60000 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jun 1, 2006 4:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A summary of the Teaching ... Taste Your Own Medicine First... egberdina Hi Scott, On 01/06/06, Scott Duncan wrote: > > Dear Herman, > > You're correct in a certain sense, Herman. I have read an awful lot > and have used my head to a great extent in the last year or so. But, > and this is important for you to know since it sort of evens out the > picture, I find myself on the "Buddhist path" or whatever solely as a > result of pure experience. I've had to read to catch up with myself. > And I've arrived more or less intuitively within Theravada after > sifting through another school of thought. I say this only to show > you we are not so far apart on the experience score as you may surmise > from reading me. My goal these days is to learn as much Dhamma as I > can, and to as deep a level of understanding I can achieve. I am here > to learn the intellectual points of the dhamma. That is good to know. I think you err, though, in allowing your own thoughts to proliferate > in order to explain your experience. I've had to learn, again from > experience, that there is a dangerous inflation that arises in > relation to certain experience, especially if one's character is so > constellated. For me this constellation includes a very good verbal > intelligence and a solid propensity for arrogance. I may be wrong > (although it takes one to know one) but I think this is your own > endowment as well. I understand what you are saying. In my defence, I come from a long line of Christian fundamentalists. My father's father was a Christian minister, as was my father, as was I. Not to mention countless other relatives who were also men of the cloth. I spent the first 15 years being spoonfed Christian fundamentalist dogma, the next 15 years vomiting it back up. Having discarded the yoke of my religious past, it would be better if I were shot were I to show any sign of assuming another dogmatic yoke, in another guise. If the Buddhist tradition requires that I ditch my critical faculties and replace them with obsequious humility, then that would say something about the integrity of the Buddhist tradition. Happily, I have only encountered sporadic insistence on toeing any particular Buddhist line. And least of all so at dsg. The reason I am so scrupulous in my study of the Dhamma and in my > attempts to come as close to Right View as I can is to avoid or at > least put a damper on my own naturally arising grandiosity as it > relates directly to my deeper experience. Earlier we agreed that Dhamma and tipitaka were not the same. I am not so sure if you are still of that persuasion. I am happy to understand that you want to learn as much Theravadan orthodoxy as you can. I wish you well in that endeavour. Kind Regards Herman PS I am not unhappy with anything you have said :-) 60001 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jun 1, 2006 4:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A summary of the Teaching ... Taste Your Own Medicine First... egberdina Hi Sarah, > ... > > What do you know, or have you ever known, about the present moment, > > which > > allows you to speak with confidence about realities? > ... > S: I'm assuming this is a rhetorical question. If you want to discuss the > topic of present moment and knowing realities, let me know. No, it is not a rhetorical question. Let's get it on ! And quote any book you want :-) I have a few other of your questions buried in a pile of papers. I'll try > to dig them out tomorrow and see if they look like rhetorical ones and if > now, I'll see if I can do any better. No need. The present moment will take up any time there is. (Intentionally cryptic) Apologies, Herman for any insensitivity here. I would much rather that we get to the nitty-gritty than be concentrating on the correct method of circambulating :-) Kind Regards Herman 60002 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Jun 1, 2006 4:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Let's talk about sex, drugs and rock'n roll (Three Suttas about Atta) sarahprocter... OK Herman, --- Herman Hofman wrote: R:> > Just to put things into perspective, this citta lasts one million > > millionth of a second (10^-12 seconds). The citta which follows this > > body consciousness citta has neutral feeling. > > > H:> I have heard numbers like this bandied about before, and frankly, they > baffle me. You might like to quote an authority, so I can get a grip on > where figures like this originate. > > I'll give you my take, in reference to rock 'n roll. Having lived many > previous lifes abounding in kusala, in this life it is given to me to > delight in the auditory pleasant sensations as brought about by > listening to > the Sex Pistols at 100 decibels. Now according to your calcs no auditory > sensation lasts longer than 1 x 10^-12 seconds. I'm afraid that there is > just no audible sound discernable in that frequency range, the lowest > frequency you and I are likely to register would require a stimulus > lasting > at least .05 of a second. That would be a sound corresponding to 20 > Hz. Is > it possible that your sources are out by a factor of 10 ^10 when it > comes to > the speed of cittas? Hmmmm, that wouldn't inspire any confidence :-) .... S: Let me say that I thought this was a very clever and witty response:-). As an engineer, I'm sure RobM will appreciate it too. Also your response to 'no one in particular' in #59662 on the speed and time taken to reach the brahma planes:-). Maybe a simile like the examples of the feats required to show the greatness of becoming a bodhisatta?? You tell me! Thanks for keeping us all on our toes. Now, I'm really signing off... Metta, Sarah ======== 60003 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Jun 1, 2006 4:44am Subject: [dsg] Re: A summary of the Teaching ... Taste Your Own Medicine First... scottduncan2 Dear Herman, I'm sorry I put you on the defensive, I'll try to do better in communicating to you. I very much appreciate the below: H: "I understand what you are saying. In my defence, I come from a long line of Christian fundamentalists. My father's father was a Christian minister, as was my father, as was I. Not to mention countless other relatives who were also men of the cloth. I spent the first 15 years being spoonfed Christian fundamentalist dogma, the next 15 years vomiting it back up. Having discarded the yoke of my religious past, it would be better if I were shot were I to show any sign of assuming another dogmatic yoke, in another guise. If the Buddhist tradition requires that I ditch my critical faculties and replace them with obsequious humility, then that would say something about the integrity of the Buddhist tradition. Happily, I have only encountered sporadic insistence on toeing any particular Buddhist line. And least of all so at dsg." I share this with you, in a way, having also grown up within a Christian fundamentalist context complete with dogma, spoon-feeding, regurgitation, "missionary" experience, family pressure, not to mention the unbearable deeper sense of how empty and wrong it all was. Very difficult. Escape was gruelling. I often wonder if the statement about taking the boy out of fundamentalism but not fundamentalism out of the boy is true. I suppose, as well, one can err on the side of trying too hard to be a "free-thinker." If there are things that are wrong, might there still be something that is right? H: "Earlier we agreed that Dhamma and tipitaka were not the same. I am not so sure if you are still of that persuasion." No change there, I didn't think. What did I say that gave you this impression? Thank you for fleshing out, as it were, some of your background. I see, perhaps, why we may have been drawn together in conversation. Looking forward to more, if there is any left to go within our conversation. Sincerely, Scott. 60004 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jun 1, 2006 1:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Nimitta as object of awareness? upasaka_howard Hi, Larry (and Phil) - In a message dated 6/1/06 1:43:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@... writes: > When you ask if a sign is an object of consciousness, I think you have > to answer, yes and no. You can't completely say yes and you can't > completely say no. For example, is a word an object of consciousness? > =================== I'd be more inclined to say that a word is an object of thought than of conscousness. While "thinking of a word", there is a thought process underway that involves a stream of consciousness - consciousness of many mind-door paramattha dhammas (mental khandhic elements) including mental copies (or analogs) of sounds, visual objects, and more, plus conceiving of that entire object-stream or part of it as a unity that is "the word". That entire process of "thinking of a word" is the only "taking of a word as object" that occurs, I believe, and when that happens, "the word" is not an object of consciousness in the same sense as a mental sound-replicate is, mental sound-replicates (or at least elementary ones) being actual mind-door objects. Or so it seems to me. The foregoing, of course, is possibly little more than idle speculation, the details of which may be more or less correct. More important, I think, than proposing theories and of studying theories laid out by others is directly looking within our own mindstream, observing as best we can, with as much calm and clariry as can be mustered, what is actually going on, seeing the impersonal, conditioned, ever-changing, empty and ungraspable nature of the process. Looking at what's actually happening is what is most important. In doing so, I believe, we can learn to let go of many fixed, discrete, mind constructs or "mind clumps" such as words as anything more than convenient fictions. Most especially, we can learn to give up the idea of a "self who observes" as anything more than a convenient fiction. With metta, Howard 60005 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Jun 1, 2006 6:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Samatha and vipassana 1 jonoabb Hi Eric ericlonline wrote: >Hi Jon, > >ericlonline wrote: > > >>Flip a coin and call it in the air. >>Heads or tails? >> > >J>Now, Eric, there's no need to be flippant (flip-ant, get it?) > >Dont quit your day job! ;-) > > Wasn't planning to, but thanks for the advice anyway ;-)) >>E>Heads, start your investigation with insight. >>Tails, start your investigation with samatha. >> >>The coin nonetheless is one and you >>cannot 'really' separate the two sides. >> > >J>And this interpretation of the teaching comes from which sutta? > >All the suttas you posted i.e. calm/insight >coming in pairs. > I think you and I have a different reading of those suttas, and there's probably not much point in taking this particular line any further (although I'm happy to do so if you'd like). But if as you say it's a heads or tails (insight or samatha) type situation, then why not start with insight, that being the goal? >I try and speak from what I experience and understand, >I have little idea if we ever will have an in common >understanding as you seem to want to just post others >words. > Well I think we all speak from experience, and we all take reference from the texts. Our differences are more a matter of emphasis, I think. I happen to believe that a better understanding of the Tipitaka means less wrong view, and I think this means looking at the commentaries also. Jon 60006 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Jun 1, 2006 7:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 433- mindfulness/sati (o) jonoabb Hi Herman Herman Hofman wrote: >Hi Jon, > >As I understand the teaching, no dhammas are subject to mastery and, > > >>>thus, cannot be made to arise (or to not arise) at a time of one's >>>choosing. >>> >"All things can be mastered by mindfulness" (Anguttara, 8:83). > > Thanks for the sutta quote (which I haven't managed to track down yet; what was your source?) >Jon, if this is just a discussion about the meanings of words, I'd just as >soon drop the matter. But if it is about the way things are, then let's >proceed. > >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 :-)) > I think you are saying that because we can keep ourselves warm when it gets cold, this shows we control dhammas. But can we, and does it? As to the first, everyone experiences discomfort through being too hot or too cold from time to time, or experiences pain that cannot be alleviated immediately. As to the second, there are other aspects of our life that are clearly beyond our ability to keep within limits that we would like to see observed. For example, the various emotions that keep arising that we'd rather be without, like anger or annoyance, attachment, despair, the list is actually quite long. If dhammas were subject to mastery, we would not have to put up with these things. Jon 60007 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Jun 1, 2006 7:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Herman seeking to understand Jon (was Re: Samatha and vipassana 1) jonoabb Hi Herman Herman Hofman wrote: >>>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? > Answers Q.1: By the Dhamma I mean the way things truly are; also, the teaching of the Buddha, he being the person who discovered and made known to others the way things truly are. Q.2: In this particular lifetime, the further development of an understanding of the way things truly are became possible only after I came across the teachings explained in a form that made sense to me. So, oblivious to the essence of the Dhamma until meeting the Dhamma (in whatever form, but loosely referred to as 'the texts'). >>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. > > Do you mean you see a distinction between, say, hearing a sutta recited from memory vs. hearing the same sutta being read aloud from a book vs. reading the same sutta yourself from the printed page? Jon 60008 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Jun 1, 2006 7:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 433- mindfulness/sati (o) jonoabb Hi Phil Phil wrote: > Hi Jon and all > > Still thinking about the below: > >J > > As I understand the teaching, no dhammas are subject to >mastery > > Now I am not so sure about this. As I wrote earlier, the balas >involve mastery, don't they? > > > >>and, thus, cannot be made to arise (or to not arise) at a >>time of one's choosing. >> >> > Yes, I still agree with this, if "one" is taken to be self. But, >when there are the balas (not for us) kusala does arise when ... > > ...hmm. Now I am not sure about all this. > > However, I am sure that the balas are a topic that can be >discussed in theory by people in this group, but not experienced >directly. Why am I sure of that? I shouldn't be, I suppose. So I >take it back. I am not sure of that. How could I be? But certainly >referring to a sutta in which the balas are referred to and using it >to justify one's own approach to Dhamma is dubious. If one has the >balas, great. If one doesn't, stop talking about them or quoting >suttas which refer to them - they are irrelevant to the person in >question. > > When kusala qualities have been developed to a very high degree, they are unshakeable by their opposites. This could be seen as a kind of 'mastery', in a relative sense. But they are still not subject to absolute control. Jon 60009 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Jun 1, 2006 7:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner jonoabb Hi Howard upasaka@... wrote: >--------------------------------- >Howard: > Well, I would suppose even involuntary actions could be conditioned by >subliminal impulsion. > I'm sure this is so, that even involuntary action is accompanied by and perhaps preceded by 'subliminal impulsion'. So intention is ever-present. But the question is whether it plays a key role in determining the ethical nature of the consciousness. By the way, the kind of subliminal impulsion we are talking about here is not what we mean when we talk about will, intention, desire or wish to do, all of which connote a more conscious or deliberate kind of volition; and likewise these involuntary actions are not what we mean when we talk about willed action. >Also, there is the effect of past volition. >--------------------------------- > > >>But in any event, the context of my remark was the arising of kusala or >>akusala. Are you saying that whether an action is accompanied by kusala >>or akusala mental factors also has to do with this kind of will, >>intention, desire or wish? >> >---------------------------------- >Howard: > The desire to act wholesomely certainly is a frequent condition for >acting wholesomely. Moreover past cetana has effect currently. Wholesome actions >now are conditioned in part by current and past wholesome intention, and >kusala vipaka now is conditioned in part by past kusala cetana. Do you think >otherwise? > I think we substantially agree here. ;-)) As I see it (a) yes, wholesome acts may be preceded by an intention to act wholesomely, that is to say, an intention of the conscious will, intention, desire or wish variety, and (b) wholesome actions now are conditioned in part by wholesome deeds done in the past. (I am not sure of the relevance to this thread of present aksuala vipaka.) As to (a), I think it's also apparent however that kusala can arise spontaneous without any such preceding conscious will, intention, desire or wish (although not without the subliminal impulsion variety). As to (b), a person's wholesome deeds done in the past (including of course in past lives) are what constitute a person's accumulated tendency for wholesome deeds. The intention that accompanied those past wholesome deeds no doubt does act as a condition for present wholesome deeds, but as I understand things that would be in the sense that makes wholesome consciousness of the same kind more likely to arise in this lifetime. I'm not sure that it has any bearing on the 'preceding conscious will, intention, desire or wish' scenario. Jon 60010 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Jun 1, 2006 7:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 433- You ain't seen nothin' yet ! jonoabb Hi Tep indriyabala wrote: >Hi Jon, > >Thank you for slowly but surely replying to all my posts. {:-|> > > > >>Jon: >>I think we may have different ideas as to what constitutes an >> >> >abstaining as spoken of in the precept observances. You seem to be >taking it to mean that if there's no breach of a precept right now >then there is abstaining. > >Tep: No, I did not. I said, e.g. ".. abstaining from false speech is >kusala here and now"; here, it means restraining from giving a wrong >speech. Hence, abstaining that is wholesome is guided by the (mundane) >right view about wholesome & unwholesome as stated by the Arahant >Sariputta in MN 9. > > OK, sorry for mis-interpreting you. I was trying to understand the connection you were making between observance of precepts and kusala arising "at a time of one's own choosing". Would you mind explaining this further a little. Thanks. >>>Tep: >>>One more example to convince you; note carefully the words >>>"whenever I want": >>> >>> >>>"If a monk would wish, 'May I attain — whenever I want, without >>>strain, without difficulty — the four jhanas that are heightened >>>mental states, pleasant abidings in the here-&-now,' then ... >>> >>> >>Jon: >>I think what is being referred to here is the mastery of jhana >> >> >(vasii). However, mastery of jhanas has its limits; it can be lost >within that lifetime. So it is relative mastery, not total mastery. > >Tep: Come on, Jon ! You are avoiding the issue. The issue is that >jhanas can be chosen to arise; relative mastery or not IS NOT the >issue. {:>[ >[My avatar is badly disappointed!] > > Sorry again, Tep ! ;-)). Would you mind reminding me what is the issue, so that I can make sure my reply is to the point. Thanks. Jon 60011 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jun 1, 2006 4:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - As you say, we do seem to be in substantial agreement on this! With metta, Howard In a message dated 6/1/06 10:42:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@netvi gator.com writes: > Hi Howard > > upasaka@... wrote: > > >--------------------------------- > >Howard: > > Well, I would suppose even involuntary actions could be conditioned by > >subliminal impulsion. > > > > I'm sure this is so, that even involuntary action is accompanied by and > perhaps preceded by 'subliminal impulsion'. So intention is > ever-present. But the question is whether it plays a key role in > determining the ethical nature of the consciousness. > > By the way, the kind of subliminal impulsion we are talking about here > is not what we mean when we talk about will, intention, desire or wish > to do, all of which connote a more conscious or deliberate kind of > volition; and likewise these involuntary actions are not what we mean > when we talk about willed action. > > >Also, there is the effect of past volition. > >--------------------------------- > > > > > >>But in any event, the context of my remark was the arising of kusala or > >>akusala. Are you saying that whether an action is accompanied by kusala > >>or akusala mental factors also has to do with this kind of will, > >>intention, desire or wish? > >> > >---------------------------------- > >Howard: > > The desire to act wholesomely certainly is a frequent condition for > >acting wholesomely. Moreover past cetana has effect currently. Wholesome > actions > >now are conditioned in part by current and past wholesome intention, and > >kusala vipaka now is conditioned in part by past kusala cetana. Do you > think > >otherwise? > > > > I think we substantially agree here. ;-)) As I see it (a) yes, > wholesome acts may be preceded by an intention to act wholesomely, that > is to say, an intention of the conscious will, intention, desire or wish > variety, and (b) wholesome actions now are conditioned in part by > wholesome deeds done in the past. (I am not sure of the relevance to > this thread of present aksuala vipaka.) > > As to (a), I think it's also apparent however that kusala can arise > spontaneous without any such preceding conscious will, intention, desire > or wish (although not without the subliminal impulsion variety). > > As to (b), a person's wholesome deeds done in the past (including of > course in past lives) are what constitute a person's accumulated > tendency for wholesome deeds. The intention that accompanied those past > wholesome deeds no doubt does act as a condition for present wholesome > deeds, but as I understand things that would be in the sense that makes > wholesome consciousness of the same kind more likely to arise in this > lifetime. I'm not sure that it has any bearing on the 'preceding > conscious will, intention, desire or wish' scenario. > > Jon > 60012 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jun 1, 2006 10:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] RE: the one way. nilovg Dear Sarah, op 01-06-2006 09:15 schreef sarah abbott op sarahprocterabbott@...: > > I'm not sure if the last part of BB's note is correct when he refers to it > as 'the direct path' distinguishing it from the path including jhanas etc. > This doesn't make sense to me (esp in light of the Satip. Sutta) and as he > says, there's 'no commentarial basis for this view'. ----- N: Perhaps he means: no development of samatha, only vipassanaa. --------- Btw, I'm not convinced it makes the slightest difference whether > a subject pronoun is used or not in Pali texts as you qmentioned to Howard > - even in Chinese we often leave out the pronouns, but it's not indicative > of any wisdom and doesn't mean there aren't namas arising which experience > various objects!). ------- N: Right, an article is not always necessary, but here we might have expected saa (for vedanaa) as subject. Especially in the consruction of the sentence. I was thinking of Vis. XIV, 125: From the context I get it that it is meaningful that there is no so or saa, or aya.m. Ven. Bodhi mentions (p. 1234) the absence of an article(p. 1235, note 430 to sutta 43) about viññaa.na. He speaks about it that in the translation the article is inserted for clarity. ***** Nina. 60013 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jun 1, 2006 10:39am Subject: metta 23. nilovg Dear friends, This is taken from Kh. Sujin's book on Metta. ****** Nina. 60014 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jun 1, 2006 10:39am Subject: our discussions in Paris, no 5. nilovg our discussions in Paris, no 5 Dear Han, Han wrote: (4) The citta shifts all the time to different objects and this is not our own choice. This will depend on whether you believe in “meditation or not. In samatha bhaavanaa one should be able to put the mind on the object of meditation. (7) N: If we try to concentrate on naama and ruupa, that seems more the method of samatha. H: Is anything wrong with samatha? In many suttas, the Buddha’s teachings include attainment of jhaanas which are the products of samatha bhaavanaa. ------- N: Lodewijk said about this: I would like to add something. Wise people before the Buddha¹s time and at his time realized that after seeing and the other sense impressions there was attachment, even of a very subtle degree. They saw the danger of attachment to sense objects and developed conditions to be freed of them. Their aim was detachment, they did not want to have calm in the sense of a feeling of ease. Samatha is a high degree of kusala and it should be praised. But it should be true samatha, samatha with detachment from sense impressions, not what one mistakenly takes for samatha. A fine-tuned sati sampajañña is necessary that knows the difference between kusala citta and akusala citta. Even now there is seeing, and immediately after seeing there is likely to be attachment, even with the javana cittas arising in the same eye-door process as seeing. It comes in extremely fast and it is hard to detect. That is why samatha is most difficult. Its difficulty should not be underestimated. Through samatha it can be realized when there is anger and when metta, but it is still my anger and my metta. The idea of mine can only be eradicated through vipassanaa. To return to the difference in method of samatha and of vipassanaa: in samatha there is concentration on one meditation subject, but not without sati sampajañña that knows the difference between kusala citta and akusala citta. In vipassanaa: any reality that appears now is the object of sati sampajañña, without selection. It depends on conditions whatever dhamma presents itself through one of the six doors, be it pleasant, unpleasant, kusala, akusala, they are, all of them, worthy to be objects of right understanding. In that way we can learn to see them as only dhammas arising because of their own conditions, no person who makes them arise. The object of vipassanaa is an ultimate reality, not a nimitta, as in samatha. There is not concentration on one dhamma for a period of time, it is a momentary concentration (khanika samaadhi) arising with the kusala citta. It performs its function as Path factor, together with the other Path factors. ******* Nina. 60015 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Jun 1, 2006 2:07pm Subject: Re: Audio dana buddhatrue Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > James, Nina raises many of your points. I think mostly in Benares, but I > don't remember exactly now. > Benares: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05. Thanks for this heads up. I have listened to Benares 01 and I don't know if I could possibly listen to these five parts to see what issues Nina raised which were originally raised by me. I didn't recognize anything in part one and I don't think I want to listen to the other four parts. It was like torture to listen to K. Sujin describe and repeat herself again and again for about 10 minutes about how we don't like dosa (Oh gee, now there's a news flash! ;- )) And she mentions nothing about practice. It's just all about "understanding" nama/rupa, "understanding" characteristics, "understanding" dosa- but no mention about how this "understanding" is supposed to come about. It's just all a bunch of endless talk! Talk, talk, talk...she sounds like a broken record! Sarah, I did receive the CD tape of A. Sujin in India 2005, from Hong Kong. Thanks. I haven't listened to it yet but I will and give my feedback. BTW, I will be traveling to Hong Kong toward the end of July; maybe we can meet and talk about the real Dhamma: the Dhamma of practice, not the pie-in-the-sky philosophizing of A. Sujin ;-))? Metta, James 60016 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jun 1, 2006 2:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] our discussions in Paris, no 5. egberdina Hi Nina, Samatha is a high degree of kusala and it should be praised. But it should > be true samatha, samatha with detachment from sense impressions, not what > one mistakenly takes for samatha. I think the same must be said about vipassanaa. Saying thus the Teacher, The two-footed relation of the sun said: 1. Matter is comparable to foam Feelings to bubbles, Perceptions are comparable to illusions Intentions to plantain sheaves And consciousness to magic, 2. In whatever way he wisely examines it, He sees it as useless and without essence. 3. About this body, the wise one declared, When devoid of three, matter has to be discarded. 4. When life span, name, and consciousness, Get discarded from this body, It lies unconscious being thrown here and there And it becomes the food of others. 5. This is how we continue, It's magic the foolish, prattle. The Blessed One declared, It's the slayer, no essence is evident there. 6. The monk with aroused effort, And with mindful awareness should reflect, The masses through out the day And through the day and night. 7. Monks discard all bonds And procure your own refuge Until you realize extinction, Behave as though your head has caught fire. http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/3Samyutta-Nikaya/Samyutta3/21-Khandha\ -Samyutta/02-05-Pupphavaggo-e.htm#BM1 Kind Regards Herman 60017 From: "indriyabala" Date: Thu Jun 1, 2006 3:18pm Subject: Re: Reifying, .. All of These Are Just Different Perspectives indriyabala Hi good friend Howard, - >Tep: > Have we had a good discussion, in your opinion? -------------------------------------------- Howard: Sure, my friend! :-) ----------------------------------------- Tep: You were kind. A discussion is good or not depends on who discuss what with whom. Personally, I am willing to label a discussion as "good" if I learn something useful from it. So far, I have not had a clear idea yet about your perspective on the D.O. with respect to namarupa and vi~n~nana. Maybe I am too dense. {:>) ....................... ....................... > >Howard: > > In the context of that sutta, I understand namarupa to > constitute the object and vi~n~nana the subject in a dualistic, > > subject-object mode of defiled) experiencing. That is the way I > >understand D.O. Tep: And I answered with a quote from SN 12.67: > Tep: I think you are reading the sutta through your pink eyeglasses ! > The sutta message is simple and colorless. I understand it to say that > namarupa and citta co-arise dependently. The great Arahant Sariputta > explains the dependent co-arising nature of Name&form and > consciousness as follows: > > "It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one > another. In the same way, from name-&-form as a requisite condition > comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition > comes name-&-form. ... > "If one were to pull away one of those sheaves of reeds, the other > would fall; if one were to pull away the other, the first one would > fall. In the same way, from the cessation of name-&-form comes the > cessation of consciousness, from the cessation of consciousness >comes the cessation of name-&-form. [SN 12.67 Nalakalapiyo Sutta; >Sheaves of Reeds] Tep: And you said you did not wear pink eyeglasses. Howard: So? That doesn't contradict my perspective in the slightest! -------------------------------------------- Tep: Why? Do you mind elaborating more? Respectfully, Tep ========= 60018 From: han tun Date: Thu Jun 1, 2006 3:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] our discussions in Paris, no 5. hantun1 Dear Nina and Lodewijk, > > H: (4) The citta shifts all the time to different objects and this is not our own choice. This will depend on whether you believe in “meditation” or not. In samatha bhaavanaa one should be able to put the mind on the object of meditation. > > H: (7) N: If we try to concentrate on naama and ruupa, that seems more the method of samatha. H: Is anything wrong with samatha? In many suttas, the Buddha’s teachings include attainment of jhaanas which are the products of samatha bhaavanaa. ------- > N: Lodewijk said about this: Han: Samatha is not my inclination if it means attaining jhaana. I can never attain even first jhaana, and I never will. I was only asking what is wrong with samatha, because in many suttas, the Buddha’s teachings include attainment of jhaanas which are the products of samatha bhaavanaa. ------------------------------ > N: I would like to add something. Wise people before the Buddha¹s time and at his time realized that after seeing and the other sense impressions there was attachment, even of a very subtle degree. They saw the danger of attachment to sense objects and developed conditions to be freed of them. Their aim was detachment, they did not want to have calm in the sense of a feeling of ease. Han: You used the words “wise people”. So I have nothing to say against the above paragraph. ---------------------------- > N: Samatha is a high degree of kusala and it should be praised. But it should be true samatha, samatha with detachment from sense impressions, not what one mistakenly takes for samatha. A fine-tuned sati sampajañña is necessary that knows the difference between kusala citta and akusala citta. Even now there is seeing, and immediately after seeing there is likely to be attachment, even with the javana cittas arising in the same eye-door process as seeing. It comes in extremely fast and it is hard to detect. That is why samatha is most difficult. Its difficulty should not be underestimated. Han: No, I am not underestimating the difficulty of samatha. That’s why I said I cannot even attain the first jhaana. ------------------------------ > N: Through samatha it can be realized when there is anger and when metta, but it is still my anger and my metta. The idea of mine can only be eradicated through vipassanaa. Han: I know that. But what I want to say is samatha (which is synonymous with samaadhi, according to Nyanatiloka) can be very useful in many ways. “There are, O monks, these four kinds of development of concentration (samaadhi bhaavanaa). What four? (1) There is a development of concentration that leads to a pleasant dwelling in this very life (dittha dhamma sukha vihaaraaya samvattati); (2) there is a development of concentration that leads to obtaining knowledge and vision (nana dassana ppatilaabhaaya samvattati); (3) there is a development of concentration that leads to mindfulness and clear comprehension (sati sampajannaaya samvattati): and (4) there is a development of concentration that leads to the destruction of the taints (aasavaanam khayaaya samvattati). [AN IV, 41 Samaadhi Bhaavanaa Sutta] But, as you rightly said, it should be a true samatha, samatha with detachment from sense impressions, not what one mistakenly takes for samatha! ------------------------------ > N: To return to the difference in method of samatha and of vipassanaa: in samatha there is concentration on one meditation subject, but not without sati sampajañña that knows the difference between kusala citta and akusala citta. In vipassanaa: any reality that appears now is the object of sati sampajañña, without selection. It depends on conditions whatever dhamma presents itself through one of the six doors, be it pleasant, unpleasant, kusala, akusala, they are, all of them, worthy to be objects of right understanding. In that way we can learn to see them as only dhammas arising because of their own conditions, no person who makes them arise. The object of vipassanaa is an ultimate reality, not a nimitta, as in samatha. There is not concentration on one dhamma for a period of time, it is a momentary concentration (khanika samaadhi) arising with the kusala citta. It performs its function as Path factor, together with the other Path factors. Han: I can only agree to the above. Respectfully, Han 60019 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jun 1, 2006 11:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Reifying, .. All of These Are Just Different Perspectives upasaka_howard In a message dated 6/1/06 6:24:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, indriyabala@... writes: > Hi good friend Howard, - > > >Tep: > >Have we had a good discussion, in your opinion? > > -------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Sure, my friend! :-) > ----------------------------------------- > > Tep: You were kind. > A discussion is good or not depends on who discuss what with whom. > Personally, I am willing to label a discussion as "good" if I learn > something useful from it. So far, I have not had a clear idea yet > about your perspective on the D.O. with respect to namarupa and > vi~n~nana. Maybe I am too dense. {:>) ----------------------------------------- Howard: My perspective is that the two sheaves, supporting each other, are subject and object. But I've gone into that in detail not that long ago (2/27/06) in a composite post that pasted together a number of earlier posts by me on the subject.. ------------------------------------------ > > ....................... > ....................... > > >>Howard: > >> In the context of that sutta, I understand namarupa to > >constitute the object and vi~n~nana the subject in a dualistic, > >>subject-object mode of defiled) experiencing. That is the way I > >>understand D.O. > > Tep: And I answered with a quote from SN 12.67: > > >Tep: I think you are reading the sutta through your pink eyeglasses ! > >The sutta message is simple and colorless. I understand it to say that > >namarupa and citta co-arise dependently. The great Arahant Sariputta > >explains the dependent co-arising nature of Name&form and > >consciousness as follows: > > > >"It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one > >another. In the same way, from name-&-form as a requisite condition > >comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition > > comes name-&-form. ... > >"If one were to pull away one of those sheaves of reeds, the other > >would fall; if one were to pull away the other, the first one would > >fall. In the same way, from the cessation of name-&-form comes the > >cessation of consciousness, from the cessation of consciousness > >comes the cessation of name-&-form. [SN 12.67 Nalakalapiyo Sutta; > >Sheaves of Reeds] > > Tep: And you said you did not wear pink eyeglasses. > > Howard: > So? That doesn't contradict my perspective in the slightest! > -------------------------------------------- > > Tep: Why? Do you mind elaborating more? ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I don't know what to say further, Tep. I've written a lot before on my understanding of D.O., and I am incapable of elaborating on it further. As to why I don't think the sheaves of reeds sutta contradicts my perspective, I simply see no contradiction. If you do see a contradiction, then say why - if you wish, of course. If all that you are saying is that the message of that sutta can be interpreted other than as I do, well, fine. No doubt it can. I don't insist on my interpretation being yours or anyone else's. It may well be novel, though that's unlikely. ----------------------------------------------- > > > Respectfully, > > > Tep > ========================== With metta, Howard 60020 From: "Dan D." Date: Thu Jun 1, 2006 4:20pm Subject: Re: Please don't.... onco111 Dear Sarah, Thank-you for the nice note. I agree that we've had a good exchange. You will always be a good Dhamma friend. Comments interspersed... > Firstly, I think we've had a good exchange and I apologise for any > inappropriate personal comments I've made or quotes which might appear to > be misleading in anyway. > Whilst the texts themselves are often not 'black and white' and are always > open to different interpretations (as we've shown in this discussion),I > can assure you I have never had any intention of 'twisting' or > 'distorting' them in anyway. I forgive you for any inappropriate personal comments and for occasionally selectively over-snipping your quotes from the texts. I think we all have a tendency to read the texts in a way that supports our prejudices. But it is nice to discuss with you what the texts actually say instead of having to bicker about whether to put any stock in them at all. We are surely going to have some disagreements about the meaning of various passages, but if my readings ever get absurdly far from what is written (as I'm sure they do on occasion), I do hope you will challenge me (and I'm sure you will). I will appreciate the correction. Also, I think my immodest "inimitable" skit was more personal than was called for. I should have been more considerate in the way I expressed myself. I guess my breach of right speech precept just proves I'm not enlightened. I am sorry. > > To come up with "No development of any insight outside the Buddha's > > teachings", you must have skipped the "for the sake of the four > > paths" clause in your inimitable reading style. > .... > S: I didn't skip it. These 12 renunciates include worldlings (ordained or > not) who develop vipassana which leads to sotapatti magga and phala > cittas. The only purpose in developing vipassana is for insight into > conditioned dhammas leading to the eradication of defilements and the > realisation of the unconditioned dhamma, nibbana. This is your opinion, and that's fine. I find it neither rational nor supported by texts, but that is another matter. The commentary you cited says is only that outside the dispensation, no one practices insight for the sake of realizing nibbana. I can't argue with that. Nibbana is uniquely Buddhist. > Do you have anything else in mind or any quote to support a view that > vipassana or satipatthana can be developed by following " 'others' > doctrines"? No. Buddha taught total eradication of defilements and the attainment of full enlightenment. Why would we expect him to recommend other teachings? But you know what?...much of what he teaches is clearly taught outside the dispensation as well, e.g., sila and samadhi, devas and titans, kamma and rebirth, sabbe kusala anatta, etc. >How do you understand the last words of the Buddha about > making 'Dhamma one's refuge'? He's making an inspiring plug to his disciples to maintain patience, courage, and good cheer in light of his impending passing away and to rely on Dhamma rather than the personality of the Buddha. Do you understand it to mean: "Outside the dispensation there is utter ignorance, not even a shred of insight about the workings of the world"? > I think we'll just have to agree to differ on this point, Dan, unless you > have any other contextual support for your statement above. > ..... Yes, we'll have to disagree. The passages from the Satipatthana sutta commentary that you cite do not say what you are trying to make them say, at least not without an awful lot of interpolation and eisegesis (i.e., reading stuff into a text, in contrast to exegesis [extracting the meaning from a text]). The passage does not directly address the question, as the other passages you cited earlier do (i.e., the other passages clearly say, "No arahants outside the dispensation. [Commentary: Not only that, no sotapannas either.]"). > D:>You seem to think > > that understanding reality is directly contingent on a detailed, > > speculative understanding of concepts, that as the conceptual > > understanding gets deeper and deeper, an understanding of reality is > > gradually approached but only after a long, long time of thinking > > about "dhammas", conceiving "dhammas" as dhammas, and delighting > > in "dhammas". > .... > S: This doesn't sound like anything I've ever said (but you're welcome to > quote me if you think so!). What I wrote in my last post to you which was: I agree that you haven't said anything that sounds like the last two clauses ("conceiving 'dhammas' as dhammas, and delighting in 'dhammas'"). I added those as what I see as the implication of the "intellectualize first, understand later" method outlined in the first half of the paragraph. But is the first several sentences an inaccurate or unfair paraphrase of where you stand? Metta, Dan 60021 From: "robmoult" Date: Thu Jun 1, 2006 4:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Supramundane Cittas + Immaterial Cittas robmoult Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > When you say 'play the role of bhavanga', I think you are meaning that > these resultant cittas 'play the role' of patisandhi, bhavanga and cuti > cittas in the arupa bhrahma realms. ===== Yup. Thanks. ===== > > [Btw, fairly recently I replied to you and Geoff with 2 longish Abhidhamma > posts. Let me know if you didn't see them and I'll give you links. Often > I'm slow (like up to a month or three) in replying to detailed posts and I > know you're not always around when I get back to yours!] > ===== I must have missed it. Please send me the message numbers offline. Metta, Rob M :-) 60022 From: "Maya Putra" Date: Thu Jun 1, 2006 5:08pm Subject: 3D Interface Buddhist Website vvhite_illusion Hi all, Check out Daw Dhammethi Silashin web site. Looks pretty neat. 3D interface, flash graphics, and useful resources. Go here: http://www.silashin.org -Maya 60023 From: "Dan D." Date: Thu Jun 1, 2006 4:44pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Please don't.... onco111 Dear Ken O, It's good to hear from you! We haven't corresponded for quite some time... > Personally why do people like me need concepts towards understanding > because I think my panna is not strong enough. Ven Sariputta just > need a few verse to gain understanding or have samma dithi. We all need concepts and rely strongly on concepts. As long as that reliance does not translate into clinging to concepts as reality ("This is the way it is!"), then I think it is not ditthi. > k: the gist is, could we do it now, could we have the power to say > panna arise because I want it to arise or I wish to do it now. > Models are just tools. Some people prefer looking at details of the > model and can read for many days suttas after suttas, some like me > have very short span of attention, prefer to look at a bit here and > there then go watch TV and disturb my friends. We cannot say that > reading suttas or Abhidhamma books or discussing dhammas does not > help to develop panna, these are not just mere intellectualising, > because in the suttas there are tons of evidence of listening to the > dhamma which is important to development of the path. But how does the listening that we read about in the texts relate to the reading and discussing details of the suttas that you mention? I think it has much the same relationship as the 'meditation' we read about in the suttas and the 'meditation' that is done in a formal retreat at a meditation center. > k: There is no samma dithi until one reach the path, because samma > dithi is about realisation of the four truth. So during our path of > development, we have no samma dithi just conceptual undestanding. There are different types of samma-ditthi. 1. Supramundane samma-ditthi, which eradicates defilements and constitutes enlightenment; 2. Mundane samma-ditthi, which is a momentary clear vision into the nature of dhammas; 3. Conventional samma-ditthi, which is the holding of Religiously Correct opinions. The first kind of samma-ditthi is the goal. The second kind arises from time to time and constitutes development of understanding. The third is a trap that can make the fetter of ditthi thicker and stronger while making it appear to be thinner and weaker--a near- enemy of samma-ditthi, I'd say. > ...even > though I knew that all my views are now conceptual until I reach the > other shore. Ouch! I would consider mundane samma-ditthi (satipatthana) to be distinct from conceptual "samma-ditthi" (which, by the way, I think is an absurd notion). And, I think you are wrong that all your views are conceptual (unless you think mundane satipatthana is conceptual). > And I know no one in the past, present or future can > say let my citta be thus or let my citta not be thus, not even > Buddha. Not even Buddha before he becomes Buddha can rush his own > understanding of the dhamma. I agree. But understanding develops via the presently arising moment rather than through intellectualizing. Metta, Dan 60024 From: "indriyabala" Date: Thu Jun 1, 2006 5:41pm Subject: Re: .. All of These Are Just Different Perspectives ... Feeling & Mind indriyabala Hi Ken O., I have not seen a sutta (or a commentary) that says that the mind cannot feel joy(somanassa) or sadness(domanassa) through cognizing an object. So can you tell me whose theory it is that says: the mind (citta, consciousness) cannot feel joy or any feeling? >K: If we put on the assumption that the mind can feel, why did the >sutta have the aggregate of feeling cetasika. It should just simply the mind. Tep: Please note that it was said by Tep (see the earlier post) that the mind could feel through assistance of vedana. My thought is the following: If there is only the mind and no vedana, then it cannot sense an object as pleasant/unpleasant/neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant. This is very much like a near-sighted person cannot see without using proper eyeglasses. Now let me strengthen my hypothesis by referencing the Visuddhimagga Chapter XIV. "Whatever has the characteristic of being felt should be understood, all taken together, as the feeling aggregate" ... ... 'It is felt , friend, that's why it is called feeling'. (M.i,293) [Vism. XIV, 125]. "Joy has the characteristic of experiencing a desirible object. ... It is manifested as mental enjoyment. ..." [Vism. XIV,128]. Here I interpret the above quotes to mean that the feeling aggregate is felt by the mind (citta, consciousness) and because of that "being felt", it is "called feeling". So I am clear that the mind feels an object as joyful, i.e. it experiences "mental enjoyment", through its association with the object and the joyful feeling. ...................... >K: >Another way we could say its object conditioning, when one meet a strong pleasant object that we like immersely, feeling arise, why didn't Buddha say it is the mind that arise. Because it is implied as mind could not arise without having an object. Buddha did not say the mind feels pleasant feeling, Buddha says mind cognize the object. Tep: Now, let me try to say what you just said in my own way, and please again correct me if "my way" is not right. :-)) When one for example sees a joyful object, mental joy arises. This mental joy is felt by the mind(citta) --i.e. the joy is being felt by the citta, friend Ken O, that's why joy is called a feeling. ........................ Tep: Now, I am pleased to discuss your quoted Sutta [SN 36.19: Pañcakanga] with you. "... These are the five strands of sense desire. The pleasure and joy arising dependent on these five strands of sense desire, that is called sensual pleasure." >K: If we see further down, wished for, desirable are both lobha and >also there should be pleasant feelings that accompany or associated >with the arising of mind with the object. Tep: I have no problem agreeing with "pleasant feelings .. accompany or associated with the arising of mind with the object". .............. >K: When Buddha usually talk on feelings, it is feelings as stand >alone and not saying cittas feel the feelings. Tep: Are you reading between the lines of the sutta quote? The Buddha very simply said this: "The pleasure and joy arising dependent on these five strands of sense desire, that is called sensual pleasure." There are no words in the quote that say "it is feelings as stand alone", neither do they say "cittas feel the feelings". .................. >K: The reason personally I feel is the different functions of the citta and cetasikas. If the mind is everything, then there will be no salvation because the mind could be both kusala and akusala as they could have different feelings. This also cause confusion if pleasant feeling arise, is it kusala or aksuala. Different cetasikas are the determinat of the kusala and aksuala and not the mind. Tep: I understand and accept "the different functions of the citta and cetasikas", Ken, because it can be verified by the suttas. However, I have not said anything about the mind "that is everything including kusala and akusala". You are stuffing your words in my mouth. !! {:-|>> !! ................. >K : >I hope this helps, keep the questions coming because I love them. Thank you for allowing me to exchange some unproven viewpoints with you. It is my pleasure as well. Thanks. Sincerely, Tep ======= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Hi Tep > > > > Tep: Not quite a disagreement! It was just a contrast I have made > > so that you may see the "big difference". Yes, my understanding > has been that the mind "can feel" (through assistance of vedana) and > > "perceive" (through assistance of sanna). Ken O has tried to change > my mind about this, but I am not convinced (not yet). > > k: The mind "can feel". Feeling is a particular strong cetasikas > because it enjoys the full "flavour" of an object. Just like when we > are eating something we love even though we are blind fold, pleasant > feeling arise. This give us an impression, the mind can feel rather > than vedana feels. If we put on the assumption that the mind can > feel, why did the sutta have the aggregate of feeling cetasika. It > should just simply the mind. Likewise, if the mind can perceive, > then why is the reason for seggregating perception and the aggregate > of mind. (sniped) 60025 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jun 1, 2006 2:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Please don't.... upasaka_howard Hi, Dan (and Sarah) - In a message dated 6/1/06 8:50:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, onco111@... writes: > >Do you have anything else in mind or any quote to support a view > that > >vipassana or satipatthana can be developed by following " 'others' > >doctrines"? > > No. Buddha taught total eradication of defilements and the attainment > of full enlightenment. Why would we expect him to recommend other > teachings? > > But you know what?...much of what he teaches is clearly taught > > outside the dispensation as well, e.g., sila and samadhi, devas and > titans, kamma and rebirth, sabbe kusala anatta, etc. > -------------------------------------------- Howard: Actually, there is a sutta - please forgive my inability with giving citations - to the effect that wherever there are found teachings that lead to (or are conducive to) calm and relinquishment (or something along these lines), they should be considered as Dhamma. I really apologize for not being more precise in this. In fact, I would greatly appreciate it if anyone could come up with my "Missing Sutta" ;-) ===================== With metta, Howard 60026 From: "indriyabala" Date: Thu Jun 1, 2006 6:15pm Subject: Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 433- You ain't seen nothin' yet ! indriyabala Hi Jon, - Thank you for trying to write (but you didn't have to). > >Tep: No, I did not. I said, e.g. ".. abstaining from false speech >is kusala here and now"; here, it means restraining from giving a >wrong speech. Hence, abstaining that is wholesome is guided by the >>(mundane) right view about wholesome & unwholesome as stated by >>the Arahant Sariputta in MN 9. > >Jon: >OK, sorry for mis-interpreting you. I was trying to understand the >connection you were making between observance of precepts and >kusala arising "at a time of one's own choosing". Would you mind >explaining this further a little. Thanks. Tep: You sounded like your mind was somewhere else! .................................... >Tep: Come on, Jon ! You are avoiding the issue. The issue is that >jhanas can be chosen to arise; relative mastery or not IS NOT the >issue. {:>[ >[My avatar is badly disappointed!] > > Jon: Sorry again, Tep ! ;-)). Would you mind reminding me what is the issue, so that I can make sure my reply is to the point. Tep: Mastery of the jhana is not the issue. The real issue is to show that kusala, such as sila or samadhi or panna, can be developed such that it may arise "at a time of one's own choosing". May you have a good sleep tonight. Sincerely, Tep (snipped) 60027 From: "indriyabala" Date: Thu Jun 1, 2006 6:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dependent Origination indriyabala Hi Charles D., - Thank you for replying. >Charles: > Effectiveness is also relative; it depends on other factors besides > "knowing" -- knowledge of the dependent arising and falling-away of mental events. > > "Beyond Doubt" is relative too; it depends on other factors besides the relative effectiveness of the skillful means. > Best wishes, Tep ==== 60028 From: "kelvin_lwin" Date: Thu Jun 1, 2006 6:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Let's talk about sex, drugs and rock'n roll (Three Suttas about Atta) kelvin_lwin Hi Herman (RobM), >H: the Sex Pistols at 100 decibels. Now according to your calcs no auditory > sensation lasts longer than 1 x 10^-12 seconds. I'm afraid that there is > just no audible sound discernable in that frequency range, the lowest > frequency you and I are likely to register would require a stimulus lasting > at least .05 of a second. That would be a sound corresponding to 20 Hz. Is > it possible that your sources are out by a factor of 10 ^10 when it comes to > the speed of cittas? Hmmmm, that wouldn't inspire any confidence Kel: You're mixing up stimulus (sound) with the system (mind) that is sampling it. Nyquist rate says that the sampling rate has to be at least twice as fast in order to reproduce the input. The more sampling points, the better the reproduction. So referring to our earlier discussion, the mind can attend to other doors and still have plenty of time to come back to the sound in order to hear the 20 Hz to 20kHz which is the human hearing range. You only run into trouble when the processing speed is slower than the input speed. > H: reach orgasm requires rather a lot of > physical stimulation. I would think that orgasm is mostly sense door > produced, and I am not swayed from a view that being able to enjoy such > bodily pleasures frequently must be an indication of much accumulated > kusala, if vipaka theories amount to anything. Kel: It's sensation from friction and that could very well be unpleasant at times. Orgasm isn't necessarily vipaka, it could just be enjoyment of heat sensation. There's a difference between vipaka and javana but I think you lump them together. Previous mind process's javana could very well give rise to the following process's vipaka too. Who is to say the neutral-sensation resultants are not just mistakenly enjoyed by wordlings? Besides if you ask women, orgasms are mostly mental. - kel 60029 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Jun 1, 2006 7:55pm Subject: Right View and Orthodoxy scottduncan2 Hi Everyone, In a recent conversation with Herman, one of the sub-texts which seemed rather important related to orthodoxy. The word "orthodox" means "conforming with traditional or generally accepted beliefs," (Oxford). What are your opinions regarding the relationship between Right View and the notion of orthodoxy? The way I see it, Right View might and ought to correspond with orthodoxy and therefore, to hold an orthodox set of views would be advantageous. Sincerely, Scott. 60030 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jun 1, 2006 4:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Right View and Orthodoxy upasaka_howard Hi, Scott (and Herman) - In a message dated 6/1/06 10:56:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: > The way I see it, Right View might and ought to correspond with > orthodoxy and therefore, to hold an orthodox set of views would be > advantageous. > =========================== More important than orthodox vs heterodox is right vs wrong, and these don't always line up in the same way. Facts are specific! At the time of the Buddha, his dhamma was heterodox! It also was, IMO, the true teaching. But that is a matter to be discovered and not just taken on faith. With metta, Howard 60031 From: "indriyabala" Date: Thu Jun 1, 2006 8:12pm Subject: Re: Brain & Min ... They Have Done You In .. indriyabala Hi Ol'pal Herman, - No need to reply right away. >Herman : >I like a good discussion, Tep, and you can always be counted on one. I'm a bit short of time today, and I don't want to sidestep anything you put forward. I agree, it is a very annoying thing when that happens. Tep: I sympathize with anyone who does not have enough time (or does not want) to answer a question. Yes, sidestepping is not desirable. But it is one clever way to avoid an uncomfortable issue and regain control of the discussion. You can also change the title a little bit. Another way is to say: I am sorry. I don't understand your question. Can you repeat it again for me, please? {:-|> ..................... >Herman : >Do you think of DO as a template, into which many different factors can be slotted, or is there only the one, true DO? What are your thoughts about the original DO formula, the one that excludes ignorance and formations? Tep: I personally see D.O. as the middle-way dhamma (a right view) to avoid extreme views. In the nutshell the middle-way states that when the five khandhas arise (with ignorance as a requisite condition), it's only dukkha that arises; and when they cease (with the cessation of ignorance), only dukkha ceases. As such, there is only one D.O. I don't know the one that excludes ignorance and formations. Yours truly, Tep, your friend =========== (snipped) 60032 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Jun 1, 2006 8:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Right View and Orthodoxy scottduncan2 Dear Howard, H: "More important than orthodox vs heterodox is right vs wrong, and these don't always line up in the same way. Facts are specific! At the time of the Buddha, his dhamma was heterodox! It also was, IMO, the true teaching. But that is a matter to be discovered and not just taken on faith." Well, Howard, I was contrasting orthodoxy with Right View, not with heterodoxy. I'd be interested to hear more about this: do you mean eclectism? You make a good point though: right versus wrong; truth. Samma-di.t.thi, according to Nyanatiloka, is "the understanding of the 4 Noble Truths about the universality of suffering (unsatisfactoriness), its origin, its cessation, and the path leading to its cessation." Is this definition correct? Merely the "orthodox" position? Thanks for your reply. Sincerely, Scott. 60033 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jun 1, 2006 5:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Right View and Orthodoxy upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 6/1/06 11:34:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: > Dear Howard, > > H: "More important than orthodox vs heterodox is right vs wrong, and > these don't always line up in the same way. Facts are specific! At the > time of the Buddha, his dhamma was heterodox! It also was, IMO, the > true teaching. But that is a matter to be discovered and not just > taken on faith." > > Well, Howard, I was contrasting orthodoxy with Right View, not with > heterodoxy. I'd be interested to hear more about this: do you mean > eclectism? You make a good point though: right versus wrong; truth. --------------------------------------- Howard: It seemed to me that you were considering whether it might not be appropriate to identify orthodoxy with right view. Now, the opposite of orthodoxy is heterodoxy, and I was pointing out that at times it is a heterodoxy, not the reigning orthodoxy, that is right view - as in the case of the Buddha, whose Dhamma was heterodox at the time. --------------------------------------- > > Samma-di.t.thi, according to Nyanatiloka, is "the understanding of the > 4 Noble Truths about the universality of suffering > (unsatisfactoriness), its origin, its cessation, and the path leading > to its cessation." > > Is this definition correct? Merely the "orthodox" position? ---------------------------------------- Howard: I believe that is the most common definition. But there is much more to say. See, for example, the Sammaditthi Sutta , available at the following web address: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn-009-nb0.html ----------------------------------------- > > Thanks for your reply. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > > ======================== With metta, Howard 60034 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Jun 1, 2006 11:39pm Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 462- Non-Attachment/Alobha (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;-) ========================================== Ch 28, Non-Attachment(Alobha)contd ***** There are many degrees of non-attachment. Right understanding is the condition for higher degrees of non-attachment. If there is right understanding which knows when there is akusala citta and when kusala citta, there can be the development of calm. Calm can be developed with meditation subjects such as loving kindness, the contemplation of the Buddha’s virtues, the foulness of the body or other subjects. The citta with calm is accompanied by non-attachment. When calm has been developed to the degree of jhåna, defilements are temporarily subdued but they are not eradicated. Attachment to one’s attainment of jhåna may arise. Only the development of insight can eventually lead to complete detachment from all objects. •***** Non-Attachment(Alobha)to be contd Metta, Sarah ====== 60035 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 0:05am Subject: [dsg] Re: Please don't.... ken_aitch Hi Dan (and Ken O), ------------ D: > Sorry my response was so long in coming. I was in a mad rush to get ready for a holiday weekend last Friday <. . .> ------------ No worries, Dan, it hadn't occurred to me that your reply was late. I have spent the entire morning writing responses to every point you made, but it is going nowhere. At the risk of appearing ungrateful, after all the trouble you went to, I might have to give up on it. Having read your post to Ken O, I feel I am further away than ever from understanding your point of view. Didn't you at some stage concede that samma-ditthi could have a concept as its object? But now you (I think) are saying it can't. So too is Ken O, which surprises me even more. I will watch developments and leave my reply on the back burner for a while. Ken H Ken O to Dan: > > There is no samma dithi until one reach the path, because samma > > dithi is about realisation of the four truth. So during our path of > > development, we have no samma dithi just conceptual undestanding. > Dan: > There are different types of samma-ditthi. > 1. Supramundane samma-ditthi, which eradicates defilements and > constitutes enlightenment; > 2. Mundane samma-ditthi, which is a momentary clear vision into the > nature of dhammas; > 3. Conventional samma-ditthi, which is the holding of Religiously > Correct opinions. > > The first kind of samma-ditthi is the goal. > The second kind arises from time to time and constitutes development > of understanding. > The third is a trap that can make the fetter of ditthi thicker and > stronger while making it appear to be thinner and weaker--a near- > enemy of samma-ditthi, I'd say. > Ken H: ? 60036 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 0:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Audio dana sarahprocter... Hi James,(RobM, Phil, all) I just lost a post to you.... Anyway, I was just saying it's great news that you'll be visiting H.K. We'll be here the second half of July with the red carpet out for you! It'll be super to meet and talk 'real dhamma' face to face. Let us know your dates when you have them. It would be nice if Rob M passes through then and of course wonderful if Phil could pop over....Anyway, when we have your dates, others interested in visiting HK and joining the 'real dhamma' may consider it. (I assure anyone that we take our visitors out for nice leisurely buffet lunches rather than hikes in storms:-)). Thx for enduring track 1 of the 'torture', lol. Only a few more to go...10 mins a day? You might enjoy the 'Christine track' at Lucknow airport from your comments. She takes up the 'helpless/hopeless' theme. If anyone (Phil, Connie, Nina etc) hears any track which shouts out 'James', pls let him know so that he can skip some torture. There are two areas of your points/questions that come up as I recall - one on Satip. Sutta and characters and one on jhanas in lay people and Anathapindika's friends. Maybe some others. James, your news that you'll be visiting H.K. was a super start to my day. I know we'll have a great time together. Metta, Sarah --- buddhatrue wrote: > Thanks for this heads up. I have listened to Benares 01 and I don't > know if I could possibly listen to these five parts to see what > issues Nina raised which were originally raised by me. I didn't > recognize anything in part one and I don't think I want to listen to > the other four parts. It was like torture to listen to K. Sujin > describe and repeat herself again and again for about 10 minutes > about how we don't like dosa (Oh gee, now there's a news flash! ;- .... 60037 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 0:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Please don't.... sarahprocter... Hi KenH, (Dan, KenO..) --- ken_aitch wrote: > I > have spent the entire morning writing responses to every point you > made, but it is going nowhere. At the risk of appearing ungrateful, > after all the trouble you went to, I might have to give up on it. .... S: Let's see this 'nowhere' post.....c'mon KenH!! .... > I will watch developments and leave my reply on the back burner for a > while. .... S: Let the 'nowhere' post be the development. If we all left our attempts on the back burner, where would all the fun be:-/??!! Let Dan and Ken O be the judge of whether it has any merit. One thing I can promise you is that both Dan and KenO will let you know if it doesn't, lol!! Metta, Sarah ======= 60038 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 0:23am Subject: [dsg] Re: Please don't.... ken_aitch Hi Sarah, -------- > S: Let's see this 'nowhere' post.....c'mon KenH!! -------- Thank's for your interest. As a compromise, I will tidy it up a bit and send it tomorrow. But I warn you, it will still look like a dog's breakfast. Ken H 60039 From: "Andrew" Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 0:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Right View and Orthodoxy corvus121 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > It seemed to me that you were considering whether it might not be > appropriate to identify orthodoxy with right view. Now, the opposite of orthodoxy > is heterodoxy, and I was pointing out that at times it is a heterodoxy, not > the reigning orthodoxy, that is right view - as in the case of the Buddha, whose > Dhamma was heterodox at the time. Dear Howard and Scott I believe I am guilty of recently using the word "orthodoxy" in a dsg post. Perhaps not a good idea as it and associated words are of an ill-fitting theological slant. I see "heresy" as more the opposite of "orthodoxy" and these terms always depend upon the POV eg at the time of the Buddha, the Sangha's orthodoxy was the Brahmanist's heresy (that animal sacrifice was ineffectual in a wholesome way, for example). Orthodoxy/heresy is a conceptual, doctrinal, view thing. Right/wrong understanding is a personal experience. Assuming that a doctrine is sound at the doctrinal level, acceptance of the orthodoxy of that doctrine may help condition personal right understanding. But we can't be dogmatic about that, can we. The simile of the snake! And, oftentimes, hearing and considering and *rejecting* a wrong doctrine can trigger right understanding. I'm sure Herman has some interesting thoughts on this (hint, hint). A question for you guys - why, in some suttas, is the Buddha very strict about bhikkhus remembering what he had taught accurately? Was he focussed on an orthodoxy or on understanding? In the bhikkhus themselves or across the ages? Best wishes Andrew 60040 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 0:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A summary of the Teaching ... Taste Your Own Medicine First... sarahprocter... Hi Herman, --- Herman Hofman wrote: H:> > > What do you know, or have you ever known, about the present moment, > > > which > > > allows you to speak with confidence about realities? > > ... > > S: I'm assuming this is a rhetorical question. If you want to discuss > the > > topic of present moment and knowing realities, let me know. .... H:> No, it is not a rhetorical question. Let's get it on ! And quote any > book > you want :-) .... S: What is the present moment if it's not citta, cetasikas and rupas right now? What can possibly ever be known but seeing, hearing, like, dislike or any other present reality now? How can it possibly be anything other than panna which understands such realities? How can you or I ever know anything when there is no you or I? You tell me, Herman. (Not rhetorical questions either!!) Does anything else make any sense at all - really? Metta, Sarah ======= 60041 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 0:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Please don't.... sarahprocter... Hi KenH, --- ken_aitch wrote: > Thank's for your interest. As a compromise, I will tidy it up a bit > and send it tomorrow. But I warn you, it will still look like a dog's > breakfast. .... S: Now you have us all salivating in suspense:-). Don't worry, if it's truly a dog's breakfast, you'll give Dan, KenO and others the fun of chewing it to pieces:-). Now, don't forget....:-) Metta, Sarah ====== 60042 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 0:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition ... Metta and Devas sarahprocter... Hi Herman & all, --- Herman Hofman wrote: > 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 :-) ... S: Next time, I'd enjoy the wordy answer too :-) .... > > 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? .... S: Well, alobha (non-attachment) is sometimes translated as generosity and it accompanies all wholesome cittas, including 8fold path moments. When there is dispassion or detachment, there is a lack of greed or selfishness. We read in the texts that dana or generosity specifically 'has the characteristic of relinquishing; its function is to dispel greed for things that can be given away'. when there's the actual giving, it's stronger than when there's just momentary alobha. It's the first of the paramis and we read that the paramis have to be developed with satipatthana, so in this sense it's connected too. If there's just dana without any development of understanding, then it's always kusala, but it just leads to more becoming as you say. It's not understood as 'a dhamma' but instead is seen as 'my dana'. But even here, we can't say the dana is ever 'akusala in terms of the path'. Wrong views or attachment to it afterwards, yes, but not the (kusala) dana itself. For one thing, when there is any generosity, at those moments there is a relinquishing of the usual akusala states. I think I'm going in circles here, Herman. Conditions are so complex and any kusala can be a support for the development of the 8fold path. ... > BTW I don't have a problem with dana. As far as samsaric pursuits go, it > ranks highly. .... S: I know you appreciate this. Moments of kusala lead to others and our own welfare, whilst moments of akusala lead to grief. I think this is pretty obvious even without the Buddha's teachings. Let me know if you have any other ideas. Others may have more to add too. Metta, Sarah ====== 60043 From: Ken O Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 1:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: .. All of These Are Just Different Perspectives ... Feeling & Mind ashkenn2k Hi Tep Tep: Please note that it was said by Tep (see the earlier post) that the mind could feel through assistance of vedana. My thought is the following: If there is only the mind and no vedana, then it cannot > sense an object as pleasant/unpleasant/neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant. This is very much like a near-sighted person cannot see without using proper eyeglasses. Now let me strengthen my hypothesis by referencing the Visuddhimagga Chapter XIV. > "Whatever has the characteristic of being felt should be > understood, all taken together, as the feeling aggregate" ... ... 'It is felt , friend, that's why it is called feeling'. (M.i,293) [Vism. XIV, 125]. "Joy has the characteristic of experiencing a desirible object. ... > It is manifested as mental enjoyment. ..." [Vism. XIV,128]. > > Here I interpret the above quotes to mean that the feeling > aggregate is felt by the mind (citta, consciousness) and because of that "being felt", it is "called feeling". So I am clear that the mind feels an object as joyful, i.e. it experiences "mental enjoyment", through its association with the object and the joyful feeling. > Tep: Are you reading between the lines of the sutta quote? The > Buddha very simply said this: "The pleasure and joy arising dependent on these five strands of sense desire, that is called sensual pleasure." There are no words in the quote that say "it is feelings as stand alone", neither do they say "cittas feel the feelings". k: Sense desire is lobha with citta. so when lobha is with citta, then citta should be greed and not feel feeling. At that moment of sense objects, citta cannot be feeling joy because its object should be greed. At the moment when greed arise with citta with a sense object, pleasure is also arise. So the question is at that moment, can citta cognize the object and also feeling as an object at the same time and also greed as an object at the same time. From what I know, it is citta can only take one object at a time. Hence feeling is always associated and please find the meaning of association (if the word sahagatat is used) k: Expositor, pg 92, 'Accompanied by joy' : this means 'gone into the state of a common origin with joy, in the sense of enjoying pleasure like honey. This word 'accompanied' (sahagata)has the meanings of 'corresponding nature', 'mingled', 'dependence', 'object', 'associated with'. This craving produces repeated births and is accompanied by passion delight - here sahagata means 'of corresponding nature.' The meaning of that craving has become passionate delight. 'This investigation, bhikkhus, is accompanied by idleness, asscoated with idleness - here sahagata should be known in the sense of 'mingled', mingled with idleness arising at intervals. He develops that factor of wisdom called minfulness accompanied by the idea of the skeleton: - here sahagata should be understood as dependence. The meaning is 'depending on the notion of the skeleton and developing the idea, mindfullness as a factor of wisdom has been obtained.' In the passage, 'He has acquired the attainments accompanied by rupa, or by the immaterial -- sahagata is used in the sense of mental object. In the passage, 'This happiness is accompanied by this zest, is coexistent and associate with it'-- sahajata is used in the sense of combination. And in the this expression, 'accompanied by joy,' the last meaning is intended. For here 'accompanied by joy' is synoymous with 'thoroughly mixed with joy' k: Tep you also quote that "Joy has the characteristic of experiencing a desirable object. ... It is manifested as mental enjoyment. ..." [Vism. XIV,128]. this is not saying that citta can feel, it is simply describing Vedana as pleasant feeling. See Expositor pg 145, Feeling is what feels. It has (1)experience as characteristics, (2)enjoying as function or possessing the desirable portion of an object as function, (3)taste of the mental properties as manifestation and (4)tranquility as promximate cause. Cheers Ken O 60044 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 2:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Three Suttas about Atta sarahprocter... Hi Herman, I saw your note about not needing to pull out your questions/comments to me too late....I'd already sieved through the pile....:-). --- Herman Hofman wrote: > With regards to anumodana, if I for a moment became self-conscious of > doing > "good deeds" it would be a great hindrance to me. .... S: Fair enough - they probably would no longer be 'good deeds'. .... > What I don't understand is that in a culture that encourages the > announcement of good deeds, why there is the great reluctance to > announce > attainments? .... S: I don't think there is any rule about 'the announcement of good deeds' as you put it. I have good friends 'in the culture' who are very modest about their good deeds. But, it can be kusala to let others share in the performing of good deeds or in the appreciation of them. Can be....It can also easily be a raisng of the banner too. It depends very much on the intentions at the time. Everyone's different..... Metta, Sarah p.s Talking about modesty, you had a good discussion with Howard on the Visakkha thread about 'covering up'. What is 'appropriate' at home or in particular places is not appropriate in public generally. Visakkha was a sotapanna, so she knew what mindfulness was all about, but her concern was for the welfare of others when she made her request, particularly the welfare of the Sangha and their reputation. When my father had drunken binges, he was known to take to wandering around the town naked.....not fun for the rest of the family when the police would bring him home, I assure you! ======================= 60045 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 2:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Brain & Mind sarahprocter... Hi Herman (& Daniel), As I said, I've got all your posts out now.....:-) I was glad you picked up on Daniel's points and questions. --- Herman Hofman wrote: > But this is what the Buddha has to say about any sort of monism or any > sort > of dualism. > > When one is of the view that the life-principle is the same as the body, > there is no leading the holy life. And when one is of the view that the > life-principle is one thing and the body another, there is no leading > the > holy life. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma > via > the middle: From birth as a requisite condition comes aging & death." > > from http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.035.than.html .... S: Thanks for the reference. BB gives a helpful detailed note from the commentary to this passage which I think you'd find of interest, Herman. I'll just pause and ask if you or others would like me to add it as I have to go out now anyway. Basically, the first is the annihilationist belief and the second is the eternalist belief. Anyway, let me know... Metta, Sarah ====== 60046 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 3:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] re: our discussions in Paris, no 5. nilovg Dear Han, thank you for your answers and the sutta quote. I could add something for those who read this sutta and may believe that concentration alone could lead to the eradication of defilements. But I am sure you have no misunderstanding about this. I think that samaadhi 4 is going together with sammaa-di.t.thi of the eightfold Path, so that the aasavas can be eradicated. It has a function as Path factor, as right concentration of the eightfold Path. Nina. op 02-06-2006 00:21 schreef han tun op hantun1@...: > (4) there is a development of concentration that leads > to the destruction of the taints (aasavaanam khayaaya > samvattati). > [AN IV, 41 Samaadhi Bhaavanaa Sutta] 60047 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 3:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Brain & Min ... They Have Done You In . egberdina Hi Tep, I'm starting to think that you've been done in :-) On 02/06/06, indriyabala wrote: > > > Hi Ol'pal Herman, - > > No need to reply right away. > > >Herman : > >I like a good discussion, Tep, and you can always be counted on one. > I'm a bit short of time today, and I don't want to sidestep anything > you put forward. I agree, it is a very annoying thing when that happens. > > Tep: I sympathize with anyone who does not have enough time (or does > not want) to answer a question. Yes, sidestepping is not desirable. > But it is one clever way to avoid an uncomfortable issue and regain > control of the discussion. You can also change the title a little bit. > Another way is to say: I am sorry. I don't understand your question. > Can you repeat it again for me, please? {:-|> > ..................... > > >Herman : > >Do you think of DO as a template, into which many different factors > can be slotted, or is there only the one, true DO? What are your > thoughts about the original DO formula, the one that excludes > ignorance and formations? > > Tep: I personally see D.O. as the middle-way dhamma (a right view) to > avoid extreme views. In the nutshell the middle-way states that when > the five khandhas arise (with ignorance as a requisite condition), > it's only dukkha that arises; and when they cease (with the cessation > of ignorance), only dukkha ceases. As such, there is only one D.O. > > I don't know the one that excludes ignorance and formations. Please look at DN15. DO without ignorance and formations makes a lot of sense, I reckon. Kind Regards Herman 60048 From: "indriyabala" Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 4:49am Subject: [dsg] Re: Brain & Min ... They Have Done You In . indriyabala Hi Herman, - A quick reply! >Herman: > I'm starting to think that you've been done in :-) > Please look at DN15. > > DO without ignorance and formations makes a lot of sense, I reckon. > Good. Now there are two done-in guys talking to each other. If you can explain why D.O. "without ignorance and formations makes a lot of sense" to you, I'll be pleased. Sincerely, Tep you,r old friend =============== 60049 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 4:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A summary of the Teaching ... Taste Your Own Medicine First... egberdina Hi Sarah, On 02/06/06, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Herman, > > --- Herman Hofman wrote: > > H:> > > What do you know, or have you ever known, about the present > moment, > > > > which > > > > allows you to speak with confidence about realities? > > > ... > > > S: I'm assuming this is a rhetorical question. If you want to discuss > > the > > > topic of present moment and knowing realities, let me know. > .... > H:> No, it is not a rhetorical question. Let's get it on ! And quote any > > book > > you want :-) > .... > S: What is the present moment if it's not citta, cetasikas and rupas right > now? What can possibly ever be known but seeing, hearing, like, dislike or > any other present reality now? How can it possibly be anything other than > panna which understands such realities? How can you or I ever know > anything when there is no you or I? The point is that raw sensation is not experienced as it happens. That it happens, and what happens, is nothing more than an inference, a concept. The present moment, the now, is an inference, a concept. Sure, seeing sees, hearing hears, feeling feels etc etc That is knowing. Seeing knows, hearing knows. Seeing knows visible object, but it doesn't know the present or the past, it doesn't know time. Seeing is visible object. But it is gone before it is known that it was there, literally. Knowing seeing or knowing visible object is thinking, it is not here and now, it is analysis of the past. Anything that can be known as being there is always already past. It is perhaps more easily explained as the difference between consciousness and awareness. The presence of consciousness can be inferred from reactivity to stimuli before there is any "knowing of them", as in blinking when objects come flying to the eye, or reacting to a prod from your wife in deep sleep, without "knowing" anything about it. But clearly there is knowing of sense objects going on. Awareness on the other hand, is consciousness of consciousness, and that doesn't happen in real time. We can only infer that awareness is constructed from objects that were known by the senses. But whether the quality of the awareness of the object is identical to the quality of the consciousness of the object if and when it happened is unknowable. I hope that makes sense. Kind Regards Herman 60050 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 4:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Right View and Orthodoxy scottduncan2 Hi Howard, Thanks for the below: H: "It seemed to me that you were considering whether it might not be appropriate to identify orthodoxy with right view. Now, the opposite of orthodoxy is heterodoxy, and I was pointing out that at times it is a heterodoxy, not the reigning orthodoxy, that is right view - as in the case of the Buddha, whose Dhamma was heterodox at the time." Yes, I see what you are saying, Howard. The Buddha, in his time, presented a set of teachings that were entirely heterodox. It is true that the opposite of orthodoxy is heterodoxy. Today we are in a different circumstance, are we not? The Buddha's heterodox teachings are now established, fixed, albeit subject to the passage of time, translation, and other "evolutionary" factors. It is fair, I think, to state that the Buddha set things to right. His was a rectification, a correction. Now, our position vis-a-vis the Buddha's establisment of truth, has, in my opinion, to be different. I think that I need to seek a proper understanding of what the Buddha taught. It is not to me to seek to put forward my own heterodoxy in relation to the teachings. Otherwise, what's the point? I may as well just come up with my own thing and carry on. What do you think? Sincerely, Scott. 60051 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 5:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Right View and Orthodoxy scottduncan2 Dear Andrew, Thank you for your reply. A: "...the word "orthodoxy"...and associated words are of an ill-fitting theological slant." I think this is a good point. Our own experience with modern theology, and western theology more like, will undoubtedly be a factor in our struggles to understand the teachings of the Buddha. A: "I see "heresy" as more the opposite of "orthodoxy" and these terms always depend upon the POV eg at the time of the Buddha, the Sangha's orthodoxy was the Brahmanist's heresy (that animal sacrifice was ineffectual in a wholesome way, for example)." Also a good point. The heretical view is the one at odds with the orthodox one. A: "Orthodoxy/heresy is a conceptual, doctrinal, viewthing. Right/wrong understanding is a personal experience." Well, I think there is an integrative aspect to the above but you are making an extremely good point. The problem with personal experience is that it includes some extremely seductive aspects which threaten to influence one's ability to maintain a sense of Right Understanding, or of the way taught by the Buddha. Pride, conceit, inflation, misinterpretation of personal experience - all and more can contribute to simply being wrong and thinking its right. A: "Assuming that a doctrine is sound at the doctrinal level, acceptance of the orthodoxy of that doctrine may help condition personal right understanding. But we can't be dogmatic about that, can we. The simile of the snake! And, oftentimes, hearing and considering and *rejecting* a wrong doctrine can trigger right understanding." Dogmatism is often, it seems, used as a synonym for orthodoxy. No, one oughtn't be dogmatic I guess. Good point. How does one judge when a doctrine is wrong? A: "I'm sure Herman has some interesting thoughts on this (hint, hint)." If you build it, he will come. A: "[W]hy, in some suttas, is the Buddha very strict about bhikkhus remembering what he had taught accurately? Was he focused on an orthodoxy or on understanding? In the bhikkhus themselves or across the ages?" Good question. I think its because he knew he was correct, taught truth, and was totally aware of human nature. He knew the sasana would decline. Sincerely, Scott. 60052 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 1:19am Subject: A Companion to SN 12.67 (Re: [dsg] Re: Reifying, ... Different Perspectives) upasaka_howard Hi again, Tep - The following from the Sammaditthi Sutta could serve as a companion piece, I think, to the Sheaves of Reeds Sutta. It may clarify my take on vi~n~nana as subject and namarupa as object(s) in D.O., especially as explicated in SN 12.67: ______________ And what is mentality-materiality, what is the origin of mentality-materiality, what is the cessation of mentality-materiality, what is the way leading to the cessation of mentality-materiality? Feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention — these are called mentality. The four great elements and the material form derived from the four great elements — these are called materiality. So this mentality and this materiality are what is called mentality-materiality. With the arising of consciousness there is the arising of mentality-materiality. With the cessation of consciousness there is the cessation of mentality-materiality. The way leading to the cessation of mentality-materiality is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view... right concentration. ------------------------- Howard: Now, of course, my way of interpreting this is not the only way. Prior to the Buddha, 'namarupa' referred only to a sentient being, an intelligence-enlivened body. So, in the PTS dictionary, there is "Thus namarupa= individuality, individual being." That is the usage in Brahmanism for the term, and an interpretation along those lines, such as in the 3-lives interpretation of D.O., would take vi~n~nana to be rebirth consciousness and namarupa to be the new, "reborn" individual. But in the Dhamma as given in the foregoing material, another (non-Brahmanic) sense of the term is that of an aggregate of dhammas, mental and physical, and these namic and rupic elements are interdependent with vi~n~nana, I believe, as object(s) and subject. ======================= With metta, Howard 60053 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 5:57am Subject: Re: Right View and Orthodoxy scottduncan2 Hi Everyone, Here's an interesting paragraph from an essay by Bhikkhu Namoli, "Does Saddhaa mean 'Faith?'": "...if neither dogma nor agnosticism will do, why not be satisfied with some form of the critical humanism of the 18th-19th century Europe? Criticism has been incalculably productive, and we owe to it all the material advances we enjoy today. It is Criticism that has allowed science a free hand to question and experiment. Granted that Criticism (as Inquiry) merits all that praise and more. But that is as a means. If criticism is to be made the goal, the summum bonum, against what can it be tested? A fundamental weakness always remains in the position of the critic that if he discloses his own standpoint, that standpoint is open to criticism from some other; that is why it is rarely that the academic scholar, who employs the so-called 'higher criticism' can afford to state his own position in positive terms...Criticism requires that the critic be uncommitted, that he is, or pretends he is, outside what he criticises. The professional critic's very being depends on dialectics, the food that keeps him alive is other people's standpoints. As a means this may be invaluable: as an end it can never amount to more than an ordered from of agnosticism," (The Wheel Publication, No. 52/53). Sincerely, Scott. 60054 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 3:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Right View and Orthodoxy upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 6/2/06 7:54:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Thanks for the below: > > H: "It seemed to me that you were considering whether it might not be > appropriate to identify orthodoxy with right view. Now, the opposite > of orthodoxy is heterodoxy, and I was pointing out that at times it is > a heterodoxy, not the reigning orthodoxy, that is right view - as in > the case of the Buddha, whose Dhamma was heterodox at the time." > > Yes, I see what you are saying, Howard. The Buddha, in his time, > presented a set of teachings that were entirely heterodox. It is true > that the opposite of orthodoxy is heterodoxy. > > Today we are in a different circumstance, are we not? The Buddha's > heterodox teachings are now established, fixed, albeit subject to the > passage of time, translation, and other "evolutionary" factors. It is > fair, I think, to state that the Buddha set things to right. His was > a rectification, a correction. > > Now, our position vis-a-vis the Buddha's establisment of truth, has, > in my opinion, to be different. I think that I need to seek a proper > understanding of what the Buddha taught. It is not to me to seek to > put forward my own heterodoxy in relation to the teachings. > Otherwise, what's the point? I may as well just come up with my own > thing and carry on. > > What do you think? --------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree with you, Scott. If we are Buddhists, we look to understand the Dhamma as the Buddha intended it. But how to come to understand it is something we need to work out on our own. Some will rely entirely on ancient commentaries, some on modern commentaries, some on the guidance of a teacher (who may be 100% correct or a lot less than 100%), some on the original teachings of the Buddha and his chief disciples alone - in the record left in the Tipitaka, some on their own insights growing out of the practice laid out by the Buddha (as they understand that practice), and others by various combinations of the foregoing. Now, which is "right" isn't something growing on a tree ready for us to pluck. We have to look and see and figure out. The matter, unfortunately, is not simple. There are lots of people who seem to think they know "the right way", and there are almost as many "right ways" as there are people! ;-) I suspect that it is most sensible to not be overly sure! ------------------------------------------------- > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > ======================== With metta, Howard 60055 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 4:03am Subject: What are the Causes of Ignorance ??? !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: What are the Causes of Lack of Vision & Wisdom? A prince named fearless once asked the Blessed Buddha: Venerable Sir, what is the conditioning cause for lack of vision and wisdom? Prince, when mind is obsessed, overwhelmed, & dominated by sense-desire, or when mind is beset by evil-will, plagued, enraged & conquered by evil-will, or when mind is retarded, dimmed, detained & diluted by lethargy and laziness, or when mind is agitated, stressed, troubled & tyrannized by restlessness & regret or when mind is perplexed, confused, bewildered, wavering & wobbling by doubt & uncertainty, and one does not understand any safe escape from any of these arisen mental hindrances, in that very moment, one can neither see nor understand anything of what is advantageous, neither for oneself, nor for others, nor for both oneself & others! These mental hindrances are therefore the conditioning causes for lack of vision and wisdom! It is in exactly this very way, that ignorance arises from a cause, and not without a cause... What is this Dhamma explanation called, Sir? These are called the mental hindrances, prince. Surely and unquestionably they are mental hindrances. Blessed One! Anyone overcome by even a single mental hindrance would not know and see things as they really are, not to speak of one overcome by all these five mental hindrances... Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V:127] section 46: The Links. 56: To Abhaya... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. 60056 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 8:26am Subject: V isuddhimagga Ch XVII, 79, Dependence-Condition and Tiika. nilovg Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 79, Dependence-Condition, Nissaya-Paccaya. Intro: This condition refers to dhammas which condition other dhammas by being their support or foundation. It concerns dhammas which are conascent (arising together) with the dhammas they condition as well as to dhammas which have arisen previously to the dhammas they condition. We read in the "Pa.t.thåna''(Analytical Exposition, 8) as to the dependence- condition for conascent phenomena: 1.The four immaterial khandhas are mutually related to one another by dependence-condition. 2.The four great Elements are mutually related to one another by dependence- condition. 3.At the moment of conception, nåma and rúpa are mutually related to one another by dependence-condition. 4.States, citta and cetasikas, are related to mind-produced rúpa by dependence condition. 5.The great primaries (the four great Elements) are related to derived matter by dependence-condition. Moreover, the phenomena which have arisen previously to the phenomena they condition by way of dependence-condition are the five sense-bases. During life, the ruupa that is heart-base conditions the cittas and cetasikas that are dependent on it after it has previously arisen. -------- Text Vis.79: (8) A state that assists in the mode of foundation and in the mode of support is a 'support condition', as the earth is for trees, as canvas is for paintings, and so on. It should be understood in the way stated for conascence thus: 'The four immaterial aggregates are a condition, as support condition, for each other' (P.tn.1,3), ------- N: Citta and cetasikas that arise together condition one another by way of support-condition or dependence-condition. The Tiika elaborates on the simile of canvas that is a foundation for paintings and the earth that is the foundation for trees. Even so, the Element of Earth (solidity, pathavi-dhaatu) supports the other dhaatus. The four great Elements support each other and also the derived ruupas, as they each perform their own functions, as the Tiika explains. ------ N: The four great Elements are a support for one another. Solidity cannot arise without cohesion, temperature and motion, and this is also true for the other three great Elements. As to the third class of dhammas that condition conascent dhammas by way of dependence-condition, at the moment of birth the pa.tisandhi-citta and the hadaya-vatthu (heartbase) are mutually related to one another by way of dependence-condition. In the planes where there are five khandhas, nåma and rúpa, kamma produces the rúpa which is heartbase at the same time as the paìisandhi-citta which arises at the heartbase. The paìisandhi-citta and the heartbase support each other and they cannot arise without each other. They are also related by way of conascence, sahajåta and by way of mutuality, aññamañña. As to the fourth class of dhammas that condition conascent dhammas by way of dependence-condition, citta and cetasikas are related to mind-produced rúpa by way of dependence-condition. As we have seen, citta is one of the four factors which produce rúpas of the body. Citta and its accompanying cetasikas are a support to the rúpa produced by them, but that rúpa does not reciprocally condition the citta and cetasikas by way of dependence. As to the fifth class of dhammas that condition conascent dhammas by way of dependence-condition, the four great Elements condition the derived rúpas (upåda rúpas, the rúpas other than the four great Elements) by way of dependence-condition. -------- Text Vis.: but the sixth instance has been set forth in this way here: 'The eye base [is a condition, as support condition,] for the eye-consciousness element [and for the states associated therewith]; the ear base ... the nose base ... the tongue base ... the body base is a condition, as support condition, for the body-consciousness element and for the states associated therewith; ------- N: The Vis. mentions the sixth instance of dependence-condition which is different from the sixth instance of conascence-condition. Here it deals with the bases, vatthus, and these are not conascent but prenascent. Some phenomena which condition other phenomena by way of dependence have arisen previously to the phenomena they condition and, at that moment, they have not fallen away yet. These are the rúpas which serve as vatthus or bases for the cittas they condition. They cannot be base at their arising moment since they are then too weak. Rúpa can only at the moment of its presence perform the function of vatthu. Thus, it must be prenascent, arisen previously to the citta it conditions by dependence-condition. The eyesense assists seeing-consciousness by way of foundation and support. The Tiika mentions that eyesense may be keen or dull and this causes a difference in the way seeing-consciousness functions. Seeing is truly dependent on the eyesense as base. The same is true for the other sense-cognitions that are dependent on their relevant bases. The Tiika states that dependence-condition is distinct from object-condition. Eyesense conditions seeing by way of dependence-condition and visible object conditions seeing by way of object-condition. The heart-base is another physical base on which citta and cetasikas depend. As we have seen, only at the moment of birth the heartbase arises together with the rebirth-consciousness and serves as its base, but throughout life it arises previously to the cittas for which it serves as base and it conditions them by way of prenascent dependence-condition. -------- Text Vis.: the materiality with which as their support the mind element and the mind-consciousness element occur is a condition, as support condition, for the mind element, for the mind-consciousness element, and for the states associated therewith' (P.tn.1,4). -- N: As to the words, Œthe materiality with which as their support¹, the Tiika explains that this is the heart-base. During life, the ruupa which is the heart-base conditions the mind element and the mind-consciousness element by way of dependence-condition. The mind-element includes: the five-door adverting-consciousness (pañca-dvaaraavajjanacitta) and the two types of receiving-consciousness (sampa.ticchanacitta). The mind-consciousness-element comprises all cittas apart from the five pairs of sense-cognitions (pañca-viññaa.na) and the cittas which are mind-element. The Tiika refers to the Pa.t.thaana text which classifies as thirteen-fold the dhammas involved in the relationship of dependence-condition, including conascent and prenascent dependence-condition. ---------- Conclusion: As we have seen, citta and cetasika that arise together condition one another by way of conascence. Moreover, they also condition one another by way of mutuality-condition. They give each other a firm support, by means of mutual arousing and consolidating as the three sticks of a tripod give each other consolidating support. Furthermore, they also condition each other by way of dependence-condition. They cannot occur without each other, just as an oil painting depends on the canvas, and a tree needs the earth as a necessary foundation. Citta and cetasikas need one another to perform their functions. Citta is the "chief'' in cognizing an object, and cetasikas share the same object while they perform each their own function. Through awareness and right understanding developed in vipassanå the difference between citta and cetasika can gradually be known. Without awareness and right understanding there will only be theoretical knowledge of the way citta and cetasika condition each other by dependence-condition. As we have seen, the ruupas that are bases, vatthus, condition the citta and cetasikas that are dependent on them by way of dependence-condition. Seeing cannot arise without eyesense that functions as its base. The ruupas that are base are produced by kamma throughout our life. We cling to the notion of "my eyes'', or "my ears'', but they are only rúpas produced by kamma which fall away immediately. ****** Nina. 60057 From: "Joop" Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 8:28am Subject: Re: Right View and Orthodoxy jwromeijn Hallo Scott, Howard, Andrew, all Orthodox Theravada is: the texts of Buddhaghosa. I experience myself again and again as a non-orthodox Theravadin, as a freethinker-Theravadin. That's because I do take some parts of Theravada not literal but metaphorical, for example about the 31 realms of existence (in fact; 29 of them) and the existence of gods who are in my opinion projections of the mind. And because I do in fact not believe some parts of Theravada, I'm for example agnostic (in the way Stephen Batchelor explained it) on rebirth. But there's enough to have faith in, te be convined it's truths still calling myself a Theravadin, but not an orthodox one. If my (lack of) convictions is the eyes of others a heresy or wrong understanding: so be it. I cannot force myself to believe what I don't believe; and more important; what is not a problem in my spiritual path now. Metta Joop --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Hi Everyone, > > In a recent conversation with Herman, one of the sub-texts which > seemed rather important related to orthodoxy. > > The word "orthodox" means "conforming with traditional or generally > accepted beliefs," (Oxford). > > What are your opinions regarding the relationship between Right View > and the notion of orthodoxy? > > The way I see it, Right View might and ought to correspond with > orthodoxy and therefore, to hold an orthodox set of views would be > advantageous. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > 60058 From: Ken O Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 8:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Please don't.... ashkenn2k Hi Dan O (Sarah and Ken H) I hope you dont mind that I have re-arrange your paragraoh and put these few of your paragraphs first. > There are different types of samma-ditthi. > 1. Supramundane samma-ditthi, which eradicates defilements and > constitutes enlightenment; > 2. Mundane samma-ditthi, which is a momentary clear vision into the nature of dhammas; > 3. Conventional samma-ditthi, which is the holding of Religiously > Correct opinions. > > The first kind of samma-ditthi is the goal. > The second kind arises from time to time and constitutes > development of understanding. > The third is a trap that can make the fetter of ditthi thicker and > stronger while making it appear to be thinner and weaker--a near- > enemy of samma-ditthi, I'd say. > Ouch! I would consider mundane samma-ditthi (satipatthana) to be distinct from conceptual "samma-ditthi" (which, by the way, I think is an absurd notion). k: I think I am getting rusty again and I apologise I made all my points wrong in the earlier mail. I realise I did forget about mundane and supramundane until you have prompted it. Samma dithi is a cetasikas, so it should be mundane and supramundane. In my view, there is no such thing as conceptual samma dithi. By relying on concepts, one clings to an illusion because concepts are not real. It is a tendency that we like to believe concepts are the percusor to our understanding of dhamma, but it is not a paramatha hence it would not help in the development of the path. The intellectualising of samma dithi in our pariyati is based on paramatha and not concept. So this is two different thing. When we say pariyatti it does not mean learning samma ditthi as a concept, rather it meant we are learning it as a paramatha, as mundane and supramundane even though we know we still cannot see the paramatha side of it. But this is an important subtle difference that I have to emphasis. > But how does the listening that we read about in the texts relate > to the reading and discussing details of the suttas that you mention? I think it has much the same relationship as the 'meditation' we read about in the suttas and the 'meditation' that is done in a formal retreat at a meditation center. k: You are not wrong to point out hearing at the time maybe be a paramatha. But it is still a paramtha and not conceptual > And, I think you are wrong that all your views are conceptual > (unless you think mundane satipatthana is conceptual). k: Thanks for pointing my errors. That is why after reading your points, I went back to look at my notes again and I found out I am very wrong about what I wrote in the earlier mail. I have to apologise to Ken H also and thanks Sarah for having faith in me and knowing I will relook at this issue again. k: Before I pen off, I will leave you with this note that I have read. The dispeller of delusion, pg 139 para 552. < Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 11:09am Subject: metta 24. nilovg Dear friends, This is taken from Kh. Sujin's book on Metta. Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 3:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] re: our discussions in Paris, no 5. hantun1 Dear Nina and Lodewijk, > N: I could add something for those who read this sutta and may believe that concentration alone could lead to the eradication of defilements. But I am sure you have no misunderstanding about this. I think that samaadhi 4 is going together with sammaa-di.t.thi of the eightfold Path, so that the aasavas can be eradicated. It has a function as Path factor, as right concentration of the eightfold Path. -------------------- Han: Dear Nina, I have no misunderstanding that concentration alone could lead to the eradication of taints (aasavakkhaya). There are many suttas where Buddha taught insight knowledge must follow (or develop together with) jhaana attainments to eradicate the taints. The best example that I like is MN 118 Aanaapaanasati Sutta. In the book translated by Bhikkhu Nanamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi, on page 1325, Note 1121, it was mentioned that Thus, the fourth tetrad which deals entirely with insight is the final step towards the liberation; and aniccaanupassii (contemplating impermanence), viraagaanupassii (contemplating fading away), nirodhaanupassii (contemplating cessation), and patinissaggaanupassii (contemplating relinquishment) are often used in other suttas as well to indicate the fulfillment of Noble Eightfold Path and the realization of Nibbaana. Here also, in AN IV.41 Samaadhi Bhaavanaa Sutta which I had quoted, towards the later part of the sutta, the Buddha said: Bhikkhu Bodhi’s Notes on this paragraph: Respectfully, Han 60061 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 4:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Let's talk about sex, drugs and rock'n roll (Three Suttas about Atta) egberdina Hi Kel and Sarah, On 02/06/06, kelvin_lwin wrote: > > Hi Herman (RobM), It is truly nice to hear some scientific terminology. After all, our understanding of the way things work is allowed to change over 2000 years isn't it? And surely the fact that Dhamma talks can be distributed around the globe using MP3 compression technology shows there are advantages in using newer models to help understand sensation and cognition. > > Kel: You're mixing up stimulus (sound) with the system (mind) that > is sampling it. Nyquist rate says that the sampling rate has to be > at least twice as fast in order to reproduce the input. The more > sampling points, the better the reproduction. So referring to our > earlier discussion, the mind can attend to other doors and still > have plenty of time to come back to the sound in order to hear the > 20 Hz to 20kHz which is the human hearing range. You only run into > trouble when the processing speed is slower than the input speed. I happily accept what you are saying. But are you agreeing with RobM that the mind samples at 10^10 Hz? As a comparison of the models (let's call them Abh and MP3 for short), in the Abh model, is the rupa the stimulus, or an individual sample? The reason why I include Sarah in the heading is that the above has an enormous bearing on our discussion of the reality of the present moment. Surely it will be seen that an individual stimulus does not exist, and an individual sample is totally meaningless. Any sound that is reacted to or heard is already a stream of sound, spanning an indiscrete period of time. Yet the Abh model, and its adherents (who are very happy to use MP3 technology nonetheless :-)) maintains that knowing the characteristics of individual stimuli or samples is enlightening. One more question, do you see the corellation of 17 citta to 1 rupa as having any connection with reality? > H: reach orgasm requires rather a lot of > > physical stimulation. I would think that orgasm is mostly sense > door > > produced, and I am not swayed from a view that being able to enjoy > such > > bodily pleasures frequently must be an indication of much > accumulated > > kusala, if vipaka theories amount to anything. > > Kel: It's sensation from friction and that could very well be > unpleasant at times. Orgasm isn't necessarily vipaka, it could just > be enjoyment of heat sensation. There's a difference between vipaka > and javana but I think you lump them together. Previous mind > process's javana could very well give rise to the following > process's vipaka too. Who is to say the neutral-sensation > resultants are not just mistakenly enjoyed by wordlings? Besides if > you ask women, orgasms are mostly mental. Perhaps we hang around with different women. I always assumed that the ability to have multiple, bodily-writhing orgasms was an indication of much kusala in previous lives :-) Cheers, Kel Herman PS I really can't figure out from what you say whether you are a proponent of the Abh theory, or not :-) 60062 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 4:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Brain & Min ... They Have Done You In egberdina Hi Tep, On 02/06/06, indriyabala wrote: > > > Hi Herman, - > > A quick reply! > > >Herman: > > I'm starting to think that you've been done in :-) > > Please look at DN15. > > > > DO without ignorance and formations makes a lot of sense, I reckon. > > > > Good. Now there are two done-in guys talking to each other. > > If you can explain why D.O. "without ignorance and formations makes a > lot of sense" to you, I'll be pleased. Firsty of all, it makes sense because it is in the DN, which can be seen as a summary of the Teachings. Serious students must ask themselves why it has been so summarised, and yet ignored. Secondly, ignorance as the start of the whole process of DO is problematic for me for a few reasons. Howard has kindly explained matters before, but I still don't get it. (that's my ignorance for you :-)). But it seems from the orthodox interpretation of DO that ignorance is it's own cause. Nothing precedes it. Which is weird, in my books. Ignorance is a given, not dependently arisen. The reason why I like the DO formulation of DN 15 is because it is clear and unambiguous in having name/form as condition for consciousness, and consciousness as condition for name/form. That is DO in its essence, nothing arises without dependence on something else, and this is clearly not the case for ignorance. Thirdly, sankara as a link in DO has led commentators that have influenced Theravadan orthodoxy in a fundamental way to create a kamma bandwagon, that is totally at odds with DO. If name/form and consciousness depend on kamma as is suggested by orthodox interpretations of sankhara, then we may as well all pack up and go home. If kamma determines kamma, that is no different to ignorance determining ignorance. There is no way out of those loops, as I see it, Tep. Hope that suffices. Kind Regards Herman 60063 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 0:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Brain & Min ... They Have Done You In upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and Tep) - In a message dated 6/2/06 7:30:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > But it seems from the > orthodox interpretation of DO that ignorance is it's own cause. Nothing > precedes it. Which is weird, in my books. Ignorance is a given, not > dependently arisen. ========================== No, in another sutta the Buddha says that ignorance is not without cause. He says it results from the outflows/fermentations. For example, in the Sammaditthi Sutta, the Buddha says "From the origination of fermentation comes the origination of ignorance." There is also another sutta, which one I can't recall, in which the Buddha first explicity denies that ignorance is without cause, andhe then points to the outflows as the cause. With metta, Howard 60064 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 4:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ignorance (was Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 433- You ain't seen nothin' yet !) jonoabb Hi Herman Herman Hofman wrote: >Hi Jon, Tep, all, > >The following is prompted by what Jon wrote. It is a point of confusion for >me, and I would appreciate assistance from anyone. > > > >>I have a different view. For example, as I write this message there is >>no actual abstaining from killing, because there is just no question of >>any killing being done. Likewise there is no abstaining from the other >>kinds of akusala about which the precepts are concerned. >> >> >I understand what Jon is saying. Does the same apply to ignorance? Can there >be talk of ignorance if there is not the opportunity or possibility of >knowing? If there is the opportunity of knowing in every moment, what's >accumulations got to do with anything? > > In the example I gave, it is a case of kusala arising where there is the far stronger inherent tendency to akusala. The less inclination there is, in terms of a given individual's inherent/accumulated tendencies, to the taking of life in the first place, the less occasion there would be for that particular form of abstaining to occur (and where the inclination has been eradicated completely, no occasion at all). Whether there is in fact abstaining in a given instance is dependent also on the individual's accumulated tendencies for that particular form of kusala. As regards the existence or otherwise of these 'accumulated tendencies' wholesome and unwholesome, this is beyond or ability to prove or disprove, as they are said to lie latent in the consciousness (except to the very limited extent that they manifest at any given moment). But we can of course see if the hypothesis fits with our (present moment) experience of things. What would be your perception on this? Have a fine weekend Jon 60065 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 5:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner =?windows-1252... jonoabb Hi Tep indriyabala wrote: >Hi Jon, > >There is another post of mine (written for you) about the abstaining >from killing, etc., is kusala that arises here and now, at will. The >abstaining action results from the willing(cetana) and chanda (with >other supporting factors, e.g. saddha in the Buddha & mundane right >view about wholesome & unwholesome -- see MN 9) to strictly follow the >precepts, this cetana is kusala. Further, only kusala cetana is not >enough (the dirty linen does not get cleansed by wishing and willing); >we have to make a right effort for the sake of abandoning the akusala >action (such as killing). Then we can "make" the kusala cetana come >true! [You knew all this, why asked?] > Thanks for setting out your thinking on this other thread we have going. I think what you are saying is that there are occasions where an intention to abstain from breach of a precept is followed by actual abstention from that breach. I agree that can be so. But does this mean that kusala arises at a time of our own choosing? I don't really think so. For a start, not every intention to abstain will be followed by actual abstention (since only the sotapanna has perfect sila). And secondly, there are times when we have more aksuala (dosa, for example) that we would like to but no kusala arises. >>Jon: >>As regards the mere arising of kusala, it seems clear to me that >>willing is not a necessary prerequisite. That is to say, kusala may >>occur without any premeditation or conscious effort on the part of >>the person in whom it occurs. What are your thoughts on this? >> > >Tep: Willing to do kusala(kusala cetana) is necessary for that kind of >kusala to occur, therefore that 'kusala cetana' is a necessary >requisite for inducing the result that one has desired. This "desire" >is 'chanda' in the sense of iddhipaada (4 bases of power). > > As you see it, kusala cannot arise spontaneously but must be preceded by chanda ('desire to do'), the conscious intention for there to be kusala. But the chanda itself would have to be either kusala or aksuala; which would it be in the situation you have in mind? >The conscious effort (viriya + sati) is also another important >prerequisite for the arising of kusala, as stated in MN 117 and DN 22 : >"One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is >one's right effort. ... ..One tries to abandon wrong resolve & to >enter into right resolve: This is one's right effort. ...etc." > >"There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, arouses >persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the >non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen... >for the sake of the abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have >arisen... for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have >not yet arisen... (and) for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, >plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have >arisen: This is called right effort." > >Tep: Note very carefully the wordings : arising of skillful >qualities(kusala dhammas) that have not yet arisen ... increase >...culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen. > Again, you are saying that kusala needs conscious effort that is (kusala) right effort in order to arise. If so, then the question arises whether that kusala right effort itself requires kusala effort in order to arise. How do you see this? Jon 60066 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 5:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner =?windows-1252... jonoabb Hi Howard upasaka@... wrote: >Hi, Jon - > >In a message dated 5/23/06 5:54:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >jonabbott@... writes: > > > >>Well I'm sure everyone on this list, and I would suspect a substantial >>proportion of the world at large, would like to have more kusala in >>their lives. So lack of intention is not the limiting factor ;-)) >> >>What about factors such as knowing the different kinds of kusala, >>appreciating the value of ksuala, being able to distinguish kusala >>moments as they arise from moments of subtle aksuala, being in an >>environment where kusala is appreciated by others, a sense of urgency, etc.? >> >> >========================= > Yep, many factors, including, of course, taking the *right* actions, >and setting up the *useful* conditions, as, for example, along the lines of >"right" and "useful" according to the Buddha. > But presumably only kusala is "right" or "useful". If akusala is being generated in the name of, for example, guarding the sense doors, I don't think that would be regarded as practice in accordance with the teachings. So doesn't it come back again to sati and the other kusala mental factors? Jon 60067 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 5:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Samatha and vipassana 2 jonoabb Hi Eric ericlonline wrote: >Hi Jon, > >J, >OK, so let me ask: Why is the relationship between samadhi/jhana and >insight singled out here, bearing in mind that the relationship in >question is one of 'upanisaa'? > >OK so we agree, that according to the >Upanisaa, that insight depends upon or >is conditioned by samadhi. I see it >as a more close relationship as the >sutta is called Trancendent Origination >and not 'kind of a cool place to hang >out for awhile origination'. There is >an implication that this is a pretty >important relationship. You wish to >downplay its importance for what I see >as personal disinclinations towards >samadhi. Nonetheless, the sutta reads >'insight depends upon (is conditioned by) >samadhi'. Right? Can we move on finally? > But don't forget that the particular dependency or conditional relationship spoken of in this sutta is that of 'upanisaa'. In all our exchanges so far I don't think you've said what you understand that to mean. (To say that 'one conditions the other' is only part of the story; we need to know the nature of the conditional relationship.) Right? Can we have your thoughts on upanisaa finally? ;-)) >J>As long as we understand just what the 'dependency' is ;-)). And >as long as we take this link as one of a number being described, and >not giving it undue prominence out of its context. > >For the last month we have been talking >about samadhi and insight. This has a >clear linkage between the 2 in the Upanisaa. >How am I pulling this out of context of the >sutta or our discussion? Yes there are other >relationships shown in the sutta. But the way >you want to bring the Buddhist world into our >discussion, you would have to write a novels >worth of commentaries with footnotes. Surely, >you dont have time for this! Lets just TRY >AND FOCUS (CONCENTRATE Jon, I know you can do >it!!) on this one relationship. Who knows, >maybe both of us will learn something. > > What I mean by out of context is that the context of the sutta is 10 or so factors each of which is related to its predecessor and successor by way of upanisaa. This means that whatever holds for any 2 of the factors must hold for all the others as well. So we need to consider a little before rushing off to CONCENTRATE or TRY AND FOCUS!! >J> Fire is a condition for heat, and is so in every case. > >Fire as in flames? Are you sure you dont have >this backwards? Heat (concentrated kinetic >energy) is a condition for fire (flames) to occur. >Fire is the transfer of heat. Without heat, >no fire. > Hey, are you trying me on, Eric? ;-)) Because I think you're the one who has it backwards!! Whenever there is fire, there is heat. But we cannot say whenever there is heat there is fire. (Is it true to say that heat is a necessary condition for fire? I'm not sure about that; when a fire is started by striking a match against the appropriate substance, the fire is produced by a chemical reaction rather than by the generation of heat.) >J>But fire is not the only condition for heat, since heat may occur >other than by fire. > >Exactly, you have it backwards. There is >always heat (samadhi) with fire (insight) >but not vice versa. > Well you've finally said something I can agree with ;-)): there's always samadhi with insight, but there's not always insight with samadhi. >So heat (concentrated energy) >is a condition for fire (to occur) and not fire >is a condition for heat (to occur). Maybe this >is why you dont understand a simple relationship >like, 'insight depends upon samadhi'. You have been >thinking about this all backwards.! Hey, it is >understandable, with all those post-it-notes >flying around! :-) > Well one of us obviously has it the wrong way around (and I don't think it's me ;-)). Jon 60068 From: "kelvin_lwin" Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 5:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Let's talk about sex, drugs and rock'n roll (Three Suttas about Atta) kelvin_lwin Hi Herman, > things work is allowed to change over 2000 years > isn't it? And surely the fact that Dhamma talks can be distributed around > the globe using MP3 compression technology shows there are advantages in > using newer models to help understand sensation and cognition. Kel: I agree that understanding of the material has grown which led to things like MP3 players. I don't think there is or can be better understanding of the mind than what Buddha has taught. > But are you agreeing with RobM that the mind samples at 10^10 Hz? Kel: I don't know the exact frequency but I don't have a problem as long as it's fast. Buddha did say he doesn't know of anything that is faster or changes as fast as the mind. As long as all the cognizing of physical world can be done by 10^10 Hz then why not. > As a comparison of the models (let's call them Abh and MP3 for short), in > the Abh model, is the rupa the stimulus, or an individual sample? Kel: I'm not totally sure I get your points so please free feel to explain so we can discuss further. There are many types of rupa and they're suppose to be ultimately formless/massless. > The reason why I include Sarah in the heading is that the above has an > enormous bearing on our discussion of the reality of the present moment. > Surely it will be seen that an individual stimulus does not exist, and an > individual sample is totally meaningless. Any sound that is reacted to or > heard is already a stream of sound, spanning an indiscrete period of time. > Yet the Abh model, and its adherents (who are very happy to use MP3 > technology nonetheless :-)) maintains that knowing the characteristics of > individual stimuli or samples is enlightening. Kel: think you might be misrepresenting Sarah here a little. I believe her point is that by understanding it's just merely sound and not identifying with it, it could be an object for enlightenment. This hold true for all 6 types of objects and the hardest one to grasp is the mind-door objects. What we need to know is the process of how hearing happens, I don't think anyone is advocating 'catching' the sound sample. If material based discussion is hard, maybe we can discuss how you know distracted mind vs concentrated mind etc? > do you see the correllation of 17 citta to 1 rupa as > having any connection with reality? Kel: This ratio is basis of the mind process description so I'm okay with it. I'm not sure what true reality is and certainly don't have the concentration or wisdom to find out to that degree. > PS I really can't figure out from what you say whether you are a proponent > of the Abh theory, or not :-) Kel: I believe in Abhidhamma theory as I do with all the textual sources in Theravada tradition. - kel 60069 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 5:57pm Subject: Re: Herman [dsg] Re: Please don't run away yet, DAN 1.ii egberdina Hi Sukin, Thanks for your reply. I understand that you are going to take some time off, so I will try and answer your very nice post without asking any questions. Personally, I find that time away from dsg is very benficial, and I don't say that to give Sarah a coronary. I say it only because Dhamma is a thing you live, not type. And all that typing can lead to lots of thinking which leads to lots of typing, and really, I don't think that does anymore than giving nourishment to views. So, for whatever reason you take your leave, may that time lead to insight. > > Herman: > > Yes, I have read those discussions. It always amuses me how some > people have > > no reluctance in pointing to a past they speculate into existence as the > > source of their present behaviour. > > S:> Speculating about the past as in, "`I' am/received `this' because `I' > was/did `that' "? In any case, is it speculation or an attempt to explain > things in terms of Dhamma? The reference is never to a `self' > and `situation', but conditioned dhammas, and no one claims to know > what those were or for the matter, what the exact present dhammas > are. They are usually looked at from the standpoint of probability and > moreover, always acknowledged as past and gone. And the motive is > not `identifying', but "understanding"! > > Is it not a fact that the present moment is the result of dhammas that > have arisen in the past? Or are you content only with the past as > registered by memory? If so, then you are dependent > on `thought', `concept', `conventional reality', in your attempt at > understanding Dhamma. This seems to be the case when you make > reference to `brain research', `social psychology', and such to prove > right or wrong a particular view of Dhamma. Do you think that this > approach is conducive to insighting the present moment or are you left > with "stories" about the present moment? As I will be explaining to Sarah, and as you seem to understand here, the present moment is itself a story. But I understand why the story is told. If one sets a goal that is unattainable, then one has the perfect excuse to be an eternalist. Gotta keep looking for that darn present moment. Finding the present moment is not possible, but eternalism as a view has many adherents :-) What is knowable about the present moment is that it is gone before you know it, that it is anatta and dukkha. That's all you need to realise. Theorising about accumulations, anusaya, vipaka, is fuel to the eternalist fire, Sukin, nothing more, nothing less. A reference to past accumulations is the result of considering a `present' > moment experience. On the other hand, taking as reference a > conventional knowledge, be it science, psychology or sociology to > explain the realities of the present moment, is to remain swimming in > the ocean of concepts. > ======================== Considering a present moment is a story-telling session about what is past. S:> I can see that you are eager to live in this timeless present > moment. ;-) I agree that past, present and future is concepts. However > to say that something happened in the past and therefore one should > never refer to it, is I think more from being attached to the `idea' of > the > present. When the Buddha saw his past, it wasn't without insighting the > present moment. None of us will ever have any deep insight into the present moment to > condition any knowledge about the past. However even at > the `intellectual' level, the present moment can serve as basis for some > right thinking in terms of past conditions. Right thinking about the past? That's a new one. Some aspect of the present > moment experience does lead to the consideration about kamma > performed in the past, others point to accumulations, other about > rebirth in various planes and also there can be a reminder about the > endless cycle of birth and death. > Besides, each conditioned dhamma reflects the accumulation of that > same dhamma in the past…! The Buddha says that kamma is an imponderable, best left to Buddhas. Until such time, that's what I will do. Are you saying that such thoughts should be dismissed? Does one > replace them with thought of another kind? Nothing happens in a > vacuum, and there is a reason not to think about kamma, rebirth, > accumulations, and this is that we prefer to believe something else. And > I guess this is one reason why it is said that dismissing kamma and > rebirth is reflection of wrong view. > ======================== I don't dismiss kamma, at all. It is just that I can say nothing specific about it that is not entirely speculative. It is a simple, observable fact that causation is not experienced, it is not a dhamma. Any notion of causation or conditionality is speculative thinking of some sort. What we are limited to knowing is just what we experience, we cannot go past that. > > 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? > > > Herman: > > Exactly. > > S:> You mean `us' vs. `them'? Don't know. But your own perception and > judgement does seem to involve putting `persons' into `groups' and > generalizing. Is this not `self-view'? > > ==================== How about we continue this conversation when we are both arahants. I'm still waiting for you :-) > S:> Understanding `causes' is the condition by which the result/goal will > ever be reached. The destination is related to the cause of course, > however thinking in terms of `destination' can only condition `thinking' > about the cause, and not `understanding' it. :-) Yes, I'll happily agree with that. So that is why my eyes and ears become very disinterested any time they encounter statements about anusaya, accumulations, vipaka. > > > Herman: > > You can be sure of a few things. Like jhanas. You don't have to think > or say > > anything about them, in fact, if you do you've missed the boat, again. > > S:> So you are saying that you have experienced jhana. How do you > know other people have experienced jhana? Yes, I have experienced jhana. In a strong sense, I don't know anything about other people. But I am not a solipsist, and I accept that behind this post there is a person that wrote it. I think there is a very good reason why Puggalapannatti is in the Abhidhamma. Because the Dhammasangani and Patthana taken on their own are entirely dismissive of the reality of aggregates as people. But that's another story altogether. > > Herman: > > And if he said, in order for you to reach the goal, you are going to > have to > > learn to shut up your mind, and remove yourself from the sensuous > world, > > would you listen? > > S:> I would check if that really was the Buddha who said it. It wouldn't > be like other things I've heard him say. (I know you have something up > your sleeves. ;-)) I think anyone who outright rejects the necessity of developing right concentration towards the goal of ending suffering is not interested in what the Buddha has to say. Surely he wouldn't recommend a path of escape would he? All > conditioned dhammas are to be understood as and when they arise. > Only from thoroughly understanding conditioned realities will the mind > be ready to experience the unconditioned. Jhanas take quite a different > path altogether. Their business is to escape the sense objects, whereas > vipassana bhavana aims at understanding them as they truly are. You > can't get from `ignorance' of conditionality, > to `insight', `knowledge', `enlightenment'. And of what value is the laymen's vipassana? As I wrote to Nina yesterday, this is what the Buddha says: 6. The monk with aroused effort, And with mindful awareness should reflect, The masses through out the day And through the day and night. 7. Monks discard all bonds And procure your own refuge Until you realize extinction, Behave as though your head has caught fire. I don't think of anything that happens on the train between sensual pursuits as vipassana. > S:> Lets say we take `accumulation' out of the picture. Then what? > What is the reason for the difference in understanding? Why is it that > Sariputta understood immediately and I have read millions of words and > still the ignorance is as thick as ever? Need to practice jhana? If so, > why > have I refused to do it till now? Wrong view? Why this wrong view > persists? Refusing to take Master Herman's advice? Why this? Sheer > stupidity? And this,….out of the blue? ;-) > ================== When we take accumulations out of the picture, then you become responsible for what ever you do. Do you want to practice jhana? Then actively eliminate all the things that prevent that, and don't blame accumulations. Taking responsibility for your intentions means accepting that in the sum total of your intentions, you don't actually want to be like Sariputta. And there's nobody saying that you should want that. > > > Herman: > > I doubt it strongly. I think the Buddha has said what he said a > thousand > > times in different ways. Many have been addressed. Few select > themselves. > > Accumulations again, no doubt. > > Why, if Sarah can choose to mould her response depending on the > audience, why can't the Buddha have unlimited no. of ways of > expressing himself in accordance to the unlimited:-/, accumulations? Why, if the Buddha says in thousands of different ways to cultivate the mind, to mindfully eliminate the known and unknown unwholesome, and to mindfully foster the known and unknown wholesome, are there still those for whom those 1000 different ways are not sufficient, they must still wait for the right conditions? What is the basis of your confidence that the Buddha has said it in > enough number of ways? You read `English' translations and *know* > this? Besides hasn't all this come down through the same set of people > who agree with the commentarial tradition, but one which you reject? > > Of course, you think that both you and the commentators read basically > the same text, however they (and therefore we unthinking followers of > DSG) were wrong. What surprises me about you, Sukin, is that you have children, and maintain the dsg line of the Teachings being descriptive, not prescriptive. I can understand the laissez faire Buddhism from those who haven't brought up kids from birth. But most parents understand that a child goes in the way you tell it, and that it grows up in the way you teach it. Only as a child grows to maturity does a responsible parent stand back from active instruction, and trust their own input over the years. What are we to say of parents who do nothing to shape the will of the child? What am I supposed to think of people who read the Suttas as descriptive? Gawd, you write long posts :-) > > > Herman: > > It's not the past that obliges you, it is what you do this very moment. > Take > > some responsibility. > > S:> There are both past and present conditions influencing any arisen > dhamma. You like the D.O., so there you can know this. I gather that it > is the javanas where you attribute responsibility/irresponsibility to. And > if I said that here, pakatupanissaya paccaya and accumulations play a > very major role, you will not want to listen. It doesn't require great > panna to know this. It is your responsibility, Sukin, knowing the in's and out's of causation as you do, to make damn sure that you do not mindlessly repeat the past. > As for those of us who like to refer to accumulations, we judge the > kusala/akusala done in the past the same way as we do any present > javanas. If we refer to a past akusala or wrong view with any > disapproval, we do the same with any present cittas also. If we talk > about receiving the results (vipaka) of actions done in the past, it goes > without saying that we do not overlook the danger of any akusala done > now. How very curious that you are impotent to foster the wholesome, and eliminate the unwholesome, as per the Buddha's instructions, yet feel comfortable to make judgments about what is kusala/akusala. You Herman, on the other hand, dismissing kamma/vipaka/ past lives as > you do, seem left with talking about `responsibility' with strong self- > view. :-/ I do not, repeat, do not, dismiss kamma/vipaka. I just do not use kamma/vipika as excuse for mental indolence laziness. I sincerely hope you didn't teach your kids that they can only passively stand by as all their intentions come to fruition. Have a good, fruitful break. And whether or not it is, is entirely up to you. As the Buddha says, just do it (or was that someone else :-)) Kind Regards Herman 60070 From: "indriyabala" Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 6:03pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Brain & Min ... They Have Done You In indriyabala Hi Herman (and Howard), - Thank you very much for your detailed answer. >Herman: >The reason why I like the DO formulation of DN 15 is because it is clear and unambiguous in having name/form as condition for consciousness, and consciousness as condition for name/form. Tep: Then you cannot explain what conditions the cycling between namarupa & vinnana, along with "the entire mass of suffering & stress", to continue. It is due to avijja in the very first place. ................. >Herman: >If kamma determines kamma, that is no different to ignorance determining ignorance. There is no way out of those loops, as I see it, Tep. Tep: Yes, avijja is also conditioned by avijja, the origin of when it began cannot be found since it extends to infinity. This sticking point is sticky for those who have extreme views. There is no stickiness for those who understand the middle way ['It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.']-- please study SN XII.15, Kaccayanagotta Sutta, many times. >Herman: >Hope that suffices. Yes, you did a great job explaining why you are comfortable with the cut-off version of D.O. Sincerely yours, Tep ======= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > (snipped) > > > Firsty of all, it makes sense because it is in the DN, which can be seen as a summary of the Teachings. Serious students must ask themselves why it has been so summarised, and yet ignored. > > Secondly, ignorance as the start of the whole process of DO is problematic for me for a few reasons. Howard has kindly explained matters before, but I still don't get it. (that's my ignorance for you :-)). But it seems from the orthodox interpretation of DO that ignorance is it's own cause. Nothing precedes it. Which is weird, in my books. Ignorance is a given, not dependently arisen. The reason why I like the DO formulation of DN 15 is because it is clear and unambiguous in having name/form as condition for consciousness, and consciousness as condition for name/form. That is DO in its essence, nothing arises without dependence on something else, and this > is clearly not the case for ignorance. > > Thirdly, sankara as a link in DO has led commentators that have influenced Theravadan orthodoxy in a fundamental way to create a kamma bandwagon, that is totally at odds with DO. If name/form and consciousness depend on kamma as is suggested by orthodox interpretations of sankhara, then we may as well all pack up and go home. If kamma determines kamma, that is no different to ignorance determining ignorance. There is no way out of those loops, as I > see it, Tep. > 60071 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 6:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Brain & Min ... They Have Done You I egberdina Hi Tep, > Yes, you did a great job explaining why you are comfortable with the > cut-off version of D.O. > > Have you here carefully side-stepped the issue of why this DN version exists? Have you also carefully side-stepped the issue of why you choose one DO over another? Kind Regards Herman 60072 From: "indriyabala" Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 6:43pm Subject: Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner =?windows-1252... Were You Tired? ... indriyabala Hi Jon, - Lately your replies(including this one) seem very different than before. I can feel that you are not as enthusiastic as you used to be. What happened? >Jon: >For a start, not every intention to abstain will be followed by actual abstention (since only the sotapanna has perfect sila). And secondly, there are times when we have more aksuala (dosa, for example) that we would like to but no kusala arises. Tep: It doesn't mean that all intentions to abstain will NOT be followed by actual abstention either. It means we still CAN obtain abstension once in a while when we keep on trying. More practice, more satisfactory results. Do you have children? How difficult is it to persuade them to do "the right things"? But if (good) parents failed to do their duty right, what would the kids become? ........... >>Tep: Willing to do kusala(kusala cetana) is necessary for that kind >>of kusala to occur, therefore that 'kusala cetana' is a necessary >>requisite for inducing the result that one has desired. This >>"desire" is 'chanda' in the sense of iddhipaada (4 bases of power). >Jon: >As you see it, kusala cannot arise spontaneously but must be preceded by chanda ('desire to do'), the conscious intention for there to be kusala. But the chanda itself would have to be either kusala or aksuala; which would it be in the situation you have in mind? Tep: I think I said earlier(see above) that it was the kind of chanda in the four iddhipaada ! ................. >>Tep: Note very carefully the wordings : arising of skillful >>qualities(kusala dhammas) that have not yet arisen ... increase >>...culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen. > >Jon: >Again, you are saying that kusala needs conscious effort that is (kusala) right effort in order to arise. If so, then the question arises whether that kusala right effort itself requires kusala effort in order to arise. How do you see this? Tep: Of course, continuity of kusala dhammas require supporting kusalas, one of which is the kusala dhamma itself (but there is no "self" or atta being implied here). The "wordings" I referred to above ['arising of skillful qualities(kusala dhammas) that have not yet arisen ... increase...culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen'] are taken from the Mahasatipatthana Sutta. Didn't you notice? Yours truly, Tep 60073 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 6:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Let's talk about sex, drugs and rock'n roll (Three Suttas about Atta) egberdina Hi Kel, > The reason why I include Sarah in the heading is that the above > has an > > enormous bearing on our discussion of the reality of the present > moment. > > Surely it will be seen that an individual stimulus does not exist, > and an > > individual sample is totally meaningless. Any sound that is > reacted to or > > heard is already a stream of sound, spanning an indiscrete period > of time. > > Yet the Abh model, and its adherents (who are very happy to use MP3 > > technology nonetheless :-)) maintains that knowing the > characteristics of > > individual stimuli or samples is enlightening. > > Kel: think you might be misrepresenting Sarah here a little. I > believe her point is that by understanding it's just merely sound > and not identifying with it, it could be an object for > enlightenment. This hold true for all 6 types of objects and the > hardest one to grasp is the mind-door objects. What we need to know > is the process of how hearing happens, I don't think anyone is > advocating 'catching' the sound sample. I have snipped all those things which we seem to agree on, or are uncontroversial. If you are accurately representing Sarah's position here, then I am in full agreement with her. Wouldn't it be funny to discover we have miscommunicated all this time :-). > If material based discussion is hard, maybe we can discuss how you know > distracted > mind vs concentrated mind etc? No, it's fine. I'll be happy to hear from Sarah first. Thanks for your other comments. Kind Regards Herman 60074 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 6:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Right View and Orthodoxy scottduncan2 Hello Howard: Nice to chat with you. "If we are Buddhists, we look to understand the Dhamma as the Buddha intended it. But how to come to understand it is something we need to work out on our own. Some will rely entirely on ancient commentaries, some on modern commentaries, some on the guidance of a teacher (who may be 100% correct or a lot less than 100%), some on the original teachings of the Buddha and his chief disciples alone - in the record left in the Tipitaka, some on their own insights growing out of the practice laid out by the Buddha (as they understand that practice), and others by various combinations of the foregoing. Now, which is "right" isn't something growing on a tree ready for us to pluck. We have to look and see and figure out. The matter, unfortunately, is not simple. There are lots of people who seem to think they know "the right way", and there are almost as many "right ways" as there are people! I suspect that it is most sensible to not be overly sure!" Do you think that it is naive of me to consider that there exists, in all this, something called "truth?" Or might this be a legacy of my own western, christian, fundamentalism? I like what you have stated here. For the most part. I get that there were many levels at which the Buddha taught corresponding, I suppose, to the level of those being taught. A lot of people talk about the individuality of the "right way." But how is it "sensible to not be overly sure?" What did you mean by that last statement? "Overly sure" about what? Is surety or certainty possible? Sincerely, Scott. 60075 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 6:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Right View and Orthodoxy egberdina Hi Scott, > > Do you think that it is naive of me to consider that there exists, in > all this, something called "truth?" Or might this be a legacy of my > own western, christian, fundamentalism? I like what you have stated here. For the most part. I get that > there were many levels at which the Buddha taught corresponding, I > suppose, to the level of those being taught. A lot of people talk > about the individuality of the "right way." But how is it "sensible > to not be overly sure?" What did you mean by that last statement? > "Overly sure" about what? Is surety or certainty possible? I have assumed here that my comments are welcome. There is only one driver for fundamentalist thinking of all kinds, and that is anxiety. You can take that as a fundamental truth :-) Kind Regards Herman 60076 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 6:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Right View and Orthodoxy egberdina Hi Joop, On 03/06/06, Joop wrote: > > Hallo Scott, Howard, Andrew, all > > Orthodox Theravada is: the texts of Buddhaghosa. > I experience myself again and again as a non-orthodox Theravadin, as > a freethinker-Theravadin. > That's because I do take some parts of Theravada not literal but > metaphorical, for example about the 31 realms of existence (in fact; > 29 of them) and the existence of gods who are in my opinion > projections of the mind. > And because I do in fact not believe some parts of Theravada, I'm for > example agnostic (in the way Stephen Batchelor explained it) on > rebirth. > But there's enough to have faith in, te be convined it's truths still > calling myself a Theravadin, but not an orthodox one. > If my (lack of) convictions is the eyes of others a heresy or wrong > understanding: so be it. I cannot force myself to believe what I > don't believe; and more important; what is not a problem in my > spiritual path now. Good one! The influence of Buddhaghosa on what is considered Right, cannot be overestimated. Anyone who uncritically accepts Buddhagosa's commentaries as gospel is blithely unaware of the dialectics of history. Kind Regards Herman 60078 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 7:02pm Subject: Re: Right View and Orthodoxy scottduncan2 Hello Joop, Very nice to converse with you! J: "Orthodox Theravada is: the texts of Buddhaghosa." It is? Which one or ones? What about Abhidhamma? Other commentaries? Or is it a set of ways of seeing things? J: "I experience myself again and again as a non-orthodox Theravadin, as a freethinker-Theravadin. That's because I do take some parts of Theravada not literal but metaphorical, for example about the 31 realms of existence (in fact; 29 of them) and the existence of gods who are in my opinion projections of the mind. And because I do in fact not believe some parts of Theravada, I'm for example agnostic (in the way Stephen Batchelor explained it) on rebirth. But there's enough to have faith in, te be convined it's truths still calling myself a Theravadin, but not an orthodox one. If my (lack of) convictions in the eyes of others a heresy or wrong understanding: so be it." I appreciate the perspective you have. J: "I cannot force myself to believe what I don't believe; and more important; what is not a problem in my spiritual path now." That is a very important thing you say, Joop. This seems to me to represent the long view, the patient view, the view of one who has a certain tranquility and serenity about him. Thank you! Sincerely, Scott. 60079 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 7:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Right View and Orthodoxy scottduncan2 Hey There Herman, H: "I have assumed here that my comments are welcome." Of course, man. H: "There is only one driver for fundamentalist thinking of all kinds, and that is anxiety. You can take that as a fundamental truth" Interesting. I like that. I'm pondering it. Fear of what? Sincerely, Scott. 60080 From: "indriyabala" Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 7:08pm Subject: [dsg] ...They Have Done You In .. (Corrected) indriyabala Hi Herman, - [Please delete the earlier meassge that contained an error.] I am not sure if you dislike the answer/explanation I gave earlier. Please advise. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > > > Yes, you did a great job explaining why you are comfortable with the > > cut-off version of D.O. > > > > > Have you here carefully side-stepped the issue of why this DN version > exists? Have you also carefully side-stepped the issue of why you choose one > DO over another? > Frankly, I only dealt with the main issues that you raised in the last few messages. Side-stepping is never intended. I think I have made it clear that there is only one D.O.: it is the middle way that explains how dukkha arises and how it passes away. Sincerely yours, Tep, your friend. --------------- 60081 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 7:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ...They Have Done You In .. (Corrected) egberdina Hi Tep, me old mate, > Frankly, I only dealt with the main issues that you raised in the last > few messages. Side-stepping is never intended. > I think I have made it clear that there is only one D.O.: it is the > middle way that explains how dukkha arises and how it passes away. OK then. I shall rephrase the question, and provide an introduction to that question. There is the DO of 10 links. There is the DO of 12 links. There is the immediate explanation of DO. There is the single life-time explanation of DO. There is the three life-time explanation of DO. Are all these the one DO of which you speak? If so, OK. If not, why not? Kind Regards Herman . 60082 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 3:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Right View and Orthodoxy upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 6/2/06 9:52:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: > Do you think that it is naive of me to consider that there exists, in > all this, something called "truth?" Or might this be a legacy of my > own western, christian, fundamentalism? --------------------------------------- Howard: Well, I can't get inside your head, but as to whether I think it is naive of you to consider that there exists, in all this, something called "truth," no, not at all! I do believe there is "truth," but I also believe that it is not always evident what the truth is! -------------------------------------- > > I like what you have stated here. For the most part. I get that > there were many levels at which the Buddha taught corresponding, I > suppose, to the level of those being taught. A lot of people talk > about the individuality of the "right way." But how is it "sensible > to not be overly sure?" What did you mean by that last statement? > "Overly sure" about what? Is surety or certainty possible? ----------------------------------- Howard: I'm talking about being overly sure of what is and what is not the case. When we really know, there can be no doubt. The trouble is: There may also be no doubt at times that we actually do *not* know. Most of the time we are more or less certain of what is, in fact, belief rather than knowledge. So, what I am saying is that while it is fine to believe, while it is fine to have opinions, we shouldn't *cling* to our beliefs and opinions. A Korean Son (i.e.Zen) master Seung Sahn would always say "Only don't know." I think that's a good idea. (Of course, I could be wrong in that! ;-)) An important word to remember, Scott, is 'relinquishment', and even strong beliefs should be held lightly in my opinion. =========================== With metta, Howard 60083 From: "indriyabala" Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 7:45pm Subject: A Companion to SN 12.67 (Re: [dsg] Re: Reifying, ... Different Perspectives) indriyabala Hi Howard, - I like your sutta reference. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi again, Tep - > > The following from the Sammaditthi Sutta could serve as a >companion piece, I think, to the Sheaves of Reeds Sutta. It may >clarify my take on vi~n~nana as subject and namarupa as object(s) > in D.O., especially as explicated in SN 12.67: > ______________ > > And what is mentality-materiality, what is the origin of > mentality-materiality, what is the cessation of >mentality-materiality, what is the way leading to the cessation of >mentality-materiality? Feeling, perception, volition, contact > and attention â€" these are called mentality. The four great >elements and the material form derived from the four great elements > these are called materiality. So this mentality and this materiality >are what is called mentality-materiality. With the arising of >consciousness there is the arising of mentality-materiality. >With the cessation of consciousness there is the cessation of >mentality-materiality. The way leading to the cessation of >mentality-materiality is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, >right view... right concentration. > ------------------------- > Howard: > Now, of course, my way of interpreting this is not the only way. Prior to the Buddha, 'namarupa' referred only to a sentient being, an intelligence-enlivened body. So, in the PTS dictionary, there is "Thus namarupa= individuality, individual being." > That is the usage in Brahmanism for the term, and an interpretation along those lines, such as in the 3-lives interpretation of D.O., would take vi~n~nana to be rebirth consciousness and namarupa to be the new, "reborn" individual. But in the Dhamma as given in the foregoing material, another (non-Brahmanic) sense of the term is that of an aggregate of dhammas, mental and physical, and these namic and rupic elements are interdependent with vi~n~nana, I believe, as object(s) and subject. ............. According to your understanding, is consciousness in the Sammaditthi Sutta same as vi~n~nana khandha in the five aggregates? Further, is the mentality, consisting of "volition, contact and attention", equivalent to the formations(sankhara) aggregate? We know that volition, contact and attention are cetasikas. So, why are the other cetasikas (in the group of 52) not considered as parts of the "mentality"? I would like to postpone any discussion on your object-subject hypothesis for a future time, if you don't mind. Thank you for keeping our communication channel open. {:-|> Sincerely, Tep, your friend =============== 60084 From: "indriyabala" Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 8:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ...They Have Done You In .. (Corrected) indriyabala Hi Herman, - You asked : > There is the DO of 10 links. > > There is the DO of 12 links. > > There is the immediate explanation of DO. > > There is the single life-time explanation of DO. > > There is the three life-time explanation of DO. > > Are all these the one DO of which you speak? If so, OK. If not, why not? > They look different because they are aimed at explaining different specific situations. However, they are based on the same D.O. with 12 links (avijja to jara & marana)-- as such, they are one and same as the one I have been talking about. No matter what, you have already been "done in". Warm regards, Tep ====== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Tep, me old mate, > > > > Frankly, I only dealt with the main issues that you raised in the last > > few messages. Side-stepping is never intended. > > I think I have made it clear that there is only one D.O.: it is the > > middle way that explains how dukkha arises and how it passes away. > > > OK then. I shall rephrase the question, and provide an introduction to that > question. > 60085 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 8:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Right View and Orthodoxy egberdina Hi Scott, On 03/06/06, Scott Duncan wrote: > > Hey There Herman, > > H: "I have assumed here that my comments are welcome." > > Of course, man. > > H: "There is only one driver for fundamentalist thinking of all > kinds, and that is anxiety. You can take that as a fundamental truth" > > Interesting. I like that. I'm pondering it. Fear of what? Any good hockey games on this weekend? I'm going out to my kuti, to do some renovations / additions. I don't subscribe to a dualistic model that all consciousness must have an object, but for the sake of the discussion I would say that that anxiety stems from a repressed understanding that there are no footholds on which to build a worthwhile ( ie lasting, happy, controllable) reality. Kind Regards Herman 60086 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 8:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ...They Have Done You In .. (Corrected) egberdina Hi Tep, > > > They look different because they are aimed at explaining different > specific situations. However, they are based on the same D.O. with 12 > links (avijja to jara & marana)-- as such, they are one and same as > the one I have been talking about. > > No matter what, you have already been "done in". Could you explain a little bit more about why you hold that I have been done in? Kind Regards Herman 60087 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 8:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Herman seeking to understand Jon (was Re: Samatha and vipassana 1) egberdina Hi Jon, >>> > >>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? > > > > Answers > Q.1: By the Dhamma I mean the way things truly are; also, the teaching > of the Buddha, he being the person who discovered and made known to > others the way things truly are. > Q.2: In this particular lifetime, the further development of an > understanding of the way things truly are became possible only after I > came across the teachings explained in a form that made sense to me. > So, oblivious to the essence of the Dhamma until meeting the Dhamma (in > whatever form, but loosely referred to as 'the texts'). Thanks for clarifying some more. I am attempting to understand, not only in your case, but in all cases, the aha! moment of realising that one is hearing something vey profound. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but to me it is akin to a recognition of sorts. Could it be recognition? And if it isn't, how is it that we, who say of ourselves that we are ignorant (sometimes with a little bit of pride, methinks :-)), can understand that we are hearing something very profound? I will split of the question about difference betwen hearing and reading suttas to another thread. But lunch awaits. Thank you and Kind Regards Herman 60088 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 8:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Right View and Orthodoxy scottduncan2 Hey again, Herman, H: "Any good hockey games on this weekend?" Not until Monday! Stanley Cup final. Edmonton vs. Carolina. H: "I don't subscribe to a dualistic model that all consciousness must have an object, but for the sake of the discussion I would say that that anxiety stems from a repressed understanding that there are no footholds on which to build a worthwhile ( ie lasting, happy, controllable) reality." I thought you were going to say, "Fear of god," or something like that. Sincerely, Scott. 60089 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 4:33pm Subject: Re: A Companion to SN 12.67 (Re: [dsg] Re: Reifying, ... Different Perspecti... upasaka_howard Hi, Tep - In a message dated 6/2/06 10:45:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, indriyabala@... writes: > Hi Howard, - > > I like your sutta reference. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > >Hi again, Tep - > > > > The following from the Sammaditthi Sutta could serve as a > >companion piece, I think, to the Sheaves of Reeds Sutta. It may > >clarify my take on vi~n~nana as subject and namarupa as object(s) > >in D.O., especially as explicated in SN 12.67: > >______________ > > > >And what is mentality-materiality, what is the origin of > >mentality-materiality, what is the cessation of > >mentality-materiality, what is the way leading to the cessation of > >mentality-materiality? Feeling, perception, volition, contact > >and attention â€" these are called mentality. The four great > >elements and the material form derived from the four great elements > >these are called materiality. So this mentality and this materiality > >are what is called mentality-materiality. With the arising of > >consciousness there is the arising of mentality-materiality. > >With the cessation of consciousness there is the cessation of > >mentality-materiality. The way leading to the cessation of > >mentality-materiality is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, > >right view... right concentration. > >------------------------- > >Howard: > > Now, of course, my way of interpreting this is not the only > way. Prior to the Buddha, 'namarupa' referred only to a sentient > being, an intelligence-enlivened body. So, in the PTS dictionary, > there is "Thus namarupa= individuality, individual being." > > That is the usage in Brahmanism for the term, and an > interpretation along those lines, such as in the 3-lives > interpretation of D.O., would take vi~n~nana to be rebirth > consciousness and namarupa to be the new, "reborn" individual. But in > the Dhamma as given in the foregoing material, another > (non-Brahmanic) sense of the term is that of an aggregate of dhammas, > mental and physical, and these namic and rupic elements are > interdependent with vi~n~nana, I believe, as object(s) and subject. > > ............. > > According to your understanding, is consciousness in the Sammaditthi > Sutta same as vi~n~nana khandha in the five aggregates? ------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't know - I'm not sure. But I tend to think yes, because in the Sammaditthi Sutta, all the links within D.O. are being discussed. -------------------------------------------- > > Further, is the mentality, consisting of "volition, contact and > attention", equivalent to the formations(sankhara) aggregate? > > We know that volition, contact and attention are cetasikas. So, why > are the other cetasikas (in the group of 52) not considered as parts > of the "mentality"? ----------------------------------------- Howard: I don't know why the Buddha only included these. What do you think? I also wonder what commentaries might have to say on this point. (This is an example of where commentarial information might really come in handy!) ------------------------------------------- > > I would like to postpone any discussion on your object-subject > hypothesis for a future time, if you don't mind. -------------------------------------------- Howard: Indeed fine with me. It's a position that may well be peculiar to me, and I'd just as soon let it go as regards further discussion. ------------------------------------------- > > Thank you for keeping our communication channel open. {:-|> ------------------------------------------- Howard: My pleasure, Tep! ------------------------------------------ > > > Sincerely, > > > Tep, > your friend > ===================== With metta, Howard 60090 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 8:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Right View and Orthodoxy egberdina Hi Scott, On 03/06/06, Scott Duncan wrote: > > Hey again, Herman, > > > H: "Any good hockey games on this weekend?" > > Not until Monday! Stanley Cup final. Edmonton vs. Carolina. Why, them Hurricanes couldn't blow a sick girl of a chair. Oilers by 3. H: "I don't subscribe to a dualistic model that all consciousness > must have an object, but for the sake of the discussion I would say > that that anxiety stems from a repressed understanding that there are > no footholds on which to build a worthwhile ( ie lasting, happy, > controllable) reality." > > I thought you were going to say, "Fear of god," or something like that. Geez, you let me of easy there :-). One more think about fundamentalism. The stronger the white-knuckled grip on "how things must be" the stronger the repression of the underlying anxiety. Kind Regards Herman 60091 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 9:01pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Please don't.... ken_aitch Hi Dan, Sarah and all, The following is a rambling post to Dan that I decided not to send, but which Sarah told me to send anyway. So now it is a rambling post with rambling explanatory bits (meant to tidy it up) added on. Sensible DSG readers will now skip to the next message. :-) ----- D: > Sorry my response was so long in coming. I was in a mad rush to get ready for a holiday weekend last Friday ----- No worries! My only excuse for being slow to respond has been the complicated nature of this thread. I think my problem has been more in defining the issues we are talking about than in dealing with them. I thought Sarah clarified the issues in the following exchange: ------- D:> > Our point of contention is that I think that understanding concept and understanding reality are quite distinct. The difference is not a matter of degree but is a fundamental distinction. .... S: > With respect, I don't think I've ever suggested otherwise. I thought the point of contention here was whether one needed to hear the DhammaVinaya in order to develop satipatthana in this very life. -------- Now, instead of tidying up, I am going to open another can of worms. Sarah may not have "suggested otherwise" but I have. In my previous post, I said that right intellectual understanding was a degree of Path consciousness - even if only a tiny degree. Certainly there is a "fundamental distinction" in that path consciousness is supramundane and has nibbana as its object, whereas the other is ordinary and has a concept as its object. However, they both have the rare and wonderful cetasika, samma-ditthi (in a form that only occurs during a Buddha's sasana), and therefore, in that way, their difference is "a matter of degree." Having said that, I am really not bothered either way. As far as I am concerned, we can call it a matter of degree or we can call it a fundamental distinction. Sarah went on to say that the main point of contention in this thread has been whether we needed to hear the Dhamma Vinaya in order to develop satipatthana in this very life. It would suit me to discuss just that, but I'm still not sure: is the question of "matter of degree" v's "fundamental distinction" important in this thread? Is it central in deciding whether the Dhamma Vinaya has to be heard before satipatthana can occur? Getting back to my earlier attempt: It tried in the following way to summarise our conversation: You said there could be no such thing as right conceptual explanation. However, you did concede that some explanations could be more helpful (in illuming the world) than others. I said that being helpful in that way would make them right. You said you saw *two distinctions* between right and helpful: -------------------- D: > First, is that "right" is so closely allied with "samma" as in samma-ditthi, samma-vayama, etc. of the path. I think it would be a terrible mistake to mix up a "right concept" with the path sammas; -------------------- The possibility of such a mistake is very remote. When talking about path consciousness, we use "right" to describe the eight cetasikas that act as path factors. We never use it to describe the objects (nibanna and conditioned dhammas) they experience. When talking about Dhamma explanations (e.g., "Volition is a universal cetasika") we say, "That is right" or "That is correct." And sometimes (e.g., "Volition is control over the arising of dhammas") we say, "That is wrong." I don't see a problem with that use of right and wrong. --------------------------- D: > otherwise, one would be sorely tempted to think of thinking of Dhamma, reading about Dhamma, analyzing Dhamma as "techniques" of the "path." --------------------------- Neither you nor I regard Dhamma study as a "technique for enlightenment." To do so would entail belief in a self [that is presently unenlightened and will, one day, become enlightened]. Without regarding right conceptualisation of Dhamma as a technique, we can regard it as a citta that is accompanied by panna and that has a concept (of Dhamma) as its object. In that way, we can understand it to be a factor that leads to enlightenment. We can, and must, understand (from the Kitagiri and other Suttas) that association with good friends, hearing the true Dhamma and wise consideration of the Dhamma are factors leading to enlightenment. Without those three forms of pariyatti there can be no fourth factor, patipatti (satipatthana), and without pariyatti and patipatti there can be no pativedha (enlightenment). ----------------------- D: > For this reason I don't like the formulation "right conceptual formulation." I don't think we can stress too strongly that the path is a path of realization, not of cogitation or any other techniques for conjuring understanding from a prescriptive practice. ------------------------ But Dan, cogitation does not have to be a technique. It can be an intellectual realisation and, therefore, pariyatti - a first step towards the eightfold path. Whenever there is wise consideration of the Dhamma (a factor for enlightenment) there is no idea of a technique for bringing about future enlightenment. There is panna-cetasika, which rightly understands in theory that the present moment is the entire world. Getting a bit personal here, Dan: I have always assumed you to understand this subtle but vital distinction. However, lately, I have begun to suspect you don't have a firm grip on it after all. You seem to equate Dhamma study with formal practice. That means you are missing the vital distinction between pariyatti and technique. ----------------------------- D: > The sammas of the path are notably different from conceptual understandings ------------------------------ Different, yes, but right understandings all the same. Dhammas can be understood directly or indirectly. In both cases it is the same cetasika - panna (samma-ditthi) - that does the understanding. Is the "notable difference" a suddenly occurring one? Remember the gradual training (Kitagiri Sutta MN 70). I imagine that intellectual understanding develops to an extent that is way beyond anything we are currently used to. At that stage, direct understanding will flow almost seamlessly, as a natural progression. ---------------------------------------- D: > and do not arise from conceptual understandings, ----------------------------------------- It is obvious to me that greater understandings develop from lesser understandings. Why do you find that so unacceptable? ------------ <. . .> D: > Second, a particular explanation can be helpful to a particular person at a particular time but be the cause for a different person to stumble on a different occasion. Is that explanation right, or is it wrong? I'd say that it was wrong but helpful to the first person; and wrong as well as unhelpful to the second person. ------------ I can see why you might not want to call a concept right (because ultimately it has no right or wrong characteristics), but I can't see why you are calling all concepts wrong. Moving on: You then wrote something that I misread, and thereby sidetracked the discussion. You wrote: ----------------------------------------- > > > 2. I don't believe that "right conceptualization" is a condition for samma-ditthi. However, I do think conceptualization plays a role in defining the limits to how deep insight can go. > > > ----------------------------------------- I took "defining the limits" to mean, "extending the range" and so I wrote: ---------------- > > Here again, to the uninformed observer, the second sentence seems to contradict the first. Doesn't 'plays a role in' mean the same as 'is a condition for?' > > ---------------- You replied: --------------------- D: > No, no. The subsiding of clinging to a conceptual formulation (i.e., the non-arising of ditthi) is indeed a condition for samma-ditthi. But I don't see the building of detailed and elaborate conceptual models and then the subsequent clinging to the models as "right conceptualizations" that are necessary precursors of samma-ditthi (i.e., as part of the path) as helpful or desirable. More of a hindrance. The building of thicker and thicker conceptualizations under the guise of "development of Right Understanding via Right Cogitation and Intellectualization" assigns an extra factor into the path (samma-papanca) and makes it more difficult to see rightly (samma-ditthi). ------------- Whew, this is heavy going! Or is it just me? Or is it just a matter of your not seeing the distinction between pariyatti and technique? --------------------- D: > The "plays a role in defining limits" does not mean "is a condition for." I think everyone who pops into dsg and participates in the discussions has developed a degree of samma-ditthi through satipatthana. --------------------- Whoa there! Before, you were saying that satipatthana could occur outside a Buddha's dispensation. I thought that was an understandable misconception, considering that there have been so many great thinkers throughout history. Now you are saying satipatthana is commonplace. You are saying we have all experienced satipatthana. (!) You are saying that at various times in all of our pasts panna has arisen to directly know a paramattha dhamma. (!) But we DSG people can't even agree on what a paramattha dhamma is - or even whether there is such a thing as a paramattha dhamma! What evidence is there that we have had profound insights despite our abysmal ignorance? ------------------------------- D: > Samma-ditthi arises and passes away whether there is Buddhist cogitation about it beforehand or not. Then, there are two questions: (1) how deep was the understanding? ------------------------------- It is very deep! Direct knowledge of paramattha dhammas is profound - the exclusive domain of the wise. ------------------------------------- D: > (2) what happened in the aftermath of the understanding? My working hypothesis is that these two questions play off one another. If a particular conceptualization is firmly held to and grasped because of years of accumulated habit and expectation and speculation about it, then clinging to that conceptualization (i.e., ditthi) is more likely to rush in and co-opt the nascent understanding, remaking it in the ditthi image. One way this could play out is as follows. Suppose someone thinks: "The arising of samma-ditthi depends on having a detailed theoretical knowledge first. Samma-ditthi then arises out of samma-papanca in some mysterious way that I will never be able to understand because satipatthana is incredibly deep, and I can't really hope to experience it in this lifetime." If someone were to hold such an opinion, I would think that development of understanding would be virtually precluded because any time understanding did arise, it would immediately be swamped by doubt and ditthi. --------------- Dan, that sounds to me like, "Beware the Dhamma-Vinaya!" It really isn't necessary to equate thinking (which can be kusala or akusala) with papanca (which is always akusala). ---------------------- D: > Or, suppose if someone thinks: "The arising of kusala is beyond the control of Self. God alone is the author of kusala." When a moment of understanding arose, ditthi would rush in, prompting "Kusala is not-self. Praise God!" Clinging to Self would be diminished, but insight to the level of "sabbe dhammaa anatta" would be virtually precluded. ----------------------- I won't comment on what might happen if an eternity-believer were to experience satipatthana because I don't agree that could ever happen. I don't believe there could be a sudden jump from strong eternity view to right view at the level of satipatthana. (Not in a path that the Buddha described as "gradual.") ------------- KH: > > The term 'right conceptualisation' is a new one that seems to have originated in this DSG thread. I assume it is same as the more commonly used, 'right intellectual understanding.' The only difference might be that it refers to the citta as a whole more than to just panna-cetasika. To my mind, 'right conceptualisation' must ultimately refer to any mind-door citta that has panna (that at least knows the difference between concepts and realities) as one of its cetasikas and that has a concept as its object. The Eightfold Path, also, is a mind-door citta that has panna as one of its cetasikas, but it has nibbana as its object. Surely, therefore, right conceptualisation can be seen as a degree of Path consciousness. (?) > > D: > I don't think this makes any sense, Ken. The characterization of a path moment as samma or miccha does not depend on the object that is cognized. It depends on the mode of cognition (e.g., accompanied by lobha, or accompanied by the samma path factors, etc.). -------------- That's right, it doesn't depend on the object cognised, it depends on the presence or absence of panna. Panna with nibbana as object is a factor of the eightfold path. Panna with a conditioned dhamma as object is a factor of the mundane (five-or-sixfold) path. Panna with a concept of dhammas as object is a factor of the intellectual path (pariyatti). ---------------- KH: > > Admittedly, it would be a tiny degree of Path consciousness, but, even so, one that was precious and very difficult to obtain. Just look at all the hard working Dhamma students here at DSG. With so much disagreement over the basic concepts, there would, at most, be a small number of us who had attained the stage of Right Conceptualisation. :-) > > D: > You are just making stuff up about "Right Conceptualization," aren't you! There's not a word about it in the Tipitaka. I only read about samma-ditthi, samma-vayama, samma-samadhi, samma-sati. Nothing about samma-papanca or samma-panyati! But so much effort to build a theory to accomodate these new sammas... ------------------ Putting aside made-up theories of "right conceptualisation," what is your opinion on samma-ditthi arising to take a concept as its object? When the Buddha spoke about things hitherto unknown - dukkha and the five khandhas - did his audience understand his words? Was there, at such times, samma-ditthi with concepts as object? You have described something like that to Ken O, but you made it sound more like a dangerous wrong view that a profound step towards enlightenment. Ken H 60092 From: "Dan D." Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 11:01pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Please don't.... onco111 Hi Howard, I can't find the missing sutta, but I do remember reading something very much like it. I've read a lot of suttas, but I usually have a devil of a time finding the one I'm looking for (unless it is one from a group of 20 or so of my favorites). By "outside the dispensation" I mean things that may be known by people who have heard not even a whisper of Buddhist models. I think that much of Dhamma can be known and is taught outside the dispensation--but the language varies. Full enlightenment, though, (or even sotapattimagga) is strictly Buddhist. With metta, Dan > > But you know what?...much of what he teaches is clearly taught > > > > outside the dispensation as well, e.g., sila and samadhi, devas and > > titans, kamma and rebirth, sabbe kusala anatta, etc. > > > -------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Actually, there is a sutta - please forgive my inability with giving > citations - to the effect that wherever there are found teachings that lead to > (or are conducive to) calm and relinquishment (or something along these > lines), they should be considered as Dhamma. I really apologize for not being more > precise in this. In fact, I would greatly appreciate it if anyone could come up > with my "Missing Sutta" ;-) > ===================== > With metta, > Howard 60093 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Jun 3, 2006 0:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Please don't.... sarahprocter... Hi Howard & Dan, --- "Dan D." wrote: > Hi Howard, > I can't find the missing sutta, but I do remember reading something > very much like it. <...> > > Howard: > > Actually, there is a sutta - please forgive my inability > with giving > > citations - to the effect that wherever there are found teachings > that lead to > > (or are conducive to) calm and relinquishment (or something along > these > > lines), they should be considered as Dhamma. I really apologize for > not being more > > precise in this. In fact, I would greatly appreciate it if anyone > could come up > > with my "Missing Sutta" ;-) .... S: MN72, Aggivacchagotta Sutta by any chance? Metta, Sarah ======== 60094 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Jun 3, 2006 0:19am Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 463- Non-Attachment/Alobha (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;-) ========================================== Ch 28, Non-Attachment(Alobha)contd ***** The direct understanding of nåma and rúpa will lead to detachment from them. So long as there is still the wrong view of self, attachment cannot be eradicated. We are attached to persons, to “self”, and we may not be ready to accept the truth that in the ultimate sense no “people” exist. If right understanding of realities is developed we will know that what we take for people are only citta, cetasika and rúpa which do not last. ***** Non-Attachment(Alobha)to be contd Metta, Sarah ====== 60095 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Jun 3, 2006 1:43am Subject: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition ... Metta and Devas buddhatrue Hi Herman (and Sarah), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Herman & all, > > --- Herman Hofman wrote: > > > 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 :-) > ... > S: Next time, I'd enjoy the wordy answer too :-) > .... > > > > 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? > .... Dana is EXTREMELY important to development of the Noble Eightfold Path. Dana is an anecdote for lust and is a crucial first step in the development of the path: "Without abandoning these five qualities, one is incapable of entering & remaining in the first jhana... the second jhana... the third jhana... the fourth jhana; incapable of realizing the fruit of stream-entry... the fruit of once-returning... the fruit of non- returning... arahantship. Which five? Stinginess as to one's monastery [lodgings], stinginess as to one's family [of supporters], stinginess as to one's gains, stinginess as to one's status, and ingratitude. Without abandoning these five qualities, one is incapable of entering & remaining in the second jhana... the third jhana... the fourth jhana; one is incapable realizing the fruit of stream-entry... the fruit of once-returning... the fruit of non- returning... arahantship. "With the abandoning of these five qualities, one is capable of entering & remaining in the second jhana... the third jhana... the fourth jhana; capable of realizing the fruit of stream-entry... the fruit of once-returning... the fruit of non-returning... arahantship..." Metta, James 60096 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Jun 3, 2006 1:58am Subject: [dsg] Re: Audio dana buddhatrue Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi James,(RobM, Phil, all) > > I just lost a post to you.... > Anyway, I was just saying it's great news that you'll be visiting H.K. > We'll be here the second half of July with the red carpet out for you! > It'll be super to meet and talk 'real dhamma' face to face. Let us know > your dates when you have them. It would be nice if Rob M passes through > then and of course wonderful if Phil could pop over....Anyway, when we > have your dates, others interested in visiting HK and joining the 'real > dhamma' may consider it. (I assure anyone that we take our visitors out > for nice leisurely buffet lunches rather than hikes in storms:-)). James: I look forward to finally meeting you face to face. I don't know the exact date of my trip to Hong Kong. I will be moving to Taiwan to teach and need to make a quick trip to Hong Kong to get the proper visa for my work permit. When I know the date I will let you know. > > Thx for enduring track 1 of the 'torture', lol. Only a few more to go...10 > mins a day? You might enjoy the 'Christine track' at Lucknow airport from > your comments. She takes up the 'helpless/hopeless' theme. James: Not sure what you mean. I'm glad you took my "torture" comment in the good spirit it was intended. I just like for people to get to the point quickly- not go on and on about the same thing. > > If anyone (Phil, Connie, Nina etc) hears any track which shouts out > 'James', pls let him know so that he can skip some torture. There are two > areas of your points/questions that come up as I recall - one on Satip. > Sutta and characters and one on jhanas in lay people and Anathapindika's > friends. Maybe some others. James: Yeah, those would be interesting to listen to. If you come across them let me know. > > James, your news that you'll be visiting H.K. was a super start to my day. > I know we'll have a great time together. James: Yes, I am looking forward to meeting you (and Jon also if he is free). > > Metta, > > Sarah > Metta, James 60097 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Jun 3, 2006 2:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Please don't run away yet, DAN 1.ii sarahprocter... Hi Kel, --- kelvin_lwin wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > > S: I'll be interested to hear what he finds. Sometimes we want to > add our > > own logic, but it may be unsupported. > > Kel: It's not my own logic, this is what's been handed down in the > Abhidhamma teachings in Burma. Although there are always different > schools of thoughts I guess. I'm just saying it's very logical to > me given all the facts as I see it. .... S: Thx for clarifying. We were talking about the reference to cula-sotapannas and I had thought you said that Ledi Sayadaw and the texts also read the way I referred to the point about rebirths. ..... S:>>.... Like Devadatta's jhana powers could > no longer > > arise, but they were not 'lost'. Later he was destined to become a > pacceka > > Buddha. > > Kel: We are talking about different things here when we refer to > them being lost. Of course everything accumulates, that's not the > argument. Devadatta should be reborn in jhana realms but he wasn't > so it was 'lost' for immediate future. .... S: Or 'no conditions to arise' as I'd put it. ..... >Jhana attainments are not > permanent as you have to strive for them each live and "start > over". Of course the ease of re-attaining them depends on past > attainments but still have to try again in the present. .... S: Well again, I think it's a matter of conditions and developed calm and understanding....not exactly 'starting over' or 'trying', but I get the point. .... >Aren't you > the one who makes the case only satipatthana can lead to > enlightenment and hence to become a paccek-Buddha so why would jhana > matter for Devadatta? .... S: All kusala can be a support. I'm sure all pacceka Buddhas would have attained jhanas over countless lives and of course all paramis. .... > > What I mean by not permanent is that it does not destroy any > fetters. It does not condition for some dhammas to never arise > again. It merely influences future, well that's the same thing as > all mundane cittas. Temporary suppression is not the same as > permanent destruction. Magga-nanas are the only ones that do not > required striving again in the present life. .... S: Mostly agreed....:-) .... > > > S: Well, I believe when I gave the account of Jotipala (whom you > and most > > other people claim had attained high insights)it mentioned that > his next > > life was in a woeful realm and that he had ordained. (What > difference does > > it make whether someone was ordained or not?) > Kel: I think we need to check the connection you posted in > #45763. > http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/j/jotipaala.htm .. which > Jotipala are we talking about? .... S: This small comment of yours has somewhat stopped me in my tracks half way through my reply, Kel. I've just looked at the link and see I had been referring to the first two Jotipalas listed - both referring to the lives of the bodhisatta called Jotipalao that became Gotama Buddha. Now, I had assumed that they referred to the same life, but from the Dict refs and going back to the texts, this seems unlikely. In this case, some of my comments are off-track!! Very perceptive of you indeed. I need to discuss this point further with A.Sujin who referred me to the Jataka in this context and gave me the main pointers in a long discussion. Let's see if she has some reference to connect the two accounts or anything. (I won't see her 'til August, so will have to get back to you then, unless Sukin or anyone raises it with her first.) Of course, I may have misunderstood and she may just have been giving separate examples which indicate the Bodhisatta endured lives in hell realms which suggest (as I mention) that according to the definition of a cula-sotapanna as given in the texts, that in any lives previous to the hell realm ones, he couldn't have been attained the second stage of insight. (It makes sense to me, as I've indicated, that stages of insight were not attained until just before he became enlightened). I don't know where the account of Jotipala under Kassapa Buddha as given in MN81 fits into the chronology of lives as a Bodhisatta. Do you? ..... >Usually if they are not ordained > under a living Buddha then there's no reference to tipitaka and > insightly, mainly jhana. ... S: Sorry, I'm not with you here.... .... > Kel: Have you not looked at different grades of sankharupekkha- > nana? According to that, there's the "mature" one that leads to > magga vithi. There are also preliminary ones that occur many times > refining the quality of the panna as the crow circles and comes back. ..... S: I'm not familiar with this idea of preliminary and mature grades of a particular vipassana nana. I understood that either such insight arises or it doesn't. You're not talking about lower insights arising as well, are you? So when this particular insight arises, there is at those moments, the wisdom of equanimity about conditioned dhammas having already realised the ti-lakkana of all conditioned dhammas. I think you mean 'mature' in the sense of repeatedly occurring and realising this? Really, Kel, I'm out of my depth here:-). .... > > S: Yes, sometimes it's not clear. I've given various accounts > before, such > > as the one about Pu.n.naa as given in the commentary to the > Therigatha. In > > brief, she'd made resolves under former Buddhas,ordained under > Vipassi > > Buddha, learned the 3 Pitakas and was a teacher of them, with pure > sila. > Kel: hehe here is one of your fav question, adhi-sila? How is > she able to undertake purity of sila without understanding? What > was she doing under all those Buddhas if not satipatthana? ... S: hehe indeed! You're very sharp and as I typed, I thought someone like you or Tep might ask:-). I understand it to refer to pure sila in those particular lives. Like the Bodhisatta had pure sila in certain lives, but not all lives. We might even keep pure sila in this life , following the precepts without fail. However, it's just for this life unless adhi sila has been perfected at the stage of sotapanna. (I think this same reasoning also applies to the pure sila referred to in the sutta Tep often quotes). Great to have your input, Kel and to know we can refer to any of the same texts together too. Glad to see your comments in other threads as well, such as in Herman's ones:-). Metta, Sarah ======= 60098 From: "Joop" Date: Sat Jun 3, 2006 3:12am Subject: [dsg] Re: Right View and Orthodoxy jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Joop, > > > Good one! The influence of Buddhaghosa on what is considered Right, cannot > be overestimated. > > Anyone who uncritically accepts Buddhagosa's commentaries as gospel is > blithely unaware of the dialectics of history. > > > Kind Regards > > Herman > Hallo Scott, Herman, all (and the mods in a postscriptum) Thank you both for your reactions, nearly too kind. S: It is? Which one or ones? What about Abhidhamma? Other commentaries? Or is it a set of ways of seeing things? J: The most quoted one, and so the one with the most influence, is the Visuddhimagga The orthodoxy of it is the set of very subtle changes compared with the Teachings of the Buddha in the Suttas, changes to make a more smooth system of them. For example in many Suttas the Buddha explained 'dependent origination' and because He was a human being and not a robot there are some differences between these explanations; for example the number of steps. But commentaries like Buddhaghosa MADE A SYSTEM ot it: the number is 12 and nothing else, learn them by head. In my opinion the Abhidhamma was a phase in the making a system of the Teachings. But I don't have such a big problem with it. It's a more abstract set of symbols to describe reality than conventional language, it can be compared with mathematics: we can describe a astrophysical phenomena (for example the collapsing of a star in a supernova) in 'normal' language or using mathematical symbols, both have advantages and disadvantages. We can use the Abhidhamma as a soteriological means but should not learn it by head (I heard still now monks in Burma had to learn by head the Pali text of the Abhidhammattha Sangaha). There can be doubts if in the 'translation' of the Suttas to the Abhidhamma-system no little changes in the content have be made I don't know enough to say something pertinent about that. Maybe we can say Buddhaghosa did a great job: he was asked by Srilankan monks to come from India to their monastery to make one commentary in Pali from many Sinhalese commentaries. He did this unifying job very good, that's what I understand reading for example David Kalupahana. (Ch. XXI of his 'A history 0of buddhist philosophy'). The problem is the need of that one unified commentary, the need of a scholastic system. Metta Joop BTW Hermans message was #60076 and Scott's #60078 What happened with #60077 ? It is invisible my list, did it ever exist? 60099 From: "Kenneth" Date: Sat Jun 3, 2006 3:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Three Suttas about Atta ashkenn2k Hi Herman My apology of replying late on this post. H: The brain has many maps of the body in it. Even with all you limbs amputated, you can still feel pain in them. If you were to remove the map in the brain of a corresponding body part, then you'd never feel anything there. And of course dreams are full of sensations and dreams. k: I remember when before one start operation, there is two type of pain removal to be give to prevent one go into trauma, one is for the mind and the other is for the body. I am not a surgeon, this is what I have recall from my memory on what I have see or read or heard > But there doesn't seem to be rupas impinging on anything to cause all those sensations and feelings. Unless all rupas are mind-made? Because of these considerations, I do not understand the distinction between bodily feeling and mental feeling. To me it is all mental feeling. Do you know if the Buddha distinguished between bodily feeling and mental feeling, or was it our good friends the commentators? :-) k: A good reference will be the Dart Sutta where Buddha differentiate the bodily and mental feelings. See link http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.006.nypo.html As far as I know, there bodily and mental feelings are all mental feelings. I do not have any sutta source to prove it but I think a logical assumption will be that all feelings are classified as feeling khandhas, hence mental. H: (your email to Andrew) But I would sharply differentiate feelings from sensations. Any touching that happens, for example, whether that would be as pressure, or temperature, I would call a sensation, not a feeling. k: Yes feelings is different from sensation. Pressure and temperature are also paramthas and they are rupas. Just like a hot hard surface will be have a high temperature and hardness in solidity. At the moment of the bodily citta will have cognize the touch object (hot hard surface) and painful feeling will arise due to vipaka citta, even though the touch object is hard and hot. H: (your email to Andrew) I certainly don't disagree with you. And I would not think it cynical to spurn attributions of specific events to kamma. Not as a denial of kamma, but as acknowledgement that grasping at the mechanics of it is speculative. Of course I am not saying that about you, but about vipika theories. k: I remember I read about past kamma etc. I will get back to you on this issue, I need sometime to it up about the vipaka theories. Maybe a few weeks or months....... :-) but will get back to you Cheers Ken O 60100 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Jun 3, 2006 4:03am Subject: Correction: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition ... Metta and Devas buddhatrue --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: Dana is an anecdote for lust James: Oops...I meant to type "antidote" not "anecdote". :-) Metta, James 60101 From: "Phil" Date: Sat Jun 3, 2006 4:07am Subject: [dsg] Re: what I heard. philofillet Hi Nina > >> Seeing is dhamma, and it can be studied, understanding of it can be > >> developed. > > > > Ph: The first step is understanding that seeing is not as simple as > > it seems. That is where I am at now, and in itself it is helpful. > ------- > N: We make it complicated. Kh Sujin says: it just sees, now. We think too > much about it instead of simply be aware of it, now. Ph: This is a good reminder. If I cling to to the notion that seeing is more complicated than we think, it can be an obstacle to seeing. Keep it simple. But seeing is not looking. I heard this the other day: "Is there thinking now at the moment of looking?" Yes, there is - most of what people take for seeing is actually looking, albeit it of a very, very brief variety - looking always involves thinking, because the object has been conceptualized already, I guess. I don't know if that's what Acharn Sujin meant. Never mind. > N: Right, when we just think: 'nama is not rupa' it does not mean that there > is paññaa which realizes the truth of nama as nama and rupa as rupa > directly, without taking them for self at such moments. > Kh Sujin when explaining about this, always adds: knowing their > characteristics as devoid of self. And also the realization is not self. > There is no world, no people. Just during those moments. After the moments > of insight have fallen away the world appears as usual, she said. I remarked > that I was surprised about that. Ph: Let me quote from Survey of Paramattha Dhammas: "Knowledge of the difference between nama and rupa (nama-rupa- pariccheda-nana) is the first stage of insight. Maha-kusalacitta nana sampayutta arises and clearly distinguishes the difference between the characteristic of nama and the characteristic of rupa as they appear one at a time. The object constituting 'the world' appear as devoid of self. At that moment there is no atta-sanna (wrong remembrance of self) which used to remember or perceive realities as a 'whole', conceived as 'the world." There begins to be right remembrance of the realities which as appear as anatta. Satipatthana should continue to be aware of all kinds of nama and rupa, in addition to those realised at the moment of viapassana nana. WHen there is awareness of realities, panna should consider again and again anatta-sanna penetrated at the moment of vipasanna-nana. Otherwise atta-sanna, which has been accumulated for a long time in the cycle of birth and death, cannot be eradicated." > ------- > > > Ph: If one consistenly finds oneself feeling happy when one lays one > > hands on a Dhamma book, something is wrong. > ----- > N: Mixed, you also do so in order to have more understanding, and that is > kusala. Akusala and kusala always alternate. Ph: Yes, but no doubt in my mind that akusala predominates. The world (ayatans) are burning with the three unwholesome roots - the Buddha made this clear in his third discourse. So this of course applies to Dhamma study and "practice" as well. To think that an activity is kusala by virtue of being realted to Dhamma is natural enough, and wrong. But of course there is kusala as well as the great flood of akusala. If there weren't there would be no hope of progress, and the Buddha made it clear that kusala *can* be developed, and akusala can be erdicated. If it weren't possible, he wouldn't have taught Dhamma to us. Thinking about or speculating about how much akusala there is and how little kusala there is a pointless exercise, of course. Sometimes it is good to bring it up, though the people who think that kusala is gained by the simple act of wanting or intending to have it will disregard ... Phil 60102 From: "Phil" Date: Sat Jun 3, 2006 4:17am Subject: Tipitaya? philofillet Hi Nina (and others from the India trip, or listeners) Acharn Sujin was talking about atta tipitaya, lokha tipitaya and dhamma tipitaya. If I understood correctly, three kinds of kusala - for ourselves, for the opinion of others, and then dhamma tipitaya, which is for the sake of Dhamma. She said "I think we all have dhamma tipitaya" and I thought that was wrong. How could she say that? Then she said a bit later "but I can't know that." That is more like it. We cannot know the cittas of others - it would be wrong to say that just because we are getting together to discuss Dhamma is it Dhamma tipitaya, I think. There are many motives for discussing Dhamma - often is to dispel fear, I think, or from a desire to possess cool Dhamma knowledge, and neither motive is wholesome. Could I ask you to say a few words on this "tipitaya" (if you know what I am talking about - I had never heard the term before.) Thanks in advance. No hurry, because I won't be back until Wednesday. Phil 60103 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Jun 3, 2006 1:55am Subject: Careless and Irrational Attention ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: Careless Attention Enhances the Mental Hindrances! The Blessed Buddha once said: When one attends carelessly & irrationally any absent sense-desire arise, increase, grow and expand. When one attends carelessly & irrationally any absent evil-will arise, increase, grow and expand. When one attends carelessly & irrationally any absent lethargy & laziness arise, increase & expand. When one attends carelessly & irrationally any absent restlessness & regret arise, increase & expand. When one attends carelessly & irrationally any absent doubt & uncertainty arise, increase & expand. Furthermore the awareness link to awakening does not arise, and if present, then it instantly ceases. Any absent investigation link to awakening does not arise, and if present, then it instantly ceases. Any absent energy link to awakening does not arise, and if present, then it instantly ceases. Any absent joy link to awakening does not arise, and if present, then it instantly ceases. Any absent tranquillity link to awakening does not arise, and if present, then it instantly ceases. Any absent concentration link to awakening does not arise, and if present, then it instantly ceases. Any absent equanimity link to awakening does not arise, and if present, then it instantly ceases. However if one attends carefully and rationally the five mental hindrances do not arise and if already arisen then they gradually cease. Secondly, any of the 7 mental links to awakening that has not yet arisen arise and is gradually completed by mental development by repeated reflection & meditation... Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V:84-5] section 46: The Links. 24: Careless Attention... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. Friendship is the Greatest ... Let there be Calm & Free Bliss !!! <...> 60104 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat Jun 3, 2006 5:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] ...They Have Done You In .. (Corrected) indriyabala Hi Herman, - No more questions on D.O. ? > > Tep: > > They look different because they are aimed at explaining different > > specific situations. However, they are based on the same D.O. with > >12 links (avijja to jara & marana)-- as such, they are one and > > same as > > the one I have been talking about. > > > > No matter what, you have already been "done in". > > Herman: > Could you explain a little bit more about why you hold that I have been done > in? > > Fixed view on D.O. -- this is clear, all others are not. Warm regards, Tep ======= 60105 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat Jun 3, 2006 5:47am Subject: A Companion to SN 12.67 (Re: [dsg] Re: Reifying, ... Different Perspecti... indriyabala Hi Howard, - The two questions I have raised, that you do not yet have answers for, are an important link to the real meaning of citta and cetasika. For now I only have questions but no clear answer. I agree somewhat with you that the commentaries may give us some clues, but they might add more confusions too. Yours truly, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Tep - > (snipped) > ----------------------------------------- > Howard: > I don't know why the Buddha only included these. What do you think? I also wonder what commentaries might have to say on this point. (This is an example of where commentarial information might really come in handy!) 