#62000 From: "matheesha" Date: Sun Jul 30, 2006 12:45 am Subject: Re: Just to confirm re "noble instructed disciple" (Nina) matheesha333 Hi Phil, > Yes, I should point out that of course I know the Buddha did teach > the metta sutta, but we should remember that it describes "one who > is skilled in goodness" or something like that. It is a meditative > attainment, not something that we just do because we want to feel > better about being an unnkind person or dealing with unkind persons > or something. That is all about attachment, escaping from dosa. (I > like the sutta passage I reflected on today - "the unistructed > worldling knows no escape from painful feeling except sensual > pleasure " - my paraphrase from SN 36:7, I think. (The dart) Often > intentional "metta" meditation in the modern sense is a form of > excaping painful feeling through sensual pleasure, I suspect. > > So, yes, you're absolutely right. True metta meditation *is* too > difficult. Not just a matter of thinking about sending loving > kindness here and there. M: I think the suttas speak of metta-cetovimutti. This is possibly a lot more than just getting into a jhana with metta as object. I think it is the same thing developed to very high degree over and over again until dosa simply doesnt arise. It is also very powerful kusala. The Buddha spoke of being born as the mahabrahma, the foremost being in the universe, based on such kusala when he developed it in the past. But it is not possible to get into such meditative attainment suddenly. There has to be a humble start somewhere. A snapshot of the final state gives no indication of what lead up to it. It is samatha after all and it is kusala. Where I trained metta was done to reduce the hinderence of vyapada in preperation for developing samadhi (samatha) and ultimately jhana. Not to have a good time :) with metta Matheesha #62001 From: "matheesha" Date: Sun Jul 30, 2006 12:50 am Subject: Re: Equanimity matheesha333 Dear Bhanthe, > One day a father decided to take his two children to go visit his > parents.... M: That is a beautiful story. Thank you for sharing it with us. with metta Matheesha #62002 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jul 30, 2006 12:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Emptiness of All Conditioned Dhammas nilovg Hi Howard and TG, thanks Howard. The problem may be in the English translation sometimes. Take sabhava, the way it is translated: own essence, own individuality. That is misleading, I agree. Own distinct characteristic is better. But May I suggest, TG, that you give some examples, I am not satisfied with your arguments. Nina. Op 30-jul-2006, om 7:02 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > I do agree that there is a subtle sense of substantialism to be found > in some of the commentaries, and I find an odd, hard-to-put-my- > finger-on > unsatisfactoriness there at times, but the particular comments Nina > related were > pretty good, I'd say. #62003 From: Bhikkhu samahita Date: Sat Jul 29, 2006 11:45 pm Subject: Canonical Corrobation. bhikkhu_ekamuni Dear DSG-friends: Reg: Kaya-passadhi interpreted as bodily tranquillity this well-known canonical reference may give a clue: MN 118: 'In one who is joyous, the body is calmed down (kaayo pi passambhati) and the mind is calmed down (cittam pi passambhati). On whatever occasion the body and the mind becomes thus tranquil in a bhikkhu who joyous, on that occasion the tranquillity link to awakening emerges and he develops it, and by development it is completed in him.' IMHO: In this context it seems to take more and considerable interpretation to get the 'kaayo' to mean mental aggregates, when the word 'khandha' actually is not mentioned by the Buddha. So far there also seems to be consistent agreement in all translations of MN 118 despite the recurring commentarial interpretation. vandana Friendship is the Greatest... Bhikkhu Samahita <...> #62004 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jul 30, 2006 1:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Emptiness of All Conditioned Dhammas, To Howard, please advise. nilovg Hi Howard, I need your advice for Lodewijk. I tried to explain that the world in the ariyan discipline, thus, appearing through the six doors, arising and falling away, empty of self, and the world of human relations are not in conflict. There arer many ways of explaining this, and each person explains it in his own way and this is very good. You also have your own, careful way, and this may help others. I noticed that also Charles D finds this a dilemma. Lodewijk starts yelling each time when he hears, there is no Lodewijk, no Nina, no matter how often I explained. Thanks, Nina. Op 29-jul-2006, om 23:55 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: This is excellent, Nina, wonderful - all of it! Emptiness and insubstantiality found right in the heart of Theravada! #62005 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jul 30, 2006 1:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sandhi nilovg Dear Connie, I have the Pali text in hard cover, I read it and noticed that B.B. omitted passages. The same in the English text of the Dhammasangani, and I am glad that I have the Pali as well. Rhys D. does the same. It is the wrong thing to do. It is always good to remember that pa.tisandhi waits, another kind of sandhi. Nina. Op 30-jul-2006, om 4:11 heeft connie het volgende geschreven: > > Dear Nina, > We admire BB's Net, but O, Epithets! there are those closed fists > on the > conveyances: right from the very introduction: < inquires > into the reason behind the choice of words, is fully intelligible > only in > the Paali, and hence has here been omitted.>> and the one that > really gets > me {parenthetically adding salt to the wound no less}: on # 10. > vevacanahaara << (Since this mode merely gives synonyms for the words > occurring in the text, it is here omitted.)>> > I feel awe-full and thank you for all you've helped me to this sorry > state, nowhere near wick's end, but pa.tisandhi waits. > c. > #62006 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jul 30, 2006 1:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just to confirm re "noble instructed disciple" (Nina) nilovg Hi Matheesha, yes, a lot more. When we read vimutti, it means that also insight has been developed up to the stage of enlightenment. * Dictionary of Ven. Nyanatiloka: < vimutti 'deliverance', is of 2 kinds: deliverance of mind (ceto-vimutti, q.v.) deliverance through wisdom (paññÄ?-vimutti, q.v.). 'Deliverance of mind', in the highest sense, is that kind of concentration (samÄ?dhi) which is bound up with the path of Arahatship (arahatta-magga); 'deliverance through wisdom' is the knowledge (ñÄ?na) bound up with the fruition of Arahatship (arahatta-phala). Cf. A. V, 142. There are also 5 kinds of deliverance, identical with the 5 kinds of overcoming (pahÄ?na, q.v.).> I Think the person who has reached this, developed jhana with metta as subject and also insight and then attained enlightenment up to the stage of the arahat. Nina. Op 30-jul-2006, om 9:45 heeft matheesha het volgende geschreven: > I think the suttas speak of metta-cetovimutti. This is possibly a > lot more than just getting into a jhana with metta as object. #62007 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jul 30, 2006 2:12 am Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 500- Equanimity/Tatramajjhatataa(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;-) ========================================== Understanding can be developed now, when there is an object presenting itself through one of the six doors. Sometimes the object is pleasant, sometimes unpleasant. When understanding has not been developed it is difficult to be “balanced”, to “stay in the middle”, without attachment, without aversion. We may tell ourselves time and again that life is only nåma and rúpa, conditioned realities which are beyond control, but we are still impatient and we are still disturbed by the events of life. However, when there is mindfulness, for example, of visible object, understanding can realize it as a rúpa which appears through the eye-door, not a thing, not a person. When there is mindfulness of seeing, understanding can realize it as only an experience, a type of nåma, no self who sees. When realities are clearly known as not a thing, not a person, thus, as anattå, there will be more evenmindedness and impartiality towards them. However, this cannot be realized in the beginning. The arahat has eradicated all defilements and thus he can have equanimity which has reached perfection. He is undisturbed, patient and always contented. ***** Equanimity/Tatramajjhatataa to be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #62008 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jul 30, 2006 2:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Born with pa~n~na. nilovg Dear Scott, Op 29-jul-2006, om 15:58 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: A few more questions. S quotes: N: "These are feelings accompanying citta. The conventional term emotion is not quite the same as feeling." Vedanaa is also rendered as "sensation" which seems to broaden the category, or, in other words, is this the sense in which "feeling" is meant? If so, this is not like the conventional "emotion" as you say. ----------- N: The term sensation is not so fortunate. We could not call indifferent feeling a sensation. Sensation is not a good translation of vedanaa. ---------- S: What determines "shade" of dosa? I would guess the object conditions it in part, or rather in total. Soon I will have a copy of Dhammasangani and I think this enumeration will help to learn what goes where. ------- N: Object-condition is not the only condition. The accumulated inclinations are natural strong dependence-condition, and these also condition the dosa that arises and that may be weak or more intense. The Expositor or Atthasaalini is the co. to the Dhammasangani and very helpful too. ----------- S: N: "But something is lacking as you know: it is a cetasika, not self." Yes. That is where conventional views, no matter how well-conceived, fail. Psychoanalytic theory is totally saturated with self. The Abhidhamma "system" accounts for mental dynamics, shall I say, while teaching anatta. ------- N: And still, we can evaluate Psychoanalytic theory on