the sake of kusala and for the sake of others versus when it's just for oneself and of little value. We've discussed this topic a few times before, Herman. I don't think it matters at all whether we accept as a possibility that devas or petas may rejoice in our deeds or not (and how could we ever know?). But, I do think it helps us to appreciate all kinds of generosity and other kusala. Finally, from the 'Without the Walls Discourse', Khuddakapatha, Khuddakanikaya (SUTTA Pitaka), Nanamoli translation for you: ".....The ghosts of the departed kin Live there on giving given here; As water showered on the hill Flows down to reach the hollow vale, So giving given here can serve The ghosts of the departed kin. As river-beds when full can bear The water down to fill the sea, So giving given here can serve The ghosts of the departed kin. 'He gave to me, he worked for me, 'He was my kin, friend, intimate'. Give gifts, then, for departed ones, Recalling what they used to do. No weeping, nor yet sorrowing, Nor any kind of mourning, aids Departed Ones, whose kin remain [Unhelpful to them acting] thus, But when this offering is given Well placed in the Community For them, then it can serve them long In future and at once as well. The true Idea for relatives has thus been shown, And how high honour to departed ones is done, And how the bhikkhus can be given strength as well, And how great merit can be stored away by you." Metta, Sarah ======== 59463 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu May 18, 2006 0:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bodhisattva Ideal sarahprocter... Hi Joop, --- Joop wrote: > Hallo Sarah, Charles > > Sarah, my excuses; that was a stupid statement of me, I must have had > a partly black-out. > I could have known that according Theravada only a Buddha is > enlightened. .... S: No problem at all - I thought as much (that it was a kind of 'black-out') as I know you are very familiar with the Theravada texts and teachings. As you read Mahayana and Theravada texts, I'm sure it's easy to make slips. Some of us, definitely including me, make slips all the times without this as a way of explanation:-)). Will get back to the rest of your post later, Joop. Thx for this note. Metta, Sarah ======= 59464 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu May 18, 2006 1:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Please don't run away yet, DAN 1.ii sarahprocter... Hi Kel,(Dan, KenH, Sukin & all), Thanks for your input which I'm very glad to hear. I remember our lively discussions before on prior attainments and so on which led to the comments in the post you just read: --- kelvin_lwin wrote: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/45763 .... > The major link in your reasoning is this: > >Visuddhimagga that having > >attained the 2nd stage of insight (paccaya-pariggaha ~naa.na), one > is > >referred to as a lesser (cula) sotapanna with a fixed destiny in > >heavenly planes. In other words, even on the attainment of the > second >stage, there will be no rebirth in hell planes as I > understand. .... S: Yes, that's how it reads to me. Since I wrote that post, I've come across other references that are similar. I think one was in Sammohavinodani. .... > Kel: Statement about cula-sotapanna only applies to the very next > life only otherwise there's no difference to a regular sotapanna. .... S: Do you have any reference to show that it only applies to 'the very next life'? I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere. There is a big difference with a 'regular sotapanna' in terms of the insights and of course the enlightenment of the sotapanna. .... > After that all bets are off unless the practice continues even for a > Bodhisatta and ours made a few mistakes that caused rebirth in all > realms except the lowest hell. .... S: For one who is not yet a cula sotapanna, all bets are off, even for a Bodhisatta (with the exception of the lowest hell as you suggest). .... >My Abhidhamma teacher was clear in > definition of cula-sottapanna since some people asked the same > question and I've read it explained as such in a few places. I > think that position is pretty self consistent. ..... S: So what is your Abhidhamma teacher's definition of a cula-sotapanna and if it is different from the one I gave (from the textual sources, e.g. Vism.), what are his sources? .... >So I don't think > your conclusion holds and we should read the text as it's stated: > > *** Having become well-established in the fourfold purity > of virtue, learned the Tipi.taka -- the Buddha-word, > undertaken the thirteen austerities, and entered the > forest, they fulfil the duty [of maintaining their > meditation subject] while going out [for alms] and > coming back, perform the dhamma of a sama.na, and cause > insight to grow up to conformity knowledge, [but] > stopping [there] they do not undertake any striving for > the sake of the path and fruit. This is just what > Jotipaala did. *** .... S: So I believe you think (as you mentioned before) that just at the moment of anuloma citta, there is no striving for or arising of magga and phala cittas. As you know, the anuloma citta arises in the same process of the magga citta when enlightenment occurs. 'Anuloma ~naa.na' refers to just the three cittas in the magga vithi (process) which consist of preparatory consciousness, access and adaptation consciousness with one of the ti-lakkhana as object. They are followed by a single citta only (gotrabhuu or change of lineage) before magga citta and then phala cittas, all in the same process. It seems most unlikely to me that anything or any intention could stop the cittas in a process as you suggest. I believe that anuloma has different meanings in different contexts. .... > I think Dan's point of panna being able to develop outside of a > Buddha sansana is supported by existence of pacceka-Buddhas. .... S: Of course, pacceka Buddhas are different. I believe as you suggest that they only exist outside a Buddha sasana (having previously heard the teachings of course). But Dan's point is that satipatthana can develop inside a Buddha sasana (like now) without hearing the teachings or hearing about satipatthana in this life. .... >Also > during a Bodhisatta's career, he only has very limited exposure to > living Buddhas. Actually in a lot of the tales he would obtain > abhinnas which usually means rebirth in arupa bhumis so spends a bit > of time contemplating by himself given the lifespan of those > realms. We also read that even in animal existence, Bodhisatta > continued developing paramis despite inability to obtain magga. So > it must be possible to develop panna anytime by anybody. .... S: I'm having a bit of a 'black-out' in following your logic here, Kel. (Maybe it was the surf this morning - oops, I'm beginning to sound like KenH:-)). By panna, we need to know what kind of panna we're talking about. Panna can be developed by those who have never heard the Buddha's teachings to a very high degree, but not panna of satipatthana. As I suggested to Dan, I don't believe any insights were attained by the bodhisatta until the time of his enlightenment when all the 'ingredients' were in place, when all the paramis were fully developed. Of course, for a bodhisatta, it takes far, far longer than for a great disciple. And for a great disciple, it takes far, far longer than for an ordinary disciple for such 'ingredients' to be in place, on account of the task to be accomplished. .... >There are > only 4 kusala and 9 jhana cittas to categorize development of panna > to until magga is reached. So all those cannot have "lasting" > effect since they're merely mundane and my contention is all the > insights below anuloma are mundane. .... S: Yes, all the insights below anuloma are mundane....any kusala or panna arising has 'lasting' effect....but, I'm sorry, I can't understand your point here. Please can you elaborate. Also on the earlier one. Apologies if I'm being dense. Thanks for joining in, Kel. Do you have any other comments on the discussions with Dan too? The more the merrier! Metta, Sarah p.s. I'll also be glad to have any further feedback from your Abhid. Teacher on the 'Musing' you just saw. ======= 59465 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu May 18, 2006 1:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on Cooran sarahprocter... Hi Ken H, --- ken_aitch wrote: > I can no more intentionally (formally) associate with wise persons > than I can formally practise satipatthana! I can't formally avoid > fools, either! When right view is present (when the Dhamma is known) > then the admirable friend - the Buddha - is known (associated with). > When wrong view is present, I have an evil companion. .... S: I like the way you've expressed this. So even when surrounded by longboarders, there can be association with the wise:-) ... > > As Nina said way back in message 14683 > --------- > > <. . .> These are views not helpful for the growth of > pa~n~naa. We do not associate with such views. > Thus, the sentence: we should not associate with people of wrong view > should be understood in the above sense. They do not imply a negative > judgement of persons. The Buddha taught that we should have no > conceit, we should have metta, compassion, gentleness. > > --------- > > Excellent! Thank you Sarah (and Nina). .... S: We're surrounded by the people we're with already by conditions. There can be association with right view anytime, no matter what we hear, see or experience. Right understanding of the teachings should lead to greater --not less -- tolerance and understanding of others and their views. Metta, Sarah ======== 59466 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu May 18, 2006 1:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Are concepts impermanent? sarahprocter... Hi Howard, --- upasaka@... wrote: >>>H: There is not a variety of > > >"realities". .... > > S: I liked the way you expressed this in your own good style very > much. > > > > I'd just like to ask you to clarify the last sentence. > > ------------------------------------------ > Howard: > I suspect you are wondering whether I was denying a multiplicity > of > actual phenomena. I was not. I meant merely that whatever is real .. is > real > (or, what is .. is), and that it is only speech that has degrees of > "reality" or > literalness to it. > Again, to clarify: By " There is not a variety of 'realities' " I > > meant that there is not both a "figurative reality" and a "literal > reality" and a > bunch of "realities" in between. There is just whatever is, as it is. .... S: Yes, that's just what I thought you meant. Thank you for clarifying. As I said, I thought you expressed it well. Metta, Sarah ===== 59467 From: "Joop" Date: Thu May 18, 2006 1:43am Subject: [dsg] Re: How to radiate metta jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Joop, > > Not sure if this will reach you before you leave, but just in case, a little more to reflect on whilst you go walking: > .... > S: As I tried to indicate in this thread and in another one, accumulations > refers to all cittas and cetasikas which are conditioned by so many > factors. So, to keep it simple, let's say that all these cittas and > cetasikas above are 'accumulated' (with the possible exception of the > lokuttara cittas??). > > As I've said before, add what you like and call it Joop's revised list:-). > > Metta, > > Sarah > ========== Hallo Sarah Thanks you reminded me on your message #58093; I made a reaction on the 'accumulations' topic, but did not send it. You must be right but still my conclusion is: Everything that occurs is either an ultimate or a conceptual reality. An (any) accumulation of cittas or cetasikas is not a ultimate reality for two reasons: - it is not arising and falling away within some milli-seconds - it does not occur on the list of 89/121 cittas+52 cetasikas+28 rupas+1 nibbana It is not ultimate as a accumulation; you say "it REFERS to to all cittas and cetasikas"; yes: but it IS not a citta or cetasika, isn't that correct? So it must be a concept. OR it belongs to a third class of realities, together with 'kamma' About #58095 ("On spice and paradoxes") Only a remark on your last words: "Often such paradoxes arise because of our very limited understanding." J: That's possible but you seem to suppose that a paradox is something unpleasant, something to devoid: not to me. You say "A desire to give up desires is lobha"; and I add: it is also a logical paradox in the way Bertrand Russell talked about. But of course ging up desires is more important that logic. Metta Joop 59468 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu May 18, 2006 1:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] handering sarahprocter... Hi Connie, A few weeks ago you wrote the following (in a post to Tep): --- connie wrote: > anandajoti's footnote includes the commentary: > << Yaavad-evaa ti payojanaparicchedavavatthaapanam-eta.m. Ida.m vutta.m > > hoti: yaa saa sati paccupa.t.thitaa hoti saa na a~n~nad-atthaaya. Atha > kho > yaavad-eva ~naa.namattaaya aparaapara.m uttaruttari > ~naa.napamaa.natthaaya > ceva satipamaa.natthaaya* ca, satisampaja~n~naana.m vu.d.dhatthaayaa ti > > attho - yaavad-eva, this designates, and is limited to, purpose. This is > > what is said: whatever mindfulness is established is not for another > reason. Then the meaning of as far as (is necessary for) a measure of > knowledge is so as to increase more and more, further and further, > knowledge and mindfulness, for the increase of mindfulness and clear > awareness.>> > and alternative translations *for just knowledge and remembrance (Way); > or > *for mere understanding and mere awareness (VRI). .... S: This last part struck a chord about mindfulness being established just so that knowledge can increase more and more, for sati sampajanna, 'for mere understanding and mere awareness'. It's like something KS often says to us about 'just for the sake of understanding' or 'cook rice for the sake of cooked rice':-). I couldn't catch where your reference was from. Who is Anandajoti who wrote the footnote? Is it from 'Pitaka Disclosure'? Thanks for any help. Metta, Sarah ========= 59469 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu May 18, 2006 2:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Understanding dhammas, understanding realities/'realities' sarahprocter... Dear Tep, Firstly, please don't think you're 'barking at the wrong tree' anytime when you go to a lot of trouble to set out your points and give helpful sutta quotes. I find it useful to reflect on them all. Secondly, this is an old post of yours which I don't think I replied to. I'll just pick up on the good questions you raised: --- indriyabala wrote: > >S: 'Sound' is real right now when there is hearing, but 'bird noise' > or 'traffic' are only conventionally real, imagined real, based on the > 'ultimately real' dhammas previously heard and attended to. > > Tep: Very good example, Sarah. But, is 'sound' real because it has not > been mixed with the other dhammas, or formed into a sankhara by > perceptions(sa~n~na)? .... S: It's real because it's what is heard now. It's experienced and can be known for what it is. All dhammas are sankhara, 'formed up' or conditioned. Sanna arises at every moment, marking the object, in this case sound. .... >If your answer is 'yes', then can we extend the > idea to 'citta' -- say, citta is real (as the legitimate ultimate > reality) until it is mixed or contaminated with catasikas? .... S: I wouldn't say that citta is ever 'mixed or contaminated with cetasikas'. As I was discussing with Dan, cittas and cetasikas condition each other, but they have their particular characteristics. Seeing consciousness is citta, for example. It's conditioned by the accompaning contact and other cetasikas, but is never 'mixed'. .... > You know, I am just a wooden spoon in the pot of the abhidhamma stew. > So it is likely that my questions don't make much sense to the cook > who made the stew. ... S: No, they're very good questions, Tep. I don't think anyone made the stew - just how it is when all those ingredients get mixed together:-)) .... > [What I think I agree with you:] > > Tep: Now, concerning your answer to my question about the possibility > of more than one nama may arise and dissolve at the same time, I sense > that you are affirmative {S: "To be precise, one citta and a minimum > of 7 cetasikas (all namas of course) arise and fall away at every > instant."} But the words "they are conditioned in multiple ways" are > your own, Sarah, not mine; and, yes, they make sense to me. > > I also agree that citta and cetasikas are "being conditioned by the > arammana(object) which may also be a concept". > > Further, I understand your statement, "Clearly we cannot interchange > 'conditions' and 'realities (dhammas)'.", to mean that 'paccayas' > (conditions = the 24 modes of conditionality) are "separate" from > those dhammas that arise (or being formed by them). Have I been on > the right track, so far? .... S: Sounds good to me. .... > ............................... > > [What I think I may disagree -- not sure:] > > Tep: However, I am not sure whether the other things you said after > the above are right or wrong. Let me summarize these (muddy-to-my-eye) > issues as follows: > > { As said by Sarah :-| } > > "When these namas arise together, they experience one arammana > (object) at a time only. As I just mentioned, this object may be a > concept when there is thinking in the mind-door process. However, the > object may also be a rupa (in a sense door process) or a rupa or nama > as object in the mind door process. > > "So we see that although many namas arise together, only one object is > ever experienced. When it comes to the development of satipatthana or > the understanding of present realities (which I was referring to), > this object can only be a nama or a rupa, one at a time. [end of quote] > > Tep: The several issues (as I see them) are : > 1. Other than the citta, other "namas" can also experience an > arammana(object). [Why?] .... S: The way it is! Let's take seeing consciousness again (a citta). It needs the support of phassa, ekaggata, sanna, vedana, manasikara, cetana and jivitindriya to perform its function of experiencing visible object. Without contact and the rest, there'd be no conditions for any experience. ... > 2. The citta as well as the other namas can experience one and only > one object "at a time". [Why?] .... S: Again, the way it is! Back to seeing - at that moment, no object other than visible object can be experienced. To take a simple example, sound or tangible objects for example cannot be experienced by seeing consciousness. .... > 3. An arisen object only arise in a sense door process or the mind > door process. [So, do the other namas have their sense doors, or else > how can they experience an object?] .... S: [these are all excellent qus, btw, Tep]. Yes, an object can only be experienced through one door process at a time. A nama can only be experienced through a mind door process. Namas can and do experience objects through sense and mind doors. For example, seeing (a nama) can only experience through the eye-door, but thinking can later think about the object seen through the mind door. I'm not sure if I understand your second qu. Pls clarify if not. .... > 4. Multiple namas may exist together but they only experience the same > object at a (given) time (instant). [What restricts their behavior > that way?] .... S: The way conditions work. For example, visible object is a condition for seeing consciousness and its accompanying cetasikas to arise and experience it. No visible object, no seeing, no contact etc. Also, at the moment of seeing, there cannot be hearing, so sound also cannot appear. By anantara paccaya, only one citta arises at a time, conditioning the next one. By sahajata paccaya, the cetasikas arise together with the citta and condition each other....and so on. By kamma paccaya, vipaka such as seeing is conditioned, not any other vipaka. So we see all the conditions work together like those stew ingredients to 'form up' the namas experiencing a particular object. .... > > > General Questions: > > I. Are these issues making sense to you (i.e. do you see them as > issues)? .... S: I see them as very important issues and excellent questions. .... > II. Could you please give one real world example for each case that > makes sense to you? .... S: Hopefully, I did that with seeing consciousness now as an example. Without all the right conditions in place, no seeing. When there's seeing, there's no thinking, no hearing, no like or dislike. it has a characteristic which can be known as well. .... > III. If none of them make sense, can you tell me why? ... S: Good sense! I hope my answers make a little sense. Pls point out where they don't and I'll try to clarify if you wish. .... S: Again, in this and other threads, like the one with Han and myself, please don't feel you're ever wasting your time. RobM sometimes says, he's always learnt most from those who disagree with him and I know what he means:-) Of course, there's always plenty we agree on too, Tep, but I think it's helpful to consider areas where we have different understandings too. Metta, Your friend Sarah ================= 59470 From: han tun Date: Thu May 18, 2006 3:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 445- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame ..Conclusion hantun1 Dear Tep (Sarah, Joop, Fabry, and all), Please forgive for a long delay in replying to you. Tep: The very fact that the Buddha said in MN 39 that there are other things to do beyond tells me that "this hiri-ottappa" is at a much lower level than the hiri-ottappa in SN 45.1, i.e. "Bhikkhus, true knowledge (vijjaa) is the forerunner in the entry upon wholesome states, with a sense of shame (hiri) and fear of wrongdoing (ottappa) following along. My conversation below attempts to explain why. Tep: With "vijjaa" being interpreted as true knowledge, I fail to follow your explanation, dear Han, because if we already have vijja, we are already arahants. Aren't we? -------------------- Han: You are right Tep. It is always difficult to cross-reference one sutta to another. I can never do that. Sometimes the two suttas seem to be contradictory. But our Blessed One never makes mistakes. It must be that our knowledge is not advanced enough to appreciate. I notice that you could “string” one passage from one sutta with another passage from another sutta like you are stringing flowers to make a beautiful garland. ================ Han(#59363): A lot of discussions had been going on in this forum about radiating "metta". Now, metta is opposite to dosa or vyaapada, and dosa or vyaapada is eradicated only by anaagaami. So, would you say that only anaagaami can radiate metta? {(:>)} Tep(# 59367): The metta that an anaagaami radiates is pure 'adosa', while the metta of a worldling is a make-believed (faked) 'adosa'. Technically, I would reject the faked adosa and answer you with a 'yes'. Han(#59368): This is the first time I hear the metta of a worldling as a make-believed (faked) 'adosa'. Will a worldling be then never able to practice metta bhaavanaa? Tep: My answer (#59406) to Joop might be a good answer for you too. The metta of a worldling in contrast with the metta with no aversions (adosa) of the anagaami is like rusting iron being compared to a stainless steel. That's why I call such metta as "faked", not adosa yet! But the metta bhavana being practiced by the worldling would polish the impure metta more and more, until it could completely become pure (adosa) when the worldling finally turns into anagaami. -------------------------- Han: I like your reply very much Tep. The hiri and ottappa of a beginner in MN 39 must be like the rusting iron of your simile, which is then polished repeatedly by right understanding to become the stainless-steel-like-hiri-ottappa of SN 45.1 in which case the vijjaa comes into play in making them fully developed and firmly established. Thank you very much. Respectfully, your friend Han --- indriyabala wrote: > > Hi Han & Sarah (Joop, Fabry, James and all) - > > This post is more like my final rebuttal after > reading all replies > from you two, Fabry & Joop ... It is a long one. > 59471 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Thu May 18, 2006 3:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Visible object at Cooran / Was Suffering doesn't always announce it... ken_aitch Hi Howard, ----------- H: > Ken, you may wish to rethink your position, because it happens that I am entirely in agreement with you on this matter! ;-) ----------- We are in unfamiliar territory, but let's not panic! There must be a logical explanation! :-) -------------------- H: > (The form into which the mind puts that information is faulty, of course, embodying substance and "thingness" and self- existence based on ignorant reification, but that is a side issue.) -------------------- That's interesting: if there is ignorance (of the difference between concepts and realities) then, in a manner of speaking, the concepts formed will be faulty. And if there is no ignorance, but also no right view, then I suppose the concepts will still be faulty. But would they be faulty for normal, day-to-day purposes? Would an arahant's concepts of cars and pedestrians make him more skilful than a worldling in crossing a road? Ken H PS: Howard, Sarah, Dan and anyone else I may be conversing with: my computer is acting up again, so I could suddenly drop out at any moment. 59472 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu May 18, 2006 4:29am Subject: [dsg] Re: More on Cooran scottduncan2 Dear Dan, D: "Your post inspired me to briefly reflect on the NHL playoffs. Among the 16 teams in the playoffs this year, I see Tampa Bay, San Jose, Nashville, Anaheim, Dallas, Carolina. When the once-in-a-decade frost hits any of these cities in January, wouldn't the price of orange juice skyrocket? Has it always been this way?" Dan, I've just made you an honourary Canadian hockey fan. I've always said: No snow no team. And no it hasn't always been this way. Now Edmonton gets to play the Anaheim Mighty Ducks. I mean, come on. D: "I do see some frosty representation too (Edmonton, Calgary, Detroit, Buffalo). Also, as a statistician, I couldn't help notice that in the Western Conference, the 5, 6, 7, and 8 seeds won, and in the Eastern Conference it was the 1, 2, 3, and 4 seeds. I bet that has never happened before!" I heard a guy on the radio last night say that this has not happened before. Sincerely, Scott. 59473 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu May 18, 2006 4:32am Subject: Re: More on Cooran scottduncan2 Hi Phil, "And Go Oilers. (Oops..)" They did, by golly. "What dhammas are involved in a slapshot?" I think we should ask Herman, don't you? Sincerely, Scott. 59474 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu May 18, 2006 1:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Visible object at Cooran / Was Suffering doesn't always announce it... upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 5/18/06 6:06:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > -------------------- > H: >(The form into which the mind puts that information is > faulty, of course, embodying substance and "thingness" and self- > existence based on ignorant reification, but that is a side issue.) > -------------------- > > That's interesting: if there is ignorance (of the difference between > concepts and realities) then, in a manner of speaking, the concepts > formed will be faulty. And if there is no ignorance, but also no > right view, then I suppose the concepts will still be faulty. > But would they be faulty for normal, day-to-day purposes? Would an > arahant's concepts of cars and pedestrians make him more skilful than > a worldling in crossing a road? > ==================== As I see it, (well founded) concepts are useful shorthands that, in fact, we can't manage without, but they are delusive in the sense that unless we understand them, really understand, and not just adopt a belief-understanding, as only shorthands for complex networks of actualties and not for the entities they seem to be (or to refer to), we are fooled by them - we are taken in. An analogy that I think one might make is that of the difference between an adult seeing a film, and a child seeing it. The adult can enjoy the film, letting him/herself engage in the pretense of watching a reality, knowing full well that it is pretense, but the child is likely to be taken in. 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) 59475 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu May 18, 2006 2:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Visible object at Cooran / Was Suffering doesn't always announce it... upasaka_howard Hi again, Ken - Just one brief addition: In a message dated 5/18/06 6:06:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > And if there is no ignorance, but also no > right view, then I suppose the concepts will still be faulty. > ======================= With regard to absence of ignorance being in effect without the presence of right view, while I have no sure and fixed belief with regard to this issue, I tend to believe that wisdom being present is the natural state of mind when the mind is not overlaid by ignorance. As I picture it, the removal of the obscuring cover of ignorance permits the natural luminous functioning of wisdom. That is how I interpret the Pabhassara Sutta, with 'incoming' meaning "extrinsic" or "adventitious": "Luminous, monks, is the mind.1 And it is defiled by incoming defilements." {I,v,9} "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements." {I,v,10} "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — there is no development of the mind." {I,vi,1} "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — there is development of the mind." {I,vi,2} With metta, Howard /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) 59476 From: "Dan D." Date: Thu May 18, 2006 8:20am Subject: [dsg] Re: More on Cooran onco111 Hi Scott, > Dan, I've just made you an honourary Canadian hockey fan. I'm honored. And (Virtually) speechless. I high school, I loved watching the Gretzky/Kurri statistics pile up for the Oilers...Go Oilers! (I suppose I should be saying "Go Flames!" since I grew up in Montana, which isn't far from Calgary--but what kind of a name is "Flames" for a hockey team?!) Dan 59477 From: "matheesha" Date: Thu May 18, 2006 8:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Visible object at Cooran / Was Suffering doesn't always announce it... matheesha333 Hi Howard, Ken H: As I see it, (well founded) concepts are useful shorthands that, in > fact, we can't manage without, but they are delusive in the sense that unless we > understand them, really understand, and not just adopt a > belief-understanding, as only shorthands for complex networks of actualties and not for the > entities they seem to be (or to refer to), we are fooled by them - we are taken in. M: We start with thinking filled with avijja. We can only learn something outside this if we can stop the thinking, and start being mindful. Insight arises not by more and more conceptualizing, but by stopping the conceptualizing and being aware. If all we know is what is inside the box (atta), to think something which is outside the box, we need to get truly outside it, into something new! If we look at the 'world' through yet another layer of concepts, be they right or wrong, there is no direct seeing; we will project our own understanding on to phenomena, without learning from the phenomena, as some people project God onto things which they cant understand any other way. regards Matheesha 59478 From: "indriyabala" Date: Thu May 18, 2006 9:11am Subject: Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 445- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame ..Conclusion indriyabala Dear Han, Thank you for the feedback and encouragement. >Han: Sometimes the two suttas seem to be contradictory. T: Yes. Sometimes we may find contradicting suttas, then very careful multiple crossreferencing is inevitable. Commentaries are also helpful to provide us with additional information. >H: But our Blessed One never makes mistakes. It must be that our knowledge is not advanced enough to appreciate. T: Yes. That is another very good point which reflects a huge saddha in the Buddha -- the real saddha that only real Buddhists have! >H: I notice that you could "string" one passage from one sutta with another passage from another sutta like you are stringing flowers to make a beautiful garland. T: Together we have been reviewing and exchanging views on many suttas for a number of years now, and I have learned a lot from you. So this compliment means a lot to me as the encouragement that is not superficial. Thanks. With true appreciation, Tep, your friend ============ --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Tep (Sarah, Joop, Fabry, and all), > > Please forgive for a long delay in replying to you. > (snipped) > I like your reply very much Tep. The hiri and ottappa > of a beginner in MN 39 must be like the rusting iron > of your simile, which is then polished repeatedly by > right understanding to become the > stainless-steel-like-hiri-ottappa of SN 45.1 in which > case the vijjaa comes into play in making them fully > developed and firmly established. > 59479 From: "kelvin_lwin" Date: Thu May 18, 2006 11:08am Subject: [dsg] Re: Please don't run away yet, DAN 1.ii kelvin_lwin Hi Sarah, > discussions before on prior attainments and so on which led to the > comments in the post you just read: Kel: Yes, I remember our discussion well. I made a point that the logic you were using would mean a Bodhisatta could 'accidently' become enlightened prematurely and we got into this side discussion. > > Kel: Statement about cula-sotapanna only applies to the very next > > life only otherwise there's no difference to a regular sotapanna. > .... > S: Do you have any reference to show that it only applies to 'the very > next life'? I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere. There is a big > difference with a 'regular sotapanna' in terms of the insights and of > course the enlightenment of the sotapanna. Kel: I don't have an original text reference handy but here's one from Mehm Tin Mon, Buddha Abhidhamma (my class's text), p.144. Cula-Sotàpanna (Junior Stream-winner) `Sotàpanna' is a noble person (Ariya) who has eliminated ditthi and vicikicchà completely. He will never be reborn in the apàya abodes and he is destined to enter Nibbàna in no more than seven rebirths in the kàma-planes. Now the yogi, who has attained Nàma-rupa-pariccheda-nana and Paccaya-pariggaha-nana, has temporarily eliminated ditthi and vicikicchà as described above. So he resembles a sotàpanna but he is not a sotàpanna yet. He is called a cula-sotàpanna meaning a junior-sotàpanna. He will not be reborn in the apàya abodes in his subsequent life. <----- Notice that two the nanas obtained here aren't even ten vipassana- nanas yet so to be guaranteed no more woeful rebirths would be too much if you think about it. > S: For one who is not yet a cula sotapanna, all bets are off, even for a > Bodhisatta (with the exception of the lowest hell as you suggest). Kel: My point is that all bets are off even for a cula-sotapanna after the very next life (unless they keep obtaining the nanas every single life thereafter) > S: So what is your Abhidhamma teacher's definition of a cula- sotapanna and > if it is different from the one I gave (from the textual sources, e.g. > Vism.), what are his sources? Kel: I think you're reading too much into the texts due to slight changes in translations that are misleading. I just saw Ledi Sayadaw's Dipani translation that seem to claim the same thing you said. I'll see if I can read the Burmese equivalent and ask my teacher about Pali of Vism. this saturday. > S: So I believe you think (as you mentioned before) that just at the > moment of anuloma citta, there is no striving for or arising of magga and > phala cittas. > > As you know, the anuloma citta arises in the same process of the magga > citta when enlightenment occurs ... > It seems most unlikely to me that anything or any intention could stop the > cittas in a process as you suggest. > > I believe that anuloma has different meanings in different contexts. Kel: Didn't we have an explanation of multiple meanings of anuloma from Ven Dhammanando as part of original discussion. As he said, this anuloma means BEFORE magga vithi and not the anuloma citta before magga citta. There's no intention of striving for magga/phala so the highest vithis that will occur are kusala vithis with sankharaupekkha-nana. So magga vithi will not arise at all, not stopping midway as you suggest as my position. > S: Of course, pacceka Buddhas are different. I believe as you suggest that > they only exist outside a Buddha sasana (having previously heard the > teachings of course). But Dan's point is that satipatthana can develop > inside a Buddha sasana (like now) without hearing the teachings or hearing > about satipatthana in this life. Kel: So some people (pacceka-Buddhas to be) can practice based on what they heard in previous lives and use it somehow. I think it's reasonable people can be exposed to teachings this or previous lives and end up following them due to accumulations. Actually, some Deva and Brahmin questions to Buddha are based on teachings of previous Buddhas that have been diluted, fragmented or mutated over time. I think it's hard line position to say it can never happen because you can't know every person. > S: Panna can be developed by those who have never heard the Buddha's > teachings to a very high degree, but not panna of satipatthana. As I > suggested to Dan, I don't believe any insights were attained by the > bodhisatta until the time of his enlightenment when all the 'ingredients' > were in place, when all the paramis were fully developed. Of course, for a > bodhisatta, it takes far, far longer than for a great disciple. And for a > great disciple, it takes far, far longer than for an ordinary disciple for > such 'ingredients' to be in place, on account of the task to be > accomplished. Kel: Well if I'm right that Boddhisattas do obtain up to sankharupekkha-nana in lives before final one then your argument falls apart. So I guess it depends on the original point of contention. I still think your theory cannot account for pacceka- Buddhas but you just consider as it as special case. It would make sense to me to consider natural laws applies equally to all beings. I believe if you take into account that to be anointed as Bodhisatta requires the potential to become an arahat in that life already means the ingredients are already in place. They are just not polished enough to accomplish higher goals like chief disciples or Buddhahood. Isn't it weird to work on highest panna parami without at least some vipassana-insight? > S: Yes, all the insights below anuloma are mundane....any kusala or panna > arising has (no?) 