60106 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jun 3, 2006 2:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Please don't.... upasaka_howard Hi, Dan - In a message dated 6/3/06 2:02:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time, onco111@... writes: > Hi Howard, > I can't find the missing sutta, but I do remember reading something > very much like it. I've read a lot of suttas, but I usually have a > devil of a time finding the one I'm looking for (unless it is one > from a group of 20 or so of my favorites). ---------------------------------- Howard: This is one of the ways in which we are similar, Dan. I suspect it may mean that we're not so interested/concerned in mentally cataloging suttas. Usually, I think, one isn't so good at what one has little interest in, and vice-versa. ;-) --------------------------------- > > By "outside the dispensation" I mean things that may be known by > people who have heard not even a whisper of Buddhist models. > ----------------------------------- Howard: I know. I think of Ecclesiates as an example. ----------------------------------- I think > > that much of Dhamma can be known and is taught outside the > dispensation--but the language varies. Full enlightenment, though, > (or even sotapattimagga) is strictly Buddhist. ----------------------------------- Howard: I agree on both points, though I think there are essential limitations as to how much of Dhamma - in depth, detail, and completeness - is found ouside of Buddhism. Where other traditions come up most grossly short as regards specific aspects of the Dhamma, I believe, is in anatta, from the "theory" side, and in meditative technique from the practice side. As regards completeness, I believe that it is only in the transmission of the Buddha, that the entire Dhamma is present in a single body of teaching, rather than in bits and pieces, here and there. --------------------------------- > > With metta, > > Dan ================ With metta, Howard 60107 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jun 3, 2006 2:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Please don't.... upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 6/3/06 3:17:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > >>Howard: > >> Actually, there is a sutta - please forgive my inability > >with giving > >>citations - to the effect that wherever there are found teachings > >that lead to > >>(or are conducive to) calm and relinquishment (or something along > >these > >>lines), they should be considered as Dhamma. I really apologize for > >not being more > >>precise in this. In fact, I would greatly appreciate it if anyone > >could come up > >>with my "Missing Sutta" ;-) > .... > S: MN72, Aggivacchagotta Sutta by any chance? > ========================== Thank you, Sarah, but no, that's not it. It's an important sutta, for sure, but doesn't seem to me to involve anything along the lines I was referring to. With metta, Howard 60108 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Jun 3, 2006 7:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Right View and Orthodoxy scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Yeah, I let you off. H: "Geez, you let me off easy there. One more thing about fundamentalism. The stronger the white-knuckled grip on "how things must be" the stronger the repression of the underlying anxiety." I don't really want to get into discussing repression, or objectless anxiety or the like. Good point, though, re: fundamentalism. Sincerely, Scott. 60109 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat Jun 3, 2006 8:55am Subject: Re: .. All of These Are Just Different Perspectives ... Feeling & Mind indriyabala Hi Ken O, my friend (also, Herman)- The following remarks of yours are confusing (to me). This difficulty indicates that a person's prior belief (mental fixation of learnt concepts of the Abhidhamma, for example) has a great deal to do with the way he "knows and sees", i.e. his perspective on the dhammas may be distorted because of what he has learnt and come to believe. >Ken O. : >Sense desire is lobha with citta. so when lobha is with citta, >then citta should be greed and not feel feeling. At that moment of >sense objects, citta cannot be feeling joy because its object should >be greed. At the moment when greed arise with citta with a sense >object, pleasure is also arise. So the question is at that moment, >can citta cognize the object and also feeling as an object at the >same time and also greed as an object at the same time. From what I >know, it is citta can only take one object at a time. Tep: I agree that citta can take only one object in a given moment(very brief time interval, a time cross-section). What if there is no greed in that moment? Assuming that the mind is not overwhelmed by greed (or aversion, or delusion), feeling can be felt by the mind through contact; then mind's association with feeling conditions craving to arise and the mind can take that as an object too. If the mind cannot take these dhammas as its objects, then how can anyone contemplate feelings(vedananupassana), for example? If you forget all about the "higher dhamma" (and the commentaries) for a minute and carefully study the following brief sutta quotes, there is a good chance you may see a different perspective that is realistic (truthful): it is the perspective of the sammaa-sambuddha, the Enlightened One. DN 22 : There is the case where a monk, when feeling a painful feeling, discerns that he is feeling a painful feeling. When feeling a pleasant feeling, he discerns that he is feeling a pleasant feeling. ... When feeling a pleasant feeling of the flesh, he discerns that he is feeling a pleasant feeling of the flesh. When feeling a pleasant feeling not of the flesh, he discerns that he is feeling a pleasant feeling not of the flesh. ... In this way he remains focused internally on feelings in & of themselves, or externally on feelings in & of themselves, or both internally & externally on feelings in & of themselves." Tep: DN 22 shows us by clear and simple words that feeling can be felt in a given moment, here & now, and feeling is the object of citta in this vedananupassana. ..................... MN 111 : Sariputta concentrates a fortinight uninterrupted, secluded from sensual desires and thoughts of demerit, with thoughts and thought processes and with joy and pleasantness born of seclusion abides in the first jhana. These things of the first jhana such as thoughts, thought processes, joy, pleasantness, one pointedness of mind, contact, feelings, perceptions, intentions, interest, resolution, effort, mindfulness, equanimity and attention, follow one after the other to him. They rise, persist and fade with his knowledge. He knows, these things come to be and cause feelings to rise. Tep: It is clear that feelings and other cetasikas were Sariputta's mental object, one by one. There was no greed as an object of his citta, however. Do you know why? Warm regards, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > > Hi Tep > (snipped) > > k: Sense desire is lobha with citta. so when lobha is with citta, > then citta should be greed and not feel feeling. At that moment of > sense objects, citta cannot be feeling joy because its object should > be greed. At the moment when greed arise with citta with a sense > object, pleasure is also arise. So the question is at that moment, > can citta cognize the object and also feeling as an object at the > same time and also greed as an object at the same time. From what I > know, it is citta can only take one object at a time. Hence feeling > is always associated and please find the meaning of association (if > the word sahagatat is used) > > k: Expositor, pg 92, 'Accompanied by joy' : this means 'gone into > the state of a common origin with joy, in the sense of enjoying > pleasure like honey. This word 'accompanied' (sahagata)has the > meanings of 'corresponding nature', 'mingled', 'dependence', > 'object', 'associated with'. This craving produces repeated births > and is accompanied by passion delight - here sahagata means 'of > corresponding nature.' The meaning of that craving has become > passionate delight. 'This investigation, bhikkhus, is accompanied by > idleness, asscoated with idleness - here sahagata should be known in > the sense of 'mingled', mingled with idleness arising at intervals. > He develops that factor of wisdom called minfulness accompanied by > the idea of the skeleton: - here sahagata should be understood as > dependence. The meaning is 'depending on the notion of the skeleton > and developing the idea, mindfullness as a factor of wisdom has been > obtained.' In the passage, 'He has acquired the attainments > accompanied by rupa, or by the immaterial -- sahagata is used in the > sense of mental object. In the passage, 'This happiness is > accompanied by this zest, is coexistent and associate with it'-- > sahajata is used in the sense of combination. And in the this > expression, 'accompanied by joy,' the last meaning is intended. For > here 'accompanied by joy' is synoymous with 'thoroughly mixed with > joy' > > k: Tep you also quote that "Joy has the characteristic of > experiencing a desirable object. ... It is manifested as mental > enjoyment. ..." [Vism. XIV,128]. this is not saying that citta can > feel, it is simply describing Vedana as pleasant feeling. See > Expositor pg 145, Feeling is what feels. It has (1)experience as > characteristics, (2)enjoying as function or possessing the desirable > portion of an object as function, (3)taste of the mental properties > as manifestation and (4)tranquility as promximate cause. 60110 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jun 3, 2006 6:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: .. All of These Are Just Different Perspectives ... Feeling & M... upasaka_howard Hi, Tep (and Ken & Herman) - I've just been thinking a bit about "objects" of consciousness and of other cognitive operations, and so I'd like to butt in briefly. In a message dated 6/3/06 11:56:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, indriyabala@... writes: > Hi Ken O, my friend (also, Herman)- > > The following remarks of yours are confusing (to me). This difficulty > indicates that a person's prior belief (mental fixation of learnt > concepts of the Abhidhamma, for example) has a great deal to do with > the way he "knows and sees", i.e. his perspective on the dhammas may > be distorted because of what he has learnt and come to believe. > > >Ken O. : > >Sense desire is lobha with citta. so when lobha is with citta, > >then citta should be greed and not feel feeling. At that moment of > >sense objects, citta cannot be feeling joy because its object should > >be greed. At the moment when greed arise with citta with a sense > >object, pleasure is also arise. So the question is at that moment, > >can citta cognize the object and also feeling as an object at the > >same time and also greed as an object at the same time. From what I > >know, it is citta can only take one object at a time. > > Tep: I agree that citta can take only one object in a given > moment(very brief time interval, a time cross-section). What if there > is no greed in that moment? Assuming that the mind is not overwhelmed > by greed (or aversion, or delusion), feeling can be felt by the mind > through contact; then mind's association with feeling conditions > craving to arise and the mind can take that as an object too. If the > mind cannot take these dhammas as its objects, then how can anyone > contemplate feelings(vedananupassana), for example? > > If you forget all about the "higher dhamma" (and the commentaries) for > a minute and carefully study the following brief sutta quotes, there > is a good chance you may see a different perspective that is realistic > (truthful): it is the perspective of the sammaa-sambuddha, the > Enlightened One. > > DN 22 : There is the case where a monk, when feeling a painful > feeling, discerns that he is feeling a painful feeling. When feeling a > pleasant feeling, he discerns that he is feeling a pleasant feeling. > ... When feeling a pleasant feeling of the flesh, he discerns that he > is feeling a pleasant feeling of the flesh. When feeling a pleasant > feeling not of the flesh, he discerns that he is feeling a pleasant > feeling not of the flesh. ... In this way he remains focused > internally on feelings in &of themselves, or externally on feelings > in &of themselves, or both internally &externally on feelings in & > of themselves." > > Tep: DN 22 shows us by clear and simple words that feeling can be felt > in a given moment, here &now, and feeling is the object of citta in > this vedananupassana. ----------------------------------------- Howard: Would not the following be a possible understanding of this, Tep? The rupa arises as object of awareness, simultaneously being felt or "tasted" as pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral. Then there is a wordless knowing that it was pleasant (probably taking as object a fresh memory or reproduction, sankharically constructed of course, of the prior operation of feeling, and wodlessly recognized as such), and then that pair is repeated (i.e, another experiencing of "the same" rupic object vedanized the same way, followed by the discerning-of-the-feeling-as-object state), and then again and again and again perhaps hundreds of thousands of times in a few seconds? Basically, a flitting back and forth between a rupic sense door and the mind door? My question is why could not the sutta description and the "abhidhammic" description both be correct, but at different levels of detail? Of course, my calling what I described as an "abhidhammic descripton" may not be that at all, as I am abysmally ignorant of the details of Abhidhamma. As for meditative practice, however, I don't think microscopic-level detail is needed intellectually. Only what the Buddha says in his "meditation suttas" is needed. The details will become "visible" to one when one's practice starts to bear fruit. --------------------------------------------- > ..................... > > MN 111 : Sariputta concentrates a fortinight uninterrupted, secluded > from sensual desires and thoughts of demerit, with thoughts and > thought processes and with joy and pleasantness born of seclusion > abides in the first jhana. These things of the first jhana such as > thoughts, thought processes, joy, pleasantness, one pointedness of > mind, contact, feelings, perceptions, intentions, interest, > resolution, effort, mindfulness, equanimity and attention, follow one > after the other to him. They rise, persist and fade with his > knowledge. He knows, these things come to be and cause feelings to rise. > > Tep: It is clear that feelings and other cetasikas were Sariputta's > mental object, one by one. There was no greed as an object of his > citta, however. Do you know why? -------------------------------------- Howard: Will you tell me? ;-) -------------------------------------- > > > Warm regards, > > > Tep > ===================== With much metta, my friend, Howard 60111 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat Jun 3, 2006 10:50am Subject: [dsg] Re: .. All of These Are Just Different Perspectives ... Feeling & M... indriyabala Hi my friend Howard (Ken O., Herman), - I am pleased, I realy mean it, that you are joining Ken & me in this discussion. > Howard: > Would not the following be a possible understanding of this, >Tep? > The rupa arises as object of awareness, simultaneously being felt or "tasted" as pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral. Then there is a wordless knowing that it was pleasant (probably taking as object a fresh memory or reproduction, sankharically constructed of course, of the prior operation of feeling, and wodlessly recognized as such), and then that pair is repeated (i.e, another experiencing of "the same" rupic object vedanized the same way, followed by the discerning-of-the-feeling-as-object state), and then again and again and again perhaps hundreds of thousands of times in a few seconds? Basically, a flitting back and forth between a rupic sense door and the mind door? Tep: Exactly, all that does not contradict to what I understand even a tiny bit. ............... > Howard: > My question is why could not the sutta description and the > "abhidhammic" description both be correct, but at different levels of detail? Of course, my calling what I described as an "abhidhammic descripton" may not be that at all, as I am abysmally ignorant of the details of Abhidhamma. > As for meditative practice, however, I don't think microscopic-level detail is needed intellectually. > Tep: Right, why not? You may not believe it that I always accept the Abhidhamma in the Tipitaka as an important component of the Tipitaka. The materials that I have encountered (and expressed my disagreement) with are from other "sources" of the 'higher-dhammas' outside the Abhidhamma-pitaka. Yes, the Sutta-pitaka and the Abhidhamma-pitaka deal with "different levels of detail" of the Teachings. In some of my old posts I used words like macro-level(beings) versus micro-level (electrons and atoms) too. ............ > Howard: >Only what the Buddha says in his "meditation suttas" is needed. The >details will become "visible" to one when one's practice starts to >bear fruit. > We are in perfect agreement here ! {:-|> With appreciation, Tep ====== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Tep (and Ken & Herman) - > > I've just been thinking a bit about "objects" of consciousness and of > other cognitive operations, and so I'd like to butt in briefly. > 60112 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat Jun 3, 2006 10:58am Subject: [dsg] Re: .. All of These Are Just Different Perspectives ... Feeling & M... indriyabala Hi Howard (and ken O), - After sending the e-message that replied to (most of)your questions, I found the following which I had overlooked. > > MN 111 : Sariputta concentrates a fortinight uninterrupted, secluded > from sensual desires and thoughts of demerit, with thoughts and > thought processes and with joy and pleasantness born of seclusion > abides in the first jhana. These things of the first jhana such as > thoughts, thought processes, joy, pleasantness, one pointedness of > mind, contact, feelings, perceptions, intentions, interest, > resolution, effort, mindfulness, equanimity and attention, follow >one after the other to him. They rise, persist and fade with his > knowledge. He knows, these things come to be and cause feelings to rise. > > Tep: It is clear that feelings and other cetasikas were Sariputta's > mental object, one by one. There was no greed as an object of his > citta, however. Do you know why? -------------------------------------- Howard: Will you tell me? ;-) -------------------------------------- Yes, of course. If he had greed (even a little), how could he be able to attain the direct knowledge and full understanding of all those mental states? Warm regards, Tep 60113 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jun 3, 2006 7:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: .. All of These Are Just Different Perspectives ... Feeling & M... upasaka_howard Hi again, Tep (and Ken & Herman) - In a message dated 6/3/06 1:53:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, indriyabala@... writes: > > Hi my friend Howard (Ken O., Herman), - > > I am pleased, I realy mean it, that you are joining Ken &me in this > discussion. ------------------------------- :-) ------------------------------- > > >Howard: > > Would not the following be a possible understanding of this, > >Tep? > > The rupa arises as object of awareness, simultaneously being > felt or "tasted" as pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral. Then there is a > wordless knowing that it was pleasant (probably taking as object a > fresh memory or reproduction, sankharically constructed of course, of > the prior operation of feeling, and wodlessly recognized as such), and > then that pair is repeated (i.e, another experiencing of "the same" > rupic object vedanized the same way, followed by the > discerning-of-the-feeling-as-object state), and then again and again > and again perhaps hundreds of thousands of times in a few seconds? > Basically, a flitting back and forth between a rupic sense door and > the mind door? > > Tep: Exactly, all that does not contradict to what I understand even a > tiny bit. --------------------------------------- Howard: Excellent! That brings a smile to my face! --------------------------------------- > ............... > > >Howard: > > My question is why could not the sutta description and the > >"abhidhammic" description both be correct, but at different levels > of detail? Of course, my calling what I described as an "abhidhammic > descripton" may not be that at all, as I am abysmally ignorant of the > details of Abhidhamma. > > As for meditative practice, however, I don't think > microscopic-level detail is needed intellectually. > > > > Tep: Right, why not? You may not believe it that I always accept the > Abhidhamma in the Tipitaka as an important component of the Tipitaka. > The materials that I have encountered (and expressed my disagreement) > with are from other "sources" of the 'higher-dhammas' outside the > Abhidhamma-pitaka. > > Yes, the Sutta-pitaka and the Abhidhamma-pitaka deal with "different > levels of detail" of the Teachings. In some of my old posts I used > words like macro-level(beings) versus micro-level (electrons and > atoms) too. > ............ > > >Howard: > >Only what the Buddha says in his "meditation suttas" is needed. The > >details will become "visible" to one when one's practice starts to > >bear fruit. > > > We are in perfect agreement here ! {:-|> ------------------------------------ Howard: I love it! :-) ------------------------------------ > > With appreciation, > > Tep ================= With metta, Howard 60114 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jun 3, 2006 7:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: .. All of These Are Just Different Perspectives ... Feeling & M... upasaka_howard Hi, Tep (and Ken) - In a message dated 6/3/06 2:02:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, indriyabala@... writes: > Hi Howard (and ken O), - > > After sending the e-message that replied to (most of)your questions, I > found the following which I had overlooked. > > > > >MN 111 : Sariputta concentrates a fortinight uninterrupted, secluded > >from sensual desires and thoughts of demerit, with thoughts and > >thought processes and with joy and pleasantness born of seclusion > >abides in the first jhana. These things of the first jhana such as > >thoughts, thought processes, joy, pleasantness, one pointedness of > >mind, contact, feelings, perceptions, intentions, interest, > >resolution, effort, mindfulness, equanimity and attention, follow > >one after the other to him. They rise, persist and fade with his > >knowledge. He knows, these things come to be and cause feelings to rise. > > > >Tep: It is clear that feelings and other cetasikas were Sariputta's > >mental object, one by one. There was no greed as an object of his > >citta, however. Do you know why? > > -------------------------------------- > Howard: > Will you tell me? ;-) > -------------------------------------- > > Yes, of course. If he had greed (even a little), how could he be able > to attain the direct knowledge and full understanding of all those > mental states? > > Warm regards, > > > Tep > ========================= One thing that confuses me, though, is in the 4th foundation of mindfulness. In the Satipatthana Sutta, there is the following: "There is the case where a monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the five hindrances. And how does a monk remain focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the five hindrances? There is the case where, there being sensual desire present within, a monk discerns that 'There is sensual desire present within me.' Or, there being no sensual desire present within, he discerns that 'There is no sensual desire present within me.' He discerns how there is the arising of unarisen sensual desire. And he discerns how there is the abandoning of sensual desire once it has arisen. And he discerns how there is no further appearance in the future of sensual desire that has been abandoned. (The same formula is repeated for the remaining hindrances: ill will, sloth & drowsiness, restlessness & anxiety, and uncertainty.)" I suppose that in the Anupada Sutta, Sariputta is describing the progress of meditative insight for one (i.e., Sariputta himself) who has already vanquished the hindrances? With metta, Howard 60115 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jun 3, 2006 11:40am Subject: Roots of Good and Evil. nilovg Dear Friends, Lodewijk and I took for our evening reading The Roots of Good and Evil, by Ven. Nyanaponika, Wheel 251/253: <23. The Arising and Non-Arising of The Roots There may be outsiders, O monks, who will ask you: ŒNow, friends, what is the cause and condition whereby unarisen greed arises and arise greed becomes stronger and more powerful?¹ ŒAn attractive object¹, they should be told. In him who gives unwise attention to an object, unarisen greed will arise, and greed that has already arisen will be stronger and more powerful. ŒNow, friends, what is the cause and condition whereby unarisen hatred arises and arisen hatred becomes stronger and more powerful?¹ ŒA repulsive object¹, they should be told. In him who gives unwise attention to a repulsive object, unarisen hatred will arise, and hatred that has already arisen will grow stronger and more powerful. ŒNow, friends, what is the cause and condition whereby unarisen delusion arises and arisen delusion becomes stronger and more powerful?¹ ŒUnwise attention¹, they should be told. In him who gives unwise attention, unarisen delusion will arise, and delusion that has already arisen will grow stronger and more powerful. ŒNow, friends, what is the cause and condition for unarisen greed not to arise and for the abandoning of greed that has arisen?¹ ŒA (meditation) object of Œimpurity¹, they should be told. In him who gives wise attention to a (meditation) object of impurity, unrisen greed will not arise and greed that has arisen will be abandoned¹. ŒNow, friends, what is the cause and condition for unarisen hatred not to arise and for the abandoning of hatred that has arisen?¹ ŒLoving-kindness that is a freeing of the mind¹, they should be told. In him who gives wise attention to loving-kindness that is freeing the mind, unrisen hatred will not arise and hatred that has arisen will be abandoned. ŒNow, friends, what is the cause and condition for unarisen delusion not to arise and for the abandoning of delusion that has arisen?¹ ŒWise attention¹, they should be told. In him who gives wise attention to a (meditation) object of impurity, unrisen delusion will not arise and greed that has arisen will be abandoned.> ******* Nina. 60116 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Jun 3, 2006 11:52am Subject: Re: Roots of Good and Evil. scottduncan2 Dear Nina, "Now, friends, what is the cause and condition whereby unarisen greed arises and arisen greed becomes stronger and more powerful? An attractive object, they should be told. In him who gives unwise attention to an object, unarisen greed will arise, and greed that has already arisen will be stronger and more powerful..." What is the difference between "unarisen" and "arisen?" Is that which is arisen and which becomes stronger the same as that which was unarisen a moment beforehand? Or is the reference to two separate dhammas? Sincerely, Scott. 60117 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat Jun 3, 2006 2:38pm Subject: Re: .. All of These Are Just Different Perspectives ... Feeling & M... indriyabala Hi Howard ( & Ken O), - >Howard: > One thing that confuses me, though, is in the 4th foundation of mindfulness. In the Satipatthana Sutta, there is the following: "There is the case where a monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the five hindrances. ... ...There is the case where, there being sensual desire present within, a monk discerns that 'There is sensual desire present within me.' > I suppose that in the Anupada Sutta, Sariputta is describing the progress of meditative insight for one (i.e., Sariputta himself) who has already vanquished the hindrances? Tep : The version of Anupada Sutta that I have seen was a Buddha's discourse on Sariputta's achievements, not Sariputta telling his own story to the monks. It is not clear from this MN 111 sutta whether he already vanquished all the hindrances before entering the 1st jhana. But I am sure (from reading the story) that after the first jhana his mind was clear from all hindrances and the mind was unified. Concerning the 4th foundation of mindfulness on hindrances, I think the contemplation scheme is not meant only for those who have attained the 1st jhana. On the contrary, it is useful for ridding of hindrances and maintaining the hindrance-free state afterward. "I heard thus. At one time the Blessed One was living in the monastery offered by Anathapindika in Jeta's grove in Savatthi. The Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus from there. Bhikkus, Sariputta is wise, has wide wisdom, bright intelligence, spontaneous and sharp wisdom and penetrating wisdom. Sariputta concentrates a fortinight uninterrupted, secluded from sensual desires and thoughts of demerit, with thoughts and thought processes and with joy and pleasantness born of seclusion abides in the first jhana. ....When these things follow one after the other, he abides with a mind that does not settle, is not bound, is released and unyoked and is unrestricted, knows there is an escape beyond this. With much practise they come to him." [MN 111] Tep: As described above, some hindrances (sensual desire and thoughts of demerit) were eliminated before he entered into the first jhana. Once the first jhana was established, his mind was "released and unyoked" and was "unrestricted". I reckon that means he attained freedom from all hindrances and more. The cetasikas kept on arising and passing away in his released mind. I understand that means all these mental states from the first jhana to the total release were without greed. I might have read too much into the sutta. Please tell me if I did not answer your question satisfactorily. Give me a letter grade ! Sincerely, Tep ===== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Tep (and Ken) - > > In a message dated 6/3/06 2:02:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > indriyabala@... writes: > > > Hi Howard (and ken O), - > > > > After sending the e-message that replied to (most of)your questions, I > > found the following which I had overlooked. > > > > > > > >MN 111 : Sariputta concentrates a fortinight uninterrupted, secluded > > >from sensual desires and thoughts of demerit, with thoughts and > > >thought processes and with joy and pleasantness born of seclusion > > >abides in the first jhana. These things of the first jhana such as > > >thoughts, thought processes, joy, pleasantness, one pointedness of > > >mind, contact, feelings, perceptions, intentions, interest, > > >resolution, effort, mindfulness, equanimity and attention, follow > > >one after the other to him. They rise, persist and fade with his > > >knowledge. He knows, these things come to be and cause feelings to rise. > > > > > >Tep: It is clear that feelings and other cetasikas were Sariputta's > > >mental object, one by one. There was no greed as an object of his > > >citta, however. Do you know why? > > > > -------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > Will you tell me? ;-) > > -------------------------------------- > > > > Yes, of course. If he had greed (even a little), how could he be able > > to attain the direct knowledge and full understanding of all those > > mental states? > > > > Warm regards, > > > > > > Tep > > > ========================= > One thing that confuses me, though, is in the 4th foundation of > mindfulness. In the Satipatthana Sutta, there is the following: "There is the case > where a monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with > reference to the five hindrances. And how does a monk remain focused on mental > qualities in & of themselves with reference to the five hindrances? There is the > case where, there being sensual desire present within, a monk discerns that > 'There is sensual desire present within me.' Or, there being no sensual desire > present within, he discerns that 'There is no sensual desire present within me.' > He discerns how there is the arising of unarisen sensual desire. And he > discerns how there is the abandoning of sensual desire once it has arisen. And he > discerns how there is no further appearance in the future of sensual desire that > has been abandoned. (The same formula is repeated for the remaining > hindrances: ill will, sloth & drowsiness, restlessness & anxiety, and uncertainty.)" > I suppose that in the Anupada Sutta, Sariputta is describing the > progress of meditative insight for one (i.e., Sariputta himself) who has already > vanquished the hindrances? > > With metta, > Howard 60118 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Jun 3, 2006 2:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Brain & Min ... They Have Done You In egberdina Thank you, Howard, I appreciate the explanations. But there was something curious in the Sammaditthi Sutta that I couldn't figure out. On 03/06/06, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Herman (and Tep) - > > In a message dated 6/2/06 7:30:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > hhofmeister@... writes: > > > But it seems from the > > orthodox interpretation of DO that ignorance is it's own cause. Nothing > > precedes it. Which is weird, in my books. Ignorance is a given, not > > dependently arisen. > ========================== > No, in another sutta the Buddha says that ignorance is not without > cause. He says it results from the outflows/fermentations. For example, in > the > Sammaditthi Sutta, the Buddha says "From the origination of fermentation > comes > the origination of ignorance." > There is also another sutta, which one I can't recall, in which the > Buddha first explicity denies that ignorance is without cause, andhe then > points > to the outflows as the cause. I quote from ATI. "There are three taints: the taint of sensual desire, the taint of being and the taint of ignorance. With the arising of ignorance there is the arising of the taints. With the cessation of ignorance there is the cessation of the taints." If I read this correctly, then ignorance is a condition for the arising of ignorance. Doesn't this put us back to where I started from ie that ignorance is its own cause? (I have no vested interest in having it so BTW :-)) Kind Regards Herman 60119 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Jun 3, 2006 2:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ...They Have Done You In .. (Corrected) egberdina Hi, old buddy Tep, On 03/06/06, indriyabala wrote: > > Hi Herman, - > > No more questions on D.O. ? What, no avatars today? :-) The mind is a funny thing, isn't it? I make up stories about your state of mind based on what isn't there. But then again, the past is the only thing we have to go by, isn't it? And now I realise I may be subtly manipulating you to include avatars in your future posts. And so another round of stress waxes and wanes Fixed view on D.O. -- this is clear, all others are not. You must be confusing me with my nimitta ( a sort-of evil twin I have :-)). The problem I have with him is that he lives in other people's heads. He's totally out of control, I'm telling you :-) Have a good weekend. Kind Regards Herman 60120 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Sat Jun 3, 2006 9:48am Subject: RE: [dsg] A summary of the Teaching dacostacharles Hi Herman, The Dali Lama summarizes the teachings as follows: "To refrain from evil, cultivate virtue, and discipline the mind." I prefer to rewrite it to: Discipline the mind to refrain from evil and cultivate virtue. Charles DaCosta -----Original Message----- From: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Herman Hofman Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 23:48 To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: [dsg] A summary of the Teaching 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. <....> 60121 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jun 3, 2006 11:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Brain & Min ... They Have Done You In upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 6/3/06 5:49:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > Thank you, Howard, > > I appreciate the explanations. But there was something curious in the > Sammaditthi Sutta that I couldn't figure out. > > > On 03/06/06, upasaka@... wrote: > > > >Hi, Herman (and Tep) - > > > >In a message dated 6/2/06 7:30:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > >hhofmeister@... writes: > > > >>But it seems from the > >>orthodox interpretation of DO that ignorance is it's own cause. Nothing > >>precedes it. Which is weird, in my books. Ignorance is a given, not > >>dependently arisen. > >========================== > > No, in another sutta the Buddha says that ignorance is not without > >cause. He says it results from the outflows/fermentations. For example, in > >the > >Sammaditthi Sutta, the Buddha says "From the origination of fermentation > >comes > >the origination of ignorance." > > There is also another sutta, which one I can't recall, in which the > >Buddha first explicity denies that ignorance is without cause, andhe then > >points > >to the outflows as the cause. > > > I quote from ATI. "There are three taints: the taint of sensual desire, the > taint of being and the taint of ignorance. With the arising of ignorance > there is the arising of the taints. With the cessation of ignorance there is > the cessation of the taints." > > If I read this correctly, then ignorance is a condition for the arising of > ignorance. Doesn't this put us back to where I started from ie that > ignorance is its own cause? (I have no vested interest in having it so BTW > :-)) > > Kind Regards > > Herman > ======================= Yes, I follow your point. But of course current ignorance *is* a condition (among others) for future ignorance. We shouldn't think of ignorance as a principle, I think, but more as a condition that arises again & again & again. Also, I suppose there is mutual dependency among various taints and ignorance, and the conditioning is both direct and indirect (through a series of dependent-origination steps). Conditionality in general is complex, and includes a lot of mutuality and cyclic conditioning, it seems to me, including co-arising conditioning. I suspect it is FAR more complicated than we realize. Also, throughout the Dhamma there is much recursion, direct and indirect! Consider the 8-fold noble path and the 4 noble truths, for example. Right view, the first factor of the 8-fold noble path, consists of, or at least includes, the four noble truths, and the 4th noble truth is exactly the 8-fold noble path (as means of cessation of dukkha)! With metta, Howard 60122 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Jun 3, 2006 3:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 433- mindfulness/sati (o) egberdina Hi Jon, >>> > >"All things can be mastered by mindfulness" (Anguttara, 8:83). > > > > > > Thanks for the sutta quote (which I haven't managed to track down yet; > what was your source?) I copied and pasted it as it is quoted from a Nyanaponika essay titled "The Power of Mindfullness". It is on the ATI web-site. (I find that the various numbering schemes for sutta referencing often lead to blind rage :-)) > > I think you are saying that because we can keep ourselves warm when it > gets cold, this shows we control dhammas. But can we, and does it? > > As to the first, everyone experiences discomfort through being too hot > or too cold from time to time, or experiences pain that cannot be > alleviated immediately. I suspect that this is going to come down to words. You ask; can we control dhammas? Well, do actions have an influence on any dhammas? Do any dhammas arise in predictable ways given certain actions? Are any of those predictable ways able to be known? Is anything that is known able to be done again in the way that it is known? Would that same action bring about those same dhammas again? If the answers to those questions are yes, well, then it would indicate that given certain conditions, certain dhammas arise. Does that mean that certain dhammas can be controlled? I suspect it comes down to words. As to the second, there are other aspects of our life that are clearly > beyond our ability to keep within limits that we would like to see > observed. For example, the various emotions that keep arising that we'd > rather be without, like anger or annoyance, attachment, despair, the > list is actually quite long. If dhammas were subject to mastery, we > would not have to put up with these things. I think it is an imperative for each person to discover for themselves the extent to which the mind is a voluntary organ. I have previously referred to the mind as a sphincter. If a child were to say to me "I poo my pants every day, and this is how it must be", I could embark on a program of toilet training with that child, and after a period of time, the child will poo in the loo, and not its pants. Categorical denials from adults as to their inability to control their minds are a bit more testing though. For one, adults can be stubbornly defiant of any attempts to teach them anything. But of course, this only goes to demonstrate that they are already very much in control of what is allowed into the mind for consideration. I would certainly agree with you that there is the arising of unwanted emotions, feelings and thoughts etc . But that does not have to translate into the performing of any unwanted action. Sphincter control, again. And the arising of the need for bowel control is of course only due to the fact that we feed ourselves. It is no different with the mind. What is it that we do all day long but feed that mind beast. And what goes in must come out. I would suggest that the Buddha's toilet training program has very much to do with limiting the mental intake, which has natural consequences as to what tries to get out. In short, the givens of life and death do not have any fixed, determined actions as a necessary consequence. It is upto each person to discover what is a given, and what is not. The Buddha's suggestion, however, is that the mind is entirely a voluntary organ. Kind Regards Herman 60123 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Jun 3, 2006 4:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Reading and Hearing the Dhamma egberdina Hi Jon, Do you mean you see a distinction between, say, hearing a sutta recited > from memory vs. hearing the same sutta being read aloud from a book vs. > reading the same sutta yourself from the printed page? > > The following is a bit of a pet theory of mine. It has developed from a theory put forward by Julian Jaynes in his book entitled "The origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind". It (both his and my theories) requires a lot more work, and I am certainly open to ditching it entirely if the evidence against it becomes overwhelming. The way I would put it is that the mind that can read is fundamentally different form the mind that can't. We spend many years learning to read. One of the consequences of that prolonged learning is that whenever we see certain marks or squigles, there is an automatic attribution of meaning to those marks. In fact, I doubt that a well-trained reader could even see the marks without the meanings. In relation to Buddhism, that has implications for the possibility for mindfulness to arise, for I would consider the seeing of meaning where there is none to be the very opposite of mindfulness. Now of course the hearing of a sutta can generate meaning beyond the sound also. But I don't think we should equate the hearing of a sutta by a reading-trained mind with the hearing of a sutta 2500 years by an illiterate mind. And that is where the theory requires more work. But I'd be happy to read any comments you might have so far. No obligation of course. Kind Regards Herman 60124 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Jun 3, 2006 4:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: .. All of These Are Just Different Perspectives ... Feeling & M.. egberdina Hi Tep, > > "I heard thus. At one time the Blessed One was living in the monastery > offered by Anathapindika in Jeta's grove in Savatthi. The Blessed One > addressed the bhikkhus from there. Bhikkus, Sariputta is wise, has > wide wisdom, bright intelligence, spontaneous and sharp wisdom and > penetrating wisdom. Sariputta concentrates a fortinight uninterrupted, > secluded from sensual desires and thoughts of demerit, with thoughts > and thought processes and with joy and pleasantness born of seclusion > abides in the first jhana. ....When these things follow one after the > other, he abides with a mind that does not settle, is not bound, is > released and unyoked and is unrestricted, knows there is an escape > beyond this. With much practise they come to him." [MN 111] > > Tep: As described above, some hindrances (sensual desire and thoughts > of demerit) were eliminated before he entered into the first jhana. > Once the first jhana was established, his mind was "released and > unyoked" and was "unrestricted". I reckon that means he attained > freedom from all hindrances and more. The cetasikas kept on arising > and passing away in his released mind. I understand that means all > these mental states from the first jhana to the total release were > without greed. I might have read too much into the sutta. > > What do you think about this? *The Authenticity of the *Anupada Sutta Mrs. C. A. F. Rhys Davids, in the preface to her translation of the * Dhammasanganî*, throws doubt on the authenticity of the *Anupada Sutta* (*MN * No. 111) as a genuine discourse of the Buddha: "The sutta, as are so many, is an obvious patchwork of editorial compiling, and dates, without reasonable doubt, long after Sâriputta has preceded his Master in leaving this world. We have first a stock formula of praise spoken not once only of Sâriputta. Then, *ex abrupto*, this tradition of his fortnight of systematic introspection. Then, *ex abrupto*, three more formulas of praise. And that is all. The sutta, albeit put into the mouth of the Founder ["the Buddha"], is in no way a genuine discourse."74 http://www.christianism.com/html/notes/13note62.html Kind Regards Herman (the real one :-)) 60125 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Jun 3, 2006 4:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A summary of the Teaching egberdina Hi Charles, On 04/06/06, Charles DaCosta wrote: > > Hi Herman, > > The Dali Lama summarizes the teachings as follows: > > "To refrain from evil, cultivate virtue, and discipline the mind." > > I prefer to rewrite it to: Discipline the mind to refrain from evil and > cultivate virtue. Thanks for this. I agree with you. Kind Regards Herman 60126 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat Jun 3, 2006 5:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ...They Have Done You In .. (Corrected) indriyabala Hi to both Hermans, - > > No more questions on D.O. ? > > What, no avatars today? :-) I save them for next week. ................................ > >Fixed view on D.O. -- this is clear, all others are not. > > The problem I have with him is that he lives in other people's heads. He's totally out of control, I'm telling you :-) > > Have a good weekend. > Shh..! Where can I buy the "no-self" pills to get rid of the 'evil Herman' inside my head? Have a great week ! Best wishes, Tep ==== 60127 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat Jun 3, 2006 6:05pm Subject: [dsg] Re: .. All of These Are Just Different Perspectives ... Faked MN 111 ? indriyabala Hi Herman, - Do you find her reasons (to support her conclusion that the sutta is a faked one) believable beyond a reasonable doubt? Why or why not? Yours truly, Tep ===== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > > (snipped) > > Mrs. C. A. F. Rhys Davids, in the preface to her translation of the *Dhammasanganî*, throws doubt on the authenticity of the *Anupada Sutta* (*MN* No. 111) as a genuine discourse of the Buddha: "The sutta, as are so many, is an obvious patchwork of editorial compiling, and dates, without reasonable doubt, long after Sâriputta has preceded his Master in leaving this world. We have first a stock formula of praise spoken not once only of Sâriputta. Then, *ex abrupto*, this tradition of his fortnight of systematic introspection. Then, *ex abrupto*, three more formulas of praise. And that is all. The sutta, albeit put into the mouth of the Founder ["the Buddha"],is in no way a genuine discourse."74 > > http://www.christianism.com/html/notes/13note62.html > 60128 From: "Andrew" Date: Sat Jun 3, 2006 7:16pm Subject: Re: Right View and Orthodoxy corvus121 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joop" wrote: > > Hallo Scott, Howard, Andrew, all > > Orthodox Theravada is: the texts of Buddhaghosa. > I experience myself again and again as a non-orthodox Theravadin, as > a freethinker-Theravadin. > That's because I do take some parts of Theravada not literal but > metaphorical, for example about the 31 realms of existence (in fact; > 29 of them) and the existence of gods who are in my opinion > projections of the mind. > And because I do in fact not believe some parts of Theravada, I'm for > example agnostic (in the way Stephen Batchelor explained it) on > rebirth. > But there's enough to have faith in, te be convined it's truths still > calling myself a Theravadin, but not an orthodox one. > If my (lack of) convictions is the eyes of others a heresy or wrong > understanding: so be it. I cannot force myself to believe what I > don't believe; and more important; what is not a problem in my > spiritual path now. Dear Joop I think your attitude is based on honesty. Another useful ingredient, I think, is open-mindedness to the extent that one's "view" (frequently rooted in attachment/aversion) of a particular author (eg Buddhaghosa, Batchelor) does not preclude an open exploration of whether they are correct on any given particular point. If things ever get to the stage when we are unable to critique a teaching because of its authorship (rather than its substance), something has gone astray. I am not a fan of Stephen Batchelor and when I read his work, I frequently have to remind myself to focus on what is being said, rather than "who" is saying it! Best wishes Andrew 60129 From: Ken O Date: Sat Jun 3, 2006 8:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: .. All of These Are Just Different Perspectives ... Feeling & Mind ashkenn2k Hi friend Tep > > Tep: I agree that citta can take only one object in a given > moment(very brief time interval, a time cross-section). What if > there is no greed in that moment? Assuming that the mind is not > overwhelmed by greed (or aversion, or delusion), feeling can be felt by the mind through contact; then mind's association with feeling conditions craving to arise and the mind can take that as an object too. If the mind cannot take these dhammas as its objects, then how can anyone contemplate feelings(vedananupassana), for example? > DN 22 : There is the case where a monk, when feeling a painful > feeling, discerns that he is feeling a painful feeling. When > feeling a pleasant feeling, he discerns that he is feeling a pleasant feeling. ... When feeling a pleasant feeling of the flesh, he discerns that he is feeling a pleasant feeling of the flesh. When feeling a pleasant feeling not of the flesh, he discerns that he is feeling a pleasant feeling not of the flesh. ... In this way he remains focused internally on feelings in & of themselves, or externally on feelings in & of themselves, or both internally & externally on feelings in & of themselves." > > Tep: DN 22 shows us by clear and simple words that feeling can be > felt in a given moment, here & now, and feeling is the object of citta in this vedananupassana. k: As I said earlier, vedana can be an object, but it is the feeling that associated with the arisen citta that took this vednana as an object feels and not the citta that feels (even though the object is a vendana). The citta cognize vedana as feeling but not feeling the feeling. k: You are not wrong to say feeling can be felt at a given momemt but this sutta according to my view does not say that citta feels. Without knowing the Pali version, the word <>, to me means he knows or aware and <> means vedana feels. There is no citta feels. > > MN 111 : Sariputta concentrates a fortinight uninterrupted, > secluded from sensual desires and thoughts of demerit, with thoughts and thought processes and with joy and pleasantness born of seclusion abides in the first jhana. These things of the first jhana such as thoughts, thought processes, joy, pleasantness, one pointedness of mind, contact, feelings, perceptions, intentions, interest, resolution, effort, mindfulness, equanimity and attention, follow one after the other to him. They rise, persist and fade with his knowledge. He knows, these things come to be and cause feelings to rise. > > Tep: It is clear that feelings and other cetasikas were Sariputta's > mental object, one by one. There was no greed as an object of his > citta, however. Do you know why? k: Because in the jhanas, there is no greed, we can deduced it by the passage <> (I am using Bhikkhu Bodhi translation>> The last statement, according to Bhikkhy Bodhi is an error due to PTS verion of the pali. His translation will be <> Any cetasikas can be an object of citta but that does not mean that citta can do the function of the object. Just like when the object is volition, it does not mean citta can be volition, it is still the volition to act as volition Cheers Ken O 60130 From: "mwesthei8" Date: Sat Jun 3, 2006 3:03pm Subject: A Belated Thank You! mwesthei8 I just wanted to write and say thank you to all for the very helpful feedback I received from members of the DSG in regards to my thesis on women in Buddhism in Thailand, and particularly Ajaan Sujin. Not only the information, but the discussions that arose from the questions were extremely helpful, interesting, and valuable. I know that I certainly learned more than I expected to learn during my research, not only about Ajaan Sujin and her teachings, but also about the finer points of Buddhism. All the material can certainly be confusing but it was so helpful to have this forum in which to discuss ideas and ask questions. Thank you all so much again! Marisa P.S.-For those who are interested my thesis was accepted and defended successfully and I was able to graduate with honors. 60131 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Jun 4, 2006 0:50am Subject: Re: [dsg]Marisa: A Belated Thank You! nilovg Dear Marisa, congratulations. I am really glad. Your parents must be proud of you. I really appreciated the points you raised, and those who took part in the discussion, me included, learned from your points. I should thank you. That is the ideal discussion, isn't it? Both parties learn, and we are all here to learn. I hope that this does not mean that you will be silent form now on. We can really profit if you continue raising points. Perhaps yopu could mention in more detail what you found valuable, what you learnt. What was new to you. It would be wonderful if you could join with your parents in our India trip, Oct. 2007. Hoping to hear from you soon, Nina. op 04-06-2006 00:03 schreef mwesthei8 op marisa.westheimer@...: > I just wanted to write and say thank you to all for the very helpful > feedback I received from members of the DSG in regards to my thesis on > women in Buddhism in Thailand, and particularly Ajaan Sujin. 