its own merits. Developing understanding of ultimates does not mean putting aside our worldly life. A balance can be found. I understand that this is your field or profession? The same is true for science, it is different, but no need to dismiss it. But the Dhamma has as its aim the eradication of defilements. Therefore, we should not confuse the terms used in science with the terms used in connection with the Dhamma. The aims of science and of the Dhamma are different. --------- S: N: "While thinking in the right way, even about stories, there can still be intellectual understanding. .... I suppose. I've been discussing this idea of "degree of pa~n~naa" with Jon. I wonder if "degree of pa~n~naa" is also related to hetu. Is "many shades," which you used in relation to dosa, synonymous with "degree of pa~n~naa?" -------- N: Many shades and degrees of pa~n~naa: it has different objects, there are diffrent levels and different intensities. Understanding of kamma and vipaaka, cause and result, can arise when performing daana, or observing siila. One realizes kusala as kusala and sees its benefit. One may also engage in daana and siila in order to have less defilements, and then these may be of the level of the perfections leading to enlightenment. Pa~n~naa can accompany studying the Dhamma and considering what one learns, or it can be of the level of insight, or it can be lokuttara pa~n~naa. ---------- S: I try to be careful when it comes to accepting what I think I know. ------- N: Well worth considering this for all of us. Is it not often so that we think that we know and understand already, but that we do not really understand, not directly understand? ---------- N: "Again, some moments of thinking with pa~n~naa, and this is being accumulated. It can grow." ---------- S: As you said above, in a way, referring to the development of pa~n~naa, but "develop" and "accumulate" are not the same are they? But are they related? Perhaps reciprocally? ---------- N: At this moment there may be development of understanding of a dhamma appearing through one of the six doorways, just now, that is possible. This moment falls away but it is never lost, it is accumulated from one moment to the next moment of citta. And then another citta with understanding arises and then falls away and thus there is again accumulation of understanding. All such accumulated moments of pa~n~naa will bear fruit. They condition the arising again and again of pa~n~naa and thus it grows. We can verify in our daily life that we learn certain things so that we become more skilfull. --------- S: To be more specific, I had thought these things in various ways before but this time the thoughts arose and were accompanied by a shift in the "feeling" from dosa to, I would say some shade of "piiti," although of this latter I'm not sure. Its one thing to read of something called piiti, and another to know this experientially. ------- N: In the case of cittas of the sense sphere, when happy feeling arises there is also rapture, piiti. But it is hard to distinguish them. Not before the first stage of insight when the difference between nama and rupa is clearly known. There was some relief of the sadness because of a degree of understanding, but nobody else can tell by what kind of feeling it was accompanied. There are several possibilities, it is very intricate. We know that happy feeling and piiti can accompany kusala citta but also cittas rooted in lobha. It is most beneficial that the Buddha taught this, otherwise one may confuse akusala with kusala. Besides, akusala cittas are bound to arise in between kusala cittas, and kusala citta is rare compared to akusala citta. Nina. #62009 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jul 30, 2006 3:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Canonical Corrobation. sarahprocter... Dear Ven Samahita, Math, James & Nina, Thank you for your further research and comments on 'tranquillity of body and mind". Just to review a little, we're discussing the enlightenment factor of tranquillity. Ven Samahita referred us to SN46:2, 'The Nutriments for the Enlightenment Factors'. B.Bodhi's translation reads: "There are, bhikkhus, tranquillity of body, tranquillity of mind*: frequently giving careful attention to them is the nutriment for the arising of unarisen enlightenment factor of tranquillity and for the fulfilment by development of the arisen enlightenment factor of tranquillity." .... S: I hadn't seen any commentary note when I read Ven Samahita's similar translation of the same text and suggested that it could be pointed out that tranquillity of body (kaayappassaddhi) refers to tranquillity of the mental factors associated with tranquillity of mind (cittappassaddhi). Later, I gave this commentary note which B.Bodhi includes in his text: "Spk: Tranquillity of body (kaayappassaddhi) is the tranquillizing of distress in the three mental aggregates (feeling, perception, volitional formations), tranquillizing of mind (cittappassaddhi)the tranquillizing of distress in the aggregate of consciousness." ..... B.Bodhi adds a further note and as Matheesha pointed out, it indicated that there was a suggestion the commentary might be misguided. James also pointed out how irritating my comments can be and I agree that appreciating the reasons why a pair of mental factors is given for tranquillity is not easy to understand. In fact, in Ch 31 (the next chapter) of 'Cetasikas', there is a helpful chapter on the 'Six Pairs of Beautiful Cetasikas', starting with the pair of kaaya-passaddhi and citta-passaddhi. Nina writes in 'Cetasikas': ">The Påli term kåya means body, but it can also stand for the “mental body” which are the cetasikas. According to the Dhammasangaùi (§ 40, 41) tranquillity of body is the calming, the tranquillizing of the cetasikas and tranquillity of citta is the calming, the tranquillizing of citta. Thus, tranquillity of body allays agitation of the accompanying cetasikas and conditions the quiet, smooth and even way of their functioning1; tranquillity of citta allays agitation of the citta it accompanies. The Atthasåliní (Book I, Part IV, Chapter I, 130) explains about tranquillity of body and tranquillity of mind: "… These two states taken together have the characteristic of pacifying the suffering of both mental factors and of consciousness; the function of crushing the suffering of both; the manifestation of an unwavering and cool state of both; and have mental factors and consciousness as proximate cause. They are the opponents of the corruptions, such as distraction (uddhacca), which cause the disturbance of mental factors and of consciousness." <...>When the citta is kusala citta there is calm of citta and cetasikas, there is no restlessness nor agitation at that moment. There is a “cool state of mind”, no infatuation with the object which is experienced, no restlessness.<" S: See also 'Six Pairs' in 'Useful Posts' and Ven Nyanaponika's 'Abhidhamma Studies', ch. 1V for more. In CMA, under the 25 beautiful factors (sobhanacetasika) [Ch 11, Compendium of Mental Factors], kaayapassaddhi and cittapassaddhi are listed under the universal beautiful factors (sobhanasaadhaara.na) arising with all kusala cittas (and kiriya cittas of the arahants). The Guide adds this note: "Tranquillity (passaddhi): The twofold tranquility has the characteristic of the quieting down of disturbances (daratha) in the mental body and consciousness, respectively. Its function is to crush such disturbances. It is manifested as peacefulness and coolness. Its proximate cause is the mental body and consciousness. It should be regarded as opposed to such defilements as restlessness and worry, which create distress." The actual commentary (PTS transl for the same section) refers to the 6 pairs starting with these two cetasikas. It says: "These [twelve states] arise from the conditions of the body and consciousness that are opposed to the disturbances of the elements that cause agitation, and so forth. But 'the body' here means the three aggregates of feeling, etc. And since these pairs of dhammas come together to destroy the dhammas opposed to each of them, only of them is a twofold nature stated, not of concentration, etc." S: This may help to explain why tranquility is given as a pair. Then, as Nina pointed out (and as we've discussed before with regard to piiti (joy), for example), it is stressed that tranquility (of the mental body) does indeed condition the material body 'by virtue of pervading the refined materiality arising from it' and that this is another reason for stating the twofold nature because tranquility of consciousness apparently does not have this effect. Still, I think we should be clear that the tranquility factors are mental factors referring to cetasikas, just as we discussed before with piiti, no matter the obvious effects on the body of such wholesome qualities. Now, back to Ven Samahita's helpful quote today" --- Bhikkhu samahita wrote: > Reg: Kaya-passadhi interpreted as bodily tranquillity > this well-known canonical reference may give a clue: > > MN 118: > 'In one who is joyous, the body is calmed down (kaayo pi passambhati) > and the mind is calmed down (cittam pi passambhati). On whatever > occasion the body and the mind becomes thus tranquil in a bhikkhu > who joyous, on that occasion the tranquillity link to awakening emerges > and he develops it, and by development it is completed in him.' > > IMHO: > In this context it seems to take more and considerable interpretation > to get the 'kaayo' to mean mental aggregates, when the word 'khandha' > actually is not mentioned by the Buddha. So far there also seems to be > consistent agreement in all translations of MN 118 despite the recurring > commentarial interpretation. ...... S: I don't have access to the commentary, but I assume from the last remark that it is also in accordance with the other texts quoted, suggesting that again 'the body' here refers to the tranquillity of the mental states associated with the citta. After all, the enlightenment factors develop through right mindfulness, understanding and so on as indicated in your extracts from SN 46:2., though we all agree that the rupas of the body are conditioned by such highly developed wholesome qualities. Finally, in Soma Thera's translation of the Satipatthana Sutta and commentary, there is a similar passage to the one you give under