'lasting' effect....but, I'm sorry, I can't understand your > point here. Please can you elaborate. Also on the earlier one. Kel: This goes back to lofty position you put vipassana nanas in out original discussion and lower nanas with your contention about cula-sotapanna. If you look at where they would fall in citta categorization then it would necessiarly have to be kusala only. They cannot destroy any fetters so still subject to woeful existence. > S: I'll also be glad to have any further feedback from your Abhid. > Teacher on the 'Musing' you just saw. Kel: He cannot read english well so it'll be based on what I tell him, hehe. But crucial point I saw is the one we're discussing already, was there any other points? - Kel 59480 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu May 18, 2006 0:13pm Subject: metta 11 nilovg Dear friends, This is taken from Kh. Sujin's book on Metta. **** Nina. 59481 From: "Phil" Date: Thu May 18, 2006 4:51pm Subject: Re: Visible object at Cooran / Was Suffering doesn't always announce itself. philofillet Hi Ken and all > Experiences of sense objects are the fruits of our kamma. They are the > "rewards" for deeds well done and the "punishments" for deeds wrongly > done (if I may use those terms). Ph: I think we should be careful about thinking of vipaka from kusala kamma as rewards. There are suttas in SN 35 which make it clear that both agreeable and disagreeable sense objects assail us, are "village raiding dacoits" (though I don't know what a dacoit is) that we are like a sheaf of wheat being thrashed by both pleasant and unpleasant sense objects. All sense experience, whether stemming from kusala or akusala kamma, is to be understood as potentially misleading, seductive, harmful because of our accumulated tendency to respond with unwholesome proliferation, I think. But that's another topic. How, then, could the objects of > those experiences be just meaningless blobs? How, for example, could > visible objects be nondescript blobs of colour? > > I argued that, far from being mere blobs, sense objects came packed > with information. Ph: This is my opinion, but when it comes to abhidhamma we should avoid arguing based on what seems reasonable to us based on our experience. Phrases like "it seems to me" or "what I can understand based on my experience" (not that you said that, but in the west that seems to be the way we are expected to approach Dhamma) are doors to proliferating misunderstanding. Because we say "it seems to me" with cittas rooted deeply in ignorance and greed (lobha). All of us, without exception - when compared to the enlightened ones who taught Abhidhamma. What do the texts say about this poin? I imagine they are fairly explicit. What does the CMA say? Of course, if it is not explicitly laid out, then there will be speculating by us here. But it is dangerous, I think. What our experience tells us *cannot* tell us the truth of abhidhamma. We have to know our limits. Quoting K Sujin, from the best of my memory, I said, > "Visible object is the reality that appears at the eye - nothing more, > nothing less." To me, this means that all the information we glean > from our eyesight is contained in visible object. We are on firmer ground with Acharn Sujin than we are by relying on our own examined experience. "It seems to K Sujin" is more reliable than "it seems to me." But what does she mean here? Sounds more like the meaningless blob. And I would still like to know what the abhidhamma texts say about this. I think Nina is back now. Maybe she can give us some textual information. I can understand the confusion. How does meaningless blob of colour become understood as the concept involved? How does meaningless blob become tree. I have no idea. Admittedly, there > are no tree-rupas, for example, but the very specific information that > causes us (with our long memories) to think, "Tree" is contained in > various forms of visible object. > > However, mine was not the unanimous view. There were those (no names > no pack drill) who supported the "meaningless blob" argument. And > their views were well argued. They said that one blob of colour came > from one part of the tree, followed by another blob from another part, > and so on until, after billions of blobs were experienced, the > thinking mind came to the conclusion, "Tree!" Ph: Yes, this is what I would have thought, but I have no idea how it happens. Something seems to be missing. > > After being momentarily swayed, I couldn't accept that argument. Sense > objects - the objects of vipaka consciousness - can be desirable, > moderately desirable or undesirable. A simple colour cannot be any of > those things (at least, not to any profound degree). Ph: yes, this is what I didn't understand. So in the sutta that warn about the danger of unguarded sense doors, and the "sliding away from unwholesome states" and whatnot that occurs, it always seems to me that it must be the last of the six objects mentionned, the mental object (ie concept) that must be the misleading object. Bare thigh rather than blob of colour. But we know that this is not the case, for all six door objects are mentionned, and no particular emphasis is laid on the mental object. The visible object in and of itself is kusala vipaka (vipaka of kusala kamma, to be more exact.) > > I know it is futile to try to imagine a rupa, such as visible object, > but I think we can understand it as coming packed with information - > not as being nondescript. Ph: I guess we have to if we want to wrap our logical minds around this. But let's do it with care. We are dealing with abhidhamma, a realm of understanding that is beyond our ability to get at with our ignorant, impatient cittas. I will ask Rob M about this when I meet him this weekend. He should be able to help with textual references. That is what we need here, not our own speculation. Phil 59482 From: "Phil" Date: Thu May 18, 2006 5:03pm Subject: Suffering doesn't always announce itself. (Was [dsg] Re: More on Cooran philofillet HI Larry > In dependent arising it is the pleasant feeling (vedana) associated with > the object, and latent tendency (anusaya) that condition tanha > (craving). When this happens over and over clinging (upadana) to that > combination of object and feeling arises for an assumed self that is > believed to be annihilated at death. See Vism. thread in about a year. > > Notice the feeling when you are lusting after legs. I guess the DO approach uses different terminology than the ayatanas approach laid out in SN 35. As we know, the Buddha urged us to be "triple investigators", to investiage dhammas, through ayatanas, through dhattus and through dependent arising. So I am more familiar with the exposition of the suttas in SN 35 and get confused when D.O is brought into it. But that's ok. It will take me a long time to even begin to understand D.O. The deepest teaching of the Buddha, and I think there is a tendency (not on your part) to oversimplify it by looking at the suttas and thinking about which puzzle piece fits where. But if the kusala dhammas arise that permit me to do so, I will remember this post and notice the feeling when I am lusting after legs, or breasts. I don't know if "feeling arises for an assumed self" for me in such cases but even just thinking about that would be an effective turn-off! :) Phil 59483 From: "Phil" Date: Thu May 18, 2006 5:36pm Subject: Re: Be Here Now philofillet Hi all Another passage from Ven Dhammadaro: Instead of learning to be aware of whatever appears we are being choosey. We don't want to be aware of distraction. We want to get on with being aware of breath, of body, of feeling, of citta (consciousness), or of this or that. What about distraction? Is distraction not included in the four satipatthanas, the objects of mindfulness? The Buddha did not say, whatever you do, don't be aware of distraction. What choice do you have? You can't be aware of seeing at the moment of distraction, because then there is no seeing, there is distraction. You can't be aware of calm at the moment of distraction, because there is no calm. Ask yourself, do you really want to be aware or do you just want calm? Just get rid of the distraction and get on with whatever we are doing. But what is the point of getting on with whatever we are doing when it is ?gwe?h who are doing it all the time? There is no awareness, no detachment. What is the point? We are just perpetuating the illusion of a self who has got a job to do, who wants to do it and does not like distraction which gets in the way of doing the job. Then there is no right understanding at all. If there really is awareness, you are not upset by distraction, because it has just arisen because of conditions, it is not self. You are aware of it and then you can be aware of whatever appears next. There can be awareness and right understanding of what has already appeared because of conditions, only for one moment though. And then there may be a whole lot of distraction. You can't do anything about it, anatta. If there is awareness at that moment something has been done already. Anatta. You can't stop awareness from arising - it has already arisen. full talk available at abhidhamma.org phil p.s any comments or questions to the group rather than me personally, thanks. 59484 From: "indriyabala" Date: Thu May 18, 2006 5:44pm Subject: Re: Understanding dhammas, understanding realities/'realities' indriyabala Hi, Sarah - I appreciate your conscientious effort and time (the most precious resource) in answering my post. >S: > Firstly, please don't think you're 'barking at the wrong tree'.. T: I should have written "barking up the wrong tree" instead of "barking at the wrong tree". This is my language problem! >S: >..this is an old post of yours which I don't think I replied to. I'll just pick up on the good questions you raised .. T: Thank you very much for explaining the Abhidhamma principles in detail. There are as usual semantic obstacles that seem to have caused a communication problem between us. For example: 1. My questions on sound, sankhara and citta are not exactly based on the same terms that are familiar to you. [S: I wouldn't say that citta is ever 'mixed or contaminated with cetasikas'.] So the essence of my questions was lost. 2. My question on "why" other namas besides the citta can experience an object. [S: The way it is! Let's take seeing consciousness again (a citta). It needs the support of phassa, ekaggata, sanna, vedana, manasikara, cetana and jivitindriya to perform its function of experiencing visible object. Without contact and the rest, there'd be no conditions for any experience.] The essence is about "experience", the manner which other namas "experience" an object, and why they can perform such special function that is supposed to pertain only to the citta. 3. My question on "why" the citta as well as the other namas can experience one and only one object "at a time". [S: Again, the way it is! Back to seeing - at that moment, no object other than visible object can be experienced. To take a simple example, sound or tangible objects for example cannot be experienced by seeing consciousness.] In real life (not in theory), the way it is, I can hear several sounds while seeing several objects at the same time. A simple example is 'watching a movie': I can eat popcorns at the same time while simultaneously enjoying the sight, the sounds, and the popcorn's taste. It was not anybody's fault that we had the communication difficulties. I believe they are due to our different perspectives. Mine is on communication's simplicity which lacks semantic accuracy that you are expecting. Yours is on the the English and Abhidhamma languages. Now imagine what might have happened, if I also brought in some sutta quotes. {:-)) Best wishes, Tep, your friend. ======= ==== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > Firstly, please don't think you're 'barking at the wrong tree' anytime when you go to a lot of trouble to set out your points and give helpful sutta quotes. I find it useful to reflect on them all. > (snipped) > > > > Tep: The several issues (as I see them) are : > > 1. Other than the citta, other "namas" can also experience an > > arammana(object). [Why?] > .... > S: The way it is! Let's take seeing consciousness again (a citta). It > needs the support of phassa, ekaggata, sanna, vedana, manasikara, cetana > and jivitindriya to perform its function of experiencing visible object. > Without contact and the rest, there'd be no conditions for any experience. > ... > > 2. The citta as well as the other namas can experience one and only > > one object "at a time". [Why?] > .... > S: Again, the way it is! Back to seeing - at that moment, no object other > than visible object can be experienced. To take a simple example, sound or > tangible objects for example cannot be experienced by seeing > consciousness. > .... > > 3. An arisen object only arise in a sense door process or the mind > > door process. [So, do the other namas have their sense doors, or else > > how can they experience an object?] > .... (snipped) > > Metta, > > Your friend Sarah > ================= > 59485 From: connie Date: Thu May 18, 2006 7:11pm Subject: Re: handering nichiconn hi Sarah, Bhikkhu Anandajoti's translation of the Mahasatipatthana is on http://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/Texts-and-Translations/Short-Pieces/index.\ htm Lots of good stuff there (english and pali) and you can download either pdf's or a zip file of the site if you like. Rice is nice :) Actually, I don't know anything about the Bhikkhu other than my being impressed with and happy to have his website. peace, connie Hi Connie, A few weeks ago you wrote the following (in a post to Tep): --- connie wrote: > anandajoti's footnote includes the commentary: > << Yaavad-evaa ti payojanaparicchedavavatthaapanam-eta.m. Ida.m vutta.m > > hoti: yaa saa sati paccupa.t.thitaa hoti saa na a~n~nad-atthaaya. Atha > kho > yaavad-eva ~naa.namattaaya aparaapara.m uttaruttari > ~naa.napamaa.natthaaya > ceva satipamaa.natthaaya* ca, satisampaja~n~naana.m vu.d.dhatthaayaa ti > > attho - yaavad-eva, this designates, and is limited to, purpose. This is > > what is said: whatever mindfulness is established is not for another > reason. Then the meaning of as far as (is necessary for) a measure of > knowledge is so as to increase more and more, further and further, > knowledge and mindfulness, for the increase of mindfulness and clear > awareness.>> > and alternative translations *for just knowledge and remembrance (Way); > or > *for mere understanding and mere awareness (VRI). .... S: This last part struck a chord about mindfulness being established just so that knowledge can increase more and more, for sati sampajanna, 'for mere understanding and mere awareness'. It's like something KS often says to us about 'just for the sake of understanding' or 'cook rice for the sake of cooked rice':-). I couldn't catch where your reference was from. Who is Anandajoti who wrote the footnote? Is it from 'Pitaka Disclosure'? Thanks for any help. Metta, Sarah ========= 59486 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu May 18, 2006 7:13pm Subject: Re: Suffering doesn't always announce itself. (Was [dsg] Re: More on Cooran lbidd2 Hi Phil, I took a quick look at the first few pages of SN 35 to see how we could talk about it in terms of dependent arising. It seems to me that the 'gratification in the eye' is only pleasant feeling. In dependent arising craving is conditioned by this pleasant feeling (gratification) through natural decisive support condition, and also conditioned by latent tendency. Since we can't actually observe the workings of latent tendency, what we are left with is the interplay between contact, pleasant feeling, and craving in dependent arising, or simply the impermanence of eye, visible object, and the pleasant feeling that arises with consciousness if we want to look at this scenario in terms of the ayatanas. External sense bases or even objects, as such, aren't really discussed in dependent arising. However, what I was responding to was your, to my mind, implied question: what makes a concept desirable (defining 'leg' as concept)? I think feeling makes a concept, or anything, desirable. Feeling is also what makes anything undesirable. I find this very interesting to think about, but difficult to observe. Hence, my advice to both of us to keep an eye out for feeling. Larry ps: here is how clinging to feeling arises for an assumed self (I happened to have been typing this for the Vism. thread just before I read your email): Vism.XVII,244 (snipped): usually in a single becoming the misinterpretation of (insistence on) eternity and annihilation are preceded by the assumption of a self. After that, when a man assumes that this self is eternal, rite-and-ritual clinging arises in him for the purpose of purifying the self. And when a man assumes that it breaks up, thus disregarding the next world, sense-desire clinging arises in him. So self-doctrine clinging arises first, and after that, [false-] view clinging, and rite-and-ritual clinging or sense-desire clinging. 59487 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu May 18, 2006 10:26pm Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 450- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame/hiri & ottappa(l) 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 sotåpanna has moral shame and fear of blame which are unshakable by their opposites with regard to akusala kamma which can produce an unhappy rebirth. However, although he is on the way to eventually reach the state of perfection, he has not eradicated all defilements. He still clings to pleasant objects, he still has aversion. At the subsequent stages of enlightenment moral shame and fear of blame become more refined and at the moment of the attainment of arahatship they have reached perfection. ***** Ch27 - Moral Shame & Fear of Blame(hiri & ottappa) to be continued Metta, Sarah ====== 59488 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu May 18, 2006 10:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Three Suttas about Atta sarahprocter... Hi Howard (Tep, Herman, Scott & all), --- upasaka@... wrote: >>S: Even > when > > we think about familiar concepts about what has been seen and heard, > it's > > often with neutral feeling and we have no idea about the attachment. > > > ======================= > There occurs to me a category of very natural, very common, cases > of > attachment to neutral feeling: I think of persons whose lives are > largely ones > of near-unrelenting and extreme difficulty, involving for example > ongoing > serious illness, pain, poverty, disappointment, and loss. Such people, > some quite > Job-like, others simply among the masses of impoverished humankind, have > at > times experienced a respite from their distress or seen others without > such > distress, and, in the midst of their near-constant woe, while thinking > little of > the possibility of actual pleasure and joy, do crave and cling to the > slightest > possibility of merely neutral feeling, feeling which for them would be > like > finding an oasis in the midst of a burning desert. .... S: I know what you mean. For example, if one's in a lot of pain, one just wishes the pain would go away.... .... >These are people very > > strongly attached to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, I would say, > and > understandably so. > In a way, people who sail across samsara in a boat of distress > such as > I described above are in a position to appreciate the release of nibbana > > better than most of us, for their occasional respite/release from > suffering gives > a clearer foretaste of liberation than any of us are likely to > experience. .... S: This was an interesting comment and I thought others might respond. I think it's quite a popular view that you have to really suffer as we think of 'suffer' in a conventional sense or with lots of dukkha dukkha (unpleasant mental and bodily feeling) in order to really appreciate what the Noble Truth of suffering is and what the release from such suffering may be. As you addressed your comments to Tep and myself in particular, I'd like to (belatedly) say that I don't think the experience of loss, woe and difficulty you refer to has any bearing on an appreciation of the nature of suffering of all conditioned dhammas as taught by the Buddha. Such experiences may or may not be a condition for wise reflection, but for most people, even when experiencing extreme hardship, there is still the same clinging to pleasant experiences and idea that this is the way out. Perhaps Tep or others have their own ideas on this. Maybe it touches on some of Herman's and Scott's discussions too. Thanks for mentioning it. Metta, Sarah ============ 59489 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu May 18, 2006 11:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the monk's siila. Skillful Side-stepping ? sarahprocter... Hi Tep, --- indriyabala wrote: > > Hi Sarah - > > I listened to only one audio file, Srinagar, day 2, afternoon : 01, > which is the record of your discussion with Khun Sujin about > establishing sila and satipatthana as stated in the Kundliya sutta. > The following is a sample of the 'questions & answers' along with my > comments. .... S: Firstly, Tep, thank you very much for going to this trouble. I appreciate it a lot. Also, while I think of it, I agreed with most of your comments in your last posts before your sabbatical concerning the Kundaliya sutta and right view etc (#54759, #54791) which I didn't respond to at the time. I appreciate your further comments on the Q & A part of the tape you transcribed. I could add my further comments - for example, when it seemed to you she didn't answer my questions, I beg to differ. Perhaps I'm very used to her style - but it may be better to leave it for the time being, do you think? Just let me know if you'd like me to add anything more. .... > BTW. I do not plan to listen to the other auidio files, at least for > now. ... S: This was a particularly difficult track to follow and the points are very subtle, I think. If you have time, please listen to the 'Nalanda' track near the beginning and give me your feedback on it. I think you'll find it more straight forward. I'd be very interested to hear your comments on it. Thanks again, Tep. metta, Sarah ======== 59490 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu May 18, 2006 11:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On conditions, God willing .. Sutta Interpretation, Is It Really Bad? sarahprocter... Hi Azita, Phil & all, --- gazita2002 wrote: > hello Phil, > > A very 'sobering' reminder, Phil. Yes, I do believe that given > certain conditions, we are capable of any evil deed - maybe not in > this life but any time in the future until sotapattimagga has arisen > > I recall having a conversation with Sarah about this - not the Jon > aspect ;-) .... S: We've had a few chuckles here about the Jon aspects ;-) .... > We were discussing some aspect regarding women's 'undesirable' > behaviour and unfortunately I cannot remember the exact sutta that > we were talking about, but I do remember more clearly A.Sujin > commenting that it was a good reminder for women. A reminder to see > just how badly we [and here I include men, and children]can behave > given the right conditions to do so. .... S: Yes, it followed some detailed discussions I had with Dighanakka and others on this topic, especially comments in the Jatakas and the 'sutta' I think you have in mind is in Milinda's Qus, 4th dvision 8, On Amaraa, about what women will do given the opportunity! The DSG discussions on the topic were around the time and thread of this post of mine: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/36411 I think Dighanakka was suggesting that such accounts in the Jataka commentary and Milinda's qus showed the commentaries couldn't be trusted. Azita and I knew better, lol!! To read the Milinda account, it can be found on-line (google for 'Milinda, amara, sacred'), Always a hot topic.... Metta, Sarah ======= 59491 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu May 18, 2006 11:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ultimately empty of own-nature (sabhava) sarahprocter... Hi Eric (& Geoff), --- ericlonline wrote: > Hi Sarah & (Geoff), > > G> Furthermore, it is completely conceptual because during the actual > > tactile experience resulting from the coming together of the > tactile form element, the body element, and the tactile > consciousness element, any notion of "knowing" as being anything, or > in any way distinguishable from "that which is known" is completely > conceptual,and therefore relative. > ….. > S: When there hasn't been the development of direct awareness of > dhammas such as tactile consciousness or tactile form, I agree that > any such 'knowing' is completely conceptual, like now when we talk > about them. > > You did not do Geoff's tactile experiment did you? ... S: No .... > How can you be directly aware of tactile consciousness? .... S: You or I can't. Only sati can. ... > How can you make tactile consciousnes an object? ... S: You can't. Even sati can't. It entirely depends on conditions what the object of citta (consciousness) is at any moment. This is regardless of whether one has ever heard the Buddha's teachings and regardless of whether any awareness has been developed or any tactile experiements conducted. ... > What is an indirect awareness btw? .... S: A polite way of saying it's not sati of satipatthana which is aware of a reality right now. Maybe an experiment? Btw, Geoff, I hope you're still around. You seemed to go suddenly very quiet. Did you have any comments on the posts I wrote on 'Rejection of ABhidhamma' on 28th April? Any feedback will be appreciated. Metta, Sarah ====== 59492 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 19, 2006 0:30am Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: [dsg] Morality / Mindfulness (w =?WINDOWS-... egberdina Hi Howard, Viewing nakedness as impure, disgusting, and revolting is an extreme, > and is, I believe, absurd. But recognizing that nudity lends itself to > lust is > not unreasonable. The Buddha was concerned that calm, and not excitement, > be > cultivated in people and most especially in the Bhikkhu and Bhikkhuni > Sanghas. As always, you present a very balanced argument. What yu say makes sense. ---------------------------------------------- > > > > > It seems to me that the moral requirements we place on other people are > > nothing but examples of our own mindlessness. Because there is no > offence in > > the world, the offence is in our head. And the creation of the rule > removes > > our responsibility to be mindful, and places it on the shoulders of > others. > > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Doesn't that depend on what requirements one is talking about? We > require that people not murder, steal, destroy property. I'd say we have a > *right* > to require that. I see what you mean. We hold these truths to be self-evident, so to speak :-) I doubt that I can begin to imagine the milions of gallons of blood shed in the pursuit of the inalienable rights of man. There is something very rational about forsaking the householders life. You can't get robbed if you don't own anything :-) Other areas are less certain. We do not have the right to > prohibit actions that effect just the actor, in my opinion, but it isn't > always > crystal clear what effects others and what does not. What of sex in > public? > What of releaving oneself in public? I guess that social behaviours and expectations evolve over time. We are so used to them that we call them normal. But they are just layers and layers of delusion, I think. I'm not suggesting that we dispense with all our social rules, or that it is even possible to do that. Yes, if someone were to expose themselves now, that would be an affront. But I can also imagine that in a naked community, the clothed person is an affront. And treated with a great deal of suspicion as to their motivations. Sorry if I am arguing the point to death :-) Kind Regards Herman 59493 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 19, 2006 1:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition ... Metta and Devas egberdina Hi Sarah, Thanks for all the questions. Rather than answer them all and give a very wordy answer, I'll snip them and ask you a question :-) But do you think that dana has anything to do with the 8 fold path? It seems to me that all dana leads to more becoming, which is akusala in terms of path, no? Kind Regards Herman BTW I don't have a problem with dana. As far as samsaric pursuits go, it ranks highly. 59494 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri May 19, 2006 1:45am Subject: Sarah's points, and funeral. nilovg Dear Sarah, You sent us many excellent reactions on Lodewijk's points and later on I want to discuss them with Lodewijk. He especially liked your remark on not being the world's manager, since he thinks that he is and understand now that it is not possible. It has to be the right time to take in Dhamma reminders which may at first sound unpleasant or irritating. Our dispositions change. I like to react to them point by point, they are very important. I have too many chores in the house now and Larry will also be waiting for the Tiika. Tomorrow we go to a funeral of a friend, and at our age we find that so many of our friends and colleagues die. This happens again and again and again. At my brother's I read your message about Alan Driver's funeral and how you were at first very depressed and then happy after Jon's eulogy and after you touched his bones. Please, would you elaborate more on this. What did Kh Sujin say? What do you remember of Jon's eulogy? In what way did you find the touching of the bones helpful? Nina. 59495 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri May 19, 2006 0:54am Subject: The 5 Mental Hindrances ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: There are these five Mental Hindrances (Nivarana): The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, there are these five kinds of Mental Hindrance. What five? 1: The Mental Hindrance of Desire for Sensing... 