60132 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Jun 4, 2006 0:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Roots of Good and Evil. nilovg Dear Scott, op 03-06-2006 20:52 schreef Scott Duncan op scduncan@...: > "Now, friends, what is the cause and condition whereby unarisen greed > arises and arisen greed becomes stronger and more powerful? An > attractive object, they should be told. In him who gives unwise > attention to an object, unarisen greed will arise, and greed that has > already arisen will be stronger and more powerful..." > > What is the difference between "unarisen" and "arisen?" Is that which > is arisen and which becomes stronger the same as that which was > unarisen a moment beforehand? Or is the reference to two separate > dhammas? ------- N: Lobha is lobha, one dhamma, but it is a latent tendency when it is unarisen, and when arisen it is accompanying akusala citta. Greed for sense objects is a latent tendency under the name of sensuous desire. This lies dormant in each citta, and it can condition at any time the arising of akusala citta rooted in lobha. Before we realize it it arises already, even now, while seeing. We believe that vipaakacitta that sees is still lasting for a moment, but already many processes have past and we think, define what is seen. This defining and thinking is done either with kusala citta or with akusala citta. Mostly with akusala citta, we do not even notice that it arises. Yes, it arises and falls away but it is accumulated, more greed is added to what is accumulated already. Evermore, evermore. Is there a way out? Yes, the development of right understanding of whatever dhamma appears. Not only seeing or thinking, also visible object, or hardness. Unarisen and arisen are different moments. The Buddha points out the danger of lobha, past lobha conditions future lobha. It seems that subtle lobha arisen with thinking is not harmful, but still, it is accumulated, becomes more. There is no self who can stop it, but developed understanding can eradicate it. ***** Nina. #60133 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jun 4, 2006 2:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: .. All of These Are Just Different Perspectives ... Feeling & M... upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Herman) - In a message dated 6/3/06 11:48:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ashkenn2k@... writes: > k: As I said earlier, vedana can be an object, but it is the feeling > that associated with the arisen citta that took this vednana as an > object feels and not the citta that feels (even though the object is > a vendana). The citta cognize vedana as feeling but not feeling the > feeling. > ==================== Ken, I don't quite view this matter as you do, or at least I would formulate the matter differently. As I see it, most of the time that we *say* we feel, for example, a pleasant feeling such as the pleasant warmth of a bath, what is actually happening is that there is awareness of the warmth (vi~n~nana) and there is experirncing that warmth as pleasant (vedana). The vedana is an operation, and not the pleasantness which is a feature of the warmth sensation, and at the moment of awarenss of the warmth, that vedana operation is not the object of awareness nor is the pleasantness feature of the warmth sensation. It is the (pleasant) warmth, the rupa, that is the object of awareness on that occasion. Now one may object and say "Wait a minute! Besides feeling the warmth, I feel its pleasantness." Well, first of all, the pleasantness is just a characteristic of that particular mind-sensation that has arisen, and not a separate object of consciousness. So, how is it, then, that this feature of the sensation is experienced? My answer is that it is experienced, not as an object, but by vedanic tasting of the (pleasant) warmth sensation. That operation of vedana takes the very same warmth sensation as vi~n~nana as its object, but in doing so detects its pleasantness. Now, there are also moments at which there is the experiencng of just-passed vedana, or, more precisely, the experiencing of a fresh memory of that just-passed vedana. At such a moment, the experiencing is a (typically) wordless, subliminal awareness of and recognition of the just-passed affective event, yet it would register sufficiently to enable you, if asked by someone what you had just felt, to reply "Pleasant warmth." That after-the-fact experiencing of the vedana operation (as object) is different, however, from the vedana operation itself, i.e., it is different from the prior "tasting" of the pleasantness. With metta, Howard #60134 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Jun 4, 2006 7:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: daana. a "happy" proposition ... Metta and Devas nilovg Hi James, I appreciate very much this sutta quote, I did not remember it. It is very helpful and I reflect on it time and again now. There are many motives for giving, as I read in the suttas, such as out of fear, or wishing to have a good name. This must be a very pure way of giving, with pure motives. The aim should be having less defilements and not any gain for oneself such as a happy rebirth or good health. It is one of the perfections the Bodhisatta developed. You always have good suttas, do quote more. Is it Gradual Sayings, Book of fives? Nina. op 03-06-2006 10:43 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@...: > Dana is EXTREMELY important to development of the Noble Eightfold > Path. Dana is an antidote for lust and is a crucial first step in > the development of the path: > > "Without abandoning these five qualities, one is incapable of > entering & remaining in the first jhana... the second jhana... the > third jhana... the fourth jhana; incapable of realizing the fruit of > stream-entry... the fruit of once-returning... the fruit of non- > returning... arahantship. Which five? Stinginess as to one's > monastery [lodgings], stinginess as to one's family [of supporters], > stinginess as to one's gains, stinginess as to one's status, and > ingratitude. Without abandoning these five qualities, one is > incapable of entering & remaining in the second jhana... the third > jhana... the fourth jhana; one is incapable realizing the fruit of > stream-entry... the fruit of once-returning... the fruit of non- > returning... arahantship. > > "With the abandoning of these five qualities, one is capable of > entering & remaining in the second jhana... the third jhana... the > fourth jhana; capable of realizing the fruit of stream-entry... the > fruit of once-returning... the fruit of non-returning... > arahantship..." #60135 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Jun 4, 2006 7:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] re: our discussions in Paris, no 5. and death. nilovg Dear Han, Yes, I know that you do not have misunderstandings as to samatha and insight, you know all the texts very well. You quoted Ven. Bodhi, referring to Vis. XX, 93-104. This is difficult to realize very precisely. I mean the arising and falling away of precisely one naama or one ruupa at a time. The Vis. states in 93 that this knowledge comes after comprehension knowledge, and this means knowing nama and rupa as conditioned dhammas. I cannot say much, since I do not have direct knowledge even of the difference between naama and ruupa, which is the first stage of insight. I listened to Kh. Sujin speaking about death. Seeing it as khanika marana, momentary death. We usually think of conventional death, sammutti marana, the end of a lifespan. But when we realize the falling away of seeing or hearing by insight we can understand momentary death. When people have fear of death, it is really the moments before death. The dying-consciousness, cuti-citta, is only one moment, and just like the bhavangacitta arising in deep sleep. One will not realize this citta, it is so fast. Just as the citta now is succeeded by the following citta is cuti citta followed by the rebirth-consciousness. I understand this intellectually, but not through insight. I think we are uncertain about the future, what will happen. What kind of rebirth. Another person remarked that we love ourselves so much that we do not like the idea of having to part from our individuality now. How true. Han, I would value it to know your personal view and experience about this. You are a medical doctor and have seen many people die. Nina. op 03-06-2006 00:31 schreef han tun op hantun1@...: > Bhikkhu Bodhi’s Notes on this paragraph: > meditation directed to the rise and fall of the five > aggregates. Perception of rise and fall brings to > light the characteristic of impermanence, and on the > basis of this the meditator discerns that whatever is > impermanent is suffering and non-self. See Vism. XX, > 93-104.> #60136 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Jun 4, 2006 7:59 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Roots of Good and Evil. scottduncan2 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > > Dear Scott, > op 03-06-2006 20:52 schreef Scott Duncan op scduncan@...: > > > "Now, friends, what is the cause and condition whereby unarisen greed > > arises and arisen greed becomes stronger and more powerful? An > > attractive object, they should be told. In him who gives unwise > > attention to an object, unarisen greed will arise, and greed that has > > already arisen will be stronger and more powerful..." > > > > What is the difference between "unarisen" and "arisen?" Is that which > > is arisen and which becomes stronger the same as that which was > > unarisen a moment beforehand? Or is the reference to two separate > > dhammas? > ------- > N: Lobha is lobha, one dhamma, but it is a latent tendency when it is > unarisen, and when arisen it is accompanying akusala citta. > > Greed for sense objects is a latent tendency under the name of sensuous > desire. This lies dormant in each citta, and it can condition at any time > the arising of akusala citta rooted in lobha. Before we realize it it arises > already, even now, while seeing. We believe that vipaakacitta that sees is > still lasting for a moment, but already many processes have past and we > think, define what is seen. This defining and thinking is done either with > kusala citta or with akusala citta. Mostly with akusala citta, we do not > even notice that it arises. > > > Yes, it arises and falls away but it is accumulated, more greed is added to > what is accumulated already. Evermore, evermore. > Is there a way out? Yes, the development of right understanding of whatever > dhamma appears. Not only seeing or thinking, also visible object, or > hardness. > Unarisen and arisen are different moments. The Buddha points out the danger > of lobha, past lobha conditions future lobha. It seems that subtle lobha > arisen with thinking is not harmful, but still, it is accumulated, becomes > more. There is no self who can stop it, but developed understanding can > eradicate it. > > ***** > Nina. > Dear Nina, Thank you. Unarisen and arisen, then, as you say, are different moments. The unarisen is replete with the potential conditioned by the accumulation of past arisen dhammas. The actual nature of a given arising is, as you also say, latent tendency until arisen. Am I paraphrasing you correctly? Sensuous desire, for example, latent in a given citta, conditions the arising of akusula citta rooted in lobha. Is it only at the moment of arising that one can actually speak of akusula citta rooted in desire? I would think so since there must be an enormous weight of latent tendency in potential. Dormancy or latent tendency seems definable, in a way, only once the actual here-and-now arising is apparent. If it is known now to be akusula citta rooted in lobha, then, at this moment, can one can say that this must have been due to latent tendency? A sort of post-hoc analysis and attribution? Would it be fair to suggest that latency or potential is non-existent except in the present moment? This seems a necessary way to concieve of things, since there is said to be a complete falling away of a dhamma. I realise that here we get into the realm of conditionality. That's enough for now. Sincerely, Scott. #60137 From: "Dan D." Date: Sun Jun 4, 2006 8:08 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Please don't.... onco111 Great opening, Ken H! > Hi Dan, Sarah and all, > > The following is a rambling post to Dan that I decided not to send, > but which Sarah told me to send anyway. So now it is a rambling post > with rambling explanatory bits (meant to tidy it up) added on. > > Sensible DSG readers will now skip to the next message. :-) Since I read through the whole post, I guess that disqualifies me as 'sensible'. I've always suspected I was not sensible. Thank-you for finally proving it. > Now, instead of tidying up, I am going to open another can of worms. > Sarah may not have "suggested otherwise" but I have. In my previous > post, I said that right intellectual understanding was a degree of > Path consciousness - even if only a tiny degree. Certainly there is a > "fundamental distinction" in that path consciousness is supramundane > and has nibbana as its object, whereas the other is ordinary and has a > concept as its object. However, they both have the rare and wonderful > cetasika, samma-ditthi (in a form that only occurs during a Buddha's > sasana), and therefore, in that way, their difference is "a matter of > degree." This is indeed a can of worms, and I'm glad Sarah prodded you to pry it open! However, we seem to diverge sharply on this one, and it's not clear to me how to proceed. In my mind, two kinds of conceptual or intellectual understanding are: i. speculative; and ii. reflective. The former is the formulation of theories without the benefit of experience. The latter is post-facto description of understanding that has already arisen and fallen away. A moment of insight has tremendous power and depth. One example I like is that of Mozart. He once said something along the lines of: "When inspiration strikes, I compose an entire symphony in my head in one second. Then, I have to retrieve it and write it all down, which takes a considerable amount of time." [Maybe someone more knowledgeable can help us with a more accurate quote...] Mozart had tremendous insight into the relationships between sound and the vedana of hearing (pleasure, displeasure, equanimity). He also realized that there was a distinction between the insight that could inspire an entire symphony in a moment and the reflective conceptualization that would later require a month or two to record the description of the insight. The arising of the initial insight is not at all of the same character as the intellectual understanding that does the recording. It is not a matter of difference of degree of understanding, but a fundamental difference in the mode of understanding. And even the most tin-eared among us have an occasional inspired moment of understanding music. Granted, not an understanding anywhere near as deep as Mozart's, and we may not have developed enough of a conceptual understanding of music to express properly the insights that do arise. And, of course, there are people who study music theory for years and years but can only write uninspired music. The inspiration does not come from the theory. And even if they have both theory and insight, they may not be perceptive enough to artfully link the insight to a description, or to know how to describe the insight using the theory. > Having said that, I am really not bothered either way. As far as I am > concerned, we can call it a matter of degree or we can call it a > fundamental distinction. I have a strong preference for "fundamental distinction". The world of concept and the world of insight are like parallel universes. I think it is a mistake to think of the differences as only a matter of degree. If one thinks of insight as deep intellectual understanding, then wouldn't there be a tendency to wait until deeper and deeper intellectual understanding is developed before insight is developed? No need to wait! Right now is the time to develop insight. It will arise, but it won't even be recognized if the mind strongly clings to its speculations and prejudices that say, "No insight until intellectual understanding is complete." Insight that arises in such a mind will be quickly swamped and extinguished. > Sarah went on to say that the main point of contention in this thread > has been whether we needed to hear the Dhamma Vinaya in order to > develop satipatthana in this very life. > > It would suit me to discuss just that, but I'm still not sure: is the > question of "matter of degree" v's "fundamental distinction" important > in this thread? Is it central in deciding whether the Dhamma Vinaya > has to be heard before satipatthana can occur? Yes. It is the core issue. If the difference between insight and intellectualization is only a matter of degree, then learning Buddha's conceptualization of Dhamma Vinaya is absolutely essential to development of insight. However, if there is a fundamental distinction between insight and conceptualization, then there are two possibilities: i. insight arises from proper conceptualization; and ii. insight arises and we rush in with conceptualizations to describe it. With the latter, insight is clearly possible outside the dispensation. With the former, it depends on what is meant by "proper", the defining of which has been the focus of the discussion. If "proper" means that there must be a detailed intellectual understanding of the intricacies of Abhidhamma, then of course insight only arises within the dispensation. If "proper" means a conceptualization that directs attention to the characteristics of present moment, then outside the dispensation insight may arise. To my comment that: > D: > First, is that "right" is so closely allied with "samma" as in > samma-ditthi, samma-vayama, etc. of the path. I think it would be a > terrible mistake to mix up a "right concept" with the path sammas; You responded: > Ken H: The possibility of such a mistake is very remote. When talking about > path consciousness, we use "right" to describe the eight cetasikas > that act as path factors. We never use it to describe the objects > (nibanna and conditioned dhammas) they experience.... But then, remarkably, you make that mistake: > Different, yes, but right understandings all the same. Dhammas can be > understood directly or indirectly. In both cases it is the same > cetasika - panna (samma-ditthi) - that does the understanding. Samma-ditthi of the path (either mundane or supramundane) is direct understanding only. Not intellectual understanding. Not "right concept". I believe there is a non-path "samma-ditti" that is sometimes discussed in the Dhamma-Vinaya, and I'm sure Sarah (or other text expert) could help us here. > When talking about Dhamma explanations (e.g., "Volition is a universal > cetasika") we say, "That is right" or "That is correct." And sometimes > (e.g., "Volition is control over the arising of dhammas") we say, > "That is wrong." > > I don't see a problem with that use of right and wrong. What if the speaker has a wrong understanding of what "cetasika" means? Or what "volition" means? Is the statement still right? Does the speaker then have a right conceptual understanding of "volition is a universal cetasika" even though he couldn't possibly be describing any realities? Or, forgive my glibness, are you thinking that kowtowing to the big Volition and the big Cetasika in the sky is Correct View? To think of "volition is a universal cetasika" as correct when someone doesn't know what they are talking about is to personify Volition and Cetasika as something lasting and with a core, somthing external and objective. But they are not. They arise and fall away in a flash, and there is nothing there for anyone to grasp onto. The person who has no understanding but recites "volition is a universal cetasika" has erected a shrine to the concepts of Volition and Cetasika. Is it the shrine of Volition and Cetasika that are right? What exactly is it about the understanding of someone who has no understanding that is Right? ..... > D: > For > this reason I don't like the formulation "right conceptual > formulation." I don't think we can stress too strongly that the path > is a path of realization, not of cogitation or any other techniques > for conjuring understanding from a prescriptive practice. > ------------------------ > > But Dan, cogitation does not have to be a technique. It can be an > intellectual realisation and, therefore, pariyatti - a first step > towards the eightfold path. Is pariyatti an intellectual realization? > Whenever there is wise consideration of the Dhamma (a factor for > enlightenment) there is no idea of a technique for bringing about > future enlightenment. There is panna-cetasika, which rightly > understands in theory that the present moment is the entire world. Panya-cetasika arises and passes away in an instant, with no time for understanding things "in theory." Conceiving of the construction of theories as a step towards the path is, in my mind, very much technique-building: the technique of ditthi. > D: > The sammas of the path are notably different from conceptual > understandings > ------------------------------ > > Different, yes, but right understandings all the same. Dhammas can be > understood directly or indirectly. In both cases it is the same > cetasika - panna (samma-ditthi) - that does the understanding. > > Is the "notable difference" a suddenly occurring one? Remember the > gradual training (Kitagiri Sutta MN 70). I imagine that intellectual > understanding develops to an extent that is way beyond anything we are > currently used to. At that stage, direct understanding will flow > almost seamlessly, as a natural progression. I'm not sure what you are saying here. It sounds to me like you are saying that direct understanding flows out from intellectual understanding in a natural progression. In my mind, the development of intellectual understanding is accomplished by very conventional, sakayaditthi-filled means--a definition of Dhamma study as a technique for bringing about direct understanding. How is that technique really any different from the "formal practice" that you deride? Or don't you see the technique-iness of your statement? > D: > and do not arise from conceptual understandings, > ----------------------------------------- > > It is obvious to me that greater understandings develop from lesser > understandings. Why do you find that so unacceptable? I would agree with that, but I wouldn't put insight and conceptualization on the same scale. They are different. Deep insight develops from shallower insight. Deep intellectual understanding develops from shallower intellectual understanding. Shallow insight does not arise from deep intellectualizing. Deep insight does not arise from deep intellectualizing. The role of conceptualization is to put a damper on the rushing in of moha after insight arises and thereby allowing a deeper insight to develop. ..... > D: > No, no. The subsiding of clinging to a conceptual formulation > (i.e., the non-arising of ditthi) is indeed a condition for samma- ditthi. > But I don't see the building of detailed and elaborate conceptual > models and then the subsequent clinging to the models as "right > conceptualizations" that are necessary precursors of samma-ditthi > (i.e., as part of the path) as helpful or desirable. More of a > hindrance. The building of thicker and thicker conceptualizations > under the guise of "development of Right Understanding via Right > Cogitation and Intellectualization" assigns an extra factor into the > path (samma-papanca) and makes it more difficult to see rightly > (samma-ditthi). > ------------- > > Ken H: Whew, this is heavy going! Or is it just me? Or is it just a matter of > your not seeing the distinction between pariyatti and technique? Are you thinking of pariyatti as "the building of detailed and elaborate conceptual models"? If so, then I'd have to say that you are right; I'd be seeing pariyatti as a technique--the 'ditthi' technique, which is superficially different from the 'silabbataparamasa' techniques that are sometimes discussed. > D: > The "plays a role in defining limits" does not mean "is a > condition for." I think everyone who pops into dsg and participates in > the discussions has developed a degree of samma-ditthi through > satipatthana. > --------------------- > > Whoa there! Before, you were saying that satipatthana could occur > outside a Buddha's dispensation. I thought that was an understandable > misconception, considering that there have been so many great thinkers > throughout history. Now you are saying satipatthana is commonplace. > You are saying we have all experienced satipatthana. (!) You are > saying that at various times in all of our pasts panna has arisen to > directly know a paramattha dhamma. (!) I don't know about "commonplace" but that's essentially right. (!!) > But we DSG people can't even agree on what a paramattha dhamma is - or > even whether there is such a thing as a paramattha dhamma! What > evidence is there that we have had profound insights despite our > abysmal ignorance? Not necessarily profound insights, but enough to keep us spiritually interested in Dhamma as more than an intellectual game or a set of techniques or methods for staying out of trouble. > D: > Samma-ditthi arises and passes away whether there is > Buddhist cogitation about it beforehand or not. Then, there are two > questions: (1) how deep was the understanding? > ------------------------------- > > It is very deep! Direct knowledge of paramattha dhammas is profound - > the exclusive domain of the wise. Nonsense. It is deep insight, not shallow insight, that distinguishes the 'wise' from 'unwise'. The difference is that with the unwise, insight is overwhelmed by moha so quickly after it arises that there is no development; there may not even be recognition that it has arisen and passed away because the mind has been speculating so much about what insight looks like ("this Cetasika, that Citta") that when insight does arise it goes unrecognized because it doesn't match the preconceived template, and also it is so conditioned to think "insight only arises after intellectual understanding has advanced to a deep, deep degree; my intellectual understanding is not very deep, so insight is impossible." And all of a sudden, moha has absolutely crushed and demolished and obliterated nascent understanding. How can understanding have any chance at all to develop if it is not protected from the onslaught of speculation engendered by a Right Opinion that detailed intellectual understanding must precede even the most shallow insight? > D: > (2) what happened in the aftermath of the understanding? My > working hypothesis is that > these two questions play off one another. If a particular > conceptualization is firmly held to and grasped because of years of > accumulated habit and expectation and speculation about it, then > clinging to that conceptualization (i.e., ditthi) is more likely to > rush in and co-opt the nascent understanding, remaking it in the > ditthi image. > > One way this could play out is as follows. Suppose someone > thinks: "The arising of samma-ditthi depends on having a detailed > theoretical knowledge first. Samma-ditthi then arises out of > samma-papanca in some mysterious way that I will never be able to > understand because satipatthana is incredibly deep, and I can't really > hope to experience it in this lifetime." If someone were to hold such > an opinion, I would think that development of understanding would be > virtually precluded because any time understanding did > arise, it would immediately be swamped by doubt and ditthi. > --------------- > > Dan, that sounds to me like, "Beware the Dhamma-Vinaya!" No more than the "Beware the Dhamma-Vinaya!" that you (and other dsg- ers) so famously toss at the 'formal meditation' schoolers. Your "beware" is really more of a "Beware attachment and silabbataparamasa" than "beware the Dhamma-Vinaya". Likewise, my "beware" is really more like a "beware of Ditthi in all its guises." One of those guises is protecting an intellectual approach as a Dhamma technique. ..... > Ken H: Panna with nibbana as object is a > factor of the eightfold path. Panna with a conditioned dhamma as > object is a factor of the mundane (five-or-sixfold) path. Panna with a > concept of dhammas as object is a factor of the intellectual path > (pariyatti). Yes, panya with concept as object must be a factor of the intellectual path (as "samma" ditthi), just as formal meditation is a factor of the conventional path (as "samma" vayama), right? > Ken H: Putting aside made-up theories of "right conceptualisation," what is > your opinion on samma-ditthi arising to take a concept as its object? > When the Buddha spoke about things hitherto unknown - dukkha and the > five khandhas - did his audience understand his words? Was there, at > such times, samma-ditthi with concepts as object? This looks like a good new thread. We'd have to pull in Herman's and James' recent comments on listening. I'm not sure I'll have time to dig in, but we shall see. It's been great discussing with you, Ken H. Thanks for taking Sarah's bait. Metta, Dan #60138 From: "Dan D." Date: Sun Jun 4, 2006 8:07 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Please don't.... onco111 I don't know about "rusty", Ken O. If only we could all be so rusty! Well-considered post. > Ken O: I think I am getting rusty again and I apologise I made all my > points wrong in the earlier mail. I realise I did forget about > mundane and supramundane until you have prompted it. Samma dithi is > a cetasikas, so it should be mundane and supramundane. In my view, > there is no such thing as conceptual samma dithi. Agreed. > By relying on concepts, one clings to an illusion because concepts > are not real. It is a tendency that we like to believe concepts are > the percusor to our understanding of dhamma, but it is not a > paramatha hence it would not help in the development of the path. Yup. > The intellectualising of samma dithi in our pariyati is based on > paramatha and not concept. So this is two different thing. When we > say pariyatti it does not mean learning samma ditthi as a concept, > rather it meant we are learning it as a paramatha, as mundane and > supramundane even though we know we still cannot see the paramatha > side of it. But this is an important subtle difference that I have > to emphasis. I'm still not clear on what pariyatti means, and I'm intrigued by your comment. Can you say a little more on what you mean by "learning it as a paramattha...even though we...cannot see the paramattha side of it"? Do you mean a conceptual, speculative learning? > > But how does the listening that we read about in the texts relate > > to the reading and discussing details of the suttas that you > mention? I think it has much the same relationship as the > 'meditation' we read about in the suttas and the 'meditation' that is > done in a formal retreat at a meditation center. > > k: You are not wrong to point out hearing at the time maybe be a > paramatha. But it is still a paramtha and not conceptual My working hypothesis is that the word pariyatti must refer to the understanding of presently arising paramattha while reading about, listening to, or discussing Dhamma. It arises as the words keep reminding where understanding springs from--attention to the present, not theorizing or speculating about states not arising or not having arisen. ..... > k: Thanks for pointing my errors. Bu yong xie. Zhe shi wo de ying-gai zuo! [My apologies if that's Greek to you...] > That is why after reading your > points, I went back to look at my notes again and I found out I am > very wrong about what I wrote in the earlier mail. I have to > apologise to Ken H also and thanks Sarah for having faith in me and > knowing I will relook at this issue again. Nothing to apologize for. You are a good man. > k: Before I pen off, I will leave you with this note that I have > read. The dispeller of delusion, pg 139 para 552. > < regard to three and penetration as object in regard to cessation. > Herein all penetration knowledge is suparmundane; knowledge of > hearing, remembering and comprehending is mundane of the sense > sphere. But there comes to reviewing (paccavekkhanaa) for one who > has reached the truths. But this one is a beginner, therefore that > is not stated here. For this bikkhu there is no concern, > ratiocination, bringing to mind and reviewing thus: "I am fully > understing suffering, I am abandoning origination, I am realising > cessation, I am developing the parth" laying hold; but there is since > laying hold. But in the later stage suffering has just been > penetrated....the path has just been developed. May we all one day thus penetrate the noble truths with supramundane samma-ditthi! Dan #60139 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sun Jun 4, 2006 8:10 am Subject: Re: .. All of These Are Just Different Perspectives ... Feeling & Mind indriyabala Dear Ken O (Howard & Herman), - Boy! It is tough. >>Tep: DN 22 shows us by clear and simple words that feeling can be >> felt in a given moment, here & now, and feeling is the object of >>citta in this vedananupassana. >Ken O. : >As I said earlier, vedana can be an object, but it is the feeling that associated with the arisen citta that took this vednana as an object feels and not the citta that feels (even though the object is a vendana). The citta cognize vedana as feeling but not feeling the feeling. Tep: You are clever, ken ! You have done me in ! ... I am in confusion now. I am dejected and hopeless ... there is no way I can understand your "higher dhamma"! Forgive my thick head. {:>|)-[ ( Herman, look ! My avatar is back.) ............... >Ken O. : > You are not wrong to say feeling can be felt at a given momemt but this sutta according to my view does not say that citta feels. Without knowing the Pali version, the word <>, to me means he knows or aware and <> means vedana feels. There is no citta feels. Tep: Okay. Here is the Pali for the sentence that includes the words you mentioned: 'When feeling a pleasant feeling, he discerns that he is feeling a pleasant feeling' = sukham. vaa vedanam. vedayamaano 'sukam.vedanam. vedayaamii'ti pajaanaati. So what does 'vedayamaano' tell you about citta feels a feeling (or feeling is felt)? Here, of course, pajanaati is to discern, to know, to understand. --it is a function of citta, not vedana's. The question still is : what does the citta know?? ................ Tep: Thank you very much for sharing a Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of MN 111 with me. I agree with you that greed does not arise in jhana (right concentration). >Ken O. : Any cetasikas can be an object of citta but that does not mean that citta can do the function of the object. Just like when the object is volition, it does not mean citta can be volition, it is still the volition to act as volition. Tep: Can volition act as volition without citta as its chief? Isn't it the citta with volition (willed mind) that conditions kusala or akusala to arise? My answer is 'No' for the first question, and 'Yes' for the second. What do you think? Take care, Tep, your friend. ========= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Hi friend Tep > > (snipped) > > > > MN 111 : Sariputta concentrates a fortinight uninterrupted, > > secluded from sensual desires and thoughts of demerit, with > thoughts and thought processes and with joy and pleasantness born of > seclusion abides in the first jhana. These things of the first jhana > such as thoughts, thought processes, joy, pleasantness, one > pointedness of mind, contact, feelings, perceptions, intentions, > interest, resolution, effort, mindfulness, equanimity and attention, > follow one after the other to him. They rise, persist and fade with > his knowledge. He knows, these things come to be and cause feelings > to rise. > > > > Tep: It is clear that feelings and other cetasikas were Sariputta's > > mental object, one by one. There was no greed as an object of his > > citta, however. Do you know why? > > k: Because in the jhanas, there is no greed, we can deduced it by #60140 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Jun 4, 2006 11:27 am Subject: Roots of Good and Evil, 2. nilovg Dear Friends, This is taken from The Roots of Good and Evil, by Ven. Nyanaponika, Wheel 251/253: <23. The Arising and Non-Arising of The Roots COMMENT This text shows the decisive role attention plays in the origination and eradication of the unwholesome roots. In the discourse ŒAll Taints¹(Sabbasava Sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 2) it is said: ŒThe uninstructed common man Š. Does not know the things worthy of attention nor those unworthy of attention. Hence he fails to give attention to what is worthy of it and directs his attention to what is unworthy of it¹. And of the well-instructed disciple the same discourse says that he knows what is worthy of attention and what is not, and that he acts accordingly. The commentary to that discourse makes a very illuminating remark: ³There is nothing definite in the nature of the things (or objects) themselves that makes them worthy or unworthy of attention; but there is such definiteness in the manner (akara) of attention. A manner of attention that provides a basis for the arising of what is unwholesome or evil (akusala), that kind of attention should not be given (to the respective object); but the kind of attention that is the basis for the arising of the good and wholesome (kusala), that manner of attention should be given.¹ It is this latter type of attention that in our present texts is called Œwise attention¹ (yoniso manasikara). The former kind is Œunwise attention¹ (ayoniso manasikara), which elsewhere in the commentaries is said to be the proximate cause of delusion. Things pleasant or unpleasant that is, those potentially attractive or repulsive are given to us as facts of common experience, but there is nothing compelling in their own nature that determines our reaction to them. It is our own deliberate attitude towards them, the 'manner of attention', which decides whether we will react with greed to the pleasant and aversion to the unpleasant, or whether our attention will be governed instead by right mindfulness and right understanding, resulting in right action. In some cases, it will also be possible and advisable to withdraw or divert attention altogether from an object; and this is one of the methods recommended by the Buddha for the removal of unwholesome thoughts (see Text 24 and Comment.) Our freedom of choice is present in our very first reaction to a given experience, that is, in the way we attend to it. But only if we direct wise attention to the object perceived can we make use of our potential freedom of choice for our own true benefit. The range of freedom can be further widened if we train ourselves to raise that wise attention to the level of right mindfulness.> N: As I see it, also our deliberate attitude or choice is conditioned by former accumulated kusala or akusala. ***** Nina. #60141 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Jun 4, 2006 2:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: .. All of These Are Just Different Perspectives ... Faked MN 111 ? egberdina Hi Tep, On 04/06/06, indriyabala wrote: > > > Hi Herman, - > > Do you find her reasons (to support her conclusion that the sutta is a > faked one) believable beyond a reasonable doubt? Why or why not? I have no hard and fast opinion on the matter. But that there has been intelligent questioning about it, is a useful reminder for me to not blindly latch onto everything you read and hear, even from the Suttas.. Kind Regards Herman #60142 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Jun 4, 2006 2:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition ... Metta and Devas egberdina Hi James, Good to hear from you. You get around, don't you? I hope Taiwan is good for you :-) Dana is EXTREMELY important to development of the Noble Eightfold > Path. Dana is an anecdote for lust and is a crucial first step in > the development of the path: I have no doubts about this either. My main problem with the matter is the science-of-dana, as stated in a MN sutta which I can't find at the moment, where a gift to the Buddha is stated to have 10^10 benefit, and a gift to a shmuck in the gutter will have 10^2 benefit, and to an animal 10 times benefit, and many layers in between. That sort of thing. The implications of this dana science are grievious, and reverberate through to this day. Kind Regards Herman #60143 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Jun 4, 2006 3:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Please don't.... egberdina Hi DanD & KenH, On 05/06/06, Dan D. wrote: > > Great opening, Ken H! > > > Hi Dan, Sarah and all, > > > > The following is a rambling post to Dan that I decided not to send, > > but which Sarah told me to send anyway. So now it is a rambling post > > with rambling explanatory bits (meant to tidy it up) added on. > > > > Sensible DSG readers will now skip to the next message. :-) Isn't it funny, Ken, that what you had decided should be discarded turns out to be much appreciated. I thought it was a very good bit of writing. Great post, Dan. It has gone into that mental stewing pot to which there is no conscious access, we'll see if anything bubbles up. All the best Herman #60144 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Jun 4, 2006 3:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Roots of Good and Evil, 2. egberdina Hi Nina, Thank you for posting this. > N: As I see it, also our deliberate attitude or choice is conditioned by > former accumulated kusala or akusala. Is there room for a matter of degrees here, or is the deliberate choice entirely, totally, absolutely conditioned by the past? Kind Regards Herman Holland and Australia played a draw in the football last night. Very encouraging for the Australians. But of course they have a Dutch coach, whose name they cannot pronounce. They call him Huus (Guus) :-) #60145 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Jun 4, 2006 3:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Samatha and vipassana 2 egberdina Hey Jon and Eric, > Hey, are you trying me on, Eric? ;-)) Because I think you're the one > who has it backwards!! Whenever there is fire, there is heat. But we > cannot say whenever there is heat there is fire. > > (Is it true to say that heat is a necessary condition for fire? I'm not > sure about that; when a fire is started by striking a match against the > appropriate substance, the fire is produced by a chemical reaction > rather than by the generation of heat.) Always nice to see the physical sciences putting in an appearance. I would say that the lighting of the match is initiated by the friction of striking the match against the side of the matchbox, and that friction translates into heat, which precipitates the chemical reaction. Kind Regards Herman #60146 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sun Jun 4, 2006 5:05 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: .. All of These Are Just Different Perspectives ... Faked MN 111 ? indriyabala Hi Herman, - I asked: > > Do you find her reasons (to support her conclusion that > >the sutta is a faked one) believable beyond a reasonable doubt? > >Why or why not? > And you wrote: > I have no hard and fast opinion on the matter. But that there has been intelligent questioning about it, is a useful reminder for me to not blindly latch onto everything you read and hear, even from the Suttas.. > ?? {:-|)>> ?? Tep ======= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > On 04/06/06, indriyabala wrote: > > > > > > Hi Herman, - > > #60147 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun Jun 4, 2006 5:59 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,80 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII 80. (9) 'Decisive-support condition': firstly, here is the word-meaning: it is treated as support, not dispensed with, by its own fruit because [its own fruit's] existence is dependent on it, thus it is the support. But just as great misery is despair, so great support is decisive support. This is a term for a cogent reason. Consequently, a state that assists by being a cogent reason should be understood as a decisive-support condition. It is threefold, namely, (a) object-decisive-support, (b) proximate-decisive-support, and (c) natural-decisive-support. *********************** 80. upanissayapaccayoti ettha pana aya.m taava vacanattho, tadadhiinavuttitaaya attano phalena nissito na pa.tikkhittoti nissayo. yathaa pana bhuso aayaaso upaayaaso, eva.m bhuso nissayo upanissayo, balavakaara.nasseta.m adhivacana.m. tasmaa balavakaara.nabhaavena upakaarako dhammo upanissayapaccayoti veditabbo. so aaramma.nuupanissayo anantaruupanissayo pakatuupanissayoti tividho hoti. #60148 From: Ken O Date: Sun Jun 4, 2006 7:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: .. All of These Are Just Different Perspectives ... Feeling & M... ashkenn2k Hi Howard > ==================== > Ken, I don't quite view this matter as you do, or at least I > would formulate the matter differently. > As I see it, most of the time that we *say* we feel, for > example, a pleasant feeling such as the pleasant warmth of a bath, what is actually happening is that there is awareness of the warmth (vi~n~nana) and there is experirncing that warmth as pleasant (vedana). The vedana is an operation, and not the pleasantness which is a feature of the warmth sensation, and at the moment of > awarenss of the warmth, that vedana operation is not the object of > awareness nor is the pleasantness feature of the warmth sensation. It is the (pleasant) warmth, the rupa, that is the object of awareness on that occasion. > > Now one may object and say "Wait a minute! Besides feeling > the warmth, I feel its pleasantness." Well, first of all, the pleasantness is just a characteristic of that particular mind-sensation that has arisen, and not a separate object of consciousness. So, how is it, then, that this feature of the > sensation is experienced? My answer is that it is experienced, not > as an object, but by vedanic tasting of the (pleasant) warmth sensation. That operation of vedana takes the very same warmth sensation as vi~n~nana as its object, but in doing so detects its pleasantness. k: Yup Abhidhamamic way of explaning. Vedana taste the object :-) > Now, there are also moments at which there is the > experiencng of just-passed vedana, or, more precisely, the experiencing of a fresh memory of that just-passed vedana. At such a moment, the experiencing is a (typically) wordless, subliminal awareness of and recognition of the just-passed affective event, yet it would register sufficiently to enable you, if asked by someone what you had just felt, to reply "Pleasant warmth." That after-the-fact experiencing of the vedana operation (as object) is different, however, from the vedana operation itself, i.e., it is different from the prior "tasting" of the pleasantness. k: Could you explain more on this. In my interpretation, the just-passed vedana is like saying vedana is an object of the citta and hence it is didfferent from the prior "tasting" of the pleasantness. However, at that moment of the experiencing of the vedana operation, it is still the vedana that arise with the citta that "taste" the vedana operation. Cheers Ken O #60149 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jun 4, 2006 3:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: .. All of These Are Just Different Perspectives ... Feeling & M... upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 6/4/06 10:26:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ashkenn2k@... writes: > k: Could you explain more on this. In my interpretation, the > just-passed vedana is like saying vedana is an object of the citta > and hence it is didfferent from the prior "tasting" of the > pleasantness. However, at that moment of the experiencing of the > vedana operation, it is still the vedana that arise with the citta > that "taste" the vedana operation. > > > =========================== There are two times involved, first time A, then time B. At time A the object of consciousness and also of vedana was the (pleasant) warmth, with the consciousness merely being aware of the warmth, and the vedana "tasting" it as pleasant. At time B, everything that there was at time A is now utterly gone. The current object of consciousness is now a fresh memory (or mind-constructed replicate) of (aspects of) the mindstate at time A, along with a recognition that the object then was a pleasant warmth. One proviso on the mindstate at time B when and if it occurs, though: The memory-object is typically fuzzy, sketchy, and dim. That's the way I see it. With metta, Howard #60150 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jun 4, 2006 10:52 pm Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 464- Non-Attachment/Alobha (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;-) ========================================== Ch 28, Non-Attachment(Alobha)contd ***** In the beginning it is difficult to persevere being mindful of seeing, visible object and the other realities, because we do not notice an immediate result and we sometimes doubt whether it is really useful. Is helping someone else not more useful than being aware of visible object which appears now? All degrees of kusala are useful and we should not neglect any one of them. If we help someone else or listen to him with loving kindness and compassion, there are moments of giving up our selfishness. But shortly after the kusala cittas have fallen away there tend to be akusala cittas with clinging to “our kusala” or with attachment to people. Also while we help others there can be mindfulness of realities such as seeing or visible object. In this way we will become truly convinced that what is seen is not a person, only a reality which can be experienced through the eyes. There is already a degree of detachment, although it is still weak, when there is mindfulness of visible object and understanding of it as “only a reality”, not a person. In the beginning understanding is weak, but we should have confidence that it can be developed through mindfulness of whatever reality appears through one of the six doors. Thus clinging to “self” or to beings can decrease. •*****•***** Non-Attachment(Alobha)to be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #60151 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jun 4, 2006 11:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Leading to stream entry sarahprocter... Hi Matheesha, (Steve & all), We were discussing whether phala cittas must immediately succeed magga cittas. --- matheesha wrote: > > > M: I would have agreed with you, except for those suttas which > speak > > > of attaining magga, then developing it further, and afterwards > > > attaining phala. . > > .... > > S: If you'd like to give a reference we can discuss it further... > > "There is the case where a monk has developed insight preceded by > tranquillity. As he develops insight preceded by tranquillity, the > path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he > follows the path, developing it & pursuing it -- his fetters are > abandoned, his obsessions destroyed." Yuganaddha Sutta > > M: What do you think of the 'path' in this? Maybe you can look up the > pali. Could it be the Eightfold path? Does it need to be developed > further if it arises like this? It seems his fetters are abandoned by > developing it further. > > Would like to know your thoughts. .... S: B.Bodhi's translation is similar to the one you quoted, but he adds a helpful footnote: " 'The path' (magga) is the first supramundane path, that of stream-entry. To 'develop that path', according to AA [S: the commentary], means to practice for the attainment of the three higher paths." .... In other words, the first sotapatti magga citta arises which eradicates the first set of fetters, (immediately followed by the phala cittas, the immediate fruit of the supramundane eightfold path). Satipatthana is further developed until the next supramundane magga and phala cittas arise and so on up 'til arahantship, when the last fetters are eradicated as we all know (in theory!). I'd be glad if you'd also take a look at a couple more past posts, #29631, #29705 which I wrote on this topic of magga and phala cittas and the Dakkhinavibhanga Sutta which you mentioned. Steve was also actively engaged in the discussion. He may have more to add too. Metta, Sarah p.s. If you're interested, see posts under 'Yuganadha Sutta' in U.P. (ignore the first entry - a mistake). ======= #60152 From: han tun Date: Sun Jun 4, 2006 11:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] re: our discussions in Paris, no 5. and death. hantun1 Dear Nina, > N: When people have fear of death, it is really the moments before death. The dying-consciousness, cuti-citta, is only one moment, and just like the bhavangacitta arising in deep sleep. One will not realize this citta, it is so fast. Just as the citta now is succeeded by the following citta is cuti citta followed by the rebirth-consciousness. I understand this intellectually, but not through insight. I think we are uncertain about the future, what will happen. What kind of rebirth. Another person remarked that we love ourselves so much that we do not like the idea of having to part from our individuality now. How true. Han, I would value it to know your personal view and experience about this. You are a medical doctor and have seen many people die. ---------------------------- Han: I am also interested in momentary death (khanika marana), and the conventional death (sammutti marana), and the moments just before death. That’s why I had posted messages on “dying moments” in Discussion Groups. In Abhidhamma books: My main question in my posts was: can we not do something to have favorable nimittas, or are we entirely and helplessly at the mercy of the kamma “conditions” that will produce those nimittas at the last crucial moments. I want to believe that we can influence, to some extent, to have positive nimittas by performing meritorious deeds throughout our lives to accumulate habitual or aacinna-kamma, hoping that this kamma will produce results in the absence of death-proximate or aasanna-kamma, or even over-riding it. Whether it is possible or not from the point of view of abhidhamma doctrine does not matter for me; I want to believe it in that way anyhow. I want to believe it that way, because that belief will be one big incentive for me to do wholesome deeds all the time and not to do any unwholesome deeds. Talking about death, with modern medical science, it is difficult to determine how a dying person would react, because in most cases the dying patients in the hospitals are under heavy sedation to reduce apprehension or pain as in terminal cancer patients, or they are put on live-saving appliances and machines. Before and during World War II, in the villages and small towns where I lived, there was no western medical doctor and we had to depend on traditional practitioners and traditional birth-attendants. There I had witnessed people dying in their natural way. Elderly people usually stopped farming (Burma is basically an agricultural country) at the age of around 60, and they went to monasteries everyday to offer alms to the monks and to listen to their dhamma talks, observing eight or ten precepts, and doing veyaavacca or services at the monasteries. When these people died they usually died peaceful without any fear of death. It might be due to their belief that since they had done meritorious deeds their future rebirth in blissful realms had been secured. Among younger people I still remember two cases where death came swiftly due to uncontrollable bleeding. One case was a mother giving birth and the local birth-attendant could not control the post-partum bleeding. Another case was a shooting accident during hunting, the bullet passing through the liver causing uncontrollable bleeding. In both cases, the first reaction was fear of death. But once they knew that they were going to die, they seemed to resign to death and died peacefully. I notice that those who die of excessive bleeding remain conscious up to the last moment. Therefore they usually have clear mind and they can talk up to the last minute. The mother who was dying during child birth calmly asked her husband to look after her children after her death. The man who was shot during hunting accident could also talk to the last minute and he told his friends what he wanted them to tell his wife and died without any fear. So, I think once a person knows that he is going to die he can in most cases surmount the fear, and the concern that he shows is not so much for himself, but for the ones whom he loves. Therefore your comment is very true: <”I understand this intellectually, but not through insight. I think we are uncertain about the future, what will happen. What kind of rebirth.”