the 'Seven Factors of Enlightenment'. After the commentary note on joy, it gives the one on calm: "There are things which condition the enlightenment factor of calm of the body (the aggregates of feeling, perception and the conformations) and of the mind (the aggregate of consciousness) and an abundance of right reflection on these things is conducive to the arising of the non-arisen enlightenment factor of calm and for the increase, expansion, and completion by culture of this enlightenment factor when it has arisen." ***** S: So, it seems the commentaries are very clear on this point that the 'body' refers to the calm of the 3 mental aggregates and that the enlightenment factor of calm develops through wise attention (yoniso manasikaara with right awareness, right understanding and so on). I appreciate that it is contrary to the way many modern writers interpret the texts but I believe there is ccorrorbation for it from both the Pali canon and its commentaries. For me it makes a lot more sense to refer to an enlightenment factor as being concerned with the tranquillity of the mind and mental factors than with the physical body. After all, surely the mind and mental factors are the root cause of all that is good and evil? Thank you all for your further reflections. Metta, Sarah ======== #62010 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jul 30, 2006 3:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Thanks Matheesha:-) sarahprocter... Hi Joop, (Chris, Math & James) --- Joop wrote: > Hallo Sarah, Math, Christine > > Regularly I look in 'Useful Posts' to check if some of my better > messages are already inserted in it. > And I think some deserve that place. > In vain. .... S: I'm the first to admit that U.P. don't set out to be fair in anyway but merely reflect our selections of a small percentage of the great posts here - a very personal file which we choose to share with others. I know some people have referred to them a lot (like Chris, I believe?) and others not at all perhaps. Either way is fine. Of course, they reflect our understanding of the teachings. I once (seriously) suggested to James that he start a file with his own selections when he also made a few comments. I thought it would be very interesting, but it is a lot of work to maintain, we know! Why don't you consider the same? Or perhaps collaborating with James or someone else? I'm sure many people would be glad to see 'An Alternative U.P.'. [The only small thing is that there is a space limit in the files section, so it's best to use some kind of format (as with U.P.) which doesn't take up too much space as the really large files have to get cleared out from time to time. Let Jon or I know off-list if you're wanting to load something into the files so that we can make sure there's space.] Chris, I was thinking of you and wondering if you were still reading the posts. I'm glad you're still encouraging with the photo album anyway! Did you have a chance to listen to the India 05 audio discussions (www.dhammastudygroup.org)- especially the nice tracks and talks you participated in? Also the 'Pre-India' set which we uploaded there a month or two back? Let us know if there's anything of interest or anything you disagree with/still find difficult to 'swallow'. .... J:>UP is more a nibbana than a walhalla .... S: You lost me here. Metta, Sarah p.s Joop, if I point you to one of your posts in U.P., do we get a pic:-)? As for irritating, passive-aggressive & selective attention syndrome posts, James, don't worry, we're going away again in a couple of weeks for a month:-). ================== #62011 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Jul 30, 2006 5:19 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Thanks Matheesha:-) buddhatrue Hi Sarah and Joop, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Joop, (Chris, Math & James) > > I once (seriously) suggested to James that he start a file with his own > selections when he also made a few comments. I thought it would be very > interesting, but it is a lot of work to maintain, we know! Why don't you > consider the same? Or perhaps collaborating with James or someone else? > I'm sure many people would be glad to see 'An Alternative U.P.'. James: I declined the offer back then, and I decline the offer now, for the same reason. It isn't because it is a lot of work, it is because I don't want to be involved in anything that polarizes this group into two camps of beliefs. As I have been saying, I want this group to reach a common ground and to accept each other's practices. The real solution, Sarah, is to stop making the UP so one-sided and biased. Include perspectives from the opposing position which you know are well presented and need to be well- considered! And, if that doesn't happen, Joop needs to get over it. ;-)) Joop, don't be attached to your posts- even when you know they are beneficial. Happily let them be swallowed up by the void. > As for irritating, passive-aggressive & selective attention syndrome > posts, James, don't worry, we're going away again in a couple of weeks for > a month:-). James: Makes no difference to me. I'll be going away for even longer than that. :-) > ================== > Metta, James #62012 From: "Joop" Date: Sun Jul 30, 2006 5:37 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Thanks Matheesha:-) jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Sarah and Joop, > >..... Joop needs to get over it. ;-)) Joop, > don't be attached to your posts- even when you know they are > beneficial. Happily let them be swallowed up by the void. > > .... > Metta, > James > Sadhu, sadhu, sadhu, Metta Joop #62013 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Jul 30, 2006 6:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Born with pa~n~na. scottduncan2 Dear Nina, Thank you for continuing to discuss with me. N: "The term sensation is not so fortunate. We could not call indifferent feeling a sensation. Sensation is not a good translation of vedanaa." Neither "feeling" nor "sensation" seem apt, in a way, since one can't really suggest that "indifferent" refers to "feeling" either. Are we dealing with the need for a word to describe that which is experienced as a result of phassa. I guess this hasn't been satisfactorily figured out and if it hasn't by now, when? N: "Object-condition is not the only condition. The accumulated inclinations are natural strong dependence-condition, and these also condition the dosa that arises and that may be weak or more intense. The Expositor or Atthasaalini is the co. to the Dhammasangani and very helpful too." On this latter: I've purchased the co. as well. On the former: yes, never a single, linear causal relationship. N: "And still, we can evaluate Psychoanalytic theory on its own merits. Developing understanding of ultimates does not mean putting aside our worldly life. A balance can be found. I understand that this is your field or profession?" Yes, on its own merits it has its pros and cons, as does anything (as well as its adherents and detractors, as does anything). Although primarily a clinician, I've given some long hours of study to the "canon" of psychoanalytic theory over the years. N: "The same is true for science, it is different, but no need to dismiss it. But the Dhamma has as its aim the eradication of defilements. Therefore, we should not confuse the terms used in science with the terms used in connection with the Dhamma. The aims of science and of the Dhamma are different." Exactly - the aims of the Dhamma and science differ - which is why I personally don't care for cross-discipline comparisons necessarily, that is, comparison of Dhamma and "science." For instance, what does it matter, really, that another aphorism from within psychoanalytic theory is that any intrapsychic event is "multiply determined?" This is a shadow on the surface of the vast ocean of conditional relations, and, as mentioned, psychoanalysis only confirms self. But, as you are rightly careful to note, that is not to dismiss what is useful and meaningful in a conventional sense. N: "Many shades and degrees of pa~n~naa: it has different objects, there are diffrent levels and different intensities. Understanding of kamma and vipaaka, cause and result, can arise when performing daanaor observing siila. One realizes kusala as kusala and sees its benefit. One may also engage in daana and siila in order to have less defilements, and then these may be of the level of the perfections leading to enlightenment." This is another complication, if it may be so labelled: that of vipaaka. I have to remember that, and please correct me if I've not got this quite right, experiences such as those I described must, for at least some of it, be vipaaka. Its still hard to get that straight for myself when watching what arises. I guess you speak conventionally when you note "...engage in daana and siila in order to have less defilements..." N: "Pa~n~naa can accompany studying the Dhamma and considering what one learns, or it can be of the level of insight, or it can be lokuttara pa~n~naa." I guess it is what it is. Is it important to learn to distinquish the nature of pa~n~na if and when it arises? (Not a rhetorical question.) N: "Is it not often so that we think that we know and understand already, but that we do not really understand, not directly understand?" For me it is totally often so. N: "In the case of cittas of the sense sphere, when happy feeling arises there is also rapture, piiti. But it is hard to distinguish them. Not before the first stage of insight when the difference between nama and rupa is clearly known." Are "happy feeling" and "rapture,pitti" distinguished as naama is from ruupa? The experience or sensation or whatever that I tentatively label "piiti" to myself seems to involve "the bodily sensations" but I have hesitated to suggest piiti is ruupa for that reason (that is, because *I* thought it seemed it had the body involved.) And this piiti is much more coarse than is happy feeling. N: "There was some relief of the sadness because of a degree of understanding, but nobody else can tell by what kind of feeling it was accompanied. There are several possibilities, it is very intricate. We know that happy feeling and piiti can accompany kusala citta but also cittas rooted in lobha. It is most beneficial that the Buddha taught this, otherwise one may confuse akusala