2: The Mental Hindrance of Aversion & Ill-Will... 3: The Mental Hindrance of Lethargy & Laziness… 4: The Mental Hindrance of Restlessness & Regret… 5: The Mental Hindrance of Doubt & Uncertainty… These are the five kinds of Mental Hindrance! The Noble 8-fold Way should be developed for the direct experience of these five kinds of Mental Hindrance, for the full understanding and elimination of them, and for their final overcoming, abandoning and leaving all behind…This Noble 8-fold Way is developed for the sake of the uprooting of all Mental Hindrance! Explanation: Mental Hindrance of Desire for pleasurable Sights, sounds, smells, flavours, touches, & thoughts is obvious… Mental Hindrance of Aversion is all hate, anger, irritation, opposition, resistance, rigidity and stubbornness… Mental Hindrance of Lethargy & Laziness is all sluggishness, indolence, stupor, slow sloth, and slack inactivity… Mental Hindrance of Restlessness & Regret is all agitation, anxiety, hurry, remorse, uneasiness & being worried… Mental Hindrance of Doubt & Uncertainty is all indecision, hesitation, confusion, perplexity, & qualm dilemma… Mental Hindrance means a mental yet real obstacle, obstruction, barrier, block, impediment, hurdle & handicap! For details on the Mental Hindrances – Nivaran?a and their overcoming & removal: http://what-buddha-said.net/Canon/Sutta/AN/AN.I.3-4.htm Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V:60] section 45: The Way. 177: The 5 Mental Hindrances ... 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 !!! <...> 59496 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 19, 2006 2:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on Cooran egberdina Hey guys, On 18/05/06, Scott Duncan wrote: > > Hi Phil, > > "And Go Oilers. (Oops..)" > > They did, by golly. > > "What dhammas are involved in a slapshot?" > > I think we should ask Herman, don't you? Is that a trick question? I was always taught that in a moment of slapshot there is actually 1 *javana-citta* (impulsion) followed by 7 propulsion moments, conditoned by Todd Bertuzzi err, that should have read *âsevana-paccaya *(repetition condition). Kind Regards Herman 59497 From: "seisen_au" Date: Fri May 19, 2006 3:16am Subject: Re: Visible object at Cooran / Was Suffering doesn't always announce itself. seisen_au Heya Ken H., Phil and All, >Phil wrote: > I will ask Rob M about this when I meet him this weekend. He > should be able to help with textual references. That is what we >need here, not our own speculation. Phil I found these couple of quotes from the Abhidhamma and its commentary on 'visible object'. "What is the corperality which is a visible object that causes the arising of eye-consciousness? Dependent on the 4 primary elements, there is the corporality which is visible, which arises with impingement and is of various colours: dark blue, pale yellow, red, white, black, reddish brown, deep yellow, green, light green; long, short, small, large, spherical, circular, four-sided, six-sided, eight-sided, sixteen-sided; low, high; shade, sunshine;light; star light, light froma looking glass, colour of a precious stone (such as ruby), a conch, a pearl, an emerald; colour of gold and silver. Apart and different from the above visible objects and dependent on the 4 primary elements, there are also other visible objects which are visible and which arise with impingment." (Dhammasangani 619) With regards to the long, short, small, large, spherical etc, and 'there are also other visible objects', the commentary says: "What we call 'long' 'short is relative to (dependent on) this or that, has such and such a position, and is to be understood here as mentioned in accordance with this or that conventional usage." (Atthasaalinii p. 415) "By the expression 'or whatever other', excepting the visible object enumerated in the Text, all remaining objects of different colours, such as cups or shutters, rough cloth, mildew, etc, are included." (Atthasaalinii p. 416) Cheers Steve 59498 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Fri May 19, 2006 4:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Visible object at Cooran / Was Suffering doesn't always announce it... ken_aitch Hi Howard, I think we agree that right understanding (of the difference between concepts and realities) is essential for enlightenment but not essential for crossing a road or watching a film. I would add that lesser forms of kusala (any moments of kamma free of ignorance but without right understanding) were essential for happy rebirth but, also, not essential for crossing a road or watching a film. However, you are not so sure such lesser forms of kusala exist. You suspect that any kamma not `overlaid by ignorance' would be with right understanding. And you base that opinion that on the Pabhassara Sutta. As you know, I am always on the side of the Abhidhamma and commentaries when it comes to interpreting suttas, so we must disagree on this. Ken H > > > And if there is no ignorance, but also no > > right view, then I suppose the concepts will still be faulty. > > > ======================= > With regard to absence of ignorance being in effect without the > presence of right view, while I have no sure and fixed belief with regard to this > issue, I tend to believe that wisdom being present is the natural state of mind > when the mind is not overlaid by ignorance. As I picture it, the removal of > the obscuring cover of ignorance permits the natural luminous functioning of > wisdom. That is how I interpret the Pabhassara Sutta, 59499 From: "seisen_au" Date: Fri May 19, 2006 4:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bodhisattva Ideal seisen_au Hi Joop, All, Joop wrote: > - Where on the 'spiritual scale' of worldling-streamenterer- > oncereturner-nonreturner-arahant can a bodhisatta be placed? Apart from Mahabodhisatta's (Siddhattha Gotama pre-Bodhi), I believe the Theravadin Pali texts also recognise two other types of Bodhisattas, Paccekabodhisattas and Saavakabodhisattas. Descriptions about these Bodhisattas are in the Pali texts but an attempted translation is way beyond me at this time. Jim Anderson has commented about these Bodhisattas in message #23846: "In terms of the conditions needed to be a saavakabodhisatta there are only two (adhikaaro and chandataa) in contrast to the eight needed for the mahaabodhisatta and five for the paccekabodhisatta." My understanding is that the three type of Bodhisattas correspond to the three types of Bodhi (awakening) and the three type of Buddhas: Savakabodhisatta > Savakabodhi > Savakabuddha Paccekabodhisatta > Paccekabodhi > Paccekabuddha Mahabodhisatta > Sammasambodhi > Sammasambuddha Corrections Welcome Cheers Steve 59500 From: "matheesha" Date: Fri May 19, 2006 4:58am Subject: Re: Visible object at Cooran / Was Suffering doesn't always announce itself. matheesha333 Hi Phil and others, > Ph: yes, this is what I didn't understand. So in the sutta that warn about the danger of unguarded sense doors, and the "sliding away from unwholesome states" and whatnot that occurs, it always seems to me that it must be the last of the six objects mentionned, the mental object (ie concept) that must be the misleading object. Bare thigh rather than blob of colour. But we know that this is not the case, for all six door objects are mentionned, and no particular emphasis is laid on the mental object. The visible object in and of itself is kusala vipaka (vipaka of kusala kamma, to be more exact.) M: No rupa arises on its own. It is always a part of the 5 aggregates. So it is reasonable to talk about sounds or sights as they are the differentiating and index quality between those different moments of 5 aggregates. Depending on the sanna of the particular sight, sound or thought, it can lead to an (un)wholesome response. with metta Matheesha 59501 From: "Joop" Date: Fri May 19, 2006 6:14am Subject: Is there a hierarchy in (radiating) metta? [ WasRe: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 445 jwromeijn Hallo Tep, all In #59406 Tep reacted on my statement: " Tep, if you state that there are two kinds of 'metta': - the kind that can be radiated by wordlings AND - the purest, most advanced metta that is called 'adosa', then I don' agree with you. … Tep's reaction was: "Please give me a chance to re-communicate. You just described two extreme endpoints of the metta spectrum; there are many uncountable states between the two ends. According to the suttas, the highest level of metta is known as the "limitless release of mind" [MN 127]." In this Sutta (cf www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/127-anuruddha-e.htm) The venerable Anuruddha clarifies the difference between the immeasurable deliverance of mind and the exalted deliverance of mind. A quote of what according Anuruddha 'the immeasurable deliverance' means: "Householder, what is the limitless release of mind? Here, the bhikkhu pervades one direction with thoughts of loving kindness. Also the second, the third, the fourth, above, below and across, in all circumstances, for all purposes, pervades the whole world with thoughts of loving kindness, extensive, grown great and measureless without ill will and anger." That's about metta. But reading and rereading the explanation of 'exalted deliverance of mind' I think this does not refer to metta or the other Brahmaviharas. So this Sutta is not, as Tep states, an example of a (gradual) hierarchy of metta. In fact Anuruddha does not state (being in) 'the immeasurable deliverance of mind' is higher or lower then in 'the exalted deliverance of mind'. It are just two different methods of meditation; the rest of the Sutta is about a hierarchy of gods (?), but there is not given any connection with the first part about the two meditation methods. Does anybody have another idea? One other questions came to my mind reading this Sutta Is having "thoughts of loving kindness" the same as "radiating metta", that is radiating metta to other beings? I think it is not. Metta Joop 59502 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri May 19, 2006 6:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visible object at Cooran / Was Suffering doesn't always announce itself. sarahprocter... Hi Phil & Rob M, --- Phil wrote: > I will ask Rob M about this when I meet him this weekend. He > should be able to help with textual references. That is what we need > here, not our own speculation. ... S: I hope you both have some good discussion together and pls remember to share anything about your get-together with us - anecdotal and/or discussion topics. Metta, Sarah ====== 59503 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Fri May 19, 2006 6:54am Subject: Re: Please don't ... ken_aitch Hi Dan, There has been a breakdown in communication. You wrote: ---- > > > 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. ---- I was a bit uncomfortable with your use of the words, "The Self is incapable of generating kusala." That is not a good description (or reflection) of right understanding, is it? There is no self that is incapable (or capable) of anything! Therefore, I suggested, "There are only dhammas and all dhammas are without self," would be a better choice of words to reflect right understanding. The trouble with my preferred choice of words was that it ruined the point you were making. Unlike your choice of words, mine could not logically coexist with the rider, "God alone is the author of kusala." I thought this was a telling outcome. It demonstrated that right understanding could not coexist with conventional religious beliefs. It seems that I failed to communicate my line of reasoning, because you replied: -------- > I'm not thinking in terms of a "person" who "has" a "belief"; instead, I'm thinking of right view and understanding as cetasikas. When right view arises and understands, say, that "Self is incapable of generating kusala", the mind subsequently scrambles to conceptualize the understanding and create "notions", such as "there are only dhammas, and all dhammas are not-self" or "God alone is the author of kusala." > ----------- So it seems from your response that you have misunderstood my point. Either that or I have misunderstood your response. Whichever it is, there has been a breakdown in communication. ------------------ D: > The Christian does not *see* God or *understand* God but only sees that "Self" is utterly corrupt and powerless, ------------------- Does the Christian understand that self is, in reality, absent? Or does the Christian see that the self is 'utterly corrupt and powerless?' The former would reflect right view and the latter, wrong view. -------------------------- D: > but the insightful Christian does see a degree of purity (kusala) and power (conditionality) that is beyond his/her control (anatta). After such an understanding arises and passes away, the mind is bound to seek and construct a conceptual framework around the understanding. > -------------------------- Can you see why I have to disagree? All dhammas are beyond control, but they are not beyond my control (or his/her control). To add the idea of self into the mix is to take the discussion out of the middle and into one of the two extremes (in this case, the extreme of annihilation belief). -------------------------------------- <. . .> D: > At its best, the concept "almighty God in control" is an after thought and rationalization of an understanding of "Self not in control". --------------------------------------- Yes, and, just to repeat the point I have been trying to make, it is an afterthought of, "Self is not in control," but it is not an afterthought of, "There are only dhammas and all dhammas are not self." In the latter case it would be a rethought, not an afterthought. :-) ------------------------------ D: > > 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 > > > KH: > > Any attitude that looked to God would have to be a narrowly confined attitude if it was to exist in a moment of > kusala consciousness. It could not envisage anything in control of > nama or rupa. > > D: > I wouldn't think that the concept of a grand Being that sits on a cloud and acts as the traffic director of the world could be the object of consciousness in a moment of right view (as satipatthana or vipassana), and especially not in a moment of clinging to that concept. ------------------------------- What I was trying to say was that this "attitude that looked to God" could not be a view of ultimate reality and still exist in kusala consciousness. Any view that is not strictly in accordance with the Dhamma is wrong view and akusala. So, the attitude might instead be one of adosa and alobha towards a fellow sentient being, and in that way part of a moment of kusala. As we agree, right view is a cetasika, not a theory. It experiences objects. It is equally as capable of experiencing a paramattha dhamma as it is of experiencing a concept. Occasionally, it can become the object of experience. It can be described in the words, "There are only dhammas," but it cannot be described in the words, "There is a Potent God." Sorry! :-) Ken H 59504 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 19, 2006 3:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Three Suttas about Atta upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 5/19/06 1:48:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > As you addressed your comments to Tep and myself in particular, I'd like > to (belatedly) say that I don't think the experience of loss, woe and > difficulty you refer to has any bearing on an appreciation of the nature > of suffering of all conditioned dhammas as taught by the Buddha. Such > experiences may or may not be a condition for wise reflection, but for > most people, even when experiencing extreme hardship, there is still the > same clinging to pleasant experiences and idea that this is the way out. > ====================== I think you're not entirely right on this, Sarah. This is the grossest form of dukkha, and in the Buddha's teaching career it is how he began his portrayal of dukkha. Recall that his first words on dukkha were "Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is suffering, sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; association with the loathed is suffering, dissociation from the loved is suffering, not to get what one wants is suffering ... ." Also, and I think this is an important point, people so eagerly avoid facing what is unpleasant that the moment difficulties let up they tend to allow themselves to forget even the most extreme suffering they have gone through and then require reminding. Where I do agree with you is that dukkha in its most subtle form and the intrinsic unsatisfactoriness of all conditions both need to be seen directly and clearly before liberation is possible. Recognizing only the grossest form of dukkha - call it "conventional suffering" - is but a goad towards a spiritual path. 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) 59505 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 19, 2006 3:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Morality / Mindfulness (w =?WINDOWS-... upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 5/19/06 3:32:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > I guess that social behaviours and expectations evolve over time. We are so > used to them that we call them normal. But they are just layers and layers > of delusion, I think. I'm not suggesting that we dispense with all our > social rules, or that it is even possible to do that. Yes, if someone were > to expose themselves now, that would be an affront. But I can also imagine > that in a naked community, the clothed person is an affront. And treated > with a great deal of suspicion as to their motivations. Sorry if I am > arguing the point to death :-) > =================== No, you make valid points here. :-) 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) 59506 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri May 19, 2006 7:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visible object at Cooran / nilovg Hi Phil and Ken, op 19-05-2006 01:51 schreef Phil op philco777@...: > Quoting K Sujin, from the best of my memory, I said, >> "Visible object is the reality that appears at the eye - nothing > more, >> nothing less." To me, this means that all the information we glean >> from our eyesight is contained in visible object. > > We are on firmer ground with Acharn Sujin than we are by relying > on our own examined experience. "It seems to K Sujin" is more > reliable than "it seems to me." But what does she mean here? Sounds > more like the meaningless blob. And I would still like to know what > the abhidhamma texts say about this. I think Nina is back now. Maybe > she can give us some textual information. -------- N: I think we have to consider wise attention and unwise attention through each of the six doors, as explained in the suttas. This happens according to accumulated inclinations. *You* do not have to think how this happens, the cittas which arise and fall away in succession exceedingly rapidly perform their functions already. No need to think of meaningless blob or colour packed with information. I heard this morning: when vipassanaa ñaa.na arises and there is awareness and understanding of one dhamma appearing through one doorway at a time, such as visible object, there is only visible object. The world with all the people does not appear at that time, nor hearing nor sound. -------- Ph: I can understand the confusion. How does meaningless blob of > colour become understood as the concept involved? How does > meaningless blob become tree. I have no idea. ------- N: There are many different moments of seeing and because of saññaa which remembers, the whole of a tree is formed up. Nina. 59507 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri May 19, 2006 7:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Be Here Now nilovg Hi Phil, good you quote this. As Jon often said, any object is worthy to be object of awareness. It is important to really understand that distraction is also anatta, and this can only be understood in not putting off awareness, waiting for more favorable times. Nina. op 19-05-2006 02:36 schreef Phil op philco777@...: > We are just perpetuating the illusion > of a self who has got a job to do, who wants to do it and does not > like distraction which gets in the way of doing the job. Then there > is no right understanding at all. If there really is awareness, you > are not upset by distraction, because it has just arisen because of > conditions, it is not self. You are aware of it and then you can be > aware of whatever appears next. There can be awareness and right > understanding of what has already appeared because of conditions, > only for one moment though. And then there may be a whole lot of > distraction. You can't do anything about it, anatta. If there is > awareness at that moment something has been done already. Anatta. > You can't stop awareness from arising - it has already arisen. 59508 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri May 19, 2006 7:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: handering nilovg Dear Connie, It is very good. This phrase is repeated all the time, as read in the Way, but this transl. is more meaningful. What I heard on tape in Thai: Q: why are there so many divisions in the Application of Mindfulness of the Body? Would just the one on elements, dhaatus, not be enough? Answer: No. Although we know that in the ultimate sense there are nama and rupa to be aware of, we are still forgetful. We think of my breath, my nails, my standing or sitting. The purpose is to understand the sabhaava lakkhanas of ultimate realities. We are reminded of breathing, of parts of the body, of postures, of cemetary contemplations, so that we are not forgetful that in the ultimate sense there are only naama and ruupa, and their characteristics have to be clearly understood as non-self. The quote as given by Ven. Anandajoti: >>This is >> what is said: whatever mindfulness is established is not for another >> reason. Then the meaning of as far as (is necessary for) a measure of >> knowledge is so as to increase more and more, further and further, >> knowledge and mindfulness, for the increase of mindfulness and clear >> awareness.> N:The purpose of it all is summarized in a meaningful way. Nina. op 19-05-2006 04:11 schreef connie op connieparker@...: > anandajoti's footnote includes the commentary: >> << Yaavad-evaa ti payojanaparicchedavavatthaapanam-eta.m. Ida.m vutta.m >> >> hoti: yaa saa sati paccupa.t.thitaa hoti saa na a~n~nad-atthaaya. Atha >> kho >> yaavad-eva ~naa.namattaaya aparaapara.m uttaruttari >> ~naa.napamaa.natthaaya >> ceva satipamaa.natthaaya* ca, satisampaja~n~naana.m vu.d.dhatthaayaa ti >> >> attho - yaavad-eva, this designates, and is limited to, purpose. 59509 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri May 19, 2006 7:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should nilovg Hi Phil, > ...also the hiri and otappa that we are seeing now in the Cetasikas >> corner - though that seems to be more of a thou-shalt not kind of >> function. >> >> En bref, I don't know. Let's make sure to ask this question to Nina >> when she gets back. -------- N: As I wrote to you off line (by accident, not knowing how to send a message when on internet), when the Pali has -abba ending, it does not always mean should. Scott give some alternatives as I read, from Duroiselles. I am thinking of a text in Netti, about tanhaa and maana that *should* be followed (sevitabba), and here it means that someone can take it as object and attain enlightenment, as I vaguely remember. We were puzzled by this should, but it may mean: can be followed. Hiri and ottappa: these perform their functions when accompanying kusala citta. Do not think too much in conventional terms. They assist the kusala citta together with many other sobhana cetasikas. They accompany also the kusala cittas without paññaa. When they accompany paññaa, they are averse of ignorance, and as you have read, there are many degrees according as there are many degrees of paññaa. Nina. 59510 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 19, 2006 4:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Phil) - In a message dated 5/19/06 10:54:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > N: As I wrote to you off line (by accident, not knowing how to send a > message when on internet), when the Pali has -abba ending, it does not > always mean should. Scott give some alternatives as I read, from > Duroiselles. > I am thinking of a text in Netti, about tanhaa and maana that *should* be > followed (sevitabba), and here it means that someone can take it as object > and attain enlightenment, as I vaguely remember. We were puzzled by this > should, but it may mean: can be followed. > Hiri and ottappa: these perform their functions when accompanying kusala > citta. Do not think too much in conventional terms. They assist the kusala > citta together with many other sobhana cetasikas. They accompany also the > kusala cittas without paññaa. When they accompany paññaa, they are averse of > ignorance, and as you have read, there are many degrees according as there > are many degrees of paññaa. > Nina. ======================== So, what's the story according to Abhidhamma, Nina? There are no "shoulds", and there are no choices? There is no volition, and it is not possible to choose among actions to pick the moral ones? Is there then no responsibility for one's actions, and no one should be held responsible? It seems to me that the issue of right action is largely a matter of choice involving purposeful action or automatic action due to cultivation or habit. If one says that is "conventional choice," well, that is the sort of choice that we deal with day by day and moment by moment, and it is critical not only with regard to interpersonal relations but with regard to our Dhamma practice or lack of practice. The Buddha didn't walk on eggshells avoiding "shoulds". Again and again he told people that they should do certain things and they should refrain from doing others. It seems to me that if one doesn't take extreme care, there is a great danger in taking impersonal conditionality, a truth but merely a theory for most of us, to suggest that there are no choices, moral or immoral, to make. But we DO make choices all the time, and they SHOULD be moral ones. Note: It seems to me that ALL the folks on DSG are extraordinarily moral people who DO make consistently moral choices, but many are lost in a conceptual denial-of-choice intellectual quagmire. 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) 59511 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri May 19, 2006 11:26am Subject: metta 12 nilovg Dear friends, This is taken from Kh. Sujin's book on Metta. ****** Nina. 59512 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri May 19, 2006 0:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should, training, free will etc. nilovg Hi Howard, Of course there is choice, but also that is a dhamma, conditioned, not self. Kusala citta makes the right choice, akusala citta makes the wrong choice. It is citta, not a person. You ask, there are no shoulds? We hear from the sutta: it is not fitting to do this or that, akusala gives a bad result. We see more and more the danger of akusala. As to the precepts: we undertake the training to abstain from killing, etc. There is training: performing kusala again and again, so that former kusala will be a natural strong dependence-condition for the arising of kusala later on. The more we learn details about conditions, the less doubt there will be about: choice, free will, how free is it, what shall we do, how can we train ourselves, etc. Natural strong dependence condition soon coming up in the Visuddhimagga. And when we are thinking of a choice, that is also a dhamma that is thinking, not you who is thinking. But really, how difficult to realize this at the moment we think. It seems all the time as if it is me who is thinking, no matter whether I know the truth in theory. Actually, I was not dealing with this point in my post, just talking about the meaning of the Pali ending -abba. How to translate this in this or that context. There is more than one possibility. Nina. op 19-05-2006 17:31 schreef upasaka@... op upasaka@...: > ======================== > So, what's the story according to Abhidhamma, Nina? There are no > "shoulds", and there are no choices? 59513 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri May 19, 2006 0:05pm Subject: sati in the list of the Dhammasangani nilovg Hi Larry, Fabrizio,Phil. op 11-05-2006 10:35 schreef sarah abbott op sarahprocterabbott@...: >> 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)." Larry: >> 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 -------- N: In the Dhammasangani it is listed as the faculty of sati, and the power of sati: Yasmi.m samaye kaamaavacara.m kusala.m cittam uppanna.m hoti,.... satindriya.m hoti...satibala.m hoti... At the time when kusala citta of the sense sphere arises, ... there is the faculty of sati, .... the power of sati. Phil had a question on the power of sati and whether or how to develop this. Sati is an indriya, a leader in its own field, it has leadership in non-forgetfulness of kusala. When it develops it becomes a power, it is unshakable by its opposite: heedlessness. We do not develop it, *it* develops when it arises and is aware over and over again of whatever appears through one of the six doors, through one doorway at a time. As Phil suggested, no need to think of developing sati. Another point brought up: when thinking of sati, is there sati? It depends on the citta that thinks. If it is kusala citta, it is accompanied by sati. There is sati of the level of listening and considering, but this is different from sati of satipatthaana which is directly aware of the dhamma that appears. ****** Nina. 59514 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri May 19, 2006 0:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visible object at Cooran / Was Suffering doesn't always announce itself. nilovg Hi Steve and Ken H, Steve, I like your quote of the Atthasaalinii. It is a good explanation that colours are different, different because of the different compositions of the primary elements that they accompany. Colour never arises alone. it is accompanied by at least seven other rupas, which include the four primaries. There is not just one colour, or one kind of sound. But seeing only sees, it does not know that there is a red or green colour, it sees it, but does not define it. It seesm that we know at once: this is red this is green, but then there are already cittas that define arising in mind-door processes. Nina. op 19-05-2006 12:16 schreef seisen_au op seisen_@...: > I found these couple of quotes from the Abhidhamma and its commentary > on 'visible object'. > > "What is the corperality which is a visible object that causes the > arising of eye-consciousness? > > Dependent on the 4 primary elements, there is the corporality which > is visible, which arises with impingement and is of various colours: > dark blue, pale yellow, red, white, black, reddish brown, deep > yellow, green, light green; long, short, small, large, spherical, > circular, four-sided, six-sided, eight-sided, sixteen-sided; low, > high; shade, sunshine;light; star light, light froma looking glass, > colour of a precious stone (such as ruby), a conch, a pearl, an > emerald; colour of gold and silver. 59515 From: "kelvin_lwin" Date: Fri May 19, 2006 0:58pm Subject: Re: Understanding dhammas, understanding realities/'realities' kelvin_lwin Hi Tep, > real life (not in theory), the way it is, I can hear several sounds > while seeing several objects at the same time. A simple example is > 'watching a movie': I can eat popcorns at the same time while > simultaneously enjoying the sight, the sounds, and the popcorn's taste. Kel: Perhaps one example is if you look at how computers worked until recently. There's only one core that handles all the processing. Yet it responds to keyboard, mouse and internet traffic all seemingly at the same time. In actuality it is only handling one task at a time, it is just so much faster than the input rate that it can service them all. - kel 59516 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 19, 2006 9:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should, training, free will etc. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 5/19/06 3:06:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > Of course there is choice, but also that is a dhamma, conditioned, not self. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, of course. For Buddhists that is a given - so no real need to make the point. :-) --------------------------------------------- > Kusala citta makes the right choice, akusala citta makes the wrong choice. ------------------------------------------- Howard: Kusala cetana is the *making* of the right choice and with the right motivation. There is nothing that makes a choice - there is just the making of a choice. There aren't things that act - there are just the actions. There is doing but no doer. -------------------------------------------- > It is citta, not a person. > You ask, there are no shoulds? We hear from the sutta: it is not fitting to > do this or that, akusala gives a bad result. We see more and more the danger > of akusala. As to the precepts: we undertake the training to abstain from > killing, etc. ----------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, we do - if we do. And whether we do or not depends in part on volition - in large part. --------------------------------------- > There is training: performing kusala again and again, so that former kusala > will be a natural strong dependence-condition for the arising of kusala > later on. The more we learn details about conditions, the less doubt there > will be about: choice, free will, how free is it, what shall we do, how can > we train ourselves, etc. Natural strong dependence condition soon coming up > in the Visuddhimagga. > And when we are thinking of a choice, that is also a dhamma that is > thinking, not you who is thinking. > ------------------------------------- Howard: There also is no dhamma that is a thinker! A dhamma that thinks would be an agent, a "little self", an actor. There is thinking but no thinker. That doesn't just mean that there is no *person* who thinks. There is no *thing* that thinks. There is just the thinking. ------------------------------------ But really, how difficult to realize this> > at the moment we think. It seems all the time as if it is me who is > thinking, no matter whether I know the truth in theory. ------------------------------------ Howard: Believing that there is a "me" who acts is a serious problem for us. More generally, believing that there is an actor of any sort is a problem for us. ---------------------------------- > > Actually, I was not dealing with this point in my post, just talking about > the meaning of the Pali ending -abba. How to translate this in this or that > context. There is more than one possibility. ----------------------------------- Howard: I realize that, Nina, and perhaps I read more into what you wrote than was there. But the tendency to downplay the importance of volition is rampant on DSG, and I felt it important to address the matter. ------------------------------------ > > Nina. > ================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 59517 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 19, 2006 2:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Please don't ... egberdina Hi Ken, Just butting in here :-) ---- > > I was a bit uncomfortable with your use of the words, "The Self > is incapable of generating kusala." That is not a good description > (or reflection) of right understanding, is it? There is no self that > is incapable (or capable) of anything! Is there no self that is incapable of anything? Or is there no lasting, permanent self? The point is this; does everything change every moment, or do some things change slower than others, but inevitably? Kind Regards Herman 59518 From: "indriyabala" Date: Fri May 19, 2006 2:34pm Subject: Re: Understanding .. realities/'realities'... that's the way it is? indriyabala Hi Kel (and Sarah) - My earlier question to Sarah was "why" the citta as well as the other namas could experience one and only one object "at a time". > Kel: Perhaps one example is if you look at how computers worked > until recently. There's only one core that handles all the > processing. Yet it responds to keyboard, mouse and internet traffic > all seemingly at the same time. In actuality it is only handling >one task at a time, it is just so much faster than the input rate >that it can service them all. T: Thanks for this excellent & realistic example that is applicable to explain "how" the citta can handle multiple objects (seemingly) at the same time, Kel. Now can you answer my earlier question about the "why" (from the perspective of an electrical engineer)? I hope you won't say "that's the way it is". Sincerely, Tep ======= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kelvin_lwin" wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > > real life (not in theory), the way it is, I can hear several sounds > > while seeing several objects at the same time. A simple example is > > 'watching a movie': I can eat popcorns at the same time while > > simultaneously enjoying the sight, the sounds, and the popcorn's > taste. > (snipped_ > 59519 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 19, 2006 2:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Three Suttas about Atta egberdina Dear Sarah, Did you notice this is a dear sarah post, not a hi sarah post? I bet you're thinking, oh gawd what next :-) Nothing sinister, just an expression of my gratitude of how you tailor your posts to suit the proclivities of whoever you are posting to. I'm not saying that in relation to this post, but many, many of your posts!! Thank you. Now to the hi sarah part of the post :-) Hi Sarah, > S: ...... > I > think it's quite a popular view that you have to really suffer as we think > of 'suffer' in a conventional sense or with lots of dukkha dukkha > (unpleasant mental and bodily feeling) in order to really appreciate what > the Noble Truth of suffering is and what the release from such suffering > may be. > > As you addressed your comments to Tep and myself in particular, I'd like > to (belatedly) say that I don't think the experience of loss, woe and > difficulty you refer to has any bearing on an appreciation of the nature > of suffering of all conditioned dhammas as taught by the Buddha. Such > experiences may or may not be a condition for wise reflection, but for > most people, even when experiencing extreme hardship, there is still the > same clinging to pleasant experiences and idea that this is the way out. > > Perhaps Tep or others have their own ideas on this. Maybe it touches on > some of Herman's and Scott's discussions too. Thanks for mentioning it. I could basically copy and paste Howard's reply to you and put my name under it, which is often the case, because he states his case well, and I agree with it and him. But I just want to add a little comment, based on personal experience. Perhaps others will find it to be the same, or otherwise, which I would be very interested to hear about. At any point of time it is possible to put awareness anywhere in the body, god willing. My finding is , that at any point of time, it is possible to find varying degrees of pleasure and pain all around the body. It seems to me, that the default location of bodily awareness is not centred on pain, even though it would be possible to make it so. It is possible to read into your comments that having a default mildly pleasant body awareness is a form of clinging. Is that implied ? Kind Regards Herman 59520 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Fri May 19, 2006 0:12pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Bodhisattva Ideal dacostacharles Hi Joop, Thanks for the links. You ask where on the 'spiritual scale' of worldling-streamenterer- oncereturner-nonreturner-arahant can a bodhisatta be placed? I believe they can be any of the above and others; however, my prospective on this is from Mahayana. Therefore, a bodhisatta is the 'title' giving to a person who is aspiring the "ideal", sometimes, not only when having reached it. Most Tibetan Buddhist would add that they at least (1) have the knowledge and power to be reborn as a human (and they do it), and (2) teach the Dharma. Good luck Charles DaCosta -----Original Message----- But my interest is not theoretical but is about the question: do I want to be a boddisatta? Of course not "over aeons and aeons of lifetimes" but I talk about my intention in this life because here it can start. Metta Joop 59521 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 19, 2006 3:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] sati in the list of the Dhammasangani egberdina Hi Nina, Welcome back, and I hope you and Lodewijk had a lovely time in France. > > > Phil had a question on the power of sati and whether or how to develop > this. > Sati is an indriya, a leader in its own field, it has leadership in > non-forgetfulness of kusala. When it develops it becomes a power, it is > unshakable by its opposite: heedlessness. We do not develop it, *it* > develops when it arises and is aware over and over again of whatever > appears > through one of the six doors, through one doorway at a time. > As Phil suggested, no need to think of developing sati. > > Yes, there is no need to think of developing sati. There is no need to think about anything. But we do. With attachment. And therein lies the problem. If we didn't think, there would be no need for Buddhas. (and that's a thought as well :-)) Kind Regards Herman 59522 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 19, 2006 3:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visible object at Cooran / Was Suffering doesn't always announce itself. egberdina Hi Steve, > "What is the corperality which is a visible object that causes the > arising of eye-consciousness? > > Dependent on the 4 primary elements, there is the corporality which > is visible, which arises with impingement and is of various colours: > dark blue, pale yellow, red, white, black, reddish brown, deep > yellow, green, light green; long, short, small, large, spherical, > circular, four-sided, six-sided, eight-sided, sixteen-sided; low, > high; shade, sunshine;light; star light, light froma looking glass, > colour of a precious stone (such as ruby), a conch, a pearl, an > emerald; colour of gold and silver. Is this saying that shape is seen? Kind Regards Herman 59523 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 19, 2006 3:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Understanding dhammas, understanding realities/'realities' egberdina Hi Kel, > Kel: Perhaps one example is if you look at how computers worked > until recently. There's only one core that handles all the > processing. Yet it responds to keyboard, mouse and internet traffic > all seemingly at the same time. In actuality it is only handling one > task at a time, it is just so much faster than the input rate that it > can service them all. Recently Howard and I discussed binaural beats (two slightly different sounds in each ear creating a third, mind-made, sound). Are you saying that the two different sounds are not heard at the same time, one from each ear? Kind Regards Herman 59524 From: "indriyabala" Date: Fri May 19, 2006 3:14pm Subject: Is there a hierarchy in (radiating) metta? [ WasRe: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 445 indriyabala Hi Joop (and other interested readers)- There might be a mis-communication even after the re-communication. > >Tep: > > Please give me a chance to re-communicate. You just described two > > extreme endpoints of the metta spectrum; there are many > > uncountable states between the two ends.According to the suttas, > >the highest level of metta is known as the "limitless release of > >mind" [MN 127]. >Joop: >So this Sutta is not, as Tep states, an example of a (gradual) hierarchy of metta. >In fact Anuruddha does not state (being in) 'the immeasurable deliverance of mind' is higher or lower then in 'the exalted deliverance of mind'. Tep: Dear Joop just put words into Tep's mouth! No, I only introduced the limitless release of mind (metta ceto-vimutti) as the "highest level of metta". Here my assumption is that the "limitless release of mind" is the same as "good will as an awareness-release" in AN VI.13 below. Let me give some background information for you to look at. Well, you may call that a 'homework'. {:<|) (1) "Defiled by passion, the mind is not released. Defiled by ignorance, discernment does not develop. Thus from the fading of passion is there awareness-release. From the fading of ignorance is there discernment-release." [Anguttara Nikaya II.30 Vijja-bhagiya Sutta] (2) "Awareness-release (ceto-vimutti) is used to describe either the mundane suppression of the kilesas during the practice of jhana and the four brahma-viharas [see AN VI.13], or the supramundane state of concentration in the asava-free mind of the arahant.[Access to Insight's Glossary] (3) Tep: Metta ceto-vimutti is what the Buddha called 'good-will as an awareness release'in the followung sutta. "There is the case where a monk might say, 'Although good will has been developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, and well-undertaken by me as my awareness-release, still ill will keeps overpowering my mind.' He should be told, 'Don't say that. You shouldn't speak in that way. Don't misrepresent the Blessed One, for it's not right to misrepresent the Blessed One, and the Blessed One wouldn't say that. It's impossible, there is no way that — when good will has been developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, and well-undertaken as an awareness-release — ill will would still keep overpowering the mind. That possibility doesn't exist, for this is the escape from ill will: good will as an awareness-release.' [AN VI.13 Nissaraniya Sutta Means of Escape] Dear Joop, did you ever misrepresent the Blessed One? Warm regards, Tep, your friend ==== ====== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joop" wrote: > > Hallo Tep, all > (snipped) > > That's about metta. But reading and rereading the explanation > of 'exalted deliverance of mind' I think this does not refer to > metta or the other Brahmaviharas. > So this Sutta is not, as Tep states, an example of a (gradual) > hierarchy of metta. In fact Anuruddha does not state (being in) 'the > immeasurable deliverance of mind' is higher or lower then in 'the > exalted deliverance of mind'. > It are just two different methods of meditation; the rest of the > Sutta is about a hierarchy of gods (?), but there is not given any > connection with the first part about the two meditation methods. > Does anybody have another idea? > > One other questions came to my mind reading this Sutta > Is having "thoughts of loving kindness" the same as "radiating > metta", that is radiating metta to other beings? I think it is not. > 59525 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 19, 2006 3:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should, training, free will etc. egberdina Hi Nina (and Howard) On 20/05/06, nina van gorkom wrote: > > Hi Howard, > Of course there is choice, but also that is a dhamma, conditioned, not > self. I understand what you are saying. And the implications of what you are saying. Which are; that everything is just the way it is - full stop. Well, a little bit more, actually :-). The kamma I create has to be that way. Kind Regards Herman 59526 From: "indriyabala" Date: Fri May 19, 2006 3:46pm Subject: Re: sati in the list of the Dhammasangani ... Unshakable Self-directed View indriyabala Hi Herman (Nina, Phil) - The thought that "sati develops when it arises and is aware over and over again of whatever appears through one of the six doors, through one doorway at a time" is a mental fabrication that is conditioned by a self-directed interpretation of the Abhidhamma. It is not supported by any sutta as far as my 'eye' can see. You are right to say: "There is no need to think about anything. But we do. With attachment. And therein lies the problem". The problem indeed lies in the self-directed interpretation of the Abhidhamma that leads to the unshakable attachment : "This only is right, every other thought (that is different) is wrong". Tep, your friend. =========== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Nina, > > Welcome back, and I hope you and Lodewijk had a lovely time in France. > > > > > > > Phil had a question on the power of sati and whether or how to develop this. > > Sati is an indriya, a leader in its own field, it has leadership in non-forgetfulness of kusala. When it develops it becomes a power, it is unshakable by its opposite: heedlessness. We do not develop it, *it* develops when it arises and is aware over and over again of whatever appears through one of the six doors, through one doorway at a time. > > As Phil suggested, no need to think of developing sati. > > (snipped) 59527 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 19, 2006 3:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Is there a hierarchy in (radiating) metta? [ WasRe: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 445 egberdina Hi Joop, > > One other questions came to my mind reading this Sutta > Is having "thoughts of loving kindness" the same as "radiating > metta", > that is radiating metta to other beings? I think it is not. Personally, I think of metta in the following way. It is binary. It is either there or not there. Degrees of metta makes no sense in that respect. Metta is not to persons, it is a state of mind. Not a partial state of mind, a full state of mind. Partial metta, to a specific target, is nonsense. Kind Regards Herman 59528 From: "seisen_au" Date: Fri May 19, 2006 4:18pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Visible object at Cooran seisen_au Hi Nina, Thanks for this. I agree that once visual object has been classified and the various appearances labelled, then we are in the realm of thinking/concepts. My understanding is that apart from the rupa colour, none of the other rupas can be taken as visible object? Rgrds Steve Nina wrote: > Hi Steve and Ken H, > Steve, > I like your quote of the Atthasaalinii. > It is a good explanation that colours are different, different because of > the different compositions of the primary elements that they accompany. > Colour never arises alone. it is accompanied by at least seven other rupas, > which include the four primaries. There is not just one colour, or one kind > of sound. But seeing only sees, it does not know that there is a red or > green colour, it sees it, but does not define it. It seesm that we know at > once: this is red this is green, but then there are already cittas that > define arising in mind-door processes. > Nina. > > op 19-05-2006 12:16 schreef seisen_au op seisen_@...: > > > I found these couple of quotes from the Abhidhamma and its commentary > > on 'visible object'. > > > > "What is the corperality which is a visible object that causes the > > arising of eye-consciousness? > > > > Dependent on the 4 primary elements, there is the corporality which > > is visible, which arises with impingement and is of various colours: > > dark blue, pale yellow, red, white, black, reddish brown, deep > > yellow, green, light green; long, short, small, large, spherical, > > circular, four-sided, six-sided, eight-sided, sixteen-sided; low, > > high; shade, sunshine;light; star light, light froma looking glass, > > colour of a precious stone (such as ruby), a conch, a pearl, an > > emerald; colour of gold and silver. > 59529 From: "seisen_au" Date: Fri May 19, 2006 4:30pm Subject: Re: Visible object at Cooran seisen_au Hi Herman, > > Hi Steve, > > > > "What is the corperality which is a visible object that causes the > > arising of eye-consciousness? > > > > Dependent on the 4 primary elements, there is the corporality which > > is visible, which arises with impingement and is of various colours: > > dark blue, pale yellow, red, white, black, reddish brown, deep > > yellow, green, light green; long, short, small, large, spherical, > > circular, four-sided, six-sided, eight-sided, sixteen-sided; low, > > high; shade, sunshine;light; star light, light froma looking glass, > > colour of a precious stone (such as ruby), a conch, a pearl, an > > emerald; colour of gold and silver. > > > Is this saying that shape is seen? It appears that way, though the commentary attempts to clarify the meaning by stating that shapes are not directly visible object, but can be pointed out only figuratively. "Among these expressions, because it is possible to know `long' etc, also by touch, but not `blue-green' etc, therefore in reality `long' is not directly a visible object, neither is `short' and similar terms" (Atthasaalini p.415). Rgrds Steve 59530 From: LBIDD@... Date: Fri May 19, 2006 4:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should lbidd2 Howard: "So, what's the story according to Abhidhamma, Nina? There are no "shoulds", and there are no choices? There is no volition, and it is not possible to choose among actions to pick the moral ones? Is there then no responsibility for one's actions, and no one should be held responsible?" Hi Howard, In my opinion "should" is a concept and a verbal 'prompt'. Here is something from the guide in CMA, p.36: "The multisignificant word 'sankhaara' is used here in a sense specific to the Abhidhamma to mean prompting, instigation, inducement (payoga), or the application of an expedient (upaaya). This prompting may be imposed by others, or it may originate from within oneself; the means employed may be bodily, verbal, or purely mental. The instigation is bodily when someone induces us by bodily means to give rise to particular types of consciousness which may issue in corresponding actions. It is verbal when the means employed is another's command or power of persuasion. And it is mental when, either by reflection or the determination of the will, we make a deliberate endeavour, despite inner resistance, to generate certain types of consciousness. Prompting can be associated with either unwholesome or wholesome states of consciousness, as will be shown below. That consciousness which arises spontaneously, without prompting or inducement by expedient means, is called 'unprompted' [asankhaarika]. That consciousness which arises with prompting or inducement by expedient means is called 'prompted' (sasankhaarika)." L: Of course this doesn't mean just because there is the prompt "you should be generous, or kind, or wise" a prompted version of alobha, adosa, or amoha will necessarily arise even if one makes the effort. But I would say a good faith effort is a step in the right direction. Effort doesn't seem to negate the possibility of prompted kusala from arising. Deliberate effort is actually necessary for the arising of mentally prompted kusala. However, jhana and path consciousnesses aren't classified as prompted or unprompted. But root consciousnesses with sati and wise attention are so classified. Larry 59531 From: "sukinder" Date: Sat May 20, 2006 4:40pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Please don't ... [ Loo.....ng Post] sukinderpal Hi Dan, Good to be discussing with you. However I see that I am having to speculate a lot here. So I would like to leave it to your own judgement, whether or not we should drop this, for now at least. Besides I feel uncomfortable at the thought that I am burdening you and others with my long posts, to read them, more so to respond. My comments follow: Comments interspersed... ========================== > Suk: > This is not saying that in either of these cases, there was no satipatthana > developed in previous lives. There must have been satipatthana to the max, > possibly experiencing even some level of vipassana nana. > > However, in the particular life that enlightenment did occur, say in the > case of the Savaka, satipatthana couldn't have arisen without first hearing > the Teachings, as far as I can see. Once heard about and arisen, then yes, > one informs the other. Dan: I would agree that there must have been "satipatthana [nearly] to the max" before enlightenment and that "discovery of the [supramundane] Path must coincide...with enlightenment itself." It also goes without saying that discovery that the mundane path is a really a "path to enlightenment" requires either enlightenment or the words of an Enlightened One, but, e.g., mundane right view, right effort, etc. can arise in one who does not know the final destination. Right? S:> Not know destination, but *must* have heard about the path. This time let us consider the Buddha himself. You are saying that the Mundane Path arose in him prior to enlightenment. Obviously the Buddha's wisdom was already almost perfect the day he was born. Conditions were required for it to manifest to various degrees and in the particular form (samatha or vipassana). These include the four Devine Messengers which triggered and started off his quest for Enlightenment in that life. He had wise consideration when encountering these Devine Messengers, but they were all very conceptual and were of the samatha kind. No satipatthana was involved, because when the 'idea' of impermanence, dukkha and asubha did arise, I am certain that he would have insighted the same with regard to the paramattha dhammas supposedly experienced during moments of satipatthana. And he would have become enlightened immediately. Furthermore, he went straight and got involved in "wrong practices" for 6 years. I doubt he would have been driven to go through all that had satipatthana arisen in between. I think he was blind to satipatthana and anatta, not only in the sense of 'knowledge about', but also the experience itself. There was nothing to stop him from knowing this fro what it is, had the experience occurred. Though other forms of kusala, he could readily see and appreciate to a level no one else could, even before the actual enlightenment took place. Dan, I understand you to be saying that those outside of the sasana who saw through the 'self' to the extent that they have, that this was because of the experience of satipatthana. However, they did not insight or understand the 'satipatthana' itself to know the causes and conditions for its arising. I think there are other explanations for their experiences. =========================== > Satipatthana as you know is a level of panna much higher than intellectual understanding based on hearing or reading. Dan: I don't think it makes any sense to say satipatthana is a much higher level of panya than conceptual understanding (based on hearing, reading, or cogitating). Satipatthana and conceptual knowing are completely different modes of knowing. There is a relationship between them, but it isn't one of higher vs. lower. Any description of satipatthana or vipassana must be conceptual because words are strictly in the realm of the conceptual. Absent any insight, what is an "intellectual understanding"? An understanding of what? In no sense can it be called an understanding of the reality that is speculated about. It is speculation about the path. Insight does not arise from speculation, so the setup of intellectual speculation and satipatthana as "higher" and "lower" "levels" is artificial. S:> I don't think so. Obviously there is a difference between one who understands and accepts the Dhamma in principle and one who doesn't, or between who understands correctly and one who does so wrongly. Or do you think that it is a matter of the way it is 'thought about', perhaps the ability to think logically about the subject? At this very moment there are dhammas arising and falling away and obviously there is no satipatthana arisen. However there can be an acknowledgement of the fact of present moment dhammas, including that there *is no sati*. Besides with this, there can also be some acknowledgement of the fact of conditionality and anatta. And surely, this would be only intellectual, but is it wrong? I don't think so. Is it a 'level' of understanding? I think it is. I believe that it is this attitude towards the present moment experience, conditioned by the particular level of understanding, which is precursor to directly experiencing them. We can't make satipatthana arise, but prior to that there can be a level of understanding which 'thinks' in terms of the present moment and grows firm about the importance of direct experience of these same present moment realities. ========================== Dan: And according to such a model, it would appear that genuine insight springs from the thoroughly conventional practice of conceptual speculation about doctrine. S:> I would say that "thinking about and speculation" is inevitable for most of us, and this may not even always be bad. But yes, speculation is most definitely *not* the precursor to insight. But neither is 'thinking about' a hindrance. :-) Pariyatti (also suttamaya panna and cintamaya panna) is reference to a level of understanding got from hearing, and so by necessity has "concepts" as object. It appears that according to you, there is no panna of this level at all. Are you saying that panna (of vipassana) starts with satipatthana? Is there no basic level than this? ============================= Dan: But just as the notion that genuine insight arises from the thoroughly conventional practice of formal meditation is a fetter to be broken (silabbataparamasa), the notion that insight arises from the thoroughly conventional practice of conceptual speculation about doctrine is also a fetter to be broken (ditthi). S:> I don't think it is about acquiring more knowledge in terms of lists of concepts and any ability to think logically about them. But the opportunity for the level of panna to arise and accumulate from "considering" the Dhamma from whatever angle it has been presented, without expectations. In other words panna will never say "no" to hearing and reading dhamma whenever the opportunity arises. But I understand that most of the objection comes from translating the above as the 'need to acquire more extensive knowledge of ideas'. This latter would be a case of holding the snake by the wrong end, imo. ============================= Dan: How would you describe the difference between ditthi and samma-ditthi? S:> One is wrong understanding of the way things are, the other is right. ;-) ============================= > Sukin: Don't you think that had Satipatthana arisen on several occasions before hearing any Dhamma that it would have at least begun to realize the distinction between reality and concept? D: Yes, I think he did. S:> Then he understood paramattha dhamma? And also perhaps a hint of anatta? Why no acknowledgement and understanding about "dhatu"? Waiting to hear about it? ============================= > Sukin: The concept of God for example is a proliferation at a level way beyond the simple 'thing' and 'I' making at the level of sense perception. D: Not necessarily. To some, "God" may simply mean "unexplained cause". S:> I think that one would be dissuaded from using the same oft used concept. One which has up till now been used to explain phenomena so different from the one that just occurred i.e. satipatthana. Better be seeking another explanation or else keep silent. But you seem to be projecting here Dan. Or perhaps I am....? :-( ============================== > What would have stopped any "right" concepts from issuing forth from the experience of these mundane path moments having been accumulated to the extent that it > has? Wouldn't at least this proliferated idea of God start to be unreliable to fall back onto? Dan: What is a "right" concept? You surely don't mean "samma" as it is used in samma-ditthi, samma-vayama, etc. S:> No. Right in the sense of being explanations about experiences, descriptive of the way things are. ============================= > Yet Augustine, Paul, Luther and so on have ended up only further adding > attributes to this concept or refining it, no? Though they may have on the > conventional level made some good observations regarding human nature, they > couldn't help falling back on to the idea of God and any theory related to > this. God controls all that goes on, so it is up to grace that any good can > happen to man, is this an understanding of anatta? The little 'self' has > only given the bigger 'SELF' credit. Dan: In Augustine, Paul, and Luther, the understanding of anatta is that kusala and panya are beyond the control of the little "Self". But they see that there is kusala and panya and seek an explanation for what controls it. Not finding any explanation within themselves, they conceptualize "God" as the controller. And, yes, credit for kusala and panya is given to the bigger "SELF" instead of the little "Self". S:> Which kind of panna is this? One that thinks in terms of 'self' and 'situation' and therefore comes up with one out of the many number of possible conclusions? Or is it one that knows and understands "dhatu" and which then necessarily has to think about the world in the Dhamma Way? ========================== Dan: I agree that this conceptualization of the understanding must be relinquished if enlightenment is to be achieved, but the diminution in the attachment to "Self" (ditthi) is real and beneficial--beyond what any purely conceptual understanding of anatta might bring, whether outside the dispensation or not. The measure of understanding is the degree of detachment from Self, not skill in intellectual games. S:> Your line of reasoning could lead to the belief that the Buddha taught about all being only khandha, dhatu, nama/rupa, is just one of several ways of getting the point across, and that he might just as well have taught an imaginary "cause", God at the beginning. As you have stated yourself, right/wrong view are cetasikas, so these are experiences at the paramattha level. Eternity views originate from the "perception" of 'self' standing against the background of a 'world' and 'cosmos'. From here it is up to the individual's accumulated views that the idea of unity or diversity will follow and that God or Science will be looked up to for explanation, depending also on which of these will satisfy intellectually and emotionally. Whatever the case may be, it seems unlikely to me, that such a view about the 'world' could at anytime condition the perception of a paramattha dhamma. Impersonality, yes, but not anatta. Having some idea about 'conditions' in relation to one's experience is possible. But if it is still in terms of 'self', it wouldn't be the understanding of paccaya as the Buddha taught. Any appeal to conditions would still be in terms of 'self view'. The above said, I must say that it has long been part of my belief, that there are folks outside of the sasana, who have better accumulations than I have, and here I don't mean other forms of kusala which is obvious, but also 'right understanding'. Some of them have either simply not got the chance to hear the Teachings presented in the correct way, or else because of 'attachment to kusala' they have subsequently grown strongly attached to their own religion. The panna of these people may also manifest as conventional wisdom to an extent more apparent than any that comes from me. And as the Buddha did with the Devine Messengers, these folks would learn much from their own experiences than I would have without Dhamma. And this is why I sometimes think that it might be more fruitful to discuss Dhamma with these people, than would it with many so called Buddhists. Some of the latter have made up their minds about the particular interpretation, while those other folks may be more receptive to any correct one. ;-) But no Dan, no satipatthana possible for them, I think. ============================= > And you can't blame Jesus for filling their heads with this God idea, we all > have accumulated much wrong view. Augustine, Paul, Luther 'love' the idea of God. Dan: Yes, they were strongly attached to their conceptions of God, and from their writing it seems that their love of God sprang from recognition of the impotence and utter corruption of Self, the emptiness of "Self". That insight into anatta was real (vipassana), but it was not of sufficient purity and clarity to lead to eradication of views (sotapattimagga). S:> So even vipassana?! Wow!! ================================ > Besides wrong/right concepts inform how we would view our experience Dan: Oh, I see now! You must be thinking of samma-ditthi as "right opinion/conceptualization" rather than as a cetasika (sort of like some people conceive of intensive meditation retreats as "right effort"). Samma-ditthi is a cetasika of a moment's experience of reality with clear vision. Ditthi is clinging to concept as Truth. S:> What I had in mind was: Concepts coming from Right View, therefore right concepts, can be uttered with ignorance or attachment, however, they can at times be used with understanding and act as "reminders", which would then be a moment with sati and panna. But this won't happen with wrong concepts, such as the notion of "God". Whew! :-) Metta, Sukinder 59532 From: "robmoult" Date: Fri May 19, 2006 9:46pm Subject: Supramundane Cittas robmoult Hi Nina & all, A quick question regarding cetasikas accompanying supramundane cittas. I understand that the three abstinences arise together with supramundane cittas. If I understand correctly, they arise together because, at that moment, they are factors of the Noble Eightfold Path. If I understand correctly, the Right Thought factor of the Noble Eightfold Path corresponds to the vitakka cetasika. I am confused because according to BB's CMA (p112), vitakka does not arise in all supramundame mental states (only those with the 1st jhana). Please help me to understand. Metta, Rob M :-) 59533 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 19, 2006 10:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Visible object at Cooran / Was Suffering doesn't always announce it... egberdina Hi Howard, The perception and further mental processing, including conceptual > processing, following upon the consciousness of a visible object is a kind > of > discovery procedure that lays bare structure and relationship already > present in > the original object. (The form into which the mind puts that information > is > faulty, of course, embodying substance and "thingness" and self-existence > based > on ignorant reification, but that is a side issue.) Two Howards agreeing, what next? :-) I read your comments with interest. Would you say that the mind's placing of every visible object in a time and space framework is an example of the discovery of inherent structure of visible object, or an example of faulty rendering? Kind Regards Herman 59534 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri May 19, 2006 11:13pm Subject: The 5 Clusters of Clinging ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: There are these five Clusters of Clinging (Khandha): The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, there are these five Clusters of Clinging. What five? 1: The Cluster of Clinging to Form... 2: The Cluster of Clinging to Feeling... 