> The uncertainty of what will happen or where we will be reborn is much more fearsome than the actual death itself. Therefore, if I believe that I will have a good rebirth because of my meritorious deeds I will not be afraid of death. That belief in itself might even form kusala kamma accumulations to condition the arising of good nimittas. Even if it does not work that way, the appearance of nimittas and the arising of cuti citta will be so fast I might not even notice it! Your other comment: <”Another person remarked that we love ourselves so much that we do not like the idea of having to part from our individuality now.”> I think for most of us, as I mentioned above, the bigger concern might be not willing to part from our loved ones rather than not willing to part from our individuality. But, of course, it will depend on the cultural background of the individuals. Respectfully, Han #60153 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 12:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Doubt and Uncertainty ... !!! sarahprocter... Dear Ven. Samahita, I've been interested to read your recent extracts from suttas with mention of 'memorization of texts' and so on. I also just looked at the sutta you quoted from here, SN 46:55, Sa'ngaarava. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. --- Bhikkhu Samahita wrote: > Friends: > > How does Doubt & Uncertainty Perplex the Mind? > > A Brahmin Priest once asked the Blessed Buddha: > Master Gotama, what is the cause of being unable to remember even > something that has > been memorized over a long period and also that which has not been > memorized? > Brahmin, when mind is perplexed by doubt & uncertainty, undecided, > wavering & wobbling > by doubt & uncertainty, and one does not understand any actual safe > escape from this > arisen doubt & uncertainty, in that moment, one can neither see nor > understand any of > what is advantageous, neither for oneself, nor for others, nor for both > oneself & others! > Then, consequently, even texts, that have been long memorized, cannot be > remembered… .... S: You previously gave the quotes as well to indicate that when the mind is obsessed with lust, ill-will, overwhelmed by sloth and torpor and by restlessness and remorse, that similarly those texts, 'long memorized, cannot be remembered'. I wonder, how literally we should consider these references to memorization? Do you have any comments? Do you have anything to add on the Pali for the expression 'long memorized'? In B.Bodhi's translation, he uses 'even those hymns that have been recited over a long period do not recur to the mind, let alone those that have not been recited.' Later we read that when the mind is not overwhelmed by these various hindrances that 'even those hymns that have not been recited over a long period recur to the mind, let alone those that have been recited.' It seems very true to me that when we're overwhelmed with any kilesa (defilements) the Dhamma we've heard and considered is very far away at such times, or at such moments. Whereas, when there aren't such obsessions, the teachings come quickly to mind, whatever the activity we're engaged in. On this subject of 'memorization' and its meaning in the texts, I recently wrote this post with regard to references in AN suttas. Again, I'd be glad to hear any further comments and whether it is relevant to the passages you quoted from SN. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/57200 "In, AN, 5s ‘The Confounding of Saddhamma (b) (PTS), we read about the 5 things which lead to the disappearance of the Teachings: “Herein, monks, the monks master not Dhamma.... They teach not others Dhamma in detail.... They make not others speak it in detail... They make no repetition of it in detail.... The monks do not in their hearts turn over and ponder upon Dhamma, they review it not in their minds.....” ..... In AN,4s, 186 ‘Approach’ (Ummagga), we read about the meaning of what this ‘mastery' refers to. It refers to being 'widely learned' and 'knowing Dhamma by heart'. This sounds like memorization of the texts, but what it says is: “...Well, monk, I have taught Sutta, Geyya, Veyyaakara.na ,Gaathaa, Udaana, Itivuttaka, Jaataka, Abbhutadhamma and Vedalla. Now if a monk *UNDERSTANDS THE MEANING* and (text of) dhamma, - *EVEN IF IT BE BUT A STANZA OF FOUR LINES*, - and be set on living in accordance with Dhamma, he may well be called ‘one *WIDELY LEARNED*, *WHO KNOWS DHAMMA BY HEART*” .... S: In the Buddha’s time, the bhikkhus did orally memorize and recite the teachings, but I believe it is the lack of understanding of the meaning of the Dhamma as indicated in this sutta, along with not living ‘in accordance with Dhamma’(i.e. not following of the 8fold Path) that leads to the disappearance of the Teachings." .... S: Thank you again for all your sutta quotes and comments. With respect, Sarah ====== #60154 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 12:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Please don't.... sarahprocter... Hi Dan, (Kens in passing at the end), Thanks for your kind note too and I'm also glad to read your discussions with others on the topic. --- "Dan D." wrote: > We are surely going to have some disagreements about the meaning of > various passages, but if my readings ever get absurdly far from what > is written (as I'm sure they do on occasion), I do hope you will > challenge me (and I'm sure you will). I will appreciate the > correction. ... S: Likewise. .... > Also, I think my immodest "inimitable" skit was more personal than > was called for. .... S: Actually, I thought the 'inimitable' comments were rather funny:-)....(I wasn't quite so amused by the 'twisting' references. Reminded me too much of comments another friend used to make about people 'twisting' the teachings when really they were just presenting their best understanding to date!). .... > >S: Do you have anything else in mind or any quote to support a view > that > > vipassana or satipatthana can be developed by following " 'others' > > doctrines"? > >D: No. Buddha taught total eradication of defilements and the attainment > of full enlightenment. Why would we expect him to recommend other > teachings? > > But you know what?...much of what he teaches is clearly taught > outside the dispensation as well, e.g., sila and samadhi, devas and > titans, kamma and rebirth, sabbe kusala anatta, etc. .... S: 'sabbe kusala anatta, etc.'?? Hmmm..... Even the others in this list have very different meanings as used by different teachings, I believe. ..... > > >S:How do you understand the last words of the Buddha about > > making 'Dhamma one's refuge'? > >D: He's making an inspiring plug to his disciples to maintain patience, > courage, and good cheer in light of his impending passing away and to > rely on Dhamma rather than the personality of the Buddha. > > Do you understand it to mean: "Outside the dispensation there is > utter ignorance, not even a shred of insight about the workings of > the world"? .... S: I understand it to mean that the understanding of 'Dhamma', the teachings of the Buddha can be the only refuge when it comes to the path leading out of samsara. .... > > D:>You seem to think > > > that understanding reality is directly contingent on a detailed, > > > speculative understanding of concepts, that as the conceptual > > > understanding gets deeper and deeper, an understanding of reality > is > > > gradually approached but only after a long, long time of thinking > > > about "dhammas", conceiving "dhammas" as dhammas, and delighting > > > in "dhammas". > > .... > > S: This doesn't sound like anything I've ever said (but you're > welcome to > > quote me if you think so!). What I wrote in my last post to you > which was: > > I agree that you haven't said anything that sounds like the last two > clauses ("conceiving 'dhammas' as dhammas, and delighting > in 'dhammas'"). I added those as what I see as the implication of > the "intellectualize first, understand later" method outlined in the > first half of the paragraph. But is the first several sentences an > inaccurate or unfair paraphrase of where you stand? .... S: Inaccurate. Better to use my own paraphrase of my 'stand' which I've given you several versions of and which you always snip, replacing with your own:-). Metta, Sarah p.s To both Kens & Dan, I understand there are many different kinds and levels of samma ditthi, aka panna cetasika. (Vism X1V at the beg. makes passing reference to these different kinds of samma ditthi). For example, there is samma ditthi in the development of samatha bhavana (with concept as object, of course). There is samma ditthi at moments of pariyatti -- panna with concepts about realities as object. Then there is mundane samma ditthi with satipatthana and of course, supramundane samma ditthi. KenH, as you'll have seen, many people were glad that you unlocked your draft - lots of helpful points, thanks:-). Just keep unlocking it.... ================= #60155 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 12:36 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Please don't.... ken_aitch Hi Dan and Herman, Thanks for your encouragement. Looking at my rambling post a couple of days later, I can see it was actually quite cohesive. It's a pity to snip your point about Mozart, Dan, but I think the parallel between conventional insight and Buddhist insight goes only so far. I don't think Mozart, Einstein and the like had any more, or less, panna than did their more humble contemporaries. And even when they did have panna, it was only of the kind that knew kusala from akusala - never the kind that knew nama from rupa. --------- KH: > > As far as I am concerned, we can call it a matter of degree or we can call it a fundamental distinction. > > D: > I have a strong preference for "fundamental distinction". The world of concept and the world of insight are like parallel universes. I think it is a mistake to think of the differences as only a matter of degree. ---------- I am tempted to reiterate that we are talking about the same cetasika, samma-ditthi: we are not talking about the fundamentally different objects samma-ditthi can experience. But I am sure you are aware of that. Therefore, your point must be that there is a fundamental difference between the level of samma-ditthi that knows dhammas directly and the level of samma-ditthi that knows dhammas conceptually. Fair enough, no argument there. ----------------------- D: > If one thinks of insight as deep intellectual understanding, then wouldn't there be a tendency to wait until deeper and deeper intellectual understanding is developed before insight is developed? ----------------------- I think you meant to type, "as dependent upon deep intellectual understanding," rather than, "as deep intellectual understanding." I don't see that as a problem. If (as I believe) direct insight is dependent upon deep intellectual understanding, then that is what we should understand. That would be our right understanding. ------------------------- D: > No need to wait! Right now is the time to develop insight. It will arise, but it won't even be recognized -------------------------- I'll interrupt you to point out that this is where we disagree. While we do agree that samma-ditthi can know a dhamma at any moment, I am saying it can do so only if the conditions for its doing so have been put in place. It can do so only if the four factors for enlightenment have been firmly established. ---------------------------------- D: > if the mind strongly clings to its speculations and prejudices that say, "No insight until intellectual understanding is complete." Insight that arises in such a mind will be quickly swamped and extinguished. ---------------------------------- Instead of "complete" it would be better to say, "at a sufficient level." If the mind thinks, "No insight until intellectual understanding is at a sufficient level," that would be in accordance with the Dhamma. However, if it thinks, "No insight *for me* until intellectual understanding is at a sufficient level," then it is, at that time, perverted by wrong view. --------------- <. . .> D: > If the difference between insight and intellectualization is only a matter of degree, then learning Buddha's conceptualization of Dhamma Vinaya is absolutely essential to development of insight. However, if there is a fundamental distinction between insight and conceptualization, then there are two possibilities: i. insight arises from proper conceptualization; and ii. insight arises and we rush in with conceptualizations to describe it. -------------------- In the second possibility, which you prefer, what are the conditions upon which insight depends? ------------------------------ D: > With the latter, insight is clearly possible outside the dispensation. With the former, it depends on what is meant by "proper", the defining of which has been the focus of the discussion. If "proper" means that there must be a detailed intellectual understanding of the intricacies of Abhidhamma, then of course insight only arises within the dispensation. If "proper" means a conceptualization that directs attention to the characteristics of present moment, then outside the dispensation insight may arise. -------------------------------- Good! We have managed to get to where we started! :-) ----------------- <. . .> D: > Samma-ditthi of the path (either mundane or supramundane) is direct understanding only. Not intellectual understanding. Not "right concept". I believe there is a non-path "samma-ditti" that is sometimes discussed in the Dhamma-Vinaya, and I'm sure Sarah (or other text expert) could help us here. ------------------ Woops, I didn't notice this on my first reading. This makes most of what I have written above irrelevant. My main point throughout all our discussions has been that there are basically three forms in which samma-ditthi can arise: the supramundane, the mundane and the intellectual. I have been assuming that we agreed on that - or at least, that this is what we had been talking about. ------------- KH: > > When talking about Dhamma explanations (e.g., "Volition is a universal cetasika") we say, "That is right" or "That is correct." And sometimes (e.g., "Volition is control over the arising of dhammas") we say, > "That is wrong." > > I don't see a problem with that use of right and wrong. > > D: > What if the speaker has a wrong understanding of what "cetasika" means? Or what "volition" means? Is the statement still right? -------------- No, this is another thing that I have been assuming we agreed on: concepts do not have sabhava (inherent nature). It is only in the conventional sense that we can say one concept is right and another is wrong. That is why it is the purely the presence of panna (panna with a concept as its object) that marks the presence of right intellectual understanding (pariyatti). ----------------------------- D: > Panya-cetasika arises and passes away in an instant, with no time for understanding things "in theory." Conceiving of the construction of theories as a step towards the path is, in my mind, very much technique-building: the technique of ditthi. > D: > The sammas of the path are notably different from conceptual > understandings ------------------------------ This is an interesting topic, but let's come back to it later. I've just snipped a lot of interesting points because there is something far more pressing: --------------------------------------- KH: > >Putting aside made-up theories of "right conceptualisation," what is your opinion on samma-ditthi arising to take a concept as its object? When the Buddha spoke about things hitherto unknown - dukkha and the five khandhas - did his audience understand his words? Was there, at such times, samma-ditthi with concepts as object? D: > This looks like a good new thread. We'd have to pull in Herman's and James' recent comments on listening. I'm not sure I'll have time to dig in, but we shall see. ------------- Please make time if you can, Dan: this is a fundamental issue that must be cleared up. Ken H #60156 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 3:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what I heard. nilovg Hi Phil, op 03-06-2006 13:07 schreef Phil op philco777@...: > > I heard this the other day: "Is there thinking now at the moment > of looking?" Yes, there is - most of what people take for seeing is > actually looking, albeit it of a very, very brief variety - looking > always involves thinking, because the object has been conceptualized > already, I guess. I don't know if that's what Acharn Sujin meant. ------- N: Yes, correct. -------- > > Ph: Let me quote from Survey of Paramattha Dhammas: > > "Knowledge of the difference between nama and rupa (nama-rupa- > pariccheda-nana) is the first stage of insight. > Maha-kusalacitta nana sampayutta arises and clearly distinguishes > the difference between the characteristic of nama and the > characteristic of rupa as they appear one at a time. The object > constituting 'the world' appear as devoid of self. At that moment > there is no atta-sanna (wrong remembrance of self) which used to > remember or perceive realities as a 'whole', conceived as 'the > world." .... > >> Ph: If one consistenly finds oneself feeling happy when one lays > one >>> hands on a Dhamma book, something is wrong. >> ----- >> N: Mixed, you also do so in order to have more understanding, and > that is >> kusala. Akusala and kusala always alternate. > > Ph: Yes, but no doubt in my mind that akusala predominates. -------- N: Just now you were quoting Survey, which is very useful, for yourself and for others. I am glad you do. This is kusala kamma. Attachment is alsolikely to arise, but will this prevent you from taking up a Dhamma book? Moreover, our life is very short, the Buddha reminded us of this, so that there will be a sense of urgency. This can be without fear of death. Listening to Dhamma is very precious, it is a rare opportunity in the cycle of life. Should we not use all the help we can possibly get? --------- Ph: The > world (ayatans) are burning with the three unwholesome roots - the > Buddha made this clear in his third discourse. So this of course > applies to Dhamma study and "practice" as well. To think that an > activity is kusala by virtue of being realted to Dhamma is natural > enough, and wrong. ------- N: We may confuse ourselves if we think too much about it and wonder how much akusala is involved with our study. But perhaps this is not what you mean. -------- > Ph: Thinking about or speculating about how much akusala there is and > how little kusala there is a pointless exercise, of course. > Sometimes it is good to bring it up, though the people who think > that kusala is gained by the simple act of wanting or intending to > have it will disregard ... ------ N: I understand now why you bring it up. Here a fine discrimination of the different cittas is called for. All will be clearer after the first stage of insight.Meanwhile, I hope you take up Survey and quote from it, even with attachment! Others can profit. Nina. #60157 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 3:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Tipitaya? aadhipateyya. nilovg Hi Phil, op 03-06-2006 13:17 schreef Phil op philco777@...: > Could I ask you to say a few words on this "tipitaya" (if you know > what I am talking about - I had never heard the term before.) > ----------- The Pali term is aadhipateyya, predominance. When we study hiri and ottappa we learn that the proximate cause of hiri is self respect, and the proximate cause of ottappa is respect for other people, one fears the consequences of akusala. These are similar to the two first predominances. I quote the following sutta where predominance of dhamma is included. (from ATI, read for stress: dukkha, for cosmos: the world). "There are these three governing principles. Which three? The self as a governing principle, the cosmos as a governing principle, and the Dhamma as a governing principle. "And what is the self as a governing principle? There is the case where a monk, having gone to a wilderness, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty dwelling, reflects on this: 'It is not for the sake of robes that I have gone forth from the home life into homelessness; it is not for the sake of almsfood, for the sake of lodgings, or for the sake of this or that state of [future] becoming that I have gone forth from the home life into homelessness. Simply that I am beset by birth, aging, & death; by sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs; beset by stress, overcome with stress, [and I hope,] "Perhaps the end of this entire mass of suffering & stress might be known!" Now, if I were to seek the same sort of sensual pleasures that I abandoned in going forth from home into homelessness ‹ or a worse sort ‹ that would not be fitting for me.' So he reflects on this: 'My persistence will be aroused & not lax; my mindfulness established & not confused; my body calm & not aroused; my mind centered & unified.' Having made himself his governing principle, he abandons what is unskillful, develops what is skillful, abandons what is blameworthy, develops what is unblameworthy, and looks after himself in a pure way. This is called the self as a governing principle. "And what is the cosmos as a governing principle? There is the case where a monk, having gone to a wilderness....,"Perhaps the end of this entire mass of suffering & stress might be known!" Now if I, having gone forth, were to think thoughts of sensuality, thoughts of ill will, or thoughts of harmfulness: great is the community of this cosmos. And in the great community of this cosmos there are priests & contemplatives endowed with psychic power, clairvoyant, skilled [in reading] the minds of others. ...There are also devas endowed with psychic power, clairvoyant, skilled [in reading] the minds of others. They can see even from afar. Even up close, they are invisible. With their awareness they know the minds of others. They would know this of me: "Look, my friends, at this clansman who ‹ though he has in good faith gone forth from the home life into homelessness ‹ remains overcome with evil, unskillful mental qualities."' So he reflects on this: 'My persistence will be aroused & not lax; my mindfulness established & not confused; my body calm & not aroused; my mind centered & unified.' Having made the cosmos his governing principle, he abandons what is unskillful, develops what is skillful, abandons what is blameworthy, develops what is unblameworthy, and looks after himself in a pure way. This is called the cosmos as a governing principle. "And what is the Dhamma as a governing principle? There is the case where a monk, having gone to a wilderness, to the foot of a tree.... "Perhaps the end of this entire mass of suffering & stress might be known!" Now, 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. There are fellow practitioners of the chaste life who dwell knowing & seeing it. If I ‹ having gone forth in this well-taught Dhamma & Vinaya ‹ were to remain lazy & heedless, that would not be fitting for me.' So he reflects on this: 'My persistence will be aroused & not lax; my mindfulness established & not confused; my body calm & not aroused; my mind centered & unified.' Having made the Dhamma his governing principle, he abandons what is unskillful, develops what is skillful, abandons what is blameworthy, develops what is unblameworthy, and looks after himself in a pure way. This is called the Dhamma as a governing principle. "These are the three governing principles." ------- Kh Sujin would emphasize the last predominance. We learnt what is kusala and akusala and develop understanding to see them as just dhammas, not belonging to self. Satipa.t.thaana can be our guiding principle. We learn to abstain from akusala and perform kusala with right understanding of dhammas as non-self. This is the purest way leading to the eradication of all akusala. Nina. #60158 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 3:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Roots of Good and Evil, 2. nilovg Hi Herman, op 05-06-2006 00:21 schreef Herman Hofman op hhofmeister@...: > >> N: As I see it, also our deliberate attitude or choice is conditioned by >> former accumulated kusala or akusala. > > > Is there room for a matter of degrees here, or is the deliberate choice > entirely, totally, absolutely conditioned by the past? ------ N: Not totally, there are also conditions at present: listening to good friends, or bad friends, pondering over what one heard. I do not call this a matter of degree, but rather, other conditions that are operating, not only those stemming from the past. Understanding can develop and this is the most powerful condition for kusala, it is called a controlling factor. Whatever occurs is just dhamma, no person. Nina. #60159 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 3:15 am Subject: Question on the Visuddhi Magga Description of Concentration III.128 christine_fo... Hello all, I hope someone can explain the meaning of this passage from "The Path of Purification" The Visuddhi Magga by Bhandantaacariya Buddhaghosa. Trans. from the Pali by Bhikkhu ~Nanamoli. Description of Concentration III.128 p.119 128. With a sincere inclination [of the heart] and sincere resolution (#123): the meditator's inclination should be sincere in the six modes beginning with non-greed. For it is one of such sincere inclination who arrives at one of the three kinds of enlightenment, according as it is said 'Six kinds of inclination lead to the maturing of the enlightenment of the Bodhisattas. With the inclination to non-greed Bodhisattas see the fault in greed. With the inclination to non-hate Bodhisattas see the fault in hate. With the inclination to non-delusion Bodhisattas see the fault in delusion. With the inclination to renunciation Bodhisattas see the fault in house life. With the inclination to seclusion Bodhisattas see the fault in society. With the inclination to relinquishment Bodhisattas see the fault in all kinds of becoming and destiny." In particular, do the six modes relate to the Perfections? metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- #60160 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 3:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Roots of Good and Evil. nilovg Dear Scott, op 04-06-2006 16:59 schreef Scott Duncan op scduncan@...: Unarisen and arisen, then, as you say, are different > moments. The unarisen is replete with the potential conditioned by > the accumulation of past arisen dhammas. The actual nature of a given > arising is, as you also say, latent tendency until arisen. Am I > paraphrasing you correctly? ------ N: Last part is not so clear, but we shall come to this. -------- > S: Sensuous desire, for example, latent in a given citta, conditions the > arising of akusala citta rooted in lobha. ------- N: Not latent in a given citta, but latent in the stream of cittas arising and falling away in the cycle of birth and death. ----------- S: Is it only at the moment of > arising that one can actually speak of akusula citta rooted in desire? > I would think so since there must be an enormous weight of latent > tendency in potential. --------- N: Yes. --------- S: Dormancy or latent tendency seems definable, in a way, only once the > actual here-and-now arising is apparent. If it is known now to be > akusula citta rooted in lobha, then, at this moment, can one can say > that this must have been due to latent tendency? A sort of post-hoc > analysis and attribution? ------- N: yes, one may wonder how one knows that there are latent tendencies, and the akusala citta that arises shows that there are latent tendencies. The akusala must come from somewhere. When fast asleep we do not harm anybody, but when we wake up akusala citta is likely to arise again. Where does it come from, since we just woke up from sleep? This shows that there is still the latent tendency of akusala that conditions it. --------- > S: Would it be fair to suggest that latency or potential is non-existent > except in the present moment? -------- N: No, not correct. The Buddha classified the latent tendencies in the Tipitaka, Suttanta included. They are a group of defilements, they are real. But latent tendencies do not arise with the citta. They condition the arising of akusala citta. Sometimes the word arisen, upanna, is used but with another meaning, namely, having still soil to grow in, being still not eradicated. The ³Visuddhimagga², in the explanation about ³Purity by Knowledge and Vision² (Ch XXII, 81-86), gives an additional explication about ³arisen in the sense of having obtained a soil². It states: ³While unprofitable [kamma] is still unabolished in any given soil [plane], it is called arisen by having soil [to grow in].² This refers to the latent tendencies that lie dormant in the citta. The commentaries distinguish three levels of defilements. In the Commentaries to the Vinaya, the Suttanta and the Abhidhamma, and in the Subcommentaries, there are explanations of the elimination of the three levels of defilements, namely, the anusaya kilesa (latent tendencies), the pariyuììhåna kilesa (arising with the akusala citta) and the vítikkama kilesa (transgression, misconduct). -------- S: This seems a necessary way to concieve > of things, since there is said to be a complete falling away of a > dhamma. I realise that here we get into the realm of conditionality. ----- N: Each citta falls away completely and conditions the following citta by proximity-condition and by strong dependence of proximity, by being a cogent reason for the next citta. Thus, kusala and akusala are accumulated from life to life. Nina. #60161 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Jun 4, 2006 10:59 pm Subject: Careful and Rational Attention ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: Careful & Rational Attention Reduces the Mental Hindrances: The Blessed Buddha once said: When one attends carefully & rationally, unarisen Sense-Desire does neither arise, nor later expand. When one attends carefully & rationally, unarisen Evil-Will does neither arise, nor later expand. When one attends carefully & rationally, unarisen Lethargy & Laziness does neither arise, nor expand. When one attends carefully & rationally, unarisen Restlessness & Regret does neither arise, nor expand. When one attends carefully & rationally, unarisen Doubt & Uncertainty does neither arise, nor expand. Furthermore the Awareness link to awakening arise, & is gradually completed by mental development. Any unarisen Investigation link to awakening arise, & is gradually completed by mental development. Any unarisen Energy link to awakening arise, & is gradually completed by repeated mental development. Any unarisen Joy link to awakening arise, & is gradually completed by meditative mental development. Any unarisen Tranquillity link to awakening arise, & is gradually completed by mental development. Any unarisen Concentration link to awakening arise, & is gradually completed by mental development. Any unarisen Equanimity link to awakening arise, & is gradually completed by mental development. Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V:93-4] section 46: The Links. 35: Careful Attention... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. #60162 From: Bhikkhu samahita Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 12:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Doubt and Uncertainty ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Dear friend Sarah: >Thank you for bringing it to our attention. IMHO any mental process that has to be directed & sustained as e.g. memory and memorization of texts and skills is distorted and either partially of fully abrogated by the presence of any of the 5 mental hindrances and much more so by combinations of them... That is their essence: That of Hindrance of any advantageous mental processing... Thus they bar and block all mental progress and have to be fully eliminated first! Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. Friendship is the Greatest ... Let there be Calm & Free Bliss !!! <....> #60163 From: Daniel Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 6:12 am Subject: Re: Authority daniell@... Hey All, Perhaps I will rephrase my question. If I think A, but another person who is smarter than me thinks B, isn't it actually smarter of me not to think A but to think B, since I will rely on a person who is smarter than me? Is there a fault in this reasoning? It seems that there is, but where?? ( One could say that smart people say different things. But if that is the only reason, it imlies that if the smart people would say only one thing, the reasoning above would be correct ?) Thank you, sorry for the silly question, Daniel #60164 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 2:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Leading to stream entry upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (Matheesha, and Steve) - In a message dated 6/5/06 2:37:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > Hi Matheesha, (Steve &all), > > We were discussing whether phala cittas must immediately succeed magga > cittas. > > --- matheesha wrote: > >>>M: I would have agreed with you, except for those suttas which > >speak > >>>of attaining magga, then developing it further, and afterwards > >>>attaining phala. . > >>.... > >>S: If you'd like to give a reference we can discuss it further... > > > >"There is the case where a monk has developed insight preceded by > >tranquillity. As he develops insight preceded by tranquillity, the > >path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he > >follows the path, developing it &pursuing it -- his fetters are > >abandoned, his obsessions destroyed." Yuganaddha Sutta > > > >M: What do you think of the 'path' in this? Maybe you can look up the > >pali. Could it be the Eightfold path? Does it need to be developed > >further if it arises like this? It seems his fetters are abandoned by > >developing it further. > > > >Would like to know your thoughts. > .... > S: B.Bodhi's translation is similar to the one you quoted, but he adds a > helpful footnote: > " 'The path' (magga) is the first supramundane path, that of stream-entry. > To 'develop that path', according to AA [S: the commentary], means to > practice for the attainment of the three higher paths." > .... > In other words, the first sotapatti magga citta arises which eradicates > the first set of fetters, (immediately followed by the phala cittas, the > immediate fruit of the supramundane eightfold path). Satipatthana is > further developed until the next supramundane magga and phala cittas arise > and so on up 'til arahantship, when the last fetters are eradicated as we > all know (in theory!). > > I'd be glad if you'd also take a look at a couple more past posts, #29631, > #29705 which I wrote on this topic of magga and phala cittas and the > Dakkhinavibhanga Sutta which you mentioned. Steve was also actively > engaged in the discussion. He may have more to add too. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Actually, Sarah, you may recall that I brought up that sutta, and this matter, rather recently. I had quoted the following part of the Dakkhinavibhanga Sutta: _________________ An offering made to an arahat disciple of the Tathagata is the third kind of offering made to an individual. An offering made to one who is practising to attain Arahatta Fruition (i.e. one who has attained Arahatta Magga) is the fourth kind of offering made to an individual. An offering made to one who is an Anagami is the fifth kind of offering made to an individual. An offering made to one who is practising to attain Anagami Fruition (i.e. one who has attained Anagam Magga) is the sixth kind of offering made to an individual. An offering made to one who is a Sakadagami is the seventh kind of offering made to an individual. offering made to one who is practising to attain Sakadagami Fruition (i.e. one who has attained Sakadagami Magga) is the eighth kind of offering made to an individual. An offering made to one who is a Sotapanna is the ninth kind of offering made to an individual. An offering made to one who is practising to attain Sotapatti Fruition (i.e. one who has attained Sotapatti Magga) is the tenth kind of offering made to an individual. _________________ In discussing this, I had made the point that is not "so easy" (LOL!) to engage in the conventional activity of making an offering to a path attainer during the alleged microsecond gap between the moment of path consciousness and the following moment of fruition consciousness! I never had my objection answered to my satisfaction! ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Metta, > > Sarah > p.s. If you're interested, see posts under 'Yuganadha Sutta' in U.P. > (ignore the first entry - a mistake). > ====================== With metta, Howard #60165 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 2:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Authority upasaka_howard Hi, Daniel - In a message dated 6/5/06 9:18:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, daniell@... writes: > If I think A, but another person who is smarter than me thinks B, isn't it > actually smarter of me not to think A but to think B, since I will rely on a > person who is smarter than me? > > Is there a fault in this reasoning? It seems that there is, but where?? > ==================== Who is it who decides that the other person is smarter? Is the other person, who may be generally smarter, necessarily smarter in all matters? Could s/he be incorrect on the matter at hand, and you correct? Who should decide? With regard to actions that you engage in, doesn't it ultimately come down to y ou deciding? Are you not responsible for your actions? I vaguely recall the Buddha having said somewhere to put no head above your own. With metta, Howard #60166 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 7:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sila, samadhi, panna ... Satipatthana from three good conducts jonoabb Hi Tep indriyabala wrote: >>>Tep: >>>That's one reason why the Sotapanna is >>>known as one who has perfect Sila and the Anagami as one who has >>>purified consciousness (perfect jhanas). And the Seven Chariot (the >>>discourse of the arahant Punna Mantaniputta talking to the Chief >>>Disciple Sariputta) also clearly affirms that fact. But (pardon me, if >>>you feel my remark is negative) unfortunately, some commentaries >>>contradict to this fact. But should we believe in the arahant's words >>>or the words of those "ancient commentators"? >>> >>Jon: >>I am not aware of any commentaries that contradict this fact. >>Please feel free to bring them up for discussion. >> > >Tep: Thank you for not saying it in such a way to make me feel I was >untruthful! But it has the tone of a police officer who stops a >drug-dealer suspect; he says: Sir, please show me your driver licence >and then step outside the car with both hands above your head. > I'm sorry that you sensed such a tone, Tep. I just wanted to make clear, in the light of earlier exchanges, that it was quite OK to bring up possible discrepancies for discussion. But no obligation ever, as far as I'm concerned. >I am unable to recall the commentaries you are asking me to show you, >Officer Jonathan. Maybe you can help me out? > >Do you remember the several discussions about whether understanding or > sila should come first? Nina, Sarah, you and others insisted that it >was understanding. The seven chariots simile was brought up to support >the step-by-step practice, starting at sila. Then some ancient >commentaries from the "graudal sayings" and the Depositor were >referenced to overule the sila-first approach. > > Thanks for this summary of the discussion. I think I see a little better why you said what you did, although I also think you may have misunderstood the comments made by Nina, Sarah and me. In your earlier message you mentioned the seven Chariots simile as supporting the idea that the Sotapanna has perfect sila while the Anagami has perfect jhanas. I agreed with you on that, and I think everyone does. But in your message just above you say you brought up the seven chariots simile 'to support the step-by-step practice, starting with sila'. Are you perhaps making the assumption that because sila is perfected before samadhi (and samadhi before panna), the development of the path (i.e., 'practice') must begin with sila and then only later progress to samadhi (and later still to panna)? I don't think such a connection is necessary or indeed expressly stated in the texts. As I think you are aware, my reading of the texts is that sila and samadhi are perfected by the development of panna. But I see this as being entirely consistent with the idea that sila is perfected before samadhi, and samadhi before panna. So the happy conclusion is that no-one has been suggesting that the commentaries contradict the suttas ;-)). Jon #60167 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 7:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 433- You ain't seen nothin' yet ! jonoabb Hi Tep indriyabala wrote: >Tep: Mastery of the jhana is not the issue. The real issue is to show >that kusala, such as sila or samadhi or panna, can be developed such >that it may arise "at a time of one's own choosing". > When kusala is developed to a very high degree, incredible things are possible. One example of this is mastery of jhaana, which allows a person to enter and leave jhaana 'at will'. Another example of the development of kusala to the level of balas (powers). In such a person, the kusala qualities are not swayed by their opposites. Relative to you and me, these persons can be said to have control. But the dhammas in question still arise and fall away according to the same set of conditioning factors as apply in your case and mine, and the laws of kamma and vipaka, and the inevitability of ageing, sickness and death, are as applicable to that person as to anyone. Jon #60168 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 7:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Cooran jonoabb Hi Steve seisen_au wrote: >>Jon: " 'Visible object as just that which appears through the >>eye-door' >>- The statement above says all there is to be said on >>the subject. >> > >The commentaries add quite a bit more than the statement above. > > >>Any attempt to embellish, eg as to >>whether v-o is simply colour or is with or without >>shape, depth etc is bound to cloud the issue. >> > >Avijja clouds the issue. Again I believe the commentaries add helpful >explanations with regards to visual object, colour and shape. > I agree with you about the value of the commentaries, and would be glad if you cared to quote them again for us. I also agree that it is avijja than clouds the issue. That and wrong view. That was really what I was getting at, that we cannot from our own experience improve on the description of visible object as just that which appears thought the eye-door. >>- The fact that things still appear as conceptualised >>objects does not mean that there is or can be no >>awareness of seeing or visible object." >> > >Ya > > I'm glad we agree. Many people have the idea that awareness of visible object somehow involves 'deconstructing' seen objects so that they are 'just colour' or something. But as I see it, awareness of visible object is not about seen objects. Thanks for the comments. Jon #60169 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 7:35 am Subject: Long Live Noble Atheism -- Re: Authority abhidhammika Dear Daniel, Howard W, Herman H, Scott Duncan, Dan D and all How are you? Daniel wrote: "If I think A, but another person who is smarter than me thinks B, isn't it actually smarter of me not to think A but to think B, since I will rely on a person who is smarter than me? Is there a fault in this reasoning? It seems that there is, but where??" Yes, Daniel. There actually is a fault in your reasoning. Not just it seems that there is - as you thought. The place in which your fault lies is your preoccupation or obsession with wanting and needing to be or appear smart or smarter. Put it another way, your competitive mindset is where you go wrong. By the way, if you want to cure yourself of the theist disease (belief in a creator), drink regularly the Buddha's teachings on the Four Noble Truths as taught in Dhammacakkapavattana Suttam, and Dependent Origination (Pa.ticcasammuppaada) as taught in Mahanidaana Suttam and other related Suttams, and, of course, practice mindfulness meditation as taught in Mahasatipa.t.thaana Suttam and other related Suttams. In addition, if you are able to find more time and energy, study Abhidhamma Pi.taka that will surely kill off your belief in a creator because Abhidhamma explicitly demolishes the concepts of a person (puggala), of a being (satta), of self (atta) and of a soul (jiiva). Once you appreciate the Buddha's teachings on personlessness, beinglessness, selflessness, and soulessness, you will become a Noble Atheist destined for final liberation (nibbaana), the Goal Of Every Genuine Full Buddhist such as followers of Noble Theravada. By the way, Mahayanists cannot be regarded as genuine full Buddhists as they plan to be reborn forever in the Existential Loop (Samsaara) in their misguided ambition of wanting to become saviors and in their wrong belief in the existence of beings to save! Belief in a creator and / or not being a genuine full Buddhist are the result of being misguided and not understanding properly Dependent Originnation and the Four Noble Truths. Long Live Noble Atheism that is liberating! With kind regards, Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Daniel wrote: Hey All, Perhaps I will rephrase my question. If I think A, but another person who is smarter than me thinks B, isn't it actually smarter of me not to think A but to think B, since I will rely on a person who is smarter than me? Is there a fault in this reasoning? It seems that there is, but where?? ( One could say that smart people say different things. But if that is the only reason, it imlies that if the smart people would say only one thing, the reasoning above would be correct ?) Thank you, sorry for the silly question, Daniel #60170 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 7:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Herman seeking to understand Jon (was Re: Samatha and vipassana 1) jonoabb Hi Herman Herman Hofman wrote: >Thanks for clarifying some more. I am attempting to understand, not only in >your case, but in all cases, the aha! moment of realising that one is >hearing something vey profound. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but >to me it is akin to a recognition of sorts. Could it be recognition? > I think your question is, how do we know if what we are hearing/have heard is the truth? I don't regard our sense of recognition as a reliable guide, as it is as likely to be informed by wrong view as anything else. There is no short answer. But for those who are inclined to think the Buddha discovered the truth and taught is, the record of his teachings would be a handy point of reference. >And if >it isn't, how is it that we, who say of ourselves that we are ignorant >(sometimes with a little bit of pride, methinks :-)), can understand that we >are hearing something very profound? > I'll ignore the attribution ;-)) Certainly ignorance could not appreciate truth from non-truth. But if there has been a genuine interest in the teachings in the past, and the hearing of the truth in the present, then regardless of the overall level of developed understanding, the truth can be appreciated. Jon #60171 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 3:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Authority upasaka_howard Hi again, Daniel - I haven't been able to find the "put-no-head-above-your-own" sutta, but, of course, there IS the following said by the Buddha close to his death, in the Mahaparinibbbana Sutta: "Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge." I interpret this to mean that the teachings of the Buddha are to be the source of one's understanding and practice, and that, ultimately, one must depend on oneself in coming to understand and carry out that Dhamma. With metta, Howard #60172 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 7:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner ... Were You Tired? ... jonoabb Hi Tep indriyabala wrote: >Hi Jon, - > >Lately your replies(including this one) seem very different than >before. I can feel that you are not as enthusiastic as you used to be. >What happened? > Lately your replies have included a lot of questions or comments on my state of mind. What's happening? ;-)) >>Jon: >>For a start, not every intention to abstain will be followed by >>actual abstention (since only the sotapanna has perfect sila). And >>secondly, there are times when we have more aksuala (dosa, for >>example) that we would like to but no kusala arises. >> > >Tep: It doesn't mean that all intentions to abstain will NOT be >followed by actual abstention either. It means we still CAN obtain >abstension once in a while when we keep on trying. More practice, more >satisfactory results. > Yes, but the proposition we are discussing is whether or not dhammas arise at a time of one's own choosing. If an intention to do an act is sometimes followed by the doing of the act and sometimes not, then how can it be said that dhammas arise at a time of one's own choosing? >Do you have children? How difficult is it to >persuade them to do "the right things"? But if (good) parents failed >to do their duty right, what would the kids become? > > I agree with your observations here, Tep, but cannot see the relevance to our discussion. Sorry!! >>>Tep: Willing to do kusala(kusala cetana) is necessary for that kind >>>of kusala to occur, therefore that 'kusala cetana' is a necessary >>>requisite for inducing the result that one has desired. This >>>"desire" is 'chanda' in the sense of iddhipaada (4 bases of power). >>> >>> >>Jon: >>As you see it, kusala cannot arise spontaneously but must be preceded >>by chanda ('desire to do'), the conscious intention for there to be >>kusala. But the chanda itself would have to be either kusala or >>aksuala; which would it be in the situation you have in mind? >> > >Tep: I think I said earlier(see above) that it was the kind of chanda >in the four iddhipaada! > > Yes, but the question I'm asking for your comment on is: If all kusala must be preceded by chanda, and that chanda is itself kusala, must it too be preceded by chanda? >>>Tep: Note very carefully the wordings : arising of skillful >>>qualities(kusala dhammas) that have not yet arisen ... increase >>>...culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen. >>> >>Jon: >>Again, you are saying that kusala needs conscious effort that is >>(kusala) right effort in order to arise. If so, then the question >>arises whether that kusala right effort itself requires kusala effort >>in order to arise. How do you see this? >> > >Tep: Of course, continuity of kusala dhammas require supporting >kusalas, one of which is the kusala dhamma itself (but there is no >"self" or atta being implied here). The "wordings" I referred to >above ['arising of skillful qualities(kusala dhammas) that have not >yet arisen ... increase...culmination of skillful qualities that have >arisen'] are taken from the Mahasatipatthana Sutta. Didn't you notice? > Take the case of 'arising of skilful qualities that have not yet arisen'. If this kusala needs conscious effort of the (kusala) right effort kind in order to arise, how does that kusala right effort itself arise in the first place? Jon #60173 From: "Dan D." Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 8:26 am Subject: Re: Authority onco111 Hi Daniel, Good question... > If I think A, but another person who is smarter than me thinks B, isn't it > actually smarter of me not to think A but to think B, since I will rely on a > person who is smarter than me? > > Is there a fault in this reasoning? It seems that there is, but where?? "Smart" doesn't mean "right." An abstract example: Suppose smart person A considers a number of very subtle points that would never occur to dull person B and weaves the subtleties into an intricate and beautiful theory--a brilliant intellectual achievement. Unfortunately, smart person A doesn't have the good judgement to properly weigh the subtleties in relation to each other and ends up with a picture that is wildly distorted. Dull person B sticks with the basics, giving great weight to the obvious and no weight to the subtleties. With this approach, B is likely to come up with a picture that is closer to the reality and more worthy of allegiance than the delicate and fragile intellectual house of cards constructed by A. Dan D. #60175 From: "indriyabala" Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 8:35 am Subject: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 433- ..Why Wait if You Can Now? indriyabala Hi Jon , - I am glad that finally you have reached the point that I agree with more than 50%. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Tep > > indriyabala wrote: > > >Tep: Mastery of the jhana is not the issue. The real issue is to show > >that kusala, such as sila or samadhi or panna, can be developed such > >that it may arise "at a time of one's own choosing". > > > > When kusala is developed to a very high degree, incredible things are > possible. One example of this is mastery of jhaana, which allows a > person to enter and leave jhaana 'at will'. Another example of the > development of kusala to the level of balas (powers). In such a person, > the kusala qualities are not swayed by their opposites. > > Relative to you and me, these persons can be said to have control. But > the dhammas in question still arise and fall away according to the same > set of conditioning factors as apply in your case and mine, and the laws > of kamma and vipaka, and the inevitability of ageing, sickness and > death, are as applicable to that person as to anyone. > > Jon > What I still disagree is that, while you and I are still practicing according to the Eightfold Path, we are completely powerless to condition certain kusala dhammas to arise at will. The abstaining from lying, killing, etc. are some example of the kusalas that we can do now. Why wait? If you want to be kind and generous now, why wait? Sincerely, Tep ==== #60176 From: "Dan D." Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 8:39 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Please don't.... onco111 Hi Sarah, > .... > S: Inaccurate. Better to use my own paraphrase of my 'stand' which I've > given you several versions of and which you always snip, replacing with > your own:-). Yes, several versions. Yes, snipping. I want to be able to understand it well enough to be able to restate it in my own words without looking. Although it might be nice to hear, parroting is not a good indicator of understanding. In your descriptions of what kinds of intellectual understandings condition insight ('condition' is my word here, is yours different?), I think you've used the word 'detailed' and 'right'. Is that wrong? Metta, Dan > Metta, > > Sarah > p.s To both Kens & Dan, I understand there are many different kinds and > levels of samma ditthi, aka panna cetasika. (Vism X1V at the beg. makes > passing reference to these different kinds of samma ditthi). For example, > there is samma ditthi in the development of samatha bhavana (with concept > as object, of course). There is samma ditthi at moments of pariyatti -- > panna with concepts about realities as object. Then there is mundane samma > ditthi with satipatthana and of course, supramundane samma ditthi. > > KenH, as you'll have seen, many people were glad that you unlocked your > draft - lots of helpful points, thanks:-). Just keep unlocking it.... > ================= > #60177 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 11:49 am Subject: the Roots of Good and Evil, 3 nilovg The Diversity of the Unwholesome Roots There may be outsiders, O monks, who will ask you: 'There are friends, three states of mind: greed, hatred and delusion. What is their distinction, their diversity, their difference?' Questioned thus, O monk, you may explain it to those outsiders in this way: 'Greed is a lesser fault and faces away slowly; hatred is a great fault and fades away quickly; delusion is a great fault and fades away slowly,' ~ ANGUTTARA NIKAYA, 3:68 (extract) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Comment the Roots of Good and Evil, 3 Dear Friends, This is taken from The Roots of Good and Evil, by Ven. Nyanaponika, Wheel 251/253: ****** Nina. #60178 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 11:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] re: death. nilovg Dear Han, thank you for your beautiful post on death, I really appreciate it. You said you had written more posts on it, could you please repost them on dsg? I give you a few of my reactions. op 05-06-2006 08:48 schreef han tun op hantun1@...: . Before and during World War II, in the > villages and small towns where I lived, there was no > western medical doctor and we had to depend on > traditional practitioners and traditional > birth-attendants. There I had witnessed people dying > in their natural way. Elderly people usually stopped > farming (Burma is basically an agricultural country) > at the age of around 60, and they went to monasteries > everyday to offer alms to the monks and to listen to > their dhamma talks, observing eight or ten precepts, > and doing veyaavacca or services at the monasteries. > When these people died they usually died peaceful > without any fear of death. It might be due to their > belief that since they had done meritorious deeds > their future rebirth in blissful realms had been > secured. ------- N: I like this example about people in the country very much. A simple life full of kusala, and there is no place for fear of death. ---------- > H: Among younger people I still remember two cases where > death came swiftly due to uncontrollable bleeding. .... In both cases, the first reaction was fear of death. But once they knew that > they were going to die, they seemed to resign to death > and died peacefully. I notice that those who die of > excessive bleeding remain conscious up to the last > moment. Therefore they usually have clear mind and > they can talk up to the last minute. The mother who > was dying during child birth calmly asked her husband > to look after her children after her death. The man > who was shot during hunting accident could also talk > to the last minute and he told his friends what he > wanted them to tell his wife and died without any > fear. So, I think once a person knows that he is going > to die he can in most cases surmount the fear, and the > concern that he shows is not so much for himself, but > for the ones whom he loves. -------- N: these are touching examples of people not thinking of themselves, only having concern for others. Yes, the best way to overcome fear. ---------> H: The uncertainty of what will > happen or where we will be reborn is much more > fearsome than the actual death itself. Therefore, if I > believe that I will have a good rebirth because of my > meritorious deeds I will not be afraid of death. That > belief in itself might even form kusala kamma > accumulations to condition the arising of good > nimittas. Even if it does not work that way, the > appearance of nimittas and the arising of cuti citta > will be so fast I might not even notice it! ------ N: Yes, it is all so fast. Confidence in the Triple Gem can grow when we develop more understanding of what he taught. There can be gratefulness for the Dhamma, we still have an opportunity to hear it. -------- H: Your other comment: <”Another person remarked that we > love ourselves so much that we do not like the idea of > having to part from our individuality now.”> > I think > for most of us, as I mentioned above, the bigger > concern might be not willing to part from our loved > ones rather than not willing to part from our > individuality. But, of course, it will depend on the > cultural background of the individuals. ------- N: I think that this love of self is so deep-rooted. -------- H: . I want to believe that we can > influence, to some extent, to have positive nimittas > by performing meritorious deeds throughout our lives > to accumulate habitual or aacinna-kamma, hoping that > this kamma will produce results in the absence of > death-proximate or aasanna-kamma, or even over-riding > it. Whether it is possible or not from the point of > view of abhidhamma doctrine does not matter for me; I > want to believe it in that way anyhow. I want to > believe it that way, because that belief will be one > big incentive for me to do wholesome deeds all the > time and not to do any unwholesome deeds. -------- N: I think it is saddhaa, confidence in kusala which gives you a sense of urgency. We do not have to think about influencing kamma; as you said, there is no time just before death. I discussed this point with Lodewijk and he thinks that the development of the perfections, paramis, is the greatest help. All good deeds, daana, siila and bhaavana are included in them. We can learn to develop them without thinking of any gain for ourselves, such as a happy rebirth, but solely with the aim to have less defilements. Only then are they perfections. When we do not think of ourselves, as you showed with your examples, there is no place for fear. This is the way of dhammaadhipatteyya, dhamma as the predominant influence, as I wrote to Phil. Khun Sujin, in her book about the perfections, shows of each perfection how it is to be developed. And, she said, we do not have to think: I want to develop the perfections, then there can still be a thought of self love. No thinking, just doing. I quoted on the Pali list a text of the Saddhaniti that I find appropriate. The Saddaniti, is a grammar written by the Thera Aggava.msa of Pagan, in 1154. You may be familiar with it, since it is Burmese. The Saddaniti states with regard to the meaning of dhamma as pa~n~naa: Yes, I think it is right understanding of naama and ruupa that can lead to lessening our fear of death. ***** Nina. #60179 From: han tun Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 3:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Question on the Visuddhi Magga Description of Concentration III.128 hantun1 Dear Christine, Please read the following with Pali inserts. 128. With a sincere inclination [of the heart] (sampanna-ajjhaasaya) and sincere resolution (#123) (sampanna-adhimutti): the meditator's inclination (ajjhaasaya) should be sincere in the six modes beginning with non-greed. For it is one of such sincere inclination who arrives at one of the three kinds of enlightenment (saavaka-buddha, pacceka-buddha, sammaasambuddha), according as it is said 'Six kinds of inclination lead to the maturing of the enlightenment of the Bodhisattas. (1) With the inclination (ajjhaasaya) to non-greed (alobha) Bodhisattas see the fault in greed (lobha). (2) With the inclination (ajjhaasaya) to non-hate (adosa) Bodhisattas see the fault in hate (dosa). (3) With the inclination (ajjhaasaya) to non-delusion (amoha) Bodhisattas see the fault in delusion (moha). (4) With the inclination (ajjhaasaya) to renunciation (nekkhamma) Bodhisattas see the fault in house life (gharaavaasa). (5) With the inclination (ajjhaasaya) to seclusion (paviveka) Bodhisattas see the fault in society (sanganikaa). (6) With the inclination (ajjhaasaya) to relinquishment (nissarana) Bodhisattas see the fault in all kinds of becoming and destiny (sabba-bhava-gati)." ---------------------------- The six modes mean the above mentioned six inclinations. Respectfully, Han --- Christine Forsyth wrote: > Hello all, > > I hope someone can explain the meaning of this > passage from "The > Path of Purification" The Visuddhi Magga by > Bhandantaacariya > Buddhaghosa. Trans. from the Pali by Bhikkhu > ~Nanamoli. Description > of Concentration III.128 p.119 #60180 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 3:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Roots of Good and Evil, 2. egberdina Hi Nina, On 05/06/06, nina van gorkom wrote: > > Hi Herman, > op 05-06-2006 00:21 schreef Herman Hofman op hhofmeister@...: > > > >> N: As I see it, also our deliberate attitude or choice is conditioned > by > >> former accumulated kusala or akusala. > > > > > > Is there room for a matter of degrees here, or is the deliberate choice > > entirely, totally, absolutely conditioned by the past? > ------ > N: Not totally, there are also conditions at present: listening to good > friends, or bad friends, pondering over what one heard. > I do not call this a matter of degree, but rather, other conditions that > are > operating, not only those stemming from the past. > Understanding can develop and this is the most powerful condition for > kusala, it is called a controlling factor. Whatever occurs is just dhamma, > no person. Thanks for the above, Nina. Just some thoughts and a question below. From a dhamma perspective, there are of course no good or bad friends that say anything either. And from a momentary perspective, there is no meaning of words to be pondered or understood. There is only sound, arising, changing, ceasing. That is all that can be understood. The conditions that turn all that sound into meaning are all in one's head, it is entirely a mental process, and whether whatever is heard turns out to be a good or bad friend is entirely up to the hearing mind. From a momentary perspective, there can be no helpful or unhelpful content in any message, because all there is is sound and silence. There is neither content nor message. So how can the hearing of a message with content be a conditioning factor for the present moment, if hearing meaning in sound indicates that one is totally oblivious to the present moment? Kind Regards Herman #60181 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 3:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: .. All of These Are Just Different Perspectives ... Faked MN 111 ? egberdina Hey Tep, > ?? {:-|)>> ?? The next time you are inclined to get on your high horse about the way others fail in communicating with you, you might instead ask yourself what you can do to improve your communicating with them. Kind Regards Herman #60182 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 3:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Long Live Noble Atheism -- Re: Authority egberdina Hi Daniel and Suan, On 06/06/06, abhidhammika wrote: > > > > By the way, if you want to cure yourself of the theist disease > (belief in a creator), drink regularly the Buddha's teachings Yes, but please ignore MN 41 where the Buddha teaches about housholders turning into creator gods (number 22 below) 18. "If a householder who observes conduct in accordance with the Dhamma, righteous conduct, should wish: 'Oh, that on the dissolution of the body, after death, I might reappear in the company of the gods of the Four Kings!' it is possible that on the dissolution of the body, after death, he may do so. Why is that? Because he observes conduct in accordance with the Dhamma, righteous conduct. 19. ...of the gods of the Realm of the Thirty-three... 20. ...of the gods that have Gone to Bliss... 21. ...of the Contented gods... 22. ...of the gods that Delight in Creating... 23. ...of the gods that Wield Power over others' Creations... 24. ...of the gods of Brahma's Retinue... 25. ...of the Radiant gods... 26. ...of the gods of Limited Radiance... 27. ...of the gods of Measureless Radiance... 28. ...of the gods of Streaming Radiance... 29. ...of the Glorious gods... 30. ...of the gods of Limited Glory... 31. ...of the gods of Measureless Glory... 32. ...of the gods of Refulgent Glory... 33. ...of the Very Fruitful gods... 34. ...of the gods Bathed in their own Prosperity... 35. ...of the Untormenting gods... 36. ...of the Fair-to-see gods... 37. ...of the Fair-seeing gods... 38. ...of the gods who are Junior to None... 39. ...of the gods of the base consisting of the infinity of space... 40. ...of the gods of the base consisting of the infinity of consciousness... 41. ...of the gods of the base consisting of nothingness... Come to think of it, the Buddhist universe has more gods in it than any other religion I know. Perhaps it is safer to be a Christian, there is only only one God in that disease. Kind Regards Herman #60183 From: "kelvin_lwin" Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 5:45 pm Subject: Cula-sotapanna kelvin_lwin Hi Sarah, My teacher found references but I think they're Burmese versions. It's from (I think) fifth nikaya pali commentary definition: 1) Full saddha in Buddha (some commentary ref, 26) 2) Paccaya Pariggaha Nana (vsm, 2nd book, 240) 3) Kankha-vitarana-visuddhi (abhidhamma, commentary 242) 4) Saddha in three gems and pure sila (4 suttas) So I think it comes down to what an attainment of Paccya-Pariggaha- nana really means. Sayadaw U Kundalabhivamsa in p 26 of http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/allkunda.pdf says this: The Yogi who understands that can be called 'Cula-sotapanna' (one whose future is ensured in the sense that his next existence will not be in an apaya region). It is much to be striven for. He achieves supportive results of of the Buddha's sasana. He is sure to be in sugati (a happy state) in his rounds of rebirth. Kel: So if you just read the last statement without the first one then he would appear to agree with your position. Sayadaw U Silananda in http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebmed056.htm : A "lesser sotapanna" is not a true stream-enterer but is said to be assured of rebirth in a happy realm of existence, such as in the realms of human beings and devas. That is, a lesser sotapanna cannot be reborn in one of the four woeful states, in one of the hells or animal realms. This state of lesser sotapanna can be reached just by practicing walking meditation, just by paying close attention to the movements involved in a step. This is the great benefit of practicing walking meditation. This stage is not easy to reach, but once yogis reach it, they can be assured that they will be reborn in a happy state, unless, of course, they fall from that stage. Kel: Again the condition in last part is crucial, the need to maintain the knowledge and not falling from the stage. I know I'm probably not convincing you but I'm pretty sure of the position. It's misleading to take "ever assured" destiny without proper qualifications. > S: giving separate examples which indicate the Bodhisatta endured lives in > hell realms which suggest (as I mention) that according to the definition > of a cula-sotapanna as given in the texts, that in any lives previous to > the hell realm ones, he couldn't have been attained the second stage of > insight. (It makes sense to me, as I've indicated, that stages of insight > were not attained until just before he became enlightened). Kel: I think there is support that he did obtain all the mundane insights. He just didn't obtain them in every single life while he was a true Bodhisatta thus it didn't preclude him from being reborn in hell realms. > S: where the account of Jotipala under Kassapa Buddha as given in MN81 fits > into the chronology of lives as a Bodhisatta. Do you? Kel: The only moral that sticks out at me of this story is that because of his comment about Kassapa Buddha, he had to suffer years of wrong practice. Reminds me of an arahat who is born short stature because he suggested building a smaller stupa for a Buddha, scary. > >Usually if they are not ordained > > under a living Buddha then there's no reference to tipitaka and > > insightly (oops, this should be read INSIGHT), mainly jhana. > ... > S: Sorry, I'm not with you here.... Kel: Just compare the two Jotipala stories. In first one he basically attained jhanas but no mention of insights. Second one is where he ordained and did what a Boddhisata is suppose to do (according to references Venerable gave before) and this included insights. > S: I'm not familiar with this idea of preliminary and mature grades of a > particular vipassana nana. I understood that either such insight arises or > it doesn't. Kel: We can drop this point as it is taught in correlating visuddhis and nanas. We know panna differs a lot even with arahats. So aside from arise or not, you do get different grades. > S: Like the Bodhisatta had pure sila in certain lives, but > not all lives. We might even keep pure sila in this life , following the > precepts without fail. However, it's just for this life unless adhi sila > has been perfected at the stage of sotapanna. (I think this same reasoning > also applies to the pure sila referred to in the sutta Tep often quotes). Kel: As with sila, insight arise in certain lives but not all lives. And it is just for this life unless it has been perfected by arahat-hood. So I would think similar reasoning could easily apply. I've given you as much as I can gather, Sarah. I know you'll want to check with KS in August and we can table the discussion till then. I doubt I'll have much novel points to add though. - Kel #60184 From: "kelvin_lwin" Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 6:03 pm Subject: [dsg] Long Live Noble Atheism -- Re: Authority kelvin_lwin Hi Herman, What kinda god would let others control over their creation? Perhaps using Deva would serve better here. > 22. ...of the gods that Delight in Creating... > 23. ...of the gods that Wield Power over others' Creations... - Kel #60185 From: han tun Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 6:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] re: death. hantun1 Dear Nina, Thank you very much for your valuable remarks. I do not have the Saddaniti. I must look for it when I next go to Yangon. As regards my previous posts on “dying moments” which I had posted in other forum I have deleted them from my files because I did not hear what I wanted to hear from others. I can be, at times, very stubborn in my own foolish way. (:>) If I were to write it again it would be like listening to an old gramophone. When a gramophone record gets very old the grooves on it are damaged and the needle would go round and round in the same groove without proceeding to the rest of the record. I would say something and others would say no. I would say yes and others would say no. It will get nowhere! (:>) Respectfully, Han --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Han, > thank you for your beautiful post on death, I really > appreciate it. > You said you had written more posts on it, could you > please repost them on dsg? > -------- > N: I think it is saddhaa, confidence in kusala which > gives you a sense of urgency. We do not have to > think about influencing kamma; as you said, there > is no time just before death. > I discussed this point with Lodewijk and he thinks > that the development of the perfections, paramis, is > the greatest help. All good deeds, daana, siila > and bhaavana are included in them. We can learn to > develop them without thinking of any gain for > ourselves, such as a happy rebirth, but solely with > the aim to have less defilements. Only then are they > perfections. ----------- > I quoted on the Pali list a text of the Saddhaniti > that I find appropriate. > The Saddaniti, is a grammar written by the Thera > Aggava.msa of Pagan, in 1154. You may be familiar > with it, since it is Burmese. > > The Saddaniti states with regard to the meaning of > dhamma as pa~n~naa: > > For the householder with confidence there are these > four dhammas: > sacca.m dhammo dhiti caago, sa ve pecca na > socatii"ti > truth, dhamma, courage and generosity, and he truly > does not grieve after dying. > Aadiisu pa~n~naaya.m. > In such passages dhamma refers to wisdom. > > > Yes, I think it is right understanding of naama and > ruupa that can lead to lessening our fear of death. > ***** > Nina. #60186 From: "kelvin_lwin" Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 6:13 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition ... Metta and Devas kelvin_lwin Hi Herman, Do you have a problem with how five heinous crimes are defined too? > I have no doubts about this either. My main problem with the matter is the > science-of-dana, as stated in a MN sutta which I can't find Dakkhinavibhanga Sutta .. You don't think it's logical that result depends on the quality of the being giving and receiving? - Kel #60187 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 7:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Leading to stream entry ken_aitch Hi Howard, ---------- H: > Actually, Sarah, you may recall that I brought up that sutta, and this matter, rather recently. I had quoted the following part of the Dakkhinavibhanga Sutta: An offering made to an arahat disciple of the Tathagata is the third kind of offering made to an individual. An offering made to one who is practising to attain Arahatta Fruition (i.e. one who has attained Arahatta Magga) is the fourth kind of offering made to an individual. > > In discussing this, I had made the point that is not "so easy" (LOL!) to engage in the conventional activity of making an offering to a path attainer during the alleged microsecond gap between the moment of path consciousness and the following moment of fruition consciousness! I never had my objection answered to my satisfaction! ---------- I could be missing something, of course, but I can't see how the explanation you were given was not entirely satisfactory. It was consistent with other parts of the texts, and it overcame the incongruity of giving a gift in a microsecond gap. It explained how your difficulty with the sutta was due entirely to your wrong assumption - i.e., that "one who is practising to attain Arahatta Fruition" must be "one who has attained Arahatta Magga." Even before seeing that explanation, hadn't you suspected that a person described as "practising to attain Arahatta Fruition" must be a person lower down in the order of gift-worthiness than an arahant? The list has the Tathagata first and the Paccekabuddha second, which suggests it is proceeding down the order of eminence. So, at this stage, you must have suspected that the third individual on the list would be someone lower in the order than the second (the Paccekabuddha) but higher than the fourth. There has been a lot of discussion on this point, and so it must be more complicated than I have made it out to be. As I said, I could be missing something. :-) Ken H #60188 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 7:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition ... Metta and Devas egberdina Hi Kel, On 06/06/06, kelvin_lwin wrote: > > Hi Herman, > > Do you have a problem with how five heinous crimes are defined too? > I have a problem with a certain mindset. Allow me to give you an example. This is from the Dhammapada. Just as one would look upon a bubble, just as one would look upon a mirage - if a person thus looks upon the world, the King of Death sees him not. The mindset of which I speak would soon have the 5 kinds of bubbles, the 3 ways of their arising, the 8 ways of their standing, and the 3 ways of their ceasing. Topped of with "this is how it is to be known, this is how it is to be understood". > I have no doubts about this either. My main problem with the matter > is the > > science-of-dana, as stated in a MN sutta which I can't find > > Dakkhinavibhanga Sutta .. You don't think it's logical that result > depends on the quality of the being giving and receiving? > Thanks for naming that Sutta. What I think is logical is that any gift given with a mind to procure a desired future result is not a gift. And any act done with a mind to procure a gift is the act of a charlatan. In relation to how some mindsets can butcher generousity through analysis, the following is just the index from an essay on the perfecting of dana. == THE PERFECTION OF GENEROSITY (//DANA PARAMI//) The Importance of Generosity Gifts to the Sangha Types of Gifts Generosity and Abandonment Akitti's Generosity The Greatest Abandonings as Generosity The Brief Definition of Generosity Analysis according to the Abhidhamma method TYPES OF GIFTS BY PAIRS (22 groups) Gifts to Individuals (14 kinds) 5 Good results of Giving Food 4 Purities for Generosity 7 Types of Gifts to the Sangha The Example of Ugga Gifts to Individual Monks representing the Sangha The Incomparable Gift of King Pasenadi TYPES OF GIFTS BY THREES Gifts to the Dhamma, the Example of Ananda Gifts which it is Painful to Give: The example of Darubhandaka The example of Bhattabhatika The example of the Poor Girl TYPES OF GIFTS BY FOURS TYPES OF GIFTS BY FIVES Vessantara and the Gift of Intoxicants TYPES OF GIFTS BY GROUPS OF SIX TYPES OF GIFTS BY GROUPS OF SEVEN TYPES OF GIFTS BY GROUPS OF EIGHT TYPES OF GIFTS BY GROUPS OF NINE King Pasenadi and Bribes TYPES OF GIFTS BY GROUPS OF TEN TYPES OF GIFTS BY GROUPS OF FOURTEEN THE GOOD RESULTS OF GIFTS The example of Velukantaki The example in the Mahadhammapala Jataka ON FAITH AND GIFTS == Kind Regards Herman #60189 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 7:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Long Live Noble Atheism -- Re: Authority egberdina Hi Kel, On 06/06/06, kelvin_lwin wrote: > > Hi Herman, > > What kinda god would let others control over their creation? Perhaps > using Deva would serve better here. > > > > 22. ...of the gods that Delight in Creating... > > 23. ...of the gods that Wield Power over others' Creations... > The same sort of god that would create satan, I guess. But how is a god that creates different to a deva that creates? And how is it that true Buddhists know all their devas so well, yet feel very comfortable pouring scorn on the god of others? Kind Regards Herman #60190 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 4:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Leading to stream entry upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 6/5/06 10:12:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > ---------- > H: >Actually, Sarah, you may recall that I brought up that sutta, and > this matter, rather recently. I had quoted the following part of the > Dakkhinavibhanga Sutta: > > An offering made to an arahat disciple of the Tathagata is the third > kind of offering made to an individual. An offering made to one who is > practising to attain Arahatta Fruition (i.e. one who has attained > Arahatta Magga) is the fourth kind of offering made to an individual. > > > > In discussing this, I had made the point that is not "so easy" (LOL!) > to engage in the conventional activity of making an offering to a path > attainer during the alleged microsecond gap between the moment of path > consciousness and the following moment of fruition consciousness! I > never had my objection answered to my satisfaction! > ---------- > > I could be missing something, of course, but I can't see how the > explanation you were given was not entirely satisfactory. It was > consistent with other parts of the texts, and it overcame the > incongruity of giving a gift in a microsecond gap. It explained how > your difficulty with the sutta was due entirely to your wrong > assumption - i.e., that "one who is practising to attain Arahatta > Fruition" must be "one who has attained Arahatta Magga." > > Even before seeing that explanation, hadn't you suspected that a > person described as "practising to attain Arahatta Fruition" must be a > person lower down in the order of gift-worthiness than an arahant? The > list has the Tathagata first and the Paccekabuddha second, which > suggests it is proceeding down the order of eminence. So, at this > stage, you must have suspected that the third individual on the list > would be someone lower in the order than the second (the > Paccekabuddha) but higher than the fourth. > > There has been a lot of discussion on this point, and so it must be > more complicated than I have made it out to be. As I said, I could be > missing something. :-) > > Ken H > ========================== I quote the material from the sutta again, but without the parenthesized comments that beg the question: <> This speaks of offerings made to: 1) an arahat 2) one who is practising to attain Arahatta Fruition 3) one who is an Anagami 4) one who is practising to attain Anagami Fruition 5) one who is a Sakadagami 6) one who is practising to attain Sakadagami Fruition 7) one who is a Sotapanna 8) one who is practising to attain Sotapatti Fruition Please note, Ken, that *after* the one who is practising to attain Sotapatti Fruition, a later individual mentioned to whom an offering can be made is a "common worldling who is endowed with morality," a category, you may note, different from the perviously mentioned "one who is practising to attain Sotapatti Fruition." Also, Ken, why is nothing said of practicing for paths and not fruit? My answer: These 8 listed above are exactly the eight types of persons, Ken, all of them ariyans! Number 8 has realized sotapatti magga, number 6 sakadagami magga, and so on! This is crystal clear! Any other reading is, in my opinion, a matter of going to absurd contortions to attempt to justify a belief one clings to for dear life. Why it should be held t so dearly I can't imagine, unless it follows from an extreme attachment to commentaries at all costs. A straightforward reading of the very straightforward sutta quoted is unambiguous in its indication that fruition consciousness does not follow immediately on the heels of path consciousness. In any case, Ken, as to your amazement at the idea tha the explanation I was given was not entirely satisfactoryincerned, what I had said exactly was "I never had my objection answered to my satisfaction!" Now you may be satisfied, but I remain fully unsatisfied. On the contrary, the Dakkhinavibhanga Sutta satisfies me completely as to the truth of a view quite the opposite of the contiguity of path & fruit. With metta, Howard #60191 From: Ken O Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 8:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Please don't.... ashkenn2k Hi Dan and Sarah Sarah: p.s To both Kens & Dan, I understand there are many different kinds and levels of samma ditthi, aka panna cetasika. (Vism X1V at the beg. makes passing reference to these different kinds of samma ditthi). For example, there is samma ditthi in the development of samatha bhavana (with concept as object, of course). There is samma ditthi at moments of pariyatti -- panna with concepts about realities as object. Then there is mundane samma ditthi with satipatthana and of course, supramundane samma ditthi. Dan : I'm still not clear on what pariyatti means, and I'm intrigued by your comment. Can you say a little more on what you mean by > "learning it as a paramattha...even though we...cannot see the paramattha side of it"? Do you mean a conceptual, speculative learning? k: I dont think it contradicts what I said, in fact it clarifies a few other points of what I am trying to say. Samma dithi that arise with citta to cognize any object is still samma dithi. To me when the passage mention of the different types of samma dithi, it does not mean that a samma dithi when meeting a concept become a conceptual samma dithi, similar to other cetasikas. I felt that when we intellectualising the dhamma, we have to learn it as a paramatha dhamma be it the object is concept or not. This is an important difference because I think as long as we cling to the idea that there is conceptual samma dithi or other cetasikas, we are not on the right track. In fact if we cling to that idea that there is conceptual samma dithi or perceptions or others cetasikas, it create more confusions of what is meant to be paramathas and what is meant to be mundane. Only when we have this distinction the path will be clear between mundane and suparmundane, there is no third classification as far as I know. Dan: > My working hypothesis is that the word pariyatti must refer to the understanding of presently arising paramattha while reading about, listening to, or discussing Dhamma. It arises as the words keep reminding where understanding springs from--attention to the > present, not theorizing or speculating about states not arising or not having arisen. k: I am not good at Pali terms Pariyatti (this is the arena of - Nina) , Patipatti (practise). Maybe it would be good Nina to give us the defintion of these two and their relations. I remember pariyatti and patipatti goes hand in hand but one need pariyatti for the 1st three fruition and patipatti for the last fruition (I read it somewhere) k: If you seen the passage in the suttas, there are always mentioning of discussing dhamma. When discussing, I felt there will be concepts used to explain dhamma, that does not mean the content of the dicussion is not paramathas dhammas. In fact I think the discussion is paramatha dhamma just like when the word pariyatti to me simply meant learning dhammas as paramatha dhammas. Hence, intellectualising is just another form or discussion as long as it meant to clarify dhamma and understanding them as paramathas. Do not be overly concern about theorising which state arise or not because for some they need this type of Abhidhammic medicine and for me I also need a dose of it from time to time. Cheers Ken O #60192 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 8:44 pm Subject: Long Live Noble Atheism -- Re: Authority scottduncan2 Hey All, Can we maybe just get back to discussing: "...the Buddha's teachings on the Four Noble Truths as taught in Dhammacakkapavattana Suttam, and Dependent Origination (Pa.ticcasammuppaada) as taught in Mahanidaana Suttam and other related Suttams, and, of course, practice mindfulness meditation as taught in Mahasatipa.t.thaana Suttam and other related Suttams." Or maybe even (you too Herman - can't make a stupid happy face guy but read one here) "...Abhidhamma Pi.taka..." It seems to me that there is too much needless and unproductive contention recently. I realise I have no place to say so, except perhaps the small stake I have in wanting to preserve this space for myself (yes, selfish I know) because of the potential here for excellent Dhamma study. I think it is squandered when pointless, aimless, and frankly simply oppositional stances are taken. Do with me what you will for having said so. I'll blame the accumulations arising from years of group psychotherapy work and that's all there is to it. Sincerely, (and ducking my head as you all type...) Scott. #60193 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 9:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Long Live Noble Atheism -- Re: Authority egberdina Hey Scott, Everyone has the freedom of participating in only those threads they want to. If you get nothing out of this thread, why not just accept that, rather than attempt to control the discussion? Kind Regards Herman #60194 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 11:38 pm Subject: Crucial Concern ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: The Dhamma Makes the Mental Hindrances Vanish: The Blessed Buddha once said: When, Bhikkhus, a Noble Disciple listens carefully to the Dhamma, alert with keen ears, attending to it as a matter of crucial concern, as something of vital importance, directing his entire mind to it, in that very moment, the Five Mental Hindrances are absent in him... On that occasion the Seven Links to Awakening develop towards complete fulfillment... And what are the Five Mental Hindrances, that are absent on that occasion? The mental hindrance of Sense-Desire is all absent on that very occasion. The mental hindrance of Evil-Will is all absent in these exact moments. The mental hindrance of Lethargy & Laziness is all absent during that period. The mental hindrance of Restlessness & Regret is all absent on that event. The mental hindrance of Doubt & Uncertainty is all absent in that interval. These are the Five Mental Hindrances that all are completely absent on that occasion. And what are the Seven Links to Awakening that approaches fulfillment right there? The Awareness Link to Awakening develops towards fulfillment on that very occasion! The Investigation Link to Awakening arises & approaches fulfillment on that occasion! The Energy Link to Awakening also pushes forward towards fulfillment on that occasion! The Joy Link to Awakening moves towards complete fulfillment on that unique occasion! The Tranquillity Link to Awakening comes close to a stilled fulfillment on that occasion! The Concentration Link to Awakening reaches unification fulfillment on that occasion! The Equanimity Link to Awakening also gains fulfillment by development on that occasion! These are the 7 Links to Awakening that are fulfilled by development on that occasion. When, Bhikkhus, a Noble Disciple listens carefully to the Dhamma, alert with keen ears, attending to it as a matter of crucial concern, as something of vital importance, directing his entire mind to it, in that very moment the Five Mental Hindrances are absent in him. On that occasion the Seven Links to Awakening develop towards complete fulfillment... Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V: 95-6] section 46: The Links. 38: Unhindered... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. #60195 From: "kelvin_lwin" Date: Tue Jun 6, 2006 12:24 am Subject: [dsg] Long Live Noble Atheism -- Re: Authority kelvin_lwin Hi Herman, > > What kinda god would let others control over their creation? Perhaps > > using Deva would serve better here. > > > 22. ...of the gods that Delight in Creating... > > > 23. ...of the gods that Wield Power over others' Creations... > The same sort of god that would create satan, I guess. But how is a god that > creates different to a deva that creates? And how is it that true Buddhists > know all their devas so well, yet feel very comfortable pouring scorn on the > god of others? Kel: I was thinking along the lines of hierarchy of gods is by definition not God. But then I guess you can point to the Greek gods and tell me it's the same thing. Honestly though creation power of Devas don't include life. They cannot affect someone more than what their own kamma would allow. True Buddhist should not scorn anyone for their beliefs. Some supposed Buddhist would spend all their time dealing with Devas/Brahmas and it's not so conducive to practice either. This world is full of people who will mess up anything by fumbling around in their ignorance. It would be wrong to judge everyone based on majority of fools :) - Kel #60196 From: "kelvin_lwin" Date: Tue Jun 6, 2006 12:37 am Subject: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition ... Metta and Devas kelvin_lwin Hi Herman, > H:The mindset of which I speak would soon have the 5 kinds of bubbles, the 3 > ways of their arising, the 8 ways of their standing, and the 3 ways of their > ceasing. Topped of with "this is how it is to be known, this is how it is to be understood". Kel: For an analytical guy you seem to have a problem with analysis? Or for a guy who says literal reading of the text is dangerous ... >H: Thanks for naming that Sutta. What I think is logical is that any gift given > with a mind to procure a desired future result is not a gift. And any act > done with a mind to procure a gift is the act of a charlatan. Kel: Here's what is meant by dana: Another sutta (A.iii,336) maintains that it is not possible to estimate the amount of merit that accrues when an offering is endowed with six particular characteristics. Three of the characteristics belong to the donor while three belong to the donee. The donor should be happy at the thought of giving prior to making the offering. He should be pleased at the time of making the offering, and he should be satisfied after the offering is made. Thus the nobility of thought — without a trace of greed before, during and after the offering — makes a gift truly great. The recipients also should be free from lust, hatred and delusion, or they should have embarked on a course of training for the elimination of these mental depravities. When an almsgiving is endowed with these qualities of the donor and donee, the merit is said to be as immeasurable as the waters in the ocean. > H: In relation to how some mindsets can butcher generousity through analysis, > the following is just the index from an essay on the perfecting of dana. > THE PERFECTION OF GENEROSITY (//DANA PARAMI//) Kel: Have you read the article beyond the index? It seems fine to me but maybe because it's written by Burmese people, hehe. There's a big difference to knowing what the possible rewards are versus doing them specifically for the rewards. Anyone who knows the theory should know that doing things based on reward would be motivated by greed and there would be no reward. I don't think it's a problem of mindset of analytical mind or what not. It's just basic worldling mistakes in many things they do even with good intentions. - Kel #60197 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Tue Jun 6, 2006 1:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Question on the Visuddhi Magga Description of Concentration III.128 christine_fo... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Christine, > > Please read the following with Pali inserts. > > 128. With a sincere inclination [of the heart] > (sampanna-ajjhaasaya) and sincere resolution (#123) > (sampanna-adhimutti): the meditator's inclination > (ajjhaasaya) should be sincere in the six modes > beginning with non-greed. > > For it is one of such sincere inclination who arrives > at one of the three kinds of enlightenment > (saavaka-buddha, pacceka-buddha, sammaasambuddha), > according as it is said 'Six kinds of inclination lead > to the maturing of the enlightenment of the > Bodhisattas. > > (1) With the inclination (ajjhaasaya) to non-greed > (alobha) Bodhisattas see the fault in greed (lobha). > > (2) With the inclination (ajjhaasaya) to non-hate > (adosa) Bodhisattas see the fault in hate (dosa). > > (3) With the inclination (ajjhaasaya) to non-delusion > (amoha) Bodhisattas see the fault in delusion (moha). > > (4) With the inclination (ajjhaasaya) to renunciation > (nekkhamma) Bodhisattas see the fault in house life > (gharaavaasa). > > (5) With the inclination (ajjhaasaya) to seclusion > (paviveka) Bodhisattas see the fault in society > (sanganikaa). > > (6) With the inclination (ajjhaasaya) to > relinquishment (nissarana) Bodhisattas see the fault > in all kinds of becoming and destiny > (sabba-bhava-gati)." > > ---------------------------- > > The six modes mean the above mentioned six > inclinations. > > Respectfully, > Han Hello Han, Nice to 'read' you again. I hope all is going well.:-) Thank you for your response, much appreciated. I also had another brief reply, which agrees with your post: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "I think you are muddling inclinations and perfections. According to the Diigha Sub-commentary the prior cultivation of the ten perfections (paramii) is the cause for the arising of the six inclinations (ajjhaasaya) in a bodhisatta's final life. Best wishes, Dhammanando Bhikkhu" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I've been doing some reading around the Bodhisattva ideal of the Mahayana tradition and began to see connections where there were none. Thank you for this clarification. metta and respect, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- #60198 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Jun 6, 2006 1:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] RE: the one way. sarahprocter... Dear Nina, (Dan,Lodewijk & Han in passing) I hope you won't mind if I follow these comments a little further to help me clarify my understanding better: --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Sarah, > op 01-06-2006 09:15 schreef sarah abbott op > sarahprocterabbott@...: > > > > I'm not sure if the last part of BB's note is correct when he refers > to it > > as 'the direct path' distinguishing it from the path including jhanas > etc. > > This doesn't make sense to me (esp in light of the Satip. Sutta) and > as he > > says, there's 'no commentarial basis for this view'. > ----- > N: Perhaps he means: no development of samatha, only vipassanaa. ..... S: When we read about satipatthana as 'ekaayan maggo', the only way, I understand it to be referring to anyone, any accumulations. There is no other way, but satipatthana to realize the 4NT etc. This is regardless of whether samatha has been developed, jhanas attained, or not, surely? After all, in the satipatthana sutta, the section on anapanasati and so on are included to indicate it is the path for even those who had attained jhana with this object. .... > N: Right, an article is not always necessary, but here we might have > expected saa (for vedanaa) as subject. Especially in the consruction of > the > sentence. I was thinking of Vis. XIV, 125: > mode of experiencing. Its nature should be characterized as being felt. > First the passive is used: it is felt, in Pali: vedayita. What is felt > is > feeling. > Then the Vis. refers to M.N. I, 43, which is a dialogue between > Maha-Ko.t.thita and Saariputta. Saariputtaa explains: it feels, it > feels, > friend, that is why it is called feeling. In the text, after the > passive, > the active form (which the translator did not render) is used: vedayati > vedayatiiti, it feels, it feels. > It feels, but in Pali no article is used here. There is merely the > declination of the verb, to feel, in the third person singular. There is > no > subject, no person who feels. ..... S: No person that feels, but there is the nama, the element of vedana which feels. I don't see any significance in this - like passages referring to how citta cognizes. For example, when we read in the Atth that 'by citta is meant that which thinks of its object, is aware variously', [cittan ti aaramma.na.m cintetii ti citta.m vijaanaati ti attho'], I don't think it makes any difference to the meaning how it is expressed, but as you know, I have little Pali knowledge and may be missing your point. .... > Thus, feeling is what is felt and it can also be said that it feels. .... S: Yes. ..... > > The Tiika states: The explanation of the action should be understood as > follows: there is no doer apart from the dhamma with its own > characteristic > (Sabhaavadhammato a~n~no kattaa natthiiti dassanattha.m kattuniddeso).> ...... S: This is very clear. No self or thing other than the dhamma (i.e vedana or citta) which has the characteristic of experiencing its object. .... > From the context I get it that it is meaningful that there is no so or > saa, > or aya.m. > Ven. Bodhi mentions (p. 1234) the absence of an article(p. 1235, note > 430 to > sutta 43) about viññaa.na. He speaks about it that in the translation > the > article is inserted for clarity. ...... S: I've just looked at the reference: "it cognizes, it cognizes (vijaanati vijaanaati)' .......It cognizes '[This is] pleasant'; it cognizes: '[This is] painful' etc.......that is why 'consciousness' is said. Lower in the note, BB says: "The Pali construction, 'sukhan ti pi vijaanaati', indicates that the feeling is being treated as a direct object of consciousness rather than as an affective tone of the experience......" As BB says, unlike Nanamoli's translation, he added 'it' in 'it cognizes' for greater intelligibility. Either way, it's clear that it's citta/vi~n~naana) which does the cognizing, rather than any self, brain or anything else. As I see it, an object cannot be experienced unless a citta and cetasikas arise and experience it. There is the meeting of the ayatanas, always including manayatana and dhammayatana. ***** Btw, I'm greatly enjoying and appreciating your discussions with Han and Lodewijk - a good 3 way discussion. Perhaps when Lodewijk has his computer set up he'll be willing to share his comments with Han directly. Also, in one message at the end you mentioned that Lodewijk asked for Jon's and my comments about knowing when one attains insights. (I'm sorry, I can't find the message now, so I'm just paraphrasing). I remember you already gave a good response, so I didn't rush to add anything. One thing that is clear is that there is no doubt at all when there are any insights. Also, there's no idea of 'me' or 'someone' attaining insight - just dhammas arising and falling away. No self in it at all. Even now, if there is awareness and understanding of a nama or rupa, there's no idea of 'I' understanding anything at all. Not sure if this helps. Metta, Sarah ======= #60199 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Tue Jun 6, 2006 1:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Leading to stream entry ken_aitch Hi Howard, I had it all mixed up! I thought you were interpreting the third kind, as being inferior to the fourth kind. I thought you were interpreting "arahant" to be one who had attained arahant-magga-citta but had not attained arahant-phala-citta. So I thought it strange that they were listed out of order in what was meant to a descending order of gift-worthy individuals. Sorry about that, let's start again. --------------- <. . .> H: > Please note, Ken, that *after* the one who is practising to attain Sotapatti Fruition, a later individual mentioned to whom an offering can be made is a "common worldling who is endowed with morality," a category, you may note, different from the perviously mentioned "one who is practising to attain Sotapatti Fruition." --------------- Yes, but both sides of the argument agree it is a different category. One side is saying they are both worldling categories (one with just faith, the other with both faith and mundane right understanding), while your side is saying one is the worldling category, the other Sotapanna category. ----------------------- H: > Also, Ken, why is nothing said of practicing for paths and not fruit? ----------------------- I think it is because path is practice, while fruit is the result of practice. ----------------------------- H: > My answer: These 8 listed above are exactly the eight types of persons, Ken, all of them ariyans! Number 8 has realized sotapatti magga, number 6 sakadagami magga, and so on! This is crystal clear! Any other reading is, in my opinion, a matter of going to absurd contortions to attempt to justify a belief one clings to for dear life. Why it should be held t so dearly I can't imagine, unless it follows from an extreme attachment to commentaries at all costs. -------------------- Now then, don't be like that. :-) Now that I have pointed out that practice refers to kamma (in particular the kamma of magga-citta) and phala refers to vipaka, is your opinion still crystal clear? ---------------------------- H: > A straightforward reading of the very straightforward sutta quoted is unambiguous in its indication that fruition consciousness does not follow immediately on the heels of path consciousness. ---------------------------- But if our straightforward reading contradicts the ancient commentaries, maybe we should at least take a second look. --------------------------------------- H: > In any case, Ken, as to your amazement at the idea tha the explanation I was given was not entirely satisfactoryincerned, what I had said exactly was "I never had my objection answered to my satisfaction!" Now you may be satisfied, but I remain fully unsatisfied. On the contrary, the Dakkhinavibhanga Sutta satisfies me completely as to the truth of a view quite the opposite of the contiguity of path & fruit. ----------------------------------------- Yes, my amazement was due to my careless reading: sorry about that. However, the sutta can be logically read two ways, and I will always favour the way of the ancient commentaries. Ken H