with kusala. Besides, akusala cittas are bound to arise in between kusala cittas, and kusala citta is rare compared to akusala citta." Yes, very intricate. A good word. I'd hazard that there was happy feeling to be clinging to dosa (the "exquisite sadness") and so this would have been lobha-mula citta, or a series of them. There was a happy feeling when thoughts of the Dhamma arose, but this too could have been merely to show that I've substituted clinging to a wife, with clinging to a ghost, with clinging to a Dhamma which, in the end, is only a conceptual derivative of a wife when it comes to mind-objects subject to clinging. I don't think that the latter was all there was to that experience but surely some of that is true, alas. With loving kindness, Scott. #62014 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just to confirm re "noble instructed disciple" (Nina) nilovg Hi James, of course it was a joke, and I meant my answer also as a joke. We may meet one day, perhaps in Bgk? Success with your moving, Nina. Op 29-jul-2006, om 18:13 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > This was just a joke. No reason to be afraid. Maybe I will > meet you one day also- it's up to kamma. #62015 From: "Joop" Date: Sun Jul 30, 2006 8:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ven. Cunda's Advice jwromeijn ... I thought I did send this three days ago, but now I doubt Hallo Sarah, all J (a week ago) > And more important: this Sutta we can apply to ourselves! .... S: Definitely -- otherwise no point in reading suttas. J: I'm glad to hear that from you. So what the commentators said about the being ariyans of the monks in this Sutta was totally irrelevant (and perhaps wrong) More general: we should not discuss how it is to be an ariyan, there is time enough for starting that when we got streamenterer. S: The point of drawing attention to the insights of these monks again is to show that defilements are deeply rooted. We are bound to have disagreements or disputes for a long time to come. J: To me having disagreements (for example with you) and disputes is not a defilement ! S: However, for all of us here, I think there's a difference between accepting and respecting someone's viewpoint (even if we don't agree with it) and agreeing that all kinds of viewpoint about practice or meditation are correct and what the Buddha taught. What do you think? J: Accord, when we change "all kinds" in "many kinds" S: Instead of using the word meditation, can we use bhavana or mental development? J: Better not ! 'Mental development' is a result, a mental state so to say. And 'meditation' is an activity, something we do in trying to get a mental state. And we can do that sitting an a cushion, walking, eating etc. S: Do you think there can be bhavana now as we discuss our viewpoints? J: An important but a difficult question. I think BEING MINDFULL (that's vipassana-meditation a la Mahasi) and discussing (with oneself or with another sentient being) are hard to combine. The discursive thinking, needed in discussion, forces us to be aware of different cognitions (opinions) at the same moment. But more superficial, as an aspect of right speech it is possible. That's not the case with 'absorption', one of the other aspects of the NEP we had to do; the concentration needed for that and discussions can not be combined at the same moment. But there is no problem: one part of the day we can meditate (of course : in silence); another part we can study Dhamma, and on some moments we can discuss Dhamma. Perhaps I can ask you a question about your butting in message #61728 to Howard (and Nina but it was only educating Howard). Two quotes: S: "I'd venture to say that we DO hear your understanding that dhammas are mere activities or experiential events, but that this is not quite the way SOME OF US read the teachings." J: Who is that "some of us", why this strange expression? I think you meant Nina. ….. S: "It is a nama dhamma which cognizes an object as we read throughout the texts. I don't think we can't say this is wrong." J: Perhaps "we" can't but I can say that "It is a nama dhamma which cognizes an object" is wrong because that supposes that that specific nama dhamma already existed before it cognized and that is not the case: it arises IN cognizing. My question: to what texts of the Tipitaka (so not a commentary) do you base this opinions? Metta Joop #62016 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jul 30, 2006 5:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Emptiness of All Conditioned Dhammas upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and TG) - In a message dated 7/30/06 3:59:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard and TG, > thanks Howard. The problem may be in the English translation > sometimes. Take sabhava, the way it is translated: own essence, own > individuality. That is misleading, I agree. Own distinct > characteristic is better. -------------------------------------- Howard: Nina, I think that is a very good possibility. It may well be that the translations are poor. I suspect, though perhaps this is wishful thinking on my part, that the commentaries are for the most part in perfect harmony with the anatta/su~n~nata thrust of the Dhamma. I find it difficult to understand how and why it should be othewise. BTW, I like "distinct characteristic" or, perhaps even better, "distinguishing characteristic", but I think the word 'own' could usefully be dropped. What arises in utter dependence on other conditions is best not described as "own". Just one more point with regard to "characteristic": It seems to me that a dhamma, hardness for example, is, itself, the "distinguishing characteristic", and not something that *has* a distinguishing characteristic. At the level of paramattha dhammas, there really is no distinction to be made between dhammas, conditions, and characteristics. When we say tha atable is hard, we think of its hardness as a characteristic of the table, but a hardness rupa is jus what it is - it is "such". -------------------------------------- > But May I suggest, TG, that you give some examples, I am not > satisfied with your arguments. > Nina. ==================== With metta, Howard > Op 30-jul-2006, om 7:02 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > > >I do agree that there is a subtle sense of substantialism to be found > >in some of the commentaries, and I find an odd, hard-to-put-my- > >finger-on > >unsatisfactoriness there at times, but the particular comments Nina > >related were > >pretty good, I'd say. > > ====================== With metta, Howard #62017 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jul 30, 2006 6:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Emptiness of All Conditioned Dhammas, To Howard, please advise. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina & Lodewijk - In a message dated 7/30/06 4:10:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > I need your advice for Lodewijk. I tried to explain that the world in > the ariyan discipline, thus, appearing through the six doors, arising > and falling away, empty of self, and the world of human relations are > not in conflict. There are many ways of explaining this, and each > person explains it in his own way and this is very good. You also > have your own, careful way, and this may help others. I noticed that > also Charles D finds this a dilemma. Lodewijk starts yelling each > time when he hears, there is no Lodewijk, no Nina, no matter how > often I explained. Thanks, > Nina. > ===================== Here is how the matter seems to me: When it is said that there is no Lodewijk, no Nina, and no Howard, it is not meant that these are unreal in the same sense as unicorns being unreal. It is not conventional existence of persons that is denied. What is denied are precisely delimitable entities that are things-in-themselves and independent of being *viewed* as unities. If one attends, hard and long, to what one means by "Howard", it becomes increasingly clear that there is no single phenomenon that is what we think of as "Howard", but only a flux of interrelated conditions, none remaining. This ungraspable, dynamic aggregate of fleeting, insubstantial, and utterly dependent conditions, with no clear boundaries to it in space, time, or "mental space" is THOUGHT of as a single, real entity with a core of insular identity and essence. That is where the error comes in. All the conditions underlying what we think of as "Howard" do, indeed arise. All the emotions, the love, the happiness, the discontent, the pleasure and the pain, the felt hardness, warmth, sights and sounds, and tastes and smells, and all the thinking - all that occurs, and all that hangs together in a discernible pattern. The thinking, however, that there is, in truth and reality, a delimitable entity separate from the underlying conditions upon which it is actually only imputed concept, is something extra, and, at root, an error. There is so much more that could be said, and in many other ways, but for the moment, I think I'll leave it at that. I hope it is somewhat helpful. One last thing, though, Lodewijk: You and Nina and I "are" whatever we are. That is unaffected by what we *think* we are, and no change of view will have any affect in the slightest on the reality. One thing I do truly believe, and it comes out of meditation-based experiences that I have, is that in an ultimate sense we are "safe", and, at bottom, there is nothing after all to fear! With much metta, Howard #62018 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Jul 30, 2006 6:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Emptiness of All Conditioned Dhammas TGrand458@... In a message dated 7/30/2006 1:59:58 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard and TG, thanks Howard. The problem may be in the English translation sometimes. Take sabhava, the way it is translated: own essence, own individuality. That is misleading, I agree. Own distinct characteristic is better. But May I suggest, TG, that you give some examples, I am not satisfied with your arguments. Nina. Hi Nina and Howard Well Nina, sabhava is a main sticking point. As abhidhammists seem to be always trying to see sabhava in everything, I think they have missed one of the main points of the Buddha's teaching and are critically handicapping their ability to practice detachment. DO entails there is no sabhava. So without understanding what DO entails, I don't believe one's practice can accord with the Dhamma. -- "One who sees DO sees the dhamma, one who sees the Dhamma sees DO." I could go through the commentaries line by line and show how I believe they are, either individually or as a whole, protecting the idea of sabhava. But these things don't register to you because you seem to believe that seeing sabhava (own distinct characteristic) into conditions is a pinnacle of insight. For me, mindfulness of states is not so that one sees states as having "own distinct characteristics," rather, it is for develop the insight that states do not have own distinct characteristics. One uses mindfulness of conditions to realize that conditions are utterly empty of "own characteristics." “Form is like a lump of foam, Feeling like a water bubble; Perception is like a mirage, Volitions like a plantain trunk (coreless), And consciousness like an illusion, (The Buddha . . . CDB, vol. 1, pg. 952 – 953) This Sutta is not to be analyzed in a manner that attempts to explain why each individual component is what it is. The Sutta is exemplifying that the 5 aggregates are utterly empty and impermanent. The commentary you provided walks a tightrope between the former and the latter. In so doing, it maintains "The Great Hope" of something of self about the world. This is a form of pollution that festers...until later...folks are claiming that these things have their "own distinct characteristics." Then they can go back to these same borderline commentaries and claim that as proof of their position. Then they go back and interpret the suttas, which say and support no such thing, to accord with their commentarial viewpoint. Its a very pernicious process IMO, but I'm sure its done with no ulterior motives. But nevertheless, its damaging Dhamma IMO. TG #62019 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jul 30, 2006 11:00 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily Life 38 nilovg Dear friends, Chapter 6 The Characteristic of Dosa When we are angry with other people we harm ourselves by our anger. The Buddha pointed out the adverse effects of anger (dosa). We read in the Gradual Sayings (Book of the Sevens, chapter VI, §10, Anger) about the ills a rival wishes his rival to have and which are actually the ills coming upon an angry woman or man. The sutta states: ...Monks, there is the case of a rival, who wishes thus of a rival: ``Would that he were ugly!'' And why? A rival, monks, does not like a handsome rival. Monks, this sort of person, being angry, is overwhelmed by anger; he is subverted by anger: and however well he be bathed, anointed, trimmed as to the hair and beard, clad in spotless linen; yet for all that he is ugly, being overwhelmed by anger. Monks, this is the first condition, fostered by rivals, causing rivals, which comes upon an angry woman or man. Again, there is the case of a rival, who wishes thus of a rival: ``Would that he might sleep badly!'' And why? A rival, monks, does not like a rival to sleep well. Monks, this sort of person, being angry, is overwhelmed by anger; he is subverted by anger: and in spite of his lying on a couch, spread with a fleecy cover, spread with a white blanket, spread with a woollen coverlet, flower embroidered, covered with rugs of antelope skins, with awnings above; or on a sofa, with crimson cushions at either end; yet for all that he lies in discomfort, being overwhelmed by anger. Monks, this is the second condition... We then read about other misfortunes a rival wishes for his rival, which come upon an angry woman or man. We read that a rival wishes his rival to be without prosperity, wealth and fame. Further we read that a rival wishes a rival to be without friends and this happens to someone who is an angry person. The text states: Monks, this sort of person, being angry... whatever friends, intimates, relations and kinsmen he may have, they will avoid him and keep far away from him, because he is overwhelmed by anger... A rival wishes his rival to have an unhappy rebirth and this can happen to an angry person. We read: ... Monks, this sort of person, being angry... he misconducts himself in deed, in word and thought; so living, so speaking and so thinking, on breaking up of the body after death he is reborn in the untoward way, the ill way, the abyss, hell... ******* Nina. #62020 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jul 30, 2006 11:09 am Subject: Letters from Nina , 19 nilovg Dear friends, (continuation of Part 2 of the letters to Susan Elbaum Jootla) Thus it is amazing that body-consciousness (kayavi~n~nana) just experiences one tiny rupa out of a whole group. Body-consciousness is only vipakacitta, result of kamma, and it cannot stay. After that, when it would be the right time for sati, there could be kusala citta accompanied by sati and right understanding, and pañña could take as object either the nama, the experience of heat, or the rupa which is heat. They have just fallen away but they can be object of sati. We do not have to think of kalapas, how could we try to follow them. Then there is still a picture of "kalapas of my body" or of the whole body, which is object of clinging. There are just characteristics appearing one at a time, and there can be understanding of them when they appear, there is no need to think. When heat appears, or hardness appears, these are charatceristics which can be known. No need to think of falling away or of impermanence. First the difference between sense-door and mind-door should be known. Is that not enough? When time comes pañña will know arising and falling away. I would like to quote what you write so well about anatta, beyond control. Because are we not inclined to forget that sati and pañña are beyond control? I quote p. 16 of your book. QUOTE Susan Elbaum Jootla: Thus the arising of sati and pa~n~na does not yield to the wishes of anyone. Phenomena, also sati and pañña, which are dependent on specific causes which operate strictly according to their nature from moment to moment cannot be subject to control by any being. There may be a wish to control when one tries to follow groups of rupa; is there not a certain effort to hold onto them, trying to concentrate on them? Instead of just being aware of whatever reality appears, be it rupa, be it nama, be it kusala, be it akusala? Awareness is anatta, it can arise when there are conditions, it can arise in daily life. It has to be in daily life, how else can we come to know our defilements? It is necessary to know these too, otherwise we take them for my clinging, my conceit. There is so much deeprooted idea of self, a latent tendency, anusaya, so hard to uproot. Even when we do not expressively think "it is mine", still, the wrong view has not been eradicated. We are still confused and cling to beings. Is it already so that "we can reduce ourselves into one moment of experiencing an object", as Khun Sujin says? Just a moment of seeing now, a moment of hearing now? Is there clinging to what was seen, to an idea of person? You mention the factor concentration. This cetasika arises with each citta, ekaggata cetasika, thus also with lobha. How can we distinguish concentration with maybe subtle lobha from kusala concentration? A very delicate matter. Clinging plays us tricks all the time. When there is kusala citta with right understanding it is accompanied by wholesome ekaggata cetasika, but if we try to have more of it, is that not clinging? The answer is that there is no need to strive for concentration, trying to hold onto phenomena in concentrating on them. It is right understanding which matters. In the same way, there is no need to try to have many moments of sati, it is right understanding which matters. ******** #62021 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jul 30, 2006 11:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Emptiness of All Conditioned Dhammas, To Howard, please advise. nilovg Hi Howard, thank you very much for your clear explanation, and this is good stuff for discussion between us. I sent it on to Lodewijk's computer for reading. Nina. Op 30-jul-2006, om 19:12 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > When it is said that there is no Lodewijk, no Nina, and no Howard, it > is not meant that these are unreal in the same sense as unicorns > being unreal. #62022 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Jul 30, 2006 11:28 am Subject: Thanks Howard! buddhatrue Hi Howard and all, Thank you so much for your link to this document!: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanatiloka/wheel394.html# ch2. I also found it wonderful! Some things that I especially appreciated: 1. Even though the author states that "There is no self", which I don't like for it's theoretical stance, he doesn't follow up with, as is often stated in this group, "There are only namas and rupas." Actually, the author states: "In the ultimate sense, there do not even exist such things as mental states, i.e. stationary things. Feeling, perception, consciousness, etc., are in reality mere passing processes of feeling, perceiving, becoming conscious, etc., within which and outside of which no separate or permanent entity lies hidden." 2. The way the author explains the subconscious and how it is taught in the Abhidhamma (subconscious life-stream, or bhavanga-sota). I remember asking about the subconscious, and how it is presented in the Abhidhamma, previously in this group and not getting a specific answer. 3. The fallacy, often posited in this group, that everything which occurs to us (even every single thing we see, hear, taste, touch, feel) is kamma-vipaka: "There are some who consider every happening, even our new wholesome and unwholesome actions, as the result of our prenatal kamma. In other words, they believe that the results again become the causes of new results, and so ad infinitum. Thus they are stamping Buddhism as fatalism; and they will have to come to the conclusion that, in this case, our destiny can never be influenced or changed, and no deliverance ever be attained." 4. When he writes, "If we practice unselfishness and liberality, greed and avarice will become less. If we practice love and kindness, anger and hatred will vanish. If we develop wisdom and knowledge, ignorance and delusion will more and more disappear. The less greed, hatred and ignorance (lobha, dosa, moha) dwell in our hearts, the less will we commit evil and unwholesome actions of body, speech and mind." 5. How he describes moving from jhana to insight: "Thus, after attaining and rising again from one of the jhanas, the monk may analyze the just experienced state of jhana. And while doing so, he will realize that this mental state, called jhana, is nothing but a heap of rising and passing phenomena: thought conception, discursive thinking, joy, concentration, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness. And pondering over these phenomena, he will find that this entire mental process is dependent on corporeality, and that again corporeality is a name for the four physical elements and the corporeality depending on them, as e.g. the sense-organs, objects, etc." Thanks again, Howard, for providing the link to this worthwhile article. Metta, James #62023 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Emptiness of All Conditioned Dhammas, To Howard, please advise. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 7/30/06 2:23:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > thank you very much for your clear explanation, and this is good > stuff for discussion between us. I sent it on to Lodewijk's computer > for reading. > Nina. > ================== Thanks. I hope it is helpful, but I'm afraid it may be overly theoretical. It's tough to discuss this matter, though, without getting theoretical and technical. :-) With metta, Howard #62024 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jul 30, 2006 12:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Emptiness of All Conditioned Dhammas, To Howard, please advise. nilovg Hi Howard, Lodewijk just read it and finds it excellent, extraordinarily well formulated. He liked what you said: we are safe. would you elaborate on that? Nina. Op 30-jul-2006, om 20:26 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > I hope it is helpful, but I'm afraid it may be overly > theoretical. It's tough to discuss this matter, though, without > getting theoretical > and technical. :-) #62025 From: "matheesha" Date: Sun Jul 30, 2006 1:18 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Just to confirm re "noble instructed disciple" (Nina) matheesha333 Hi Nina, >re: metta-cetovimutti >N: Hi Matheesha, > yes, a lot more. When we read vimutti, it means that also insight has > been developed up to the stage of enlightenment. > * M: I seem to recall in the udana's something about the Buddha as a bodhisattva attaining metta-cetovimutti in a previous life then becomming a mahabrhama once, sakka several thousand times, a wheel turning monarch several hundreds of thousands of times and so on. Unfortunately I can't seem to get hold of that sutta right now, which i remember reading in the udana. Vimutti here might have different meanings, not pertaining to the buddhist idea of arahathship. with metta Matheesha #62026 From: "matheesha" Date: Sun Jul 30, 2006 3:39 pm Subject: Intention and self view matheesha333 Hi everyone, There is this idea that if an action is done intentionally it leads to a strengthening or a self view. I would like to see where it says in the suttas that any action done intentionally gives rise to that. If it cannot be found in the suttas it would be interesting (though not necessarily satisfactory) to see where it is found in the commentaries. If it cannot be found in the commentaries, I would like to explore where this view arose from. metta Matheesha #62027 From: "matheesha" Date: Sun Jul 30, 2006 3:56 pm Subject: Re: Thanks Matheesha:-) matheesha333 Hi Chris, > Why 'ridiculous'? :-) Might I add my "nice to see you at last"? > I'm busy elsewhere presently, but have been appreciating all your > posts. > M: I was just commenting on Sarah's persistence on adding photos and (partially) pulling her leg here. :) I doubt a group run by a male would give that much emphasis to the matter, but it is nice and adds to the sense of community I guess. I'm glad you enjoy my posts. All things are impermanent. I suspect my involvement here might start waning soon (again). Do post more when you can. Hoping for an early retirement, :) with metta Matheesha #62028 From: "matheesha" Date: Sun Jul 30, 2006 4:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sati, Samadhi, Samatha, Vipassana and Panna - but mainly samadhi matheesha333 Hi Jon, Catching up on some old posts here.. J: > Samadhi/concentration (ekaggataa) is one of the universal cetasikas, M: The budha speaks of giving rise to samadhi, through piti etc. Again a question arises that if it were universal, why does he speak of samadhi arising after a specific sequence of causal factors. I think you might suggest that he was only talking of kusala samadhi. But micca samadhi is also clearly described by venAnanda in the suttas as samadhi that should not be developed. So the suttas speak of both kusala and akusala samadhi. I think it is fair to say that the idea that samadhi is univeral and arises every moment is not reflected in the suttas. It is of commentarial origin. Having said that I have some sympathy with the idea that every moment requires at least a very weak type of samadhi. But whether the Buddha would define such a thing under the label of samadhi is another matter. J:..Thus any reference to the development of samadhi > is a reference to the development of one or other of these forms of > kusala. There is no such thing as the development of [kusala] samadhi in > and of itself. M: Samadhi (as defined as what is over and above what arises every moment) is obviously liked with bhaavana. Now in the conceptual framework of formal meditation this means developing one-pointedness by being focused and mindful of the breath (anapanasati) for example. It is linked to the object of meditation -the breath. There is something called animitta samadhi as well, were 'the mind doesnt follow the drift of nimittas' as mentioned in the sutta. This more difficult to explain (and do). I'm not clear how well it sits with abhidhammic explanations of samadhi? Either way, there is some aspect of bhaavana or formal meditation (which ever you like) involved in the development of samadhi. So I agree with you on this. > >M: This sutta shows progression of samatha to vipassana. > > > > > > Yes, for the person who is accomplished in samatha. That person has the > potential to attain enlightenment with jhana as basis. But it is not > addressed to those who are not already (or potentially) accomplished in > samatha, as I see it. M: The question here is what is it that 'transfers over' or helps in the development of insight. How can there be such an entity as 'vipassana based on samatha'. What is this base? I say it the quality of samadhi developed, the flip side of the coin being less arising of hiderences which is conducive to insight (there are some definitions of panna in the suttas which uses hinderences). This samadhi conditions succeeding citta to have (strong) samadhi as well. J: I think the suttas emphasise the development of samatha and vipassana, > and the importance of samadhi in that development, but without > suggesting the need for any separate development of that samadhi. M: The Buddha said that panna is for the concentrated, not for the unconcentrated. It then seems that some (higher level of) samamdhi is required for the panna (of the direct experiencing type) to arise. Since the buddha says that there are people who are not concentrated as well, it is clear that his definition of samadhi does not include it as a universal element. I say that as a simple quality of one-pointedness of citta, samadhi of samatha and vipassana are interchangeable (even though there maybe differences in the levels of kusala generated) and that samadhi generated by one, purely as a quality of the mind, can be useful in the other, through successive conditioning of cittas. Note: vipassana based on samatha, sati giving rise to samadhi in the noble eightfold path and the five faculties. with metta Matheesha #62029 From: "Andrew" Date: Sun Jul 30, 2006 5:00 pm Subject: Re: Intention and self view corvus121 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "matheesha" wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > There is this idea that if an action is done intentionally it leads to > a strengthening or a self view. > > I would like to see where it says in the suttas that any action done > intentionally gives rise to that. Hi Matheesha I'm not sure that I recognise "this idea" from posts on DSG in the form that you have put it. "Action done intentionally" probably needs further definition (particularly as cetana is a universal cetasika). In any event, the "hen and eggs" simile comes to mind from MN 16 and MN 53. Where all the conditions are right for the eggs to hatch, they hatch even though the hen didn't actually wish (intend?) them to hatch. Extrapolating, just intending something to happen is not necessarily sufficient for it to happen (and if it doesn't happen, it's highly likely the intending was based on some not-understanding that is likely to condition further not-understanding). Of course, if the intending *is* based on gross ignorance (eg. the dog ascetic intending to become a dog god), then the likelihood of more ignorance being conditioned seems almost inescapable!? Those are a few thoughts off the top of my head. I'll be interested to see if anyone else has any other possibilities. But I think the issue you raise is governed by D.O. Best wishes Andrew #62030 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:06 pm Subject: Re: Not taking a footing and not exerting ken_aitch Hi Scott, ---------- <. . .> S: > Would it be fair to suggest that moha contributes to the illusion that continuity equals persistence? Or is this illusion itself ignorance? ----------- I would say the former. Moha cetasika is present in every akusala citta; therefore it contributes to every evil. That includes the evil of wrong view (of a persisting self). --------------- <. . .> S: > No, you got it. Now I'll worry because it must be controversial. I was referring exactly to a concept: relationships with other people. I guess this might be controversial, but only if one uses the absurd argument that to talk about anatta in a deep sense, pursuing it to its utmost implications is to say that one "doesn't believe" in the significance of relating with others. ------------------ I see what you mean, and I would add that we can have it both ways. We can believe in the ultimate unreality of human relationships, and, by so doing, improve those relationships. No right understanding of anatta (even if it is mere intellectual understanding) can ever be a bad thing. It is panna cetasika, and panna arises only with kusala consciousness. Kusala accumulates as the tendency for more kusala. Whenever concepts of people come into consciousness, accumulated panna can, potentially, condition moments of kusala thought, speech and action. ----------- S: > What I meant by the really overly-wrought (and hence rejectable) phrase "the intricate conditionally related flux" was simply what one conventionally calls relationships. Does that make sense? ----------- Yes, but that flux is still a mere concept. In reality, there are only the presently arisen dhammas. By thinking, dhammas can create beautiful pictures of beautiful people relating with one another. They can also paint terrible pictures. For as long as there are conditions for dhammas to arise there is no escaping these pictures. ------------------- S: > What do you think, oh controversial one? ------------------- :-) I have tried my best to live up to that title, but in comparison with anatta, all else is mind-numbingly uncontroversial. Ken H #62031 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:14 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Dhammas According to Karunadasa/KenH ken_aitch Hi Joop, > > ---------- > > > > All of us at DSG describe anatta as the absence of self. You, > > however, insist on adding "absence of own being" or "absence of > > self-existence." There must be some reason for this, and it is > > possibly a deep-seated difference in our understandings. > > > > Ken H > > > Hallo Ken H > > Just want to say that i don't belong to the "All of us at DSG" > Perhaps that "All of us" don't excist? > > But you describe both positions to abstract, to philosophic; and the > Teaching of the Buddha is not philospohy but soteriology: to awaken. ----------- Yes, that's a good point. I would add that the way to awakening is through hearing and considering the true Dhamma (with right understanding). ---------------- J: > Isn't it better to say that atta-belief is the illusion that there is a self, and that the anatta-idea is to be free of that illusion? ----------------- Yes. ---------------------- J: > And then the difference between 'self', 'own being' or 'self-existence' is not so big. Thus that this discussion is rather scholastic? ----------------------- I agree; if the purpose of a discussion is scholastic then it will not lead to awakening. But, as I was saying to Howard, all of us who have been questioning the use of "own being" and "self existence" have been doing so because we think it overlies a significant difference in understandings. We don't see it as scholastic, and I don't think Howard does either. Ken H Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (53) #62032 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:45 pm Subject: Re: Not taking a footing and not exerting scottduncan2 Dear Ken H., Glad to continue our discussion! K: "I would say the former. Moha cetasika is present in every akusala citta; therefore it contributes to every evil. That includes the evil of wrong view (of a persisting self)." Yes, and the mere existence of the belief in a persisting self is ignorance itself. This is not mine, but an extrapolation of Karunadasa's "bhava-sadhana" or "definition by nature...whereby the abstract nature of the thing to be defined is brought into focus." He gave the example: "The mere act of thinking itself is citta," and asserted that "definition by nature" is valid from an ultimate point of view "because this type of definition brings into focus the real nature of a given dhamma without attributing agency or instrumentality to it, an attribution which creates the false notion that there is a duality within a unitary dhamma." Maybe that is what I had in the back of my mind when I said something like the illusion itself is ignorance. K: "I see what you mean, and I would add that we can have it both ways. We can believe in the ultimate unreality of human relationships, and, by so doing, improve those relationships." Yes. Definitely. K: "No right understanding of anatta (even if it is mere intellectual understanding) can ever be a bad thing. It is panna cetasika, and panna arises only with kusala consciousness. Kusala accumulates as the tendency for more kusala. Whenever concepts of people come into consciousness, accumulated panna can, potentially, condition moments of kusala thought, speech and action." Yeah, that is how it must be. Although, knowing conditional relations to be heavily intricate, there are likely to be many more co-conditions. Nina always says that to me, and she's right, so I'll now say it too (which makes me right by association). K: "Yes, but that flux is still a mere concept." Like I said, a phrase to be tossed out into the phrase-heap. And "flux" is total concept. K: "In reality, there are only the presently arisen dhammas. By thinking, dhammas can create beautiful pictures of beautiful people relating with one another. They can also paint terrible pictures. For as long as there are conditions for dhammas to arise there is no escaping these pictures." That is well-said, Ken: "...dhammas can create beautiful pictures of beautiful people relating with one another." You've gone beyond controvery into the sublime! With loving kindness, Scott. #62033 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:02 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,92 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XVII 92. (17) All the seven jhana factors classed as profitable, etc.--leaving out the pair, pleasant and painful feeling, in the case of the two sets of five consciousnesses--which factors assist in the sense of constituting a state of jhana, are 'jhana conditions', according as it is said: 'The jhana factors are a condition, as jhana condition, for the states associated with jhana and for the kinds of materiality originated thereby' (P.tn.1,6). But in the Question Section it is said: 'At the moment of rebirth-linking, resultant indeterminate jhana factors are a condition, as jhana condition, for associated aggregates and for the kinds of materiality due to kamma performed' (P.tn.1,175). *************************** 92. upanijjhaayana.t.thena upakaarakaani .thapetvaa dvipa~ncavi~n~naa.ne sukhadukkhavedanaadvaya.m sabbaanipi kusalaadibhedaani satta jhaana"ngaani jhaanapaccayo. yathaaha ``jhaana"ngaani jhaanasampayuttakaana.m dhammaana.m ta.msamu.t.thaanaana~nca ruupaana.m jhaanapaccayena paccayo''ti (pa.t.thaa0 1.1.17). pa~nhaavaare pana ``pa.tisandhikkha.ne vipaakaabyaakataani jhaana"ngaani sampayuttakaana.m khandhaana.m ka.tattaa ca ruupaana.m jhaanapaccayena paccayo´´tipi (pa.t.thaa0 1.1.431) vutta.m. #62034 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jul 30, 2006 5:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Emptiness of All Conditioned Dhammas, To Howard, please advise. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina In a message dated 7/30/06 3:35:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > Lodewijk just read it and finds it excellent, extraordinarily well > formulated. He liked what you said: we are safe. > would you elaborate on that? > Nina. > ======================= Mmm, well, it's not easy to say. For the most part it's more of a feeling growing out of meditation practice than a conclusion reached from premisses. Lets see what I can say: For one thing, once you have experienced the substantial unreality, even for a short while, of a personal self and have seen that all there is are experiences of sights, sounds, tastes, smells, emotions, thinking, etc, but none of it "me" or "mine", even though that may be terrifying at the time, which it was in my case, there is the discovery, after the fact, that with there being no "I", with there being nothing but "stuff" that is not-I, what harm could there ever truly come to "me"! And what would it matter were the flow of experience to change in content or even to cease - because it is all neither me nor mine to begin with! But there is more to it. With the realization of no-self in the empirical person plus the realization of no-self in conditioned dhammas, both of which I've had a "taste" of, but only the very slightest taste, there is a growing tendency towards releasing one's grasping at things. After all, why grasp at the ungraspable, and who is there to do the grasping anyway? And that letting go increasingly creates an equanimity and satisfaction that removes fear, and extrapolating from that I can imagine the possibility of complete freedom from fear. Ultimately, there is nothing and no one to lose, not even "oneself"! We are free right now. At this very moment we are free, but we just don't fully realize it. Right now there is nothing to grasp at and no one to do the grasping. Right now, seen rightly, there is only a vast openness and peace. With metta, Howard P.S. What I said above lacks precision and scholarly approach, but it has the virtue, I think, of more effectively expressing what is in my heart #62035 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:07 pm Subject: Re: Emptiness of All Conditioned Dhammas, To Howard, please advise. buddhatrue Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Ultimately, there is nothing and no one to lose, not even "oneself"! > We are free right now. At this very moment we are free, but we just don't fully > realize it. Right now there is nothing to grasp at and no one to do the > grasping. Right now, seen rightly, there is only a vast openness and peace. I really like what you wrote here and agree that the realization of anatta equals no fear. And it isn't even until one gets a taste of that realization that one truly sees how much fear is present. The thing that struck me the most about each satori experience I have had was the absence of fear. And, again, as you say it is just a superficial realization. Any kind of really deep understanding, usually during meditation, caused me intense fear. Ironic that way. :-) And you also point out something very important here: this is not a theoretical understanding, this is an actual understanding. I don't like the phrase "There is no self" not only because the Buddha never taught that, but because it doesn't invite investigation. When the Buddha taught "The body isn't self", now that invites investigation. The person wonder and considers, "Hmmm…is the body self? Is the body I or mine?" The same also goes for the other khandas. However, when one thinks "There is no self" all investigation stops. The person thinks he/she knows something that he/she really doesn't know. Well, I leave for Taiwan in a few hours. With the escalating conflict here in the Mideast I guess I am getting out at just the right time. Take care and stay in touch. Metta, James #62037 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:01 pm Subject: When the 7 becomes 14 ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: How are there Fourteen Links to Awakening? The Blessed Buddha once said: There is Awareness of all internal states and Awareness of all external states. Both kinds of Awareness are links leading to Enlightenment (sati-sambojjhanga). There is Investigation of all internal states and Investigation of all external states. Both kinds of Investigation are links leading to Enlightenment (vicaya-sambojjhanga). There is Energy of the body (vigour & strength) and Energy of the mind (keen enthusiasm). Both kinds of Energy are links leading to Enlightenment (viriya-sambojjhanga). There is rapturous Joy associated with thinking and there is Joy without any thinking. Both kinds of Joy are links leading to Enlightenment (piti-sambojjhanga). There is calm Tranquillity of the body and there is serene Tranquillity of the mind. Both kinds of Tranquillity are links leading to Enlightenment (passaddhi-sambojjhanga). There is Concentration associated with thinking and Concentration without any thinking. Both kinds of Concentration are links leading to Enlightenment (samadhi-sambojjhanga). There is Equanimity regarding internal states and Equanimity regarding external states. Both kinds of Equanimity are links leading to Enlightenment (upekkha-sambojjhanga). These 14 can only a Buddha or a true disciple of a Buddha see, understand and explain... Comments: Awareness of all internal (mental) states is the most important, best and highest. Investigation of all internal (mental) states is the primary, most fruitful & hardest. Energy of the mind is the most advantageous, effective, capable and forceful. Joy without any thinking is the most rapturous, ecstatic, elevating and all-pervading. Tranquillity of the mind is the deepest, most calm, serene, still and imperturbable. Concentration without any thinking is the most focused, one-pointed and absorbed. Equanimity regarding internal (mental) states is the best ballance and protection. Sources (edited extracts): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V: 111] 46: Links. 52: A way of Explaining... ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. <...> #62038 From: connie Date: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:49 pm Subject: Re: sandhi nichiconn Dear Nina, I really got lost trying to put together a pali/english Dhs file following Rhys D but haven't been back to try again with Khine's help. I like this from the section in Netti on Conveying Synonyms: << 291. 'Enticements': some believe in forms, some believe in sounds, some believe in odours, some believe in flavours, some believe in tangibles, some believe in ideas (cf.#568).>> and from Udaana Cy, some interest (p28 on) in along the lines that: <> Says "The All-Embracing Net": p198: <<...if a sense object is within range, but the act of consciousness does not contact the object, the latter will not become an object condition (aaramma.napaccaya) for consciousness.>> Not, of course, that 'the range of sense' is the whole story. p184: << The non-possessor adopts the annihilationist position because he does not understand that there is a world beyond this, due either to his nihilistic scepticism or to his stupidity. Or he holds that "the domain of the world extends only as far as the range of the sense" due to his greed for sense pleasure, like the king who took hold of his own daughter's hand [because of his infatuation with sense pleasures]. Or he holds the opinion that "just as a withered leaf separated from its branch cannot be rejoined to it, in the same way all beings undergo death with no further rebirth-linkage, [they do not take rebirth, they are consummated by death, they do not undergo any renewed existence]. For beings are like water bubbles [because they never re-arise]. >> peace, c. #62039 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:23 am Subject: Re: Not taking a footing and not exerting ken_aitch Hi Scott, I am happy to talk about Karunadasa's teaching, but I can't pretend to be very interested in it. I gather he puts his views above the Abhidhamma and commentaries (not in all cases, but where it suits him), which means he is on a path different from the one I am interested in. Of course, if I am wrong about him there will be some humble pie to be eaten. ------------ S: > Yes, and the mere existence of the belief in a persisting self is ignorance itself. This is not mine, but an extrapolation of Karunadasa's "bhava-sadhana" or "definition by nature...whereby the abstract nature of the thing to be defined is brought into focus." He gave the example: "The mere act of thinking itself is citta," and asserted that "definition by nature" is valid from an ultimate point of view "because this type of definition brings into focus the real nature of a given dhamma without attributing agency or instrumentality to it, an attribution which creates the false notion that there is a duality within a unitary dhamma." ------------ I don't object to "definition by nature" but this business about the non-duality of a unitary dhamma is - as I understand it - Mahayana Buddhism. If that is so, then that is where it belongs. Who is Karunadasa that he thinks he can import it into Theravada at the expense of the original texts? ------------------- S: > Maybe that is what I had in the back of my mind when I said something like the illusion itself is ignorance. ------------------- Oh, I see. The reason I voted against it the first time around was I thought it sounded like a definition of wrong view (of a persisting entity). Moha is ignorant of the Four Noble Truths, but it does not go so far as to contradict those truths. But your point was the same as saying 'citta is the experiencing of an object' rather than 'citta experiences an object.' I think that's fine so long as it is seen purely as a matter of personal preference. I think any suggestion that the former is right and the latter wrong takes us into Mahayana territory. --------------------- <. . .> KH: > > Whenever concepts of people come into consciousness, accumulated panna can, potentially, condition moments of kusala thought, speech and action. > > S: > Yeah, that is how it must be. Although, knowing conditional relations to be heavily intricate, there are likely to be many more co-conditions. Nina always says that to me, and she's right, so I'll now say it too (which makes me right by association). ----------------------- Yes, it seems to come down to the law of averages: the more kusala has been accumulated, the more likely it is to prevail in any given situation. But that is only a rough guide, and no one can know in advance which way the coin will fall. -------- <. . .> S: > You've gone beyond controversy into the sublime! -------- Thank you - such a pleasant change from the ridiculous! :-) Ken H Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (27) #62040 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:24 am Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 501- Equanimity/Tatramajjhatataa(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;-) ========================================== Equanimity (Tatramajjhatataa) contd We read in the Kindred Sayings (II, Nidåna-vagga, Chapter XVI, Kindred Sayings on Kassapa, § 1, Contented) about the arahat Kassapa who was always contented. We read that the Buddha, while he was staying at Såvatthí, said to the monks: * "Contented, monks, is this Kassapa with no matter what robe. He commends contentment with no matter what robe, nor because of a robe does he commit anything that is unseemly or unfit. If he has gotten no robe, he is not perturbed; if he has gotten a robe, he enjoys it without clinging or infatuation, committing no fault, discerning danger, wise as to escape (1). Even so is this Kassapa contented with no matter what alms, with no matter what lodging, with no matter what equipment in medicines." * We then read that the Buddha exhorted the monks to train themselves likewise. We can train ourselves by being mindful of whatever nåma or rúpa appears now. Kassapa had developed the right conditions leading to perfect equanimity. *** 1) He enjoys it as sufficing against cold (the commentary to this sutta, the “Såratthappakåsini”). ***** Equanimity/Tatramajjhatataa to be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #62041 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Just to confirm re "noble instructed disciple" (Nina) sarahprocter... Hi Matheesha & Nina, --- matheesha wrote: > M: I've heard it being said that there is a difference between ariya > sravaka and ariya puggala. Do you know more about this? .... S: I just happened to notice that both terms are used in the Udana commentary, seeminly interchangeably. A couple of quick examples in the same chapter: a) Sona chapter p.755 (PTS transl): "For liberaltiy (caaga.m): for that liberality reckoned as relinquishment of the defilements and accumulations slain by the first path, and by means of which ariyasaavakas comes to be..." [S: i.e on attaining of sotapatti magga] b)Sona chapter p.769 "My saavakas (mama saavakaa): he speaks with reference to ariyapuggalas such as the sotaapanna and so on." Metta, Sarah ===== #62042 From: Daniel Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:33 am Subject: Buddhist physical exercises sbhtkk Hi all, I am wondering if anyone is familiar with a system of physical exercises that is based on Buddhism? Yoga has roots in Hinduism, and Tai-Chi I think is based upon chinese thought, perhaps on Taoism or something like that. Are there any buddhist-based systems, perhaps physical practices in Theravada? Yours