3: The Cluster of Clinging to Perception… 4: The Cluster of Clinging to Construction… 5: The Cluster of Clinging to Consciousness… These are the 5 Clusters of Clinging! The Noble 8-fold Way should be developed for the direct experience of these five Clusters of Clinging, for the full understanding and elimination of them, and for their final overcoming, abandoning and leaving all behind…This Noble 8-fold Way is developed for the uprooting of all the five Clusters of Clinging! Explanation: The Cluster of Clinging to Form is internally as ‘own body’ & externally as appearing as ‘my world’ & ‘others body’… The Cluster of Clinging to Feeling is the obsession with pleasant feeling, painful feeling and neutral feeling… The Cluster of Clinging to Perception is the monomaniac fascination of the diverse objects of the six senses… The Cluster of Clinging to Construction is fixated passion for intending, planning, attending, thinking, worrying … The Cluster of Clinging to Consciousness is addiction to the seen, heard, smelt, tasted, touched, and cognized… Cluster of Clinging means an assemblage, bunch, clump, collection, group or knot of tightly adhering attachment! There is nothing here ‘outside’ or ‘apart’ from the clusters of clinging, neither internally nor externally…!!! For details on Clusters of Clinging: Khanda see: · Definition: The 5 Clusters of Clinging http://what-buddha-said.net/drops/What_are_the_5_Clusters_of_Clinging.htm · ~ as acquisition of fuel Acquisition of Fuel http://what-buddha-said.net/drops/Acquisition_of_Fuel.htm · ~ as changing, painful & non-self Any Kind http://what-buddha-said.net/drops/Any_Kind.htm · ~ as ownerless Not Yours http://what-buddha-said.net/drops/Not_Yours.htm · ~ as binding The Leash http://what-buddha-said.net/drops/The_Leash.htm · ~ as transient Fingernail of Soil http://what-buddha-said.net/drops/Fingernail_of_Soil.htm Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V:60-1] section 45: The Way. 178: The 5 Cluster of Clinging... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 !!! http://What-Buddha-Said.net http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct <...> 59535 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat May 20, 2006 0:05am Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 451- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame/hiri & ottappa(m) 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 ***** We will not understand the functions of moral shame and fear of blame merely by reading general definitions of them, but we have to consider the difference between kusala citta and akusala citta when they arise in our daily life. Then we will notice that, for example, the citta with avarice is completely different from the citta with generosity. When there is true generosity moral shame and fear of blame perform their functions. However, in between the moments of generosity there are bound to be moments of clinging and we may not notice these. We may be attached to the object we give or we may expect the receiver to be kind to us. Also such moments can be known. We should be grateful to the Buddha who taught us to develop right understanding so that the present moment can be known as it really is. Through right understanding we will have more confidence in kusala and we will see the dangers and disadvantages of akusala. Thus moral shame and fear of blame will develop. ***** Ch27 - Moral Shame & Fear of Blame(hiri & ottappa) to be continued Metta, Sarah ====== 59536 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat May 20, 2006 5:16am Subject: Re: sati in the list of the Dhammasangani ... Unshakable Self-directed View indriyabala Hi Herman (Nina, Phil) - Let's take a look at the teachings/comments of other teachers who have first-hand experiences with Satipatthana. Having an open mind toward other perspectives of the dhamma is a good protection against attachment to one fixed view. (1)"The role of mindfulness is to keep the mind properly grounded in the present moment in a way that will keep it on the path. To make an analogy, Awakening is like a mountain on the horizon, the destination to which you are driving a car. Mindfulness is what remembers to keep attention focused on the road to the mountain, rather than letting it stay focused on glimpses of the mountain or get distracted by other paths leading away from the road. [Thanissaro Bhikkhu's Comment for DN22] (2)"What brings the field of experience into focus and makes it accessible to insight is a mental faculty called in Pali sati, usually translated as "mindfulness." Mindfulness is presence of mind, attentiveness or awareness. Yet the kind of awareness involved in mindfulness differs profoundly from the kind of awareness at work in our usual mode of consciousness. All consciousness involves awareness in the sense of a knowing or experiencing of an object. But with the practice of mindfulness awareness is applied at a special pitch. The mind is deliberately kept at the level of bare attention, a detached observation of what is happening within us and around us in the present moment. In the practice of right mindfulness the mind is trained to remain in the present, open, quiet, and alert, contemplating the present event. All judgements and interpretations have to be suspended, or if they occur, just registered and dropped. The task is simply to note whatever comes up just as it is occurring, riding the changes of events in the way a surfer rides the waves on the sea. The whole process is a way of coming back into the present, of standing in the here and now without slipping away, without getting swept away by the tides of distracting thoughts. [Chapter VI RIGHT MINDFULNESS (Samma Sati), The Noble Eightfold Path by Bhikkhu Bodhi] (3) "Just as if a person, catching six animals of different ranges, of different habitats, were to bind them with a strong rope … and tether them by a strong post or stake. "Then those six animals, of different ranges, of different habitats, would each pull towards its own range and habitat … And when these six animals became internally exhausted, they would stand, sit or lie down right there next to the post or stake. "In the same way, when a monk whose mindfulness immersed in the body is developed and pursued, the eye does not pull toward pleasing forms, and unpleasing forms are not repellent. The ear does not pull towards pleasing sounds … ... the nose does not pull toward pleasing smells … ... the tongue does not pull toward pleasing tastes … ... the body does not pull toward pleasing tactile sensations … ... the intellect does not pull toward pleasing ideas, and unpleasing ideas are not repellent. This, monks, is restraint. "The strong post or stake is a term for mindfulness immersed in the body[kayagata-sati]. "Thus you should train yourself: 'We will develop mindfulness immersed in the body. We will pursue it, give it a means of transport, give it a grounding. We will steady it, consolidate it, and set about it properly.' That's how you should train yourselves." [Samyutta Nikaya XXXV.206 Chappana Sutta: The Six Animals] I hope the above three perspectives help. Best wishes, Tep ====== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" wrote: > > > Hi Herman (Nina, Phil) - > > The thought that "sati develops when it arises and is aware over and > over again of whatever appears through one of the six doors, through > one doorway at a time" is a mental fabrication that is conditioned >by a self-directed interpretation of the Abhidhamma. It is not >supported by any sutta as far as my 'eye' can see. > > You are right to say: "There is no need to think about anything. But > we do. With attachment. And therein lies the problem". The problem > indeed lies in the self-directed interpretation of the Abhidhamma that leads to the unshakable attachment : "This only is right, every other thought (that is different) is wrong". (snipped) 59537 From: connie Date: Sat May 20, 2006 6:01am Subject: Re: Is there a hierarchy in (radiating) metta? nichiconn hi, Tep and dear joop, Joop-Does anybody have another idea? One other questions came to my mind reading this Sutta Is having "thoughts of loving kindness" the same as "radiating metta", that is radiating metta to other beings? I think it is not. Connie-hierarchy. if you like. if there is metta radiation there is dosa radiation and stupidity radiation and we are bombarded so it is no wonder our shells are so thick. i'm such a boneheaded jerk :)_. i might think i'm a parrot, but i'm a puppet. the traditional kahuna (longboarders?) might've said these "things" ... various similar types / colours / flavours of thought tend to con-/ag- gregate and are similar to clouds... like under the cloud of this or that kind of thinking there arises eraman... or 18th c western mind or a monkey typing shakespeare (maybe)... but never mind them; the christians have done a fairly good job of eradicating their nonsense. and it must be nonsense to really believe "spiritual" realities have a physical presence like color, sound, odour, taste, tangibility. it is just a way of talking. but i can't help asking of those ppl: who's children were more likely to be god-forsaken when heading out to greet sharks? those who considered such relatives as enemies? many things ring true in many ways and many teachings. But is the drumming Buddha's? What do you think of chanting? as opposed to or in conjunction with, say, sitting or mountaineering? to be formal ;) "practice makes perfect"ions or knottierness. Tep: Dear Joop, did you ever misrepresent the Blessed One? Connie: are you asking him if he exemplifies "association with the loathed"? a book report (?) i've yet to type a response to and now feed you verbatim: ------------------------------ i seem to have something of a gag reflex and don't like to swallow a lot of "SHUT UP (that's not how i think)", but so it goes. help? peace, connie 59538 From: connie Date: Sat May 20, 2006 6:01am Subject: Re: Three Suttas about Atta nichiconn Hi, Howard, Sarah, dears, Howard: Recall that his first words on dukkha were "Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is suffering, sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; association with the loathed is suffering, dissociation from the loved is suffering, not to get what one wants is suffering ... ." Also, and I think this is an important point, people so eagerly avoid facing what is unpleasant that the moment difficulties let up they tend to allow themselves to forget even the most extreme suffering they have gone through and then require reminding. connie: In the sutta tradition aren't Buddha's first recorded words on dukkha something along the lines of NO MORE HOUSE OF PAIN? (dhp). peace. 59539 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 20, 2006 2:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Visible object at Cooran / Was Suffering doesn't always announce it... upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 5/20/06 1:33:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > I read your comments with interest. Would you say that the mind's placing > of > every visible object in a time and space framework is an example of the > discovery of inherent structure of visible object, or an example of faulty > rendering? > ====================== Well, first of all, let me be clear that when I'm speaking of a visible object I don't mean the image of a tree or house or person, which already is the result of further major mental processing, but a single visual field (as a whole, with all its internal structure and relations present but awaiting discovery), just as it appears at a moment of seeing. I really don't think that such a snapshot-input, on its own, has anything whatsoever to do with time. The knowledge of time, at least for such as you and me, requires the processing of many visual objects and the relations among them. Spatial relations among the parts of a visual object, however, are detected, I believe, as the mind carves visual shapes out of a visual field. That's how it seems to me. As to the question of faultiness or not, I think that spatial and temporal relations are not fictions except to the extent that they seem to hold among separate, self-extent entities and to the extent that we reify space and time themselves, making them not just relations among phenomena, but "things" of their own. 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) 59540 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 20, 2006 2:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Three Suttas about Atta upasaka_howard Hi, Connie - In a message dated 5/20/06 9:02:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, connieparker@... writes: > Howard: Recall that his first words on dukkha were "Birth is suffering, > aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is suffering, sorrow and > lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; association with the > loathed is suffering, dissociation from the loved is suffering, not to get > what one wants is suffering ... ." Also, and I think this is an important > point, people so eagerly avoid facing what is unpleasant that the moment > difficulties let up they tend to allow themselves to forget even the most > extreme suffering they have gone through and then require reminding. > > connie: In the sutta tradition aren't Buddha's first recorded words on > dukkha something along the lines of NO MORE HOUSE OF PAIN? (dhp). > ========================== I don't know. I was quoting from the first sutta, Samyutta Nikaya 56.11, the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta - the Turning of the Wheel of Dhamma sutta. 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) 59541 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat May 20, 2006 7:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visible object at Cooran nilovg Hi Steve, Colour arises together with other ruupas in a group, but only colour or visible object impinges on the eyesense so that it can be seen. Visible object is the only ruupa among the 28 ruupas that can be seen. Nina. op 20-05-2006 01:18 schreef seisen_au op seisen_@...: > My understanding is that apart from the rupa > colour, none of the other rupas can be taken as visible object? 59542 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat May 20, 2006 7:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sati in the list of the Dhammasangani ... Unshakable Self-directed View nilovg Hi Tep and Herman, thanks Herman, we had a wonderful time with good walking, and Dhamma too. I agree, thinking is bound to arise, and often with attachment. But, not always! There is right thinking and wrong thinking. Now to Tep's points. op 20-05-2006 00:46 schreef indriyabala op indriyabala@...: > The thought that "sati develops when it arises and is aware over and > over again of whatever appears through one of the six doors, through > one doorway at a time" is a mental fabrication that is conditioned by > a self-directed interpretation of the Abhidhamma. It is not supported > by any sutta as far as my 'eye' can see. ------- N: Yes, many suttas, especially in K.S. 35, and elsewhere. The fourth Fifty suttas, § 156, the destruction of the lure (III): As to one doorway at a time, I saw in another post that you wondered why citta can experience only one object through one doorway. If this would be clearer to you, you would appreciate more such texts as above. In the suttas the doorways are taken as separated, this is real life. Now it seems that we see and hear at the same time, because we mix up all the doorways. In the Abhidhamma we learn that there are different processes through eyes, ears, etc. The cittas of the eye-door process experience only colour, those of the ear-door process experience only sound. Nina. 59543 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat May 20, 2006 7:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should, training, free will etc. nilovg Hi Howard, op 19-05-2006 22:59 schreef upasaka@... op upasaka@...: > --------------------------------------------- > >> Kusala citta makes the right choice, akusala citta makes the wrong choice. > > ------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Kusala cetana is the *making* of the right choice and with the right > motivation. There is nothing that makes a choice - there is just the making of > a choice. There aren't things that act - there are just the actions. There is > doing but no doer. > -------------------------------------------- N: right. Cetanaa is important, it motivates deeds through body, speech or mind. It coocrinates the activities of the other accompanying cetasikas. When it is said that cetanaa is a conditioned dhamma, we have to remember that it is for instance conditioned by many other cetasikas which support and assist it. Take the long list of sobhana cetasikas of the Dhammasangani: they all play their part. This helps us not to isolate cetanaa, it makes it clearer that cetanaa cannot be manipulated since it depends on many types of conditions. Also on natural strong dependence-condition. There was kusala cetanaa in the past, such as saving a life or generosity, and this is a supporting condition for the arising now of kusala actions. For instance, you always save an insect from the water and bring it outside. -------- >> It is citta, not a person. >> You ask, there are no shoulds? We hear from the sutta: it is not fitting to >> do this or that, akusala gives a bad result. We see more and more the danger >> of akusala. As to the precepts: we undertake the training to abstain from >> killing, etc. > ----------------------------------------- > Howard: > Yes, we do - if we do. And whether we do or not depends in part on > volition - in large part. > --------------------------------------- N: The precepts are not worded in the way of thou shall not... as you know. It is a training. The Buddha said: 'Train yourselves thus, monks', or: you should make an effort to do...' At that time the listeners mostly had no misunderstandings when the Buddha spoke in that way. They would not take training, effort, volition for self. As to volition: see above. Kusala actions also depend on saddhaa, confidence in kusala, on sati, heedfulness, on hiri and ottappa, shame and fear of blame. Volition does not arise alone! If we only think of volition: I will, the idea of self easily slips in. I liked Sarah's quote about sati's important role: (Sammohavinodani, transl as 'Dispeller'), it also stressed the role of sati too, 'like the salt-seasoning in all curries and like the minister-of-all-work in all the king's affairs.......For what reason? Because the mind has its refuge in mindfulness, and mindfulness is manifested as protection. And there is no exerting or restraining of the mind without mindfulness.' (1317). ---------- > And when we are thinking of a choice, that is also a dhamma that is >> thinking, not you who is thinking. > ------------------------------------- > Howard: > There also is no dhamma that is a thinker! A dhamma that thinks would > be an agent, a "little self", an actor. There is thinking but no thinker. > That doesn't just mean that there is no *person* who thinks. There is no > *thing* > that thinks. There is just the thinking. > ------------------------------------ N: Yes, I understand why you say this: it is according to phenomenology. Let us say, thinking is naama, it is an experience. Or, you would say, an experiencing. --------- > But really, how difficult to realize this> >> at the moment we think. It seems all the time as if it is me who is >> thinking, no matter whether I know the truth in theory. > ------------------------------------ > Howard: > Believing that there is a "me" who acts is a serious problem for us. > More generally, believing that there is an actor of any sort is a problem for > us. > ---------------------------------- N: Citta and cetasika are ultimate dhammas, they arise because of their own conditions, just for a moment and then fall away. The purpose of learning about ultimate realities is to turn away from the idea of self. Perhaps I should explain more about what this means: everything is dhamma. I am thinking out loud now:-)) Not everybody is expected to learn Pali, but for some notions we need it because there is a real danger that the original meaning gets lost when we use only English. I truly feel concerned about this point. Dhamma: it bears its own characteristic, dha means: to bear. It is almost identical with dhaatu, element. It is devoid of self or person. When we say everything is dhamma, or, we have to realize dhamma as dhamma, it means understanding it as non-self. It is only dhamma, not what we used to take for self. It has a characteristic, this means: it shows its own characteristic that can be experienced. It will take a long time before we realize that everything is dhamma. We often fail, there are ups and downs. We may say everything is dhamma with a lack of understanding, paying only lip service. Or, with a degree of understanding, and in this way there will be a gradual relinquishing of the idea of self. _______ > Howard: > perhaps I read more into what you wrote than > was there. But the tendency to downplay the importance of volition is rampant > on DSG, and I felt it important to address the matter. > ------------------------------------ N: Feel free to always do so, there is no need for agreement. Nina. 59544 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 20, 2006 4:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should, training, free will etc. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 5/20/06 10:17:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > >Howard: > >There also is no dhamma that is a thinker! A dhamma that thinks would > >be an agent, a "little self", an actor. There is thinking but no thinker. > >That doesn't just mean that there is no *person* who thinks. There is no > >*thing* > >that thinks. There is just the thinking. > >------------------------------------ > N: Yes, I understand why you say this: it is according to phenomenology. > Let us say, thinking is naama, it is an experience. Or, you would say, an > experiencing. > ======================== No, it's not the phenomenalism. It's a matter of not reifying, and a matter of not conceiving of an agent or doer. There is doing but no doer. 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) 59545 From: "Joop" Date: Sat May 20, 2006 8:47am Subject: Re: Is there a hierarchy in (radiating) metta? jwromeijn Hallo Tep, Herman, and dearest Connie Tep, I will not do - at this moment - the homework you proposed me to do. First you asked my attention for MN 127 in which there was described a highest level of metta. I started to study that Sutta and didn't find anything you found (as far as I understood you) in it and asked questions about that Sutta. Now you will give me a next Sutta without reaction to my questions. Don't forget I'm primarely interested in radiating metta to other beings. And your quotes are not about that topic, they are about how a "monk" can get a arahant. Herman, I agree with your opinion that 'metta' is "binary: It is either there or not there." About your second statement I'm less sure: "Metta is not to persons, it is a state of mind". I see no problems in thinking both are true: metta is a state of mind, directed to the wellbeing of all beings (animals and persons), included oneself. Connie: the percentage understandability of your message in more than 50%, that's great. Too you I can just say: thank you. Metta Joop 59546 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat May 20, 2006 1:11pm Subject: Brain research on craving buddhatrue Hi All, Some interesting brain research on craving which supports the Buddha's teaching: http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/041105_food_drug.html Metta, James 59547 From: "robmoult" Date: Sat May 20, 2006 1:51pm Subject: The Big Picture robmoult Hi All, I am in Tokyo and had dinner with Phil last night. We discussed a broad range of dhamma-related topics (and some worldly concerns as well :-) ). Stimulated by our discussion, after Phil left, I jotted down a diagram showing the hierarchy of the teachings. Let me describe the image which showed a progression of four levels, each level having more detail than the level above it. At the lowest level (most detail), we have the discussion of mental states / mental factors (citta / cetasikas). This is found in the original Abhidhamma texts. One level highter (slightly less detail than citta / cetasika), we have discussion of mental processes. This includes the sense-door process, mind-door process, death process, etc. This material can be found in the commentaries (Buddhadatta, Buddhaghosa, Acariya Anuruddha, etc.). The third level discusses how the mind leads us astray. It includes discussion of mental proliferation, the taints, guarding the senses, etc. There are lots of Suttas (see MN1, MN 2, MN 18, SN35 for examples) which cover this material. At the broadest level, the Buddha's teachings are about how to escape from samsara. This is the discussion of dependent origination. It is also covered in multiple Suttas. In summary, the Sutta cover the top two levels, the original Abhidhamma texts cover the lowest level and the commentators "filled in the gap". Metta, Rob M :-) 59548 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat May 20, 2006 2:29pm Subject: Re: sati in the list of the Dhammasangani ... Unshakable Self-directed View indriyabala Hi Nina (Herman, James and Eric), What you think about the way sati develops is conditioned by your interpretation of the Abhidhamma (like seeing the world through pink eyeglasses). Let's compare your statement on "how sati develops" with the sutta quote from the fourth Fifty suttas, § 156, the destruction of the lure (III). >Nina (#59513): We do not develop it, *it* develops when it arises and is aware over and over again of whatever appears through one of the six doors, through one doorway at a time. >Nina's Sutta quote (in #59542): Yes, many suttas, especially in K.S. 35, and elsewhere. The fourth Fifty suttas, § 156, the destruction of the lure (III): Tep: With all due respect I don't think that this sutta quote supports your above description of the process of sati development, Nina. Your description ignores the mind as the agent in charge of sati development, and focuses instead on the sati as the self developer or self improvement! The sutta says that you apply "the mind" (through yoniso-manasikara) to the eye and see the dangers associated with having delight in what is being seen. The result of such contemplation is nibbida, the destruction of delight(nandi). But, you think sati arises to be aware of what is appearing through the "eye-door", and sati develops itself!! What you think is the familiar interpretation of the Paramattha-dhamma taught by Khun Sujin. The macro perspective of sati development (through application of the mind as I explain above) is taught by the Budhha in the suttas; your micro (ultimate) view on sati development is not seen in the suttas. To make my point crystal clear please read Bhikkhu Bodhi's writing on sati development below : his is clearly based on the idea in the suttas. "What brings the field of experience into focus and makes it accessible to insight is a mental faculty called in Pali sati, usually translated as "mindfulness." Mindfulness is presence of mind, attentiveness or awareness. Yet the kind of awareness involved in mindfulness differs profoundly from the kind of awareness at work in our usual mode of consciousness. All consciousness involves awareness in the sense of a knowing or experiencing of an object. But with the practice of mindfulness awareness is applied at a special pitch. The mind is deliberately kept at the level of bare attention, a detached observation of what is happening within us and around us in the present moment. In the practice of right mindfulness the mind is trained to remain in the present, open, quiet, and alert, contemplating the present event. All judgements and interpretations have to be suspended, or if they occur, just registered and dropped. The task is simply to note whatever comes up just as it is occurring, riding the changes of events in the way a surfer rides the waves on the sea. The whole process is a way of coming back into the present, of standing in the here and now without slipping away, without getting swept away by the tides of distracting thoughts." [Chapter VI RIGHT MINDFULNESS (Samma Sati). The Noble Eightfold Path by Bhikkhu Bodhi] Sincerely, Tep ==== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > > Hi Tep and Herman, ... > Now to Tep's points. > op 20-05-2006 00:46 schreef indriyabala op indriyabala@...: > > > The thought that "sati develops when it arises and is aware over and over again of whatever appears through one of the six doors, through one doorway at a time" is a mental fabrication that is conditioned by a self-directed interpretation of the Abhidhamma. It is not supported by any sutta as far as my 'eye' can see. > ------- > N: Yes, many suttas, especially in K.S. 35, and elsewhere. The fourth Fifty > suttas, § 156, the destruction of the lure (III): (snipped) 59549 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 20, 2006 2:47pm Subject: A summary of the Teaching egberdina Hi all (and RobM by name), I was prompted by RobM's overview of the Teachings to write this, and I didn't want to hijack that thread. I would appreciate all feedback as to whether this summary does or doesn't (and if not, why not) capture the essence of the Buddha's Teaching. The Buddha teaches that everything known is known through the six doors. There is nothing knowable beyond that. He teaches that everything knowable is anatta, anicca and dukkha, and because of that, there is nothing knowable worth clinging to. He teaches the fact of anatta, anicca and dukkha. He teaches how to realise anatta, anicca and dukkha. He teaches to realise anatta, anicca and dukkha. That was the long summary. The short summary is simply this; do not identify with any consciousness. Kind Regards Herman 59550 From: "robmoult" Date: Sat May 20, 2006 3:24pm Subject: Re: A summary of the Teaching robmoult Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > I was prompted by RobM's overview of the Teachings to write this, and I > didn't want to hijack that thread. I would appreciate all feedback as to > whether this summary does or doesn't (and if not, why not) capture the > essence of the Buddha's Teaching. > > The Buddha teaches that everything known is known through the six doors. > There is nothing knowable beyond that. > He teaches that everything knowable is anatta, anicca and dukkha, and > because of that, there is nothing knowable worth clinging to. > He teaches the fact of anatta, anicca and dukkha. He teaches how to realise > anatta, anicca and dukkha. He teaches to realise anatta, anicca and dukkha. > > > That was the long summary. > > The short summary is simply this; do not identify with any consciousness. > ===== Let's go layer by layer to see well we match. In the Culamalunkya Sutta (MN 63) and in the Simsapa Sutta (SN LVI.31), the Buddha explains the purpose of the teaching as leading to Nibbana. This can only be accomplished by attaining the stage of Arahant. Herman, I suspect that we are on the same page here. Perhaps at the next layer down, we can split into two dimensions; a "descriptive" dimension and a "strategic" dimension. The descriptive dimension would be a discussion of Dependent Origination, a set of causually related links which explain WHY we are bound to Samsara. The strategic dimension addresses HOW we are to attain the goal of Arahantship. This must be a discussion of the Noble Eightfold Path. I think that if we "peel the onion" on the descriptive dimension, we could progress the way proposed in my post (mental proliferation -> mental process -> citta). This is still answering the question of "WHY?". Herman, it appears as though you may be progressing down the strategic dimension to ask the question of "HOW?". According to the Kimsuka Sutta (SN XXXV.204), there are multiple strategies - there is no ONE strategy (other than the high-level Noble Eightfold Path). Clearly, different practices suit different temperaments. Herman, for this reason, I treat your statement "do not identify with any consciousness" as one of multiple options. Comments? Metta, Rob M :-) 59551 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 20, 2006 3:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A summary of the Teaching egberdina Hi RobM, Thanks for the feedback. More below. ===== > > Let's go layer by layer to see well we match. > > In the Culamalunkya Sutta (MN 63) and in the Simsapa Sutta (SN > LVI.31), the Buddha explains the purpose of the teaching as leading > to Nibbana. This can only be accomplished by attaining the stage of > Arahant. Herman, I suspect that we are on the same page here. OK! Perhaps at the next layer down, we can split into two dimensions; > a "descriptive" dimension and a "strategic" dimension. > > The descriptive dimension would be a discussion of Dependent > Origination, a set of causually related links which explain WHY we > are bound to Samsara. > > The strategic dimension addresses HOW we are to attain the goal of > Arahantship. This must be a discussion of the Noble Eightfold Path. > > I think that if we "peel the onion" on the descriptive dimension, we > could progress the way proposed in my post (mental proliferation -> > mental process -> citta). This is still answering the question > of "WHY?". Herman, it appears as though you may be progressing down the > strategic dimension to ask the question of "HOW?". According to the > Kimsuka Sutta (SN XXXV.204), there are multiple strategies - there is > no ONE strategy (other than the high-level Noble Eightfold Path). > Clearly, different practices suit different temperaments. Herman, for > this reason, I treat your statement "do not identify with any > consciousness" as one of multiple options. > > Comments? Would you say that both the descriptive and strategic dimensions (nice terms, BTW) ultimately rely on mindfulness? Kind Regards Herman 59552 From: "robmoult" Date: Sat May 20, 2006 3:49pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A summary of the Teaching robmoult Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi RobM, > > Thanks for the feedback. More below. > > ===== > > > > Let's go layer by layer to see well we match. > > > > In the Culamalunkya Sutta (MN 63) and in the Simsapa Sutta (SN > > LVI.31), the Buddha explains the purpose of the teaching as leading > > to Nibbana. This can only be accomplished by attaining the stage of > > Arahant. Herman, I suspect that we are on the same page here. > > > OK! > > > Perhaps at the next layer down, we can split into two dimensions; > > a "descriptive" dimension and a "strategic" dimension. > > > > The descriptive dimension would be a discussion of Dependent > > Origination, a set of causually related links which explain WHY we > > are bound to Samsara. > > > > The strategic dimension addresses HOW we are to attain the goal of > > Arahantship. This must be a discussion of the Noble Eightfold Path. > > > > I think that if we "peel the onion" on the descriptive dimension, we > > could progress the way proposed in my post (mental proliferation - > > > mental process -> citta). This is still answering the question > > of "WHY?". > > > > > Herman, it appears as though you may be progressing down the > > strategic dimension to ask the question of "HOW?". According to the > > Kimsuka Sutta (SN XXXV.204), there are multiple strategies - there is > > no ONE strategy (other than the high-level Noble Eightfold Path). > > Clearly, different practices suit different temperaments. Herman, for > > this reason, I treat your statement "do not identify with any > > consciousness" as one of multiple options. > > > > Comments? > > > > Would you say that both the descriptive and strategic dimensions (nice > terms, BTW) ultimately rely on mindfulness? > ===== I would place mindfulness squarely in the domain of strategic. In fact as explained in the Satipatthana Sutta, mindfulness is a central part of the strategic domain. The descriptive / WHY is more of the theory whereas the strategic / HOW is more of the practice. Metta, Rob M :-) 59553 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 20, 2006 3:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A summary of the Teaching egberdina Hi RobM On 21/05/06, robmoult wrote: > > Hi Herman, > > > > > > > Would you say that both the descriptive and strategic dimensions > (nice > > terms, BTW) ultimately rely on mindfulness? > > > ===== > > I would place mindfulness squarely in the domain of strategic. In > fact as explained in the Satipatthana Sutta, mindfulness is a central > part of the strategic domain. > > The descriptive / WHY is more of the theory whereas the strategic / > HOW is more of the practice. Does the theory, or knowledge of it, lead to Nibbana? Or rephrasing that, does every Arahant know the theory? Or even more precisely, does any Arahant know the theory? And was it the knowledge of the theory that led to Nibbana? Or did the theory come after the attainment? Kind Regards Herman 59554 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat May 20, 2006 4:18pm Subject: Re: Is there a hierarchy in (radiating) metta? indriyabala Hello Joop - Nobody is right all the time, and I am no exception. {:<|) >Joop: >First you asked my attention for MN 127 in which there was described a highest level of metta. I started to study that Sutta and didn't find anything you found (as far as I understood you) in it and asked questions about that Sutta. Now you will give me a next Sutta without reaction to my questions. Tep: You're right! I was not fair to you (like a heart surgeon who ignores a patient's complaint about his sore throat. Perhaps, the patient is right and clogged arteries might have caused his sore throat ?). ......... >Joop: >Don't forget I'm primarely interested in radiating metta to other beings. And your quotes are not about that topic, they are about how a "monk" can get a arahant. Tep: Okay, if you insist on hearing my thought on metta radiation. Now please let me backtrack to your past posts that are related to MN 127 and try to answer in my next post all the questions I skipped . .......... Sincerely, Tep, your friend ======== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joop" wrote: > > Hallo Tep, Herman, and dearest Connie > > Tep, I will not do - at this moment - the homework you proposed me to > do. (snipped) 59555 From: "robmoult" Date: Sat May 20, 2006 4:19pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A summary of the Teaching robmoult Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi RobM > > On 21/05/06, robmoult wrote: > > > > Hi Herman, > > > > > > > > > > > Would you say that both the descriptive and strategic dimensions > > (nice > > > terms, BTW) ultimately rely on mindfulness? > > > > > ===== > > > > I would place mindfulness squarely in the domain of strategic. In > > fact as explained in the Satipatthana Sutta, mindfulness is a central > > part of the strategic domain. > > > > The descriptive / WHY is more of the theory whereas the strategic / > > HOW is more of the practice. > > > > Does the theory, or knowledge of it, lead to Nibbana? Or rephrasing that, > does every Arahant know the theory? Or even more precisely, does any Arahant > know the theory? And was it the knowledge of the theory that led to Nibbana? > Or did the theory come after the attainment? > ===== Clearly, the Buddha taught both theory (Dependent Origination) and practical (Noble Eightfold Path) so both are important. Often, the Buddha would start with theory and then use this as a springboard to discuss practice (see Sabbasava Sutta MN 2 for an example). In the Bhumija Sutta (MN 126), it is clear that practice is what leads to results. Consider the old saying: Pariyatti (theory) -> Patipatti (practice) -> Pativedha (realization) The commentary to the Kimsuka Sutta (SN XXXV.204), which I mentioned in my earlier post, explains that each of the four monks approached at the beginning of the Sutta were Arahants. Each Arahant had their own practice which differed in the details. I am not sure that there is a definitive answer to your questions regarding Arahants knowledge of theory. But one thing is clear, it is practice which leads to realization. Many people find the theory as a good springboard to support their practice. Studying the theory alone is an academic approach and, unless applied, will not read to spiritual development (IMHO). Metta, Rob M :-) 59556 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat May 20, 2006 4:49pm Subject: Re: Is there a hierarchy in (radiating) metta? indriyabala Hi Cunnie - You're always cunning ! > >Tep: Dear Joop, did you ever misrepresent the Blessed One? >Connie: are you asking him if he exemplifies "association with the loathed"? a book report (?) Tep: Not that complicated! ..................... >Connie: >i seem to have something of a gag reflex and don't like to swallow a lot of "SHUT UP (that's not how i think)", but so it goes. help? Tep: I have found it is difficult enough to follow the Buddha's Teachings such that I won't "misrepresent" him. So Gach's remark about thinking like a Buddha is too hard for me to swollow. BTW: Who said "SHUT UP (that's not how i think)"? Sounds like a totalitarian to me! {:>|] Yours truly, Tep ==== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, connie wrote: > > hi, Tep and dear joop, > (snipped) > > ------------- Understanding Buddhism" by Gary Gach and HIGHLY recommend it. His > description of buddhist "practice" really fit for me "The more you think of Buddha, the deeper your understanding and bond will grow. The more you think of the Buddha, the more you'll think like a Buddha"....I've certainly found that true by thinking of Kwan Shih Yin, the Bodhissatva of Compassion, too. > P.S.....in this book, Gach describes Buddha, Dharma, Sangha as "Buddha: the awakened nature of all beings; Dharma: the ocean of wisdom and compassion; Sangha: the community of those living in harmony with all Buddhas and Dharmas".>----------------- > > i seem to have something of a gag reflex and don't like to swallow a lot of "SHUT UP (that's not how i think)", but so it goes. help? > 59557 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat May 20, 2006 4:58pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A summary of the Teaching ... Taste Your Own Medicine First... indriyabala Hi Herman - You asked good questions : >Herman: > Does the theory, or knowledge of it, lead to Nibbana? Or rephrasing >that, does every Arahant know the theory? Or even more precisely, >does any Arahant know the theory? And was it the knowledge of the >theory that led to Nibbana? > Or did the theory come after the attainment? I am interested in seeing your answers to your own questions ! Sincerely, Tep ===== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi RobM > ... ... > > Kind Regards 59558 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 20, 2006 5:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A summary of the Teaching ... Taste Your Own Medicine First... egberdina Hi Tep, Thank you for the question about my questions :-) On 21/05/06, indriyabala wrote: > > > Hi Herman - > > You asked good questions : > > >Herman: > > Does the theory, or knowledge of it, lead to Nibbana? Or rephrasing > >that, does every Arahant know the theory? Or even more precisely, > >does any Arahant know the theory? And was it the knowledge of the > >theory that led to Nibbana? > > Or did the theory come after the attainment? > > I am interested in seeing your answers to your own questions ! I am blessed/plagued by this rational streak. I am limited in my thinking by the arrow of time, so that the past conditions the future, the future does not condition the past. It is inescapable for me from reading the Pitakas historically, (wth a time line in mind), that the theory proceeded from the realisation, not the other way around. A further fact which I am bound by, due to that rational streak, is that the Sutta period is replete with attainment, and the scholastic period is not. This suggests to me that the scholastic model - acquisition of right theory => practice => attainment, is flawed. Kind Regards Herman 59559 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat May 20, 2006 5:38pm Subject: [dsg] Re: More on Cooran scottduncan2 Dear Herman, I knew you were the guy to ask! H: "I was always taught that in a moment of slapshot there is actually 1 *javana-citta* (impulsion) followed by 7 propulsion moments, conditoned by Todd Bertuzzi err, that should have read *sevana-paccaya* (repetition condition)." Sincerely, Scott. 59560 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sat May 20, 2006 5:42pm Subject: Vism.XVII,77 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII 77. (6) A state that, while arising, assists [another state] by making it arise together with itself is a 'conascence condition', as a lamp is for illumination. With the immaterial aggregates, etc., it is sixfold, according as it is said: '(i) The four immaterial aggregates are a condition, as conascence condition, for each other; (ii) the four great primaries are ... for each other; (iii) at the moment of descent into the womb mentality and materiality are ... for each other; (iv) states of consciousness and its concomitants are ... for the kinds of materiality originated by consciousness; (v) the great primaries are ... for derived materiality; (vi) material states are sometimes [as at rebirth-linking] a condition, as conascence condition, and sometimes [as in the course of an existence] not a condition as conascence condition, for immaterial states' (P.tn.1,3). This refers only to the heart-basis. ******************** 77. uppajjamaanova saha uppaadanabhaavena upakaarako dhammo sahajaatapaccayo pakaasassa padiipo viya. so aruupakkhandhaadivasena chabbidho hoti. yathaaha ``cattaaro khandhaa aruupino a~n~nama~n~na.m sahajaatapaccayena paccayo. cattaaro mahaabhuutaa a~n~nama~n~na.m, okkantikkha.ne naamaruupa.m a~n~nama~n~na.m, cittacetasikaa dhammaa cittasamu.t.thaanaana.m ruupaana.m,mahaabhuutaa upaadaaruupaana.m, ruupino dhammaa aruupiina.m dhammaana.m ki~ncikaale sahajaatapaccayena paccayo, ki~ncikaale na sahajaatapaccayena paccayo''ti (pa.t.thaa0 1.1.6). ida.m hadayavatthumeva sandhaaya vutta.m. 59561 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Sat May 20, 2006 5:52pm Subject: Re: Visible object at Cooran / Was Suffering doesn't always announce itself. ken_aitch Hi Phil (RobM and all), -------------- Ph: I think we should be careful about thinking of vipaka from kusala kamma as rewards. -------------- Yes, we would do better to refer to vipaka as the desirable fruits of good deeds and undesirable fruits of bad deeds. That way, there is less danger of imagining a self that is rewarded or punished. ---------------------------- Ph: > There are suttas in SN 35 which make it clear that both agreeable and disagreeable sense objects assail us, are "village raiding dacoits" (though I don't know what a dacoit is) that we are like a sheaf of wheat being thrashed by both pleasant and unpleasant sense objects. All sense experience, whether stemming from kusala or akusala kamma, is to be understood as potentially misleading, seductive, harmful because of our accumulated tendency to respond with unwholesome proliferation, I think. But that's another topic. ---------------------------- Ah yes, thanks for pointing that out. Thinking in terms of rewards can blind us to dukkha, the first noble truth. ------------------------------------------- <. . .> KH: > > I argued that, far from being mere blobs, sense objects came packed with information. > > Ph: > This is my opinion, but when it comes to abhidhamma we should avoid arguing based on what seems reasonable to us based on our experience. Phrases like "it seems to me" or "what I can understand based on my experience" (not that you said that, but in the west that seems to be the way we are expected to approach Dhamma) are doors to proliferating misunderstanding. Because we say "it seems to me" with cittas rooted deeply in ignorance and greed (lobha). All of us, without exception - when compared to the enlightened ones who taught Abhidhamma. ------------------------------------------- Exactly! I wonder if, even in the Buddha's day, there were people who wouldn't shut up and listen. ------------------------------------------------------ Ph: > What do the texts say about this point? I imagine they are fairly explicit. What does the CMA say? Of course, if it is not explicitly laid out, then there will be speculating by us here. But it is dangerous, I think. What our experience tells us *cannot* tell us the truth of abhidhamma. We have to know our limits. ------------------------------------------------------ The nature of sense objects (notably, of visible object) has been a recurring topic at DSG, and a momentous one for many of us. It seems to mark breakthroughs in the way we understand the Dhamma. Currently, the eureka element is lost on me: I can't quite recall the breakthroughs, and I have no firm opinion on how visible object should be understood. Never mind. Courage, patience, and good cheer! :-) -------------------------------------- <. . .> Ph: > But we know that this is not the case, for all six door objects are mentionned, and no particular emphasis is laid on the mental object. The visible object in and of itself is kusala vipaka (vipaka of kusala kamma, to be more exact.) -------------------------------------- No doubt you discussed this with Rob M yesterday. He places emphasis on the mind door processes (as in the Honey-ball Sutta). I agree with you, however: because of conditions, there can be strong attachment (aversion etc.) to paramattha dhammas. (Contemporaneous mind-door attachments to concepts will be among those conditions.) ---------------------------- KH: > > I know it is futile to try to imagine a rupa, such as visible object, > but I think we can understand it as coming packed with information - > not as being nondescript. > > Ph: > I guess we have to if we want to wrap our logical minds around this. But let's do it with care. We are dealing with abhidhamma, a realm of understanding that is beyond our ability to get at with our ignorant, impatient cittas. ---------------------------- I agree. Ken H 59562 From: "robmoult" Date: Sat May 20, 2006 6:15pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A summary of the Teaching ... Taste Your Own Medicine First... robmoult Hi Herman & Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > >Herman: > > > Does the theory, or knowledge of it, lead to Nibbana? Or rephrasing > > >that, does every Arahant know the theory? Or even more precisely, > > >does any Arahant know the theory? And was it the knowledge of the > > >theory that led to Nibbana? > > > Or did the theory come after the attainment? > > > > I am interested in seeing your answers to your own questions ! > > It is inescapable for me from reading the Pitakas historically, (wth a time > line in mind), that the theory proceeded from the realisation, not the other > way around. > ===== Why limit ourselves to a single progression (A -> B or B -> A)? Can theory and practice not be mutually supportive? If we look at the Sangiti Sutta (DN 33) - sorry I don't think that it is on-line - we can see Sarriputta's teaching style as highly theory-based. ===== > A further fact which I am bound by, due to that rational streak, is that the > Sutta period is replete with attainment, and the scholastic period is not. > ===== I am not sure what you mean by "Sutta period" and "scholastic period". Have theory and practice not always co-existed? When He was alive, the Buddha was always available to make a definititive statement as to whether a person had attained a specific level. The Vinaya defines four parijika offenses (defeaters which, if committed, imply that the person is no longer part of the Sangha). The fourth parijika offense is to lie about level of attainment. Given this situation, I am not surprised that after the Buddha's parinibbana, few if any monks claimed levels of attainment based on their own experience. ===== > This suggests to me that the scholastic model - acquisition of right theory > => practice => attainment, is flawed. > ===== Herman, I think that we agree on practice being a requisite for attainment (this is supported by the Suttas, MN 126 among others). Herman, if you are saying that theory does not support your practice, then I am fine with that. However, if you are saying that the idea that theory COULD support practice for some people, then I have a problem with that. In the Sabbasava Sutta (MN 2), the Buddha lists no fewer than seven different approaches to abandoning taints! In the Kimsuka Sutta (SN XXXV.204), the Buddha gave four different practices leading to attainment. If, as you seem to suggest, the approach of using theory as a springboard for practice is unequivocally flawed, then why did the Buddha discuss Dependent Origination? Why did the Buddha praise Sariputta's method of teaching in DN33? Metta, Rob M :-) 59563 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat May 20, 2006 7:13pm Subject: Re: A summary of the Teaching ... Taste Your Own Medicine First... indriyabala Hi Herman (and RobM) - It was a delight for me to see your answers (to your own good questions) ! Thank you 10 times. I am not familiar yet with your way with words (or terminology). Therefore, my comments & questions below may be somewhat clumsy. Please be kinder than Connie. {:->|) >Herman: >It is inescapable for me from reading the Pitakas historically, (with a time line in mind), that the theory proceeded from the realisation, not the other way around. Tep: According to my study of a number of suttas about the Bodhisatta, the theory (I understand this to be the 'bodhipakkiyadhamma') was almost completely developed in the last Bodhisatta's life; the realization just followed the near-complete theory. See for example, MN 19 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn-019-tb0.html >Herman: >A further fact which I am bound by, due to that rational streak, is >that the Sutta period is replete with attainment, and the scholastic >period is not. Tep: How do you define "the scholastic period"? I assume that by "sutta period" you mean the period while the Buddha was alive. If that assumption is correct, then I agree with you that it was the period of great productivity (measured by the number of arahants being "graduated" by the Great Teacher). >Herman: >This suggests to me that the scholastic model - acquisition of right theory => practice => attainment, is flawed. Tep: Theory can be developed while practice is going on. So, should it be a non-linear process that ends at attainment? Warm regards, Tep ===. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > Thank you for the question about my questions :-) > > On 21/05/06, indriyabala wrote: > > > > > > Hi Herman - > > > > You asked good questions : > > > > >Herman: > > > Does the theory, or knowledge of it, lead to Nibbana? Or rephrasing > > >that, does every Arahant know the theory? Or even more precisely, > > >does any Arahant know the theory? And was it the knowledge of the > > >theory that led to Nibbana? > > > Or did the theory come after the attainment? > > > > I am interested in seeing your answers to your own questions ! > > (snipped) 59564 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat May 20, 2006 8:02pm Subject: Re: A summary of the Teaching ... Taste Your Own Medicine First... scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Rob M., and Herman, Please allow me to come into this discussion. I'll try to keep up. Tep: "Theory can be developed while practice is going on. So, should it be a non-linear process that ends at attainment?" What Tep has stated here makes sense to me. I am thinking that the Buddha had to go through rounds of practise which was defining of theory and, in turn, structuring of practise and so on. Is this what "non-linear" might be indicative of? My own experience, albeit limited, has been that the experience came first, then theory came second, and that the practise is following. I needed "theory" to structure my comprehension of experience. Now I have to learn what has been done and what is out there, according to the Buddha's Dhamma, to be ready for further experience. I don't trust my own explanations of things. There just can't be any old "practise," or one I make up myself. Why ignore true and correct "theories" already extant? What do you think? Sincerely, Scott. 59565 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Sat May 20, 2006 8:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Visible object at Cooran / Was Suffering doesn't always announce it... ken_aitch Hi Matheesha, -------- M: We start with thinking filled with avijja. --------- If you will forgive my saying so, that is just another part of the avijja-filled thinking. There is no "we" that starts on the Buddha's path. Anatta must be understood from the beginning. ---------------- M: > We can only learn something outside this if we can stop the thinking, and start being mindful. ----------------- While there is this notion of "we" who can stop one thing and then start another, there is no development of the path. Right understanding is to understand the realities of the present moment. If there is wrong thinking in the present moment then right understanding can know wrong thinking. ---------------------- M: > Insight arises not by more and more conceptualizing, but by stopping the conceptualizing and being aware. ---------------------- Insight (direct understanding) follows on from having the right concept of reality. The right concept of reality is the language of Abhidhamma. Do we know the Abhidhamma language for the precise realities that are arising now? If not, how could we possibly have direct understanding of them? -------------------------------- M: > If all we know is what is inside the box (atta), to think something which is outside the box, we need to get truly outside it, into something new! If we look at the 'world' through yet another layer of concepts, be they right or wrong, there is no direct seeing; we will project our own understanding on to phenomena, without learning from the phenomena, as some people project God onto things which they cant understand any other way. ----------------- Sorry if I am oversimplifying your agrument, but you seem to be advising us to go it alone – without the Dhamma. If that is so, you wouldn't be the first; other meditators have told DSG members to, "Put those musty books away and JUST DO IT!" That is simply not the way it works. Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "matheesha" wrote: > > Hi Howard, Ken > > > H: As I see it, (well founded) concepts are useful shorthands that, > in > > fact, we can't manage without, but they are delusive in the sense > that unless we > > understand them, really understand, and not just adopt a > > belief-understanding, as only shorthands for complex networks of > actualties and not for the > > entities they seem to be (or to refer to), we are fooled by them - we > are taken in. > > 59566 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 20, 2006 8:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A summary of the Teaching ... Taste Your Own Medicine First... egberdina Hi RobM and Tep, On 21/05/06, robmoult wrote: > > Hi Herman & Tep, > > > > > It is inescapable for me from reading the Pitakas historically, > (wth a time > > line in mind), that the theory proceeded from the realisation, not > the other > > way around. > > > ===== > > Why limit ourselves to a single progression (A -> B or B -> A)? Can > theory and practice not be mutually supportive? If we look at the > Sangiti Sutta (DN 33) - sorry I don't think that it is on-line - we > can see Sarriputta's teaching style as highly theory-based. There is a Sangiti Sutta in the online Ida Wells Memorial Library. It is delivered by Sariputta and, yes, a highly synoptic summary of the Teachings. So I will presume this is the one you meant. DN33 contains the Buddha's appraisal of Sariputta's dalogue thus: "Good, Good, Shariputra, well indeed have you proclaimed the way of chanting together for the monks." I do not think this is the point you want to make? ===== > > > A further fact which I am bound by, due to that rational streak, is > that the > > Sutta period is replete with attainment, and the scholastic period > is not. > > > ===== > > I am not sure what you mean by "Sutta period" and "scholastic > period". Have theory and practice not always co-existed? By Sutta period I mean the period in which the living, oral "tradition" was not yet a tradition. By the scholastic period I mean that period after the parinibbana of the Buddha, when compilation/analysis/paralysis (thanks Eric) was the order of the day. I'm sure that theory and practice have always co-existed, but that does not translate to Abhidhamma and oral suttas being from the same time period. The higher teaching was well delivered to Anathapindika on his deathbed MN143. Had the Abhidhamma been recited to him instead, the poor fellow would have died before the end of the matika. When He was alive, the Buddha was always available to make a > definititive statement as to whether a person had attained a specific > level. The Vinaya defines four parijika offenses (defeaters which, if > committed, imply that the person is no longer part of the Sangha). > The fourth parijika offense is to lie about level of attainment. > Given this situation, I am not surprised that after the Buddha's > parinibbana, few if any monks claimed levels of attainment based on > their own experience. I don't understand the reasoning. Because there was noone to validate a claim, claims were no longer made? And is it a lesser offence to make claims as to "x means y", without really knowing that? ===== > > > This suggests to me that the scholastic model - acquisition of > right theory > > => practice => attainment, is flawed. > > > ===== > > Herman, I think that we agree on practice being a requisite for > attainment (this is supported by the Suttas, MN 126 among others). Yes. Herman, if you are saying that theory does not support your practice, > then I am fine with that. However, if you are saying that the idea > that theory COULD support practice for some people, then I have a > problem with that. If people say that the study of the Abhidhamma and/or its commentaries supports their practice, then I am certainly not in a position to deny or validate that. In the Sabbasava Sutta (MN 2), the Buddha lists no fewer than seven > different approaches to abandoning taints! In the Kimsuka Sutta (SN > XXXV.204), the Buddha gave four different practices leading to > attainment. From MN02 "There are fermentations to be abandoned by seeing, those to be abandoned by restraining, those to be abandoned by using, those to be abandoned by tolerating, those to be abandoned by avoiding, those to be abandoned by destroying, and those to be abandoned by developing." Nowhere in the elaboration of the above seven is there a reference to a compilation of all that the Buddha has ever said, an analysis of it, a commentary on it. Let alone an expansion on it. I'm sorry, Rob, but I see no support for an academic approach as a springboard to enlightenment in the suttas If, as you seem to suggest, the approach of using theory as a > springboard for practice is unequivocally flawed, then why did the > Buddha discuss Dependent Origination? Why did the Buddha praise > Sariputta's method of teaching in DN33? Is DO theory? Isn't it happening right here, right now? I've already commented on what the Buddha said about DN33. Kind Regards Herman 59567 From: "robmoult" Date: Sat May 20, 2006 8:36pm Subject: Re: A summary of the Teaching ... Taste Your Own Medicine First... robmoult Hi Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > Tep: "Theory can be developed while practice is going on. So, should > it be a non-linear process that ends at attainment?" > > What Tep has stated here makes sense to me. I am thinking that the > Buddha had to go through rounds of practise which was defining of > theory and, in turn, structuring of practise and so on. Is this what > "non-linear" might be indicative of? > > My own experience, albeit limited, has been that the experience came > first, then theory came second, and that the practise is following. I > needed "theory" to structure my comprehension of experience. Now I > have to learn what has been done and what is out there, according to > the Buddha's Dhamma, to be ready for further experience. I don't > trust my own explanations of things. There just can't be any old > "practise," or one I make up myself. Why ignore true and correct > "theories" already extant? > ===== I agree with you that theory and practice can be (and I would even go so far as to say "should be") complementary. Perhaps the problem is that we are using incredibly broad terms, "theory" and "practice". Separating mental states into "wholesome" and "unwholesome" as the Buddha did in MN19 (thanks for the reference, Tep) can be considered an application of theory. At the other extreme, it is hard to see how memorizing the sequence of cittas involved in the attainment process can complement any kind of practice. Metta, Rob M :-) PS: Scott, I understand that you are a Canadian (I am too). I met with Phil for dinner last night and, can you believe it, we chatted for a few hours without the subject of hockey coming up once!!! :-) 59568 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 20, 2006 4:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Visible object at Cooran / Was Suffering doesn't always announce it... upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Matheesha) - In a message dated 5/20/06 11:11:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > Hi Matheesha, > > -------- > M: We start with thinking filled with avijja. > --------- > > If you will forgive my saying so, that is just another part of the > avijja-filled thinking. There is no "we" that starts on the Buddha's > path. Anatta must be understood from the beginning. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Ken, that's how people talk - even though there are no "people". That's how the Buddha talked - even though there never was a "Buddha"! ------------------------------------------ > > ---------------- > M: >We can only learn something outside this if we can stop the > thinking, and start being mindful. > ----------------- > > While there is this notion of "we" who can stop one thing and then > start another, there is no development of the path. Right > understanding is to understand the realities of the present moment. > If there is wrong thinking in the present moment then right > understanding can know wrong thinking. > > ---------------------- > M: > Insight arises not by more and more conceptualizing, but by > stopping the conceptualizing and being aware. > ---------------------- > > Insight (direct understanding) follows on from having the right > concept of reality. The right concept of reality is the language of > Abhidhamma. Do we know the Abhidhamma language for the precise > realities that are arising now? If not, how could we possibly have > direct understanding of them? ---------------------------------------- Howard: Whoops! What did you say, Ken? "Do WE know the Abhidhamma language for the precise realities that are arising now? If not, how could WE possibly have direct understanding of them?" Why, Ken: If you will forgive my saying so, that is just another part of the avijja-filled thinking. There is no "we" who knows Abhidhamma language for anything or who has direct understanding of anything! For that matter, Ken, there is no Abhidhamma - it is pa~n~natti!! My point? It is that when a discussion starts to involve dismissing what folks say because they use words like 'we', 'me', 'I', and 'you' that is the point of the discussion starting to go nowhere. Such dismissals are poor substitutes for genuine argumentation. ----------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------- > M: >If all we know is what is > inside the box (atta), to think something which is outside the box, we > need to get truly outside it, into something new! > > If we look at the 'world' through yet another layer of concepts, be > they right or wrong, there is no direct seeing; we will project our > own > understanding on to phenomena, without learning from the phenomena, as > some people project God onto things which they cant understand any > other way. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Concept, layer, right, wrong, project, things, they, way: All concepts, Ken. Could you try to restate that without using concepts? I think not. -------------------------------------------- > ----------------- > > Sorry if I am oversimplifying your agrument, but you seem to be > advising us to go it alone – without the Dhamma. If that is so, you > wouldn't be the first; other meditators have told DSG members > to, "Put those musty books away and JUST DO IT!" > > That is simply not the way it works. > > Ken H > > ======================= 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) 59569 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat May 20, 2006 8:58pm Subject: Re: A summary of the Teaching ... Taste Your Own Medicine First... scottduncan2 Dear Rob M., Another Canuck! DSG must be thrilled with us! R: "Perhaps the problem is that we are using incredibly broad terms, "theory" and "practice". Separating mental states into "wholesome" and "unwholesome" as the Buddha did in MN19 (thanks for the reference, Tep) can be considered an application of theory. At the other extreme, it is hard to see how memorizing the sequence of cittas involved in the attainment process can complement any kind of practice." Yes, I think you're correct about the problem of too broad a definitional base for the terms. Can we take a stab at defining these terms? R: "PS: Scott, I understand that you are a Canadian (I am too). I met with Phil for dinner last night and, can you believe it, we chatted for a few hours without the subject of hockey coming up once!!!" Just goes to show that no one can force the arising of dhammas when conditions aren't right - even when one would think that all was in place. Beautiful! Herman, by the way, knows the proper sequence of the slapshot from the Abhidhamma perspective. 59570 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 20, 2006 9:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A summary of the Teaching ... Taste Your Own Medicine First... egberdina Hi Tep, On 21/05/06, indriyabala wrote: > > > Hi Herman (and RobM) - > > It was a delight for me to see your answers (to your own good > questions) ! Thank you 10 times. > > I am not familiar yet with your way with words (or terminology). > Therefore, my comments & questions below may be somewhat clumsy. > Please be kinder than Connie. {:->|) > > >Herman: > >It is inescapable for me from reading the Pitakas historically, (with > a time line in mind), that the theory proceeded from the realisation, > not the other way around. > > Tep: According to my study of a number of suttas about the Bodhisatta, > the theory (I understand this to be the 'bodhipakkiyadhamma') was > almost completely developed in the last Bodhisatta's life; the > realization just followed the near-complete theory. > See for example, MN 19 > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn-019-tb0.html > > >Herman: > >A further fact which I am bound by, due to that rational streak, is > >that the Sutta period is replete with attainment, and the scholastic > >period is not. > > Tep: How do you define "the scholastic period"? I assume that by > "sutta period" you mean the period while the Buddha was alive. If that > assumption is correct, then I agree with you that it was the period of > great productivity (measured by the number of arahants being > "graduated" by the Great Teacher). The scholastic period was the period when the tradition was the only thing there was to fall back on. That period is all about rules, regulations and dogma, not a living breath in it. I do not think the Buddha's Teaching is lacking, and I do think that the Middle Path does lead to many graduates. >Herman: > >This suggests to me that the scholastic model - acquisition of right > theory => practice => attainment, is flawed. > > Tep: Theory can be developed while practice is going on. So, should it > be a non-linear process that ends at attainment? I see no mention of Right Theory in the Middle Noble Path. The reality is that we are theory-laden, but ignorant of it. We do not need to acquire Right Theory, we need to loose Wrong Theory. How? The way I see it, mindfulness is not a theory, it is a doing. What does it do? It prevents theory building, and discerns and demolishes pre-existing theories. Theories like I am, I was, I will be, or I need a theory of mindfulness before there can be mindfulness :-) I don't know anything about non-linear or linear processes that wouldn't be theorising :-) Kind Regards Herman 59571 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 20, 2006 9:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A summary of the Teaching ... Taste Your Own Medicine First... egberdina Hi Scott, > My own experience, albeit limited, has been that the experience came > first, then theory came second, and that the practise is following. I > needed "theory" to structure my comprehension of experience. Now I > have to learn what has been done and what is out there, according to > the Buddha's Dhamma, to be ready for further experience. I don't > trust my own explanations of things. There just can't be any old > "practise," or one I make up myself. Why ignore true and correct > "theories" already extant? > > What do you think? Do you think there is any other practice than mindfulness, and do you think mindfulness requires a theory, any theory? Kind Regards Herman 59572 From: "robmoult" Date: Sat May 20, 2006 9:22pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A summary of the Teaching ... Taste Your Own Medicine First... robmoult Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > ===== > > > > Why limit ourselves to a single progression (A -> B or B -> A)? Can > > theory and practice not be mutually supportive? If we look at the > > Sangiti Sutta (DN 33) - sorry I don't think that it is on-line - we > > can see Sarriputta's teaching style as highly theory-based. > > > There is a Sangiti Sutta in the online Ida Wells Memorial Library. It is > delivered by Sariputta and, yes, a highly synoptic summary of the Teachings. > So I will presume this is the one you meant. ===== Wow!!! A new source of on-line Suttas! I have bookmarked it as one of my favourites. Thank you, thank you, thank you! ===== > > DN33 contains the Buddha's appraisal of Sariputta's dalogue thus: "Good, > Good, Shariputra, well indeed have you proclaimed the way of chanting > together for the monks." > > I do not think this is the point you want to make? > ===== Yup, this Sutta shows that Sariputta's approach to teaching the Dhamma involved a degree of theory (memorizing lists). ===== > ===== > > By Sutta period I mean the period in which the living, oral "tradition" was > not yet a tradition. By the scholastic period I mean that period after the > parinibbana of the Buddha, when compilation/analysis/paralysis (thanks Eric) > was the order of the day. I'm sure that theory and practice have always > co-existed, but that does not translate to Abhidhamma and oral suttas being > from the same time period. The higher teaching was well delivered to > Anathapindika on his deathbed MN143. Had the Abhidhamma been recited to him > instead, the poor fellow would have died before the end of the matika. > ===== Whoa!!! I am glad that we agree that theory and practice have always co-existed (and I assume that you agree that they can be mutually supportive). I am not clear how this links to the Abhidhamma and the oral tradition being (or not being) from the same time period. In this whole discussion, I have only ever quoted from the suttas, never from the Abhidhamma. Well, I guess that this is not 100% true. My original post (the one that we have digressed from) did reference the Abhidhamma and commentaries. Obvioulsy, it was good that a strategic talk was given to Anathapindika on his death-bed. And it was Sariputta who delivered it... :-) :-) ===== > > When He was alive, the Buddha was always available to make a > > definititive statement as to whether a person had attained a specific > > level. The Vinaya defines four parijika offenses (defeaters which, if > > committed, imply that the person is no longer part of the Sangha). > > The fourth parijika offense is to lie about level of attainment. > > Given this situation, I am not surprised that after the Buddha's > > parinibbana, few if any monks claimed levels of attainment based on > > their own experience. > > > I don't understand the reasoning. Because there was noone to validate a > claim, claims were no longer made? And is it a lesser offence to make claims > as to "x means y", without really knowing that? > ===== Imagine that you were a monk after the Buddha's parinibbana. If you claim a level of attainment such as "I am a Sotapanna", you risk expulsion from the Sangha (if other monks do not believe you) or you risk becoming an object of veneration (if other monks do believe you). Neither are good. Better to keep your mouth shut. In any case, who is to judge if you are telling the truth or not. Altogether a really messy situation. I have never heard of any Theravada monk claiming any level of attainment. I have heard lay followers attribute levels of attainment to their favourite monks. After the monk dies, I have heard people attribute attainment to them. But this falls into the realm of folklore. ===== > Herman, if you are saying that theory does not support your practice, > > then I am fine with that. However, if you are saying that the idea > > that theory COULD support practice for some people, then I have a > > problem with that. > > > If people say that the study of the Abhidhamma and/or its commentaries > supports their practice, then I am certainly not in a position to deny or > validate that. ==== You are introducing the Abhidhamma and its commentaries again :-) But at least you are not denying that they MIGHT be useful for some people :-) ===== > > > In the Sabbasava Sutta (MN 2), the Buddha lists no fewer than seven > > different approaches to abandoning taints! In the Kimsuka Sutta (SN > > XXXV.204), the Buddha gave four different practices leading to > > attainment. > Nowhere in the elaboration of the above seven is there a reference to a > compilation of all that the Buddha has ever said, an analysis of it, a > commentary on it. Let alone an expansion on it. I'm sorry, Rob, but I see no > support for an academic approach as a springboard to enlightenment in the > suttas ===== Huh? Why does "theory" have to be "a compilation of all that the Buddha has ever said, an analysis of it, a commentary on it"? In my definition of "theory", when the Buddha came up with a system of classifying his thoughts (as He did in MN19), this is included in "theory". In my definition of "theory", when the Buddha discusses Dependent Origination, this is included in my defintion of "theory". Certainly, when Sariputta led the recitation of the lists in DN33, this too is included in my defintion of "theory". ===== > > If, as you seem to suggest, the approach of using theory as a > > springboard for practice is unequivocally flawed, then why did the > > Buddha discuss Dependent Origination? Why did the Buddha praise > > Sariputta's method of teaching in DN33? > > Is DO theory? Isn't it happening right here, right now? I've already > commented on what the Buddha said about DN33. > ===== I would say that (using my definitions), DO is pure theory. DO is a model, a representation that aids in understanding the big picture. There is no strategic aspect to DO. The listing of the factors of DO does not tell you the techniques to be used to break the chain. Metta, Rob M :-) 59573 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 20, 2006 9:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Visible object at Cooran / Was Suffering doesn't always announce it... egberdina Hi KenH, On 21/05/06, ken_aitch wrote: > > Hi Matheesha, > > -------- > M: We start with thinking filled with avijja. > --------- > > If you will forgive my saying so, that is just another part of the > avijja-filled thinking. There is no "we" that starts on the Buddha's > path. Anatta must be understood from the beginning. I could find no greater testimony to a realistion of anatta, then an easy entrance into jhana. Is there a greater impediment to jhana than the "controlling I", unwilling to renounce its grip on the sensual world? Perhaps a book about anatta can be judged by its jhana, or lack of it? Kind Regards Herman 59574 From: "kelvin_lwin" Date: Sat May 20, 2006 11:27pm Subject: Re: Understanding .. realities/'realities'... that's the way it is? kelvin_lwin Hi Tep, > same time, Kel. Now can you answer my earlier question about the "why" > (from the perspective of an electrical engineer)? I hope you won't say > "that's the way it is". Kel: I don't really know besides from what I've been taught though it seems to make sense to me. I might venture to guess one object is all that is required to have a fully functional mind. If you look at classic CS theory, Turing machines, one tape of symbols is as expressive as arbitary number of tape (inputs). Another way to say that is they have the same abilities. I would also say if there are multiple objects then it might be impossible to concentrate on one because you can't distinguish among the objects. - Kel 59575 From: "kelvin_lwin" Date: Sat May 20, 2006 11:41pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Understanding dhammas, understanding realities/'realities' kelvin_lwin Hi Herman, > Recently Howard and I discussed binaural beats (two slightly different > sounds in each ear creating a third, mind-made, sound). Are you saying that > the two different sounds are not heard at the same time, one from each ear? Kel: I don't think they have to be heard at the same time to produce a 3rd one. As the identification happens over several processes and the source is duplicated. No reason two sources can't be superimposed before it is recognized. - Kel 59576 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun May 21, 2006 1:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should, training, free will etc. nilovg Hi Howard, op 20-05-2006 17:43 schreef upasaka@... op upasaka@...: >>> ------------------------------------ >> N: Yes, I understand why you say this: it is according to phenomenology. >> Let us say, thinking is naama, it is an experience. Or, you would say, an >> experiencing. >> > ======================== > No, it's not the phenomenalism. It's a matter of not reifying, and a > matter of not conceiving of an agent or doer. There is doing but no doer. ------- N: I agree. But, if we deeply consider the nature of citta we can understand, at least intellectually, that there cannot be a doer, no person or thing which acts. Each citta performs a function (in Paali kicca), but it falls away extremely rapidly, and thus it should not be taken for a person who exists. Considering this excludes reifying. We should not move away from the Paali and the original meanings the ancients gave us. Naama is derived from naamati, to bend. Naama bends towards an object, it experiences an object. Citta and cetasikas are naama. Citta, this is connected with the word cinteti, to think. Citta *thinks* of an object, it clearly knows an object. It is the chief in knowing an object and the cetasikas share the same object while they perform each their own function. No reifying, they fall away immediately. There is activity, but no actor. Cittas and cetasikas have their own characteristic, function, manifestation and proximate cause. Seeing performs the function of seeing, it experiences visible object. No need to be afraid of reifying. We believe that cittas last, but we can consider more proximity-condition (anantara-paccaya): each citta that falls away is immediately succeeded by the following citta, without any interval. Since this happens extremely rapidly it seems that citta lasts. Through the development of insight the arising and falling away is realised and then we shall have more understanding of this condition. Also ruupas perform functions, the four great elements are supporting and assisting the derived ruupas. A quote from 'A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas': ***** Nina. 59577 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun May 21, 2006 2:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A summary of the Teaching . link to sangitisutta. nilovg Hi Herman, please could you give me the link? Thanks, Nina. op 21-05-2006 05:25 schreef Herman Hofman op hhofmeister@...: > There is a Sangiti Sutta in the online Ida Wells Memorial Library. 59578 From: "robmoult" Date: Sun May 21, 2006 3:03am Subject: [dsg] Re: A summary of the Teaching . link to sangitisutta. robmoult Hi Nina, http://www.buddhistinformation.com/ida_b_wells_memorial_sutra_library/#S Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > > Hi Herman, > please could you give me the link? > Thanks, > Nina. > op 21-05-2006 05:25 schreef Herman Hofman op hhofmeister@...: > > > There is a Sangiti Sutta in the online Ida Wells Memorial Library. > 59579 From: "Phil" Date: Sun May 21, 2006 3:34am Subject: Dinner with Rob philofillet Hi all (Steve see *) Lovely seeing Rob last night. We talk a good long while. I have to go and cook now and tomorrow I won't be able to post so let me just note a few points. - The big one was the visible object question - in all those suttas in which it is said form, sound, taste, smell, touch and mental object lead to unwholesome states and what not, how could a blob of colour as visible object in itself be the thing that triggers the unwholesome proliferation. Rob told me that the "form" of these suttas can indeed be taken to be "flash of thigh" for example. He said that the notion of blobs of colour, for example, being assembled by many mind door processes into "thigh" or whatever is a recent notion, and showed me a passage from the Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma in which Bhikkhu Bodhi attributes it to Ledi Sayadaw from only 100 years go. So this of course went against what I had thought but these days I am not feeling inclined to fret about figuring things out, so that's OK. I told him that I thought I had seen references in BB's commentarial notes showing the building of concept from visible object, in the SN 35 section I thought, but when I got home and had a quick look I couldn't find any - but I hardly looked at all. So that's interesting. I think whether we take "form" in those suttas as blob of colour that leads to "mental object" being flash of thigh (which is my understanding and which I will carry on with because I am not inclined to shift tracks at this point) or flash of thigh as the form itself, the most important thing is that we know guarding of sense doors and wise attention can arise and keep us from unwholesome proliferation. * Steve, thanks for the textual material you posted on this point the other day. And thanks to others who posted. (BTW, we were at the Hilton Hotel, very posh for me, and for about the last hour we were talking there was an INCREDIBLY BEAUTIFUL WOMAN visible over Rob's shoulder. I didn't say anything because I thought it would be incredibly uncool during a Dhamma Talk but man, was she ever beautiful - she might have been a movie star or super model. I didn't ahve time to figure out if she was form or a concept formed by multiple mind door processes - I lean toward the latter. I should have asked her...) - We also talked about metta. I told Rob that I was feeling worried because Naomi was holding her first aromatherapy workshop that day and had come down with my cold. I was worried about her. Could it be metta when one's loved person is involved. I figured not, there is too much attachment. Rob told me about a metta teacher in Kuala Lumpur who teaches about a very interesting notion - if, for example, one is having a stressful situation at home with one's spouse, for example, instead of generating metta for her, one could generate metta for all the beings in the house, ie the devas. Then the house would be kind of pervaded with a metta energy that everyone would benefit from. He reminded me about the story behind the metta sutta, when the devas were pissed off at being uprooted from their tree homes when the monks arrived to meditate, and the Buddha taught the monks metta meditation to placate the irate devas. As you may know, I often talk about my resistance to the notion of intentional metta but sitting face to face with a human being (with an incredibly beautiful woman over his shoulder) it is much easier to relax about one's strictness re dhamma and I thought it sounded very good. - what else was there...hmm. the relation between d.o and citta processes that Rob laid out in his thread... - I'm drawning a blank at the moment. I told Rob that these days I am finding my attention drawn much more often to my story writing and the Japanese study that is inolved in it. I reflected on that time about two years ago when I joined DSG (three?) when I was so obsessed with Dhamma that I couldn't think of anything else. It feels right now to have my attention drawn to worldly concerns because, well, anyways, it feels right and I'm not concerned whatsover that I am not feeling inclined to study Dhamma these days. All in it's time, there is a season for this and a season for that. On other occasions after having a Dhamma talk I thought about it all the way home but in this case I was back to the Japanese stories I have in my i-pod now, gradually pushing the Acharn Sujin talks onto the backburner. That's cool. All in due course. Anyways, it was great to see Rob again and there will be more opportunities since he will be coming to Tokyo quite often for work. Phil 59580 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Sun May 21, 2006 3:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Visible object at Cooran / Was Suffering doesn't always announce it... ken_aitch Hi Howard, I am grateful whenever friends point out to me that I have been interpreting the Dhamma in terms of sentient beings and courses of action rather than in terms of dhammas and conditionality. When I see others making the same mistake, I, in turn, try to point that out to them. --------------- KH: > > If you will forgive my saying so, that is just another part of the > avijja-filled thinking. There is no "we" that starts on the Buddha's > path. Anatta must be understood from the beginning. Howard: > Ken, that's how people talk - even though there are no "people". That's how the Buddha talked - even though there never was a "Buddha"! ----------------- It might be how people talk, but it is not how a Dhamma student understands. Matheesha was describing a practice that involved a series of steps. Such a practice could never be consistent with the Dhamma. According to the Dhamma there is the eye, eye consciousness, eye object, eye contact and feeling, or there is the ear, ear consciousness, ear object . . . and so on for each of the six worlds. That is all. There is no reality known as a series of steps. When we fail to see this, we also fail to see there is no being that continues from step to step (moment to moment, world to world, past to future). ----------------------------- <. . .> H: > My point? It is that when a discussion starts to involve dismissing what folks say because they use words like 'we', 'me', 'I', and 'you' that is the point of the discussion starting to go nowhere. Such dismissals are poor substitutes for genuine argumentation. --------------------- You interpret my arguments as offhand dismissals, and, quite possibly, Matheesha interprets them that way too. But they aren't and I am glad to know the difference. Ken H 59581 From: "Sukinder" Date: Sun May 21, 2006 4:17am Subject: Herman [dsg] Re: Please don't run away yet, DAN 1.ii sukinderpal Hi Herman, ======================== > > > 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. > I choose not to elaborate, because I thought I was up against a brick wall, > and would be wasting my time. It is a bit silly to think of the above quote > in terms of poetic effect. Ss: I thought over the use of `poetic', but nothing else came to mind. Comparisons and laying down words in a particular way is done for the reason that a straight forward description may not be as effective. Anyway, now to the comparison with a `brick wall'. This must have come up after you read my response? I think I understand what it must feel like. I realize the difficulty of getting one's point across, especially to someone with a different understanding of things. And our accumulated akusala also, is so much in the way. So Herman, I write this response, but you may if you wish, not respond to it. I won't have any expectations. ================= Herman: It comes from the Bible and was written at least > 2200-2400 years ago. I can, but won't, quote you 20 different translations, > they will all be different in some aspect. I can quote you the various Latin > and Hebrew versions that preceded the English versions. But of course it is > not about which words are used, or the sequence of the words, or how closely > they match the "original". It is about their meaning. And that meaning is > not in the words. It is in the understanding. The way I understand these > little verses is as statements of the cyclic nature of existence, and the > impossibility of finding satisfaction in it. Ss: Was that so hard? You could have saved me those moments of being in the dark. ;-) But of course it is all a matter of conditions. This reminds me of the time I was interested in Taoist teachings. I acquired six different translations of the Tao Teh Ching because I liked it a lot and was looking for better and better translation. Now you can probably see why I thought in terms of word effect. ==================== > > Suk: No 'Buddhist'. The Buddha's Teachings is for anyone, anywhere to > > understand if they can. And this can be much or little, so I wouldn't know, > > nor need to label anyone Buddhist. Whether or not those of us who study the > > Dhamma *know* suffering, I think you have an idea already. However knowing > > it at the level I do, I don't think that outside the Buddha's Teachings, > > there are any descriptions of Suffering which coincide with Dukkha of the > > 4NT. The concept of Suffering outside of Dhamma does not lead to direct > > realization of Dukkha in any form. Herman: > Well, I disagree. And I think that the various reasonings that some > Buddhists have about anyone that shows any understanding of reality "must > have heard the Dhamma in a previous life" are immature and tribal. Ss: Well, you are probably taking such statements in isolation. You surely must have heard us talk extensively about the endless cycle of birth and death, about accumulated kamma, about accumulated views, accumulated talents and inclinations. All this points to the same principle of citta accumulating from moment to moment whatever the experience, and the understanding that at anytime any set of conditions could trigger any of these accumulated tendencies by way of natural decisive support condition, to arise. It is with this same kind of understanding that the above statement is sometimes made. I wonder what you use to judge this as being `immature and tribal'. The latter is an expression of strong self view, are you saying that the above stems from this kind of identifying? ==================== > The 4 NTs are Ariyan Truths, whereas other religions are teachings of > > 'worldlings'. Herman: > Good! Buddhism as religion is as devoid of understanding the 4NT as any > other religion whose main purpose is, in the words of those famous > philosophers, the BeeGees, "ah ah ah ah staying alive staying alive". Ss: The reference to "Ariyan" Truth is about "Truth *enlightened* to" and subsequently taught about to everyone else. It is not saying that only an Ariyan will understand the Teachings. The rest of us will understand it at the level we are capable of, starting with intellectual right understanding, and some would even become enlightened instantly. In the case of the famous philosophers such as, Bee Gees, Jim Morrison and Plato, what they teach is from unenlightened experiences, and so those who follow them will only go further down into the realm of wrong view. =========================== > > or intellectual analyses even by a team of the best minds taking the best > > part out of it, can anything close to Dhamma come out. If indeed there has > > been any plagiarism, sooner or later contradictions will emerge. > Herman: > I don't think I need to point to the enormous diversity of views that come > under the "Buddhist" umbrella. I am not trying to divide and conquer. But > assumptions of unity of Buddhist view are ill-founded. Right Understanding > can only be considered to have been in place when the goal is reached. Ss: And I don't think that I need to tell you that I'd be happy to not be associated with those other Buddhists. ;-) And now I have narrowed down your target, but does that make it easier for you or harder? ;-) To reach any goal one must start the journey at some point. And obviously not everyone will reach their projected goal, only those who are facing the right direction. And it is a reference to this that "right understanding" is often used by some of us. It is "right" by virtue of being the right beginning steps. ======================== > Also in the case of one who has heard the Dhamma, this understanding is not > > got from intellectually breaking down the concept of 'self' into component > > parts, such as, this is feeling, this is perception; this is form and so > > on. > > > > > > I think the understanding comes from the 'application' on to the > > experience, > > "NOW". > Herman: > That makes sense to me. But if I understand the views of the dsg core > correctly, this application must conform to certain rigourous requirements. > It is not allowed to be accompanied by any knowing that it is going to be > applied, because then it wouldn't be anatta anymore. Is that right? Ss: It would be just a reaction to a `thought' and not the perception of any arisen `reality'. ===================== > That is when it begins to develop. If there is any idea about another > > place and time for 'observing', then it is not happening. And by the time > > we do make any observation, it will only be a story *about* impersonal > > phenomena and not about anatta and conditionality. > > > > I believe, that it is this kind of application which is the precursor to > > direct experience, even if this would then still be far from direct > > experience of the three characteristics, hence truly understanding anatta. Herman: > I understand what you are saying. But I see a major difference between an > idea of another time and place of observation, and reading and writing and > studying. The first is quite natural and unforced, the other is totally > unnatural and very forced. The idea that there is the possibility of > progression from the unnatural and forced intellectual digestion of concepts > to an understandlingless understanding of anatta is without foundation in > reality, IMHO. Ss: :-) I have just the opposite perception. We in this day and age have developed the habit of seeking knowledge from books and discussions. But more importantly, it makes perfect sense that, as one who is sincerely seeking answers, one `lends ear' to words of the wise, and never be too conceited to think that we have had enough of it. Besides, I see no other activity more worthwhile than discussions with wise friends, as being opportunity for one's views to be aired and challenged. On the other hand, any idea of a particular time, place and posture is something we have acquired through reading about them. We then seek to "follow" the idea, blindly or reasoned and considered. This seems more unnatural to me! ====================== > > Suk: Are you saying that since I understand all this only at the > > intellectual level, that I am not qualified to prove other religions > > wrong? Herman: > Proving things wrong sounds like an intellectual exercise to me. I'm > thinking that if there was a twinkle of experiential understanding, there > would be a recognition in conversation with others of any persuasion, that > they too have a twinkle of experiential understanding when that is apparent. Ss: Yes, no need to try to prove anything right or wrong. Regarding experiential understanding, I think a difference is made when for example there is knowing moments with sati from those without. And though this makes a substantial difference to one's confidence and understanding about the practice, we would be expressing ourselves more or less the same as before with regard to everything else. I think we would be deluding ourselves if we thought that we had anything much more than "experience of ideas". Talking then about `twinkle of experiential understanding', I find myself for example, agreeing with almost everything Sarah, Jon, Nina, Rob K, Ken H and Phil amongst others say, whereas very little with the rest of the others, `you know who all'. And besides, I used to have the same feeling of agreement when reading for example the Tao Teh Ching, but not anymore. So really, we can't be so sure can we? =========================== Herman: > The greatest tribute you can pay to the Buddha is to realise what he says. > But if you say to him, before I can realise what you are saying I have to > study the Abhidhamma and what Buddhagosa has to say about it, you are not > paying him much of a compliment. More like an insult, if he was sensitive > :-) Ss: He would know exactly how best to express his understandings to me. And who knows, this might even turn out to be quite like the way it is in the Abhidhamma and commentaries. :-) I think the reliance on these is admitting to one's inability to gain a similar understanding from reading the Suttas without guidance and help. It is in fact admitting at the same time, that one's level of understanding is way, way below those who were the Buddha's direct audience and to the fact that the Dhamma the Buddha enlightened to, is deep and very hard to comprehend. The best help of course would have been the Buddha himself expressing words most suited to us. However, in the absence of this, we then look up to those disciples of his who are more informed and who seem to have taken into account a more general audience. Either way, in the end it is still the Buddha who gets all the credit. Unless of course, one insists on looking at the matter from the perspective you have. ;-) It is also possible if you note, to come up with a reasoning that sees the disregard of the commentaries as reflection of not giving enough credit to the Buddha! ;-) ========================= > > It makes sense to me that out of all the experiences, the sense door > > experiences of seeing, hearing etc. and Birth and Death are *results* of > > something. And of all the possible candidates for the *cause* of these, > > "intention" is the one that stands out. This I believe, is another great > > discovery by the Buddha, and is far superior to the Hindu and Jain > > understanding of the same. > > > > Again, this points to the experience "now" and therefore any religion or > > philosophy which does not teach this, cannot be said to know anatta, > > conditionality or the 4 NT. Herman: > I have mentioned before the saying "As you sow, so shall you reap". Do you > want a commentary on that one too :-) Ss: No need. But I have explained elsewhere, that such conclusions do not necessarily reflect knowledge of dhammas to which cause-effect actually applies. Anyone who has an idea of valuing one thing over another, will have to consider the causes and conditions whereby the one might be encouraged and the other not. And I believe that conventional reality provides hints and intimations of what does in fact happen at the paramattha level and so any keen observer can see some relations there. The problem is, not understanding conventional reality to be just that, but instead taking it to be real and spinning theories about it to all possible directions, including ones that lead up to the idea of `GOD'. ;-) ======================== > > Suk: You mean to say that if I was told that 23,472 people in the last > > hundred years got enlightened from studying the Abhidhamma, "saddha" would > > arise, and that I would then follow and begin to "understand" the > > Abhidhamma? Herman: > Why do you think the people had confidence in the Buddha? Was it because > they had no expectations, and he promised them nothing, and they got nowhere > and therefore he was right? Ss: The Buddha's own presence has a great but different effect on one's Saddha. I doubt though that he would have attempted to inspire by giving figures. ;-) Even if I were to meet 500 arahattas who I *truly* believed to have been enlightened, in the end it would still be any steps that I would have taken. These steps are taken ultimately by panna as leader of other dhammas. And with every step taken, Saddha also deepens. ======================= Herman: > How about confidence in this, because it was borne out everywhere you cared > to look? > > "Indeed, bhikkhus, whosoever practises these four satipatthanas in this > manner for seven years, one of two results is to be expected in him: > Arahatship in this very existence, or if there yet be any trace of clinging, > the state of an Anagami. > > Let alone seven years, bhikkhus, whosoever practises these four > satipatthanas in this manner for six years, five years, four years, three > years, two years, or one year. > > Let alone one year, bhikkhus, whosoever practises these four satipatthanas > in this manner for seven months, one of two results is to be expected in > him: Arahatship in this very existence, or if there yet be any trace of > clinging, the state of an Anagami. > > Let alone seven months, bhikkhus, whosoever practises these four > satipatthanas in this manner for six months, five months, four months, three > months, two months, one month, or half a month. > > Let alone half a month, bhikkhus, whosoever practises these four > satipatthanas in this manner for seven days, one of two results is to be > expected in him: Arahatship in this very existence or if there yet be any > trace of clinging, the state of an Anagami." > > If you are inclined to reply to this with the standard line about > accumulations, please don't harm yourself and just refrain from doing so. Ss: Why? `Accumulation' is too vague and abstract? In the end it boils down to causes and conditions. And if you agree about the anattaness of dhammas, that one can't make sati arise by will, then why not read the above sutta as descriptive of where and when such conditions may arise? Why must you insist on its universal application in terms of "persons performing particular set of conventional actions" and any intention associated? Is it because you believe in some great power in "willing"? Is it because you refuse to accept that the Buddha's teachings is not limited to this *one* lifetime, for else what use is it? I am not asking for answers of course, so please don't feel obliged to reply. Metta, Sukinder 59582 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Sun May 21, 2006 4:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Visible object at Cooran / Was Suffering doesn't always announce it... ken_aitch Hi Herman, This was a very strange message: ------------- H: > I could find no greater testimony to a realistion of anatta, then an easy entrance into jhana. Is there a greater impediment to jhana than the "controlling I", unwilling to renounce its grip on the sensual world? Perhaps a book about anatta can be judged by its jhana, or lack of it? ------------- All I can think is that you are saying Matheesha is a jhana meditator – and one who finds jhana easy. Am I correct? In any case, it would be extraordinary of you to say we must blindly follow the opinions of whoever makes the greatest claims of attainment. That sort of thinking would get us into no end of trouble. Ken H 59583 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun May 21, 2006 2:58am Subject: The 5 Lower Chains ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: There are these five Lower Mental Chains (Samyojana): The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, there are these five Lower Mental Chains. What five? 1: The Mental Chain of belief in an own constant Identity (sakkaya-ditthi)... 2: The Mental Chain of Sceptical Doubt (vicikiccha)... 3: The Mental Chain of Clinging to Rules & Rituals (silabbata-paramasa)… 4: The Mental Chain of Lust for Sensing (kama-raga)… 5: The Mental Chain of Anger & Evil Will (vyapada)… These are the 5 Lower Mental Chains! The Noble 8-fold Way should be developed for the direct experience of these five Lower Mental Chains, for the full understanding and elimination of them, and for their final overcoming, abandoning and leaving all behind…This Noble 8-fold Way is developed for the breaking asunder these five Lower Mental Chains!!! Explanation: The Mental Chain of belief in Personal Identity is construing an internal constant ‘entity’ which remains ‘same’… The Mental Chain of Sceptical Doubt is the disbelief in the fact of the Buddha’s Perfect Self-Enlightenment… The Mental Chain of Clinging to Rules & Rituals is the blind superstition projecting efficacy into folly rituals… The Mental Chain of Lust for Sensing is the addiction to all seen, heard, smelt, tasted, touched, & cognized… The Mental Chain of Anger & Evil Will is all hate & derivatives such as aversion, irritation, opposition & rigidity… These Mental Chains bind beings to birth in the 5 lower worlds, where all beings are dominated by sense-desire! For details on How to Cut these Five Minor Mental Chains (Samyojana) see: Nibbana or non-return http://what-buddha-said.net/drops/Nibbana_or_non-return.htm Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V:61] section 45: The Way. 179: The 5 Lower Mental Chains... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 !!! <...> 59584 From: "seisen_au" Date: Sun May 21, 2006 5:17am Subject: Re: Dinner with Rob seisen_au Hi Phil, Rob and all, Phil wrote: > - The big one was the visible object question - in all those > suttas in which it is said form, sound, taste, smell, touch and > mental object lead to unwholesome states and what not, how could a > blob of colour as visible object in itself be the thing that > triggers the unwholesome proliferation. Rob told me that the "form" > of these suttas can indeed be taken to be "flash of thigh" for > example. He said that the notion of blobs of colour, for example, > being assembled by many mind door processes into "thigh" or whatever > is a recent notion, and showed me a passage from the Comprehensive > Manual of Abhidhamma in which Bhikkhu Bodhi attributes it to Ledi > Sayadaw from only 100 years go. I'm not aware of Ledi Sayadaw's understanding of visible object, so I cant really comment on that. My understanding is that the rupa that is visible object is one of the 8 inseparable rupas; the four Great Elements of solidity, cohesion, temperature and motion, and rupa (visible object), odour, flavour and nutrition. While sometimes visible object is referred to as different shapes, as in the Dhammasangani, the commentaries explain that in reality such shapes are not directly a visible object, which I interpret to mean they are conceptual/pannatti. The commentaries seem to gloss the rupa that is visible object as vanna or colour. I would agree with Rob, that in some suttas visible object may sometimes be referring to a concept, but in terms of differentiating between pannatti and paramattha these couple of quotes from Khun Sujin seem relevant. "When we see what is only a painting of fruits and real fruits, both the painting and the real fruits are pannattis. A pannatti (concept) is not a paramattha dhamma (reality). As we have seen there are many aspects with regard to pannatti. It can be an idea of a whole or a mass or it can be a name or term that refers to something, be it real or not real. What is the difference between real fruits and a painting of fruits? What appears through the eyes while one sees are not beings, people, or different things. No matter whether one sees a painting of grapes or the real grapes, through eyes only colour appears. We may believe that only the picture is a pannatti and that the real grapes are not a pannatti (concept). However, in reality the picture as well as the real grapes that appear are objects which are pannatti experienced by mind-door process cittas. The cittas of the eye-door process experience only colour which appears."(Khun Sujin, Realities and Concepts). "When we know that we see people or different things, the citta experiences a concept, not a paramattha dhamma which is rupa. The object which is a paramattha dhamma appearing through the eyes are only different colours." (Khun Sujin, Realities and Concepts). Rgrds Steve 59585 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sun May 21, 2006 5:33am Subject: Re: A summary of the Teaching ... Taste Your Own Medicine First... indriyabala Dear Scott (RobM, Herman, ..) - I appreciate your suggestion on "theory" of the Buddha's Teachings. Thank you for sharing your thought with us. >Scott: >I am thinking that the Buddha had to go through rounds of practise >which was defining of theory and, in turn, structuring of practise >and so on. Is this what "non-linear" might be indicative of? T: Yes, the non-linearity is seen in the path of practice that can be re-entered at several points (and planes). >S: >My own experience, albeit limited, has been that the experience came first, then theory came second, and that the practise is following. I needed "theory" to structure my comprehension of experience. Now I have to learn what has been done and what is out there, according to the Buddha's Dhamma, to be ready for further experience. I don't trust my own explanations of things. T: But how can you experience the Teachings (say Dependent Origination) without learning the principles and theory first? Of course, the knowledge of the Dhamma cannot be at the ariyan level unless it has been tested by experience -- through practice, again and again. .................................................. >S: There just can't be any old "practise," or one I make up myself. Why ignore true and correct "theories" already extant? What do you think? T: I think what you say above is absolutely right because theories in Buddhism were proven, i.e. verified correct and tested by direct experiences of the Buddha himself and his ariya monks, and can be proven again and again by the wise ('The Dhamma is well-taught by the Blessed One, to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting all to come & see, pertinent, to be seen by the wise for themselves.'). We no longer have to test the "theories"; we only need to have saddha in the Teachings with the right view concerning wholesome and unwholesome (MN 9: "When, friends, a noble disciple understands the unwholesome, the root of the unwholesome, the wholesome, and the root of the wholesome, in that way he is one of right view, whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence in the Dhamma, and has arrived at this true Dhamma..."). Warm regards, Tep ===== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Tep, Rob M., and Herman, > > Please allow me to come into this discussion. I'll try to keep up. > > Tep: "Theory can be developed while practice is going on. So, should > it be a non-linear process that ends at attainment?" > > What Tep has stated here makes sense to me. > (snipped) 59586 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sun May 21, 2006 5:45am Subject: Re: Understanding .. realities/'realities'... that's the way it is? indriyabala Hi Kel, Thank you for responding to the tough question, and for doing it well. > Kel: I don't really know besides from what I've been taught though > it seems to make sense to me. I might venture to guess one object >is all that is required to have a fully functional mind. If you look at classic CS theory, Turing machines, one tape of symbols is as > expressive as arbitary number of tape (inputs). Another way to say > that is they have the same abilities. I would also say if there are > multiple objects then it might be impossible to concentrate on one > because you can't distinguish among the objects. > T: I like the explanation based on the concentration perspective, because it also includes the requirement for the citta to be "fully functional". That's what purification of consciousness is all about. Regards, Tep ===== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kelvin_lwin" wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > > same time, Kel. Now can you answer my earlier question about > the "why" > > (from the perspective of an electrical engineer)? I hope you won't > say > > "that's the way it is". > (snipped) > - Kel > 59587 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun May 21, 2006 6:01am Subject: Re: A summary of the Teaching ... Taste Your Own Medicine First... scottduncan2 Dear Tep (Rob, and Herman), T: "Yes, the non-linearity is seen in the path of practice that can be re-entered at several points (and planes)." I guess that this is so because of the many factors that give rise to "practise," and I guess I mean the things one does, such as watching the rise and fall of dhammas, or responding to the desire to arrange the body to sit in formal meditation, and the like. The set of conditions which assist in the various experiences which arise are so varied and become more so as the things one does (practise?) add to the ongoing complexity. Do you think "non-linearity" includes some sense of "ongoingness?" Some "directionality?" T: "But how can you experience the Teachings (say Dependent Origination) without learning the principles and theory first? Of course, the knowledge of the Dhamma cannot be at the ariyan level unless it has been tested by experience -- through practice, again and again." True. But one can experience something and yet be unable, at the time or at a time near to that experience, to have any concepts available with which to understand that experience. Upon experiencing the Teachings which correspond to the original experience then it is a sort of a recursive process wherein the original experience is brought to mind and reinforces (for lack of a better word) the study or learning of the Teachings. This study or learning, I would say in this context, is also "practise." I guess the distinctions can be quite artificial when one considers the flow of events. And then, of course, one has to consider that an "original experience" was also a conditioned dhamma, with its own complex, non-linear set of causitive circumstances. T: "We no longer have to test the "theories"; we only need to have saddha in the Teachings with the right view concerning wholesome and unwholesome (MN 9: "When, friends, a noble disciple understands the unwholesome, the root of the unwholesome, the wholesome, and the root of the wholesome, in that way he is one of right view, whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence in the Dhamma, and has arrived at this true Dhamma..."). Saddha is very important, and very powerful. The arising of saddha again and again is very sustaining. Its like it bridges gaps and directs attention and action in a way. Sincerely, Scott. 59588 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun May 21, 2006 6:25am Subject: [dsg] Re: A summary of the Teaching ... Taste Your Own Medicine First... scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Good question, this: "Do you think there is any other practice than mindfulness, and do you think mindfulness requires a theory, any theory?" Thinking about the question I would say, I guess, yes there are other practises. I am influenced by recent study of mindfulness and so likely don't have the full picture, but it seems as if this "practise" underlies, if this is the right way to say it, many of the other things one labels "practise." I am influenced by a consideration of the implications of anatta on the notion of "practise." Does mindfulness require a theory? Hmm. I know you come at things from an experiential angle. So let's say mindfulness happens and requires no theory in order for this to be so. Would this fit with the way you like to come at things? That being said, might one call "theory" the way something is? Might one consider that "theory" is inherent? I realise that theory is conceptual. If things occur in certain lawful ways, might it not be possible to say that these lawful ways are the unexpressed "theory?" By the time I form a "theory" of something, that is, explain it to myself, I've become removed from that about which I am theorising. I am, though, experiencing thinking or the objects of the mind at that moment. I guess a corollary question would be whether the Dhamma as teaching to be heard or read is, in its form, theory? What do you think (what is your theory)? I'm on thin ice when I try to go by my own theories, unless they are correct of course. Sincerely, Scott. 59589 From: Daniel Date: Sun May 21, 2006 6:51am Subject: Re: Should daniell@... Hi All, I think that the word "should" is used when doing something because X told us so. God\Society\Father told us to behave in a certain way so we "should" behave in that. In buddhism, I think the ideal is to understand the reasons for acting or not acting in a certain way for ourselves. For example, who would say that we "should" eat? We understand the reasons why to eat, and what will the consequences of not eating be. The ideal, I think is that our choice of "moral" \ "immoral" actions would be just the same as the choice of to eat \ not to eat, as in the often used example - to put one's hand into the fire, or not... Yours, Daniel 59590 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 21, 2006 3:13am Subject: Reifying, Atta-Sense in Action Re: [dsg] Re: should, training, free will etc. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina In a message dated 5/21/06 4:18:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > op 20-05-2006 17:43 schreef upasaka@... op upasaka@...: > > >>>------------------------------------ > >>N: Yes, I understand why you say this: it is according to phenomenology. > >>Let us say, thinking is naama, it is an experience. Or, you would say, an > >>experiencing. > >> > >======================== > >No, it's not the phenomenalism. It's a matter of not reifying, and a > >matter of not conceiving of an agent or doer. There is doing but no doer. > ------- > N: I agree. But, if we deeply consider the nature of citta we can > understand, at least intellectually, that there cannot be a doer, no person > or thing which acts. Each citta performs a function (in Paali kicca), but it > falls away extremely rapidly, and thus it should not be taken for a person > who exists. Considering this excludes reifying. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Nina, I haven't made myself clear. I agree with what you are saying about persons, but I am saying more. When I use the word 'doer' or 'actor' in a Dhamma discussion I don't only mean a person who acts, but any "thing" that acts. There are no doers/actors/agents of any sort. There is feeling but no thing of any sort that feels, and that includes all possible agents, even if they are called dhammas. The operation/event/function of feeling occurs. It is that very feeling (operation), that very activity, that is vedana. There is no feeler, no THING that feels, no dhamma that feels. There is just feeling. There is the operation of feeling ... period. THAT is vedana. THAT is the dhamma. The same is true for sa~n~na and even vi~n~nana. There are no cittas that are aware. There is just being aware. Vi~n~nana, i.e. being aware, occurs, but there is no "thing" that does it. The moment one conceives of "a citta" as anything more than being aware at some moment, the moment one conceives of "a citta" as some "thing that is aware," rather than just the being aware, that is a moment of reifying. It is a moment of atta-sense arisen. ---------------------------------------------- > We should not move away from the Paali and the original meanings the > ancients gave us. > Naama is derived from naamati, to bend. Naama bends towards an object, it > experiences an object. Citta and cetasikas are naama. > Citta, this is connected with the word cinteti, to think. Citta *thinks* of > an object, it clearly knows an object. It is the chief in knowing an object > and the cetasikas share the same object while they perform each their own > function. > No reifying, they fall away immediately. > ------------------------------------- Howard: If one thinks of them as things that act in some way, that right there is reifying. ------------------------------------ There is activity, but no actor.> > ---------------------------------- Howard: Yes, there is acting but no thing of any sort whatsoever that acts. ---------------------------------- Cittas and cetasikas have their own characteristic, function, manifestation> > > and proximate cause. > Seeing performs the function of seeing, it experiences visible object. > ---------------------------------- Howard: Seeing IS the seeing. It is not something that sees! It is not a thing that performs. It IS the performing. ---------------------------------- No> > need to be afraid of reifying. > ----------------------------------- Howard: I disagree. There is much to be afraid of in reifying, because it can be subtle and insidious. ------------------------------------ We believe that cittas last, but we can> > consider more proximity-condition (anantara-paccaya): each citta that falls > away is immediately succeeded by the following citta, without any interval. ------------------------------------- Howard: Not lasting is part of the story, but not all of it. An agent, an entity, even one which lasts but a microsecond, does not exist. It is avijja-based concept, and nothing more. ------------------------------------- > Since this happens extremely rapidly it seems that citta lasts. Through the > development of insight the arising and falling away is realised and then we > shall have more understanding of this condition. > Also ruupas perform functions, the four great elements are supporting and > assisting the derived ruupas. > > A quote from 'A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas': > > through the eyes, the ears, the nose, the tongue, the bodysense or the > mind-door. Whatever object phassa cetasika contacts, the citta which arises > together with it clearly knows the characteristic of that object, it knows > each different object. When it is said of citta, the reality which > experiences something, that it has the characteristic of clearly knowing an > object, we should understand what that means. It means that citta knows the > different characteristics of the different objects appearing through the > senses or through the mind-door. Citta is the reality which clearly knows an > object, and the object is a condition for citta to arise and to experience > that object. The object is object-condition (aaramma.na-paccaya), it is a > condition for the arising of citta by being its object. Citta cannot arise > without knowing an object, but besides object-condition there are also > several other conditions for each type of citta which arises.> > > ***** > Nina. > ======================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 59591 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sun May 21, 2006 7:15am Subject: Re: A summary of the Teaching ... Taste Your Own Medicine First... indriyabala Hi Herman (and all) - Thank you for saying what you said with confidence -- I appreciate your direct expression. >Herman: >By the scholastic period I mean that period after the parinibbana of the Buddha, when compilation/analysis/paralysis (thanks Eric) was the order of the day. I'm sure that theory and practice have always co-existed, but that does not translate to Abhidhamma and oral suttas being from the same time period. The higher teaching was well delivered to Anathapindika on his deathbed MN143. T: I hope you don't mind elaborate a little more in what way MN 143 is about the "higher teaching". .......... >Herman: >If people say that the study of the Abhidhamma and/or its commentaries supports their practice, then I am certainly not in a position to deny or validate that. T: What is the reason? What advantages, if any, do you think "the study of the Abhidhamma and/or its commentaries" offer? ............. >Herman: >I'm sorry, Rob, but I see no support for an academic approach as a springboard to enlightenment in the suttas. Is DO theory? Isn't it happening right here, right now? T: DO principles have been test proven beyond doubt. For those who have treated DO as a subject for reading, pondering and considering (and have not yet applied it to get rid of the sixteen questions about past, future and present), DO remains forever as "theory" to them, I think. Yours truly, Tep ===== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi RobM and Tep, > > On 21/05/06, robmoult wrote: > > > > Hi Herman & Tep, > > > > > > > > It is inescapable for me from reading the Pitakas historically, > > (wth a time > > > line in mind), that the theory proceeded from the realisation, not > > the other > > > way around. > > > > > ===== (snipped) 59592 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 21, 2006 3:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A summary of the Teaching . link to sangitisutta. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Herman) - In a message dated 5/21/06 5:23:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Herman, > please could you give me the link? > Thanks, > Nina. > ======================= I did a Google search. The link is the following: http://www.buddhistinformation.com/ida_b_wells_memorial_sutra_library/ 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) 59593 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun May 21, 2006 7:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A summary of the Teaching . link to sangitisutta. nilovg Hi Rob M, thank you very much, Nina. op 21-05-2006 12:03 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@...: > > http://www.buddhistinformation.com/ida_b_wells_memorial_sutra_library/#S 59594 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sun May 21, 2006 7:49am Subject: Re: A summary of the Teaching ... Taste Your Own Medicine First... indriyabala Dear Scott (Rob, Herman and other Friends) - Thank you very much for the food for thought that is my "main dish" today. >Scott: Do you think "non-linearity" includes some sense of "ongoingness?" Some "directionality?" T: Yes, I think so. Nonlinearity may also be seen as the recursive looping of the citta on its object (e.g. the Depenedent Origination). Your following wise description is another good example of "nonlinearity" in the mind training process (or practice/application of the "theory"): >Scott: Upon experiencing the Teachings which correspond to the original experience then it is a sort of a recursive process wherein the original experience is brought to mind and reinforces (for lack of a better word) the study or learning of the Teachings. This study or learning, I would say in this context, is also "practise." Warm regards, Tep ==== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Tep (Rob, and Herman), > > T: "Yes, the non-linearity is seen in the path of practice that can be re-entered at several points (and planes)." > > I guess that this is so because of the many factors that give rise to "practise," and I guess I mean the things one does, such as watching the rise and fall of dhammas, or responding to the desire to arrange the body to sit in formal meditation, and the like. The set of conditions which assist in the various experiences which arise are so varied and become more so as the things one does (practise?) add to > the ongoing complexity. (snipped) > > Saddha is very important, and very powerful. The arising of saddha > again and again is very sustaining. Its like it bridges gaps and > directs attention and action in a way. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > 59595 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sun May 21, 2006 7:59am Subject: [dsg] Re: Understanding dhammas, .. Systems Theory indriyabala Hi Kel - Do you realize that your explanation below contains quite a few terms from the systems identification theory? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kelvin_lwin" wrote: > > Hi Herman, > > > Recently Howard and I discussed binaural beats (two slightly > different > > sounds in each ear creating a third, mind-made, sound). Are you > saying that > > the two different sounds are not heard at the same time, one from > each ear? > > Kel: I don't think they have to be heard at the same time to produce a 3rd one. As the identification happens over several processes and > the source is duplicated. No reason two sources can't be superimposed before it is recognized. > > - Kel > ............. Regards, Tep ====== 59596 From: han tun Date: Sun May 21, 2006 8:09am Subject: Dependent Origination hantun1 Dear Nina, In Vism XVII, 291-297, the Dependent Origination has four groups: ------------------------------ Group (a): five causes of the past: ignorance (avijjaa), formations (sankhaara), craving (tanhaa), clinging (upaadaana), and becoming (kamma-bhava). Group (b): present fivefold fruit: consciousness (vinnaana), mentality-materiality (naama-ruupa), sense-base (salaayatana), contact (phassa), and feeling (vedanaa). Group (c): five causes of now: craving (tanhaa), clinging (upaadaana), becoming (kamma-bhava), ignorance (avijjaa), and formations (sankhaara) Group (d): future fivefold fruit: consciousness (vinnaana), mentality-materiality (naama-ruupa), sense-base (salaayatana), contact (phassa), and feeling (vedanaa). ------------------------------ Group (a) belongs to previous life; groups (b) and (c) belong to present life; and group (d) belongs to future life. According to the standard teaching of Dependent Origination, it is one-way traffic. Group (a) of previous life produces results of group (b) in present life. In present life, a person commits new causes, and group (c) will produce results of group (d) in future life. That is the standard teaching of D.O. Now, my contention is that it is not that simple one-way traffic. (1) Group (c) in present life will produce results not only of group (d) in next life, but also of group (b) in present life. So, diagrammatically, there will be two arrows starting from group (c) and going towards group (b) and group (d). (2) Similarly, group (b) is the result of not only of group (a) from previous life, but it will also be the result of group (c) in present life. So, diagrammatically, there will be two arrows coming to group (b), one from group (a) and the other from group (c). I cannot find any book reference to support my contention. But I firmly believe in that. What is your opinion, please? Thank you very much. Respectfully, Han 59597 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sun May 21, 2006 8:48am Subject: Re: Brain research on craving ... An Abhidhamma Quiz .. indriyabala Hi James and Nina - Thank you James for the article that you claim to "support the Buddha's teaching". Essentially, this is what the article states : " Whatever the craving, the same parts of your brain are responsible for the feelings, new research shows. When people crave food, the study found, the same portions of the brain are active as during other strong longings. "Identifying the brain regions involved can tell us a great deal about the normal and pathological neurochemistry of craving," Pelchat said, "and in turn, lead us to better pharmacological treatments for obesity and drug addiction." ................ Tep: I have a few questions for you and Nina with respect to the relationship between brain and the citta (or the mind). 1. Why do longings affect the brain if tanha is associated with citta? 2. Billion of dollars have been spent for "better pharmacological treatments for obesity and drug addiction". Isn't that a wasteful spending of money? Shouldn't these patients be educated in the Abhidhamma so they gain "understanding" that will solve their problems with obesity and drug addiction? Sincerely, Tep ==== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi All, > > Some interesting brain research on craving which supports the Buddha's > teaching: > > http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/041105_food_drug.html > > Metta, > James > 59598 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun May 21, 2006 9:55am Subject: Metta 13 nilovg Dear friends, This is taken from Kh. Sujin's book on Metta. ****** Nina. 59599 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun May 21, 2006 11:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Brain research on craving ... An Abhidhamma Quiz .. nilovg Hi Tep and James, op 21-05-2006 17:48 schreef indriyabala op indriyabala@...: > Tep: I have a few questions for you and Nina with respect to the > relationship between brain and the citta (or the mind). > > 1. Why do longings affect the brain if tanha is associated with citta? -------- N: There is mind-produced ruupa. The citta with tanhaa can produce ruupas, not only ruupas we call brain but also others. ------- T: 2. Billion of dollars have been spent for "better pharmacological > treatments for obesity and drug addiction". Isn't that a wasteful > spending of money? Shouldn't these patients be educated in the > Abhidhamma so they gain "understanding" that will solve their problems > with obesity and drug addiction? --------- N: The listeners have to be openminded to the Abhidhamma to begin with. One cannot just educate people in the Abhidhamma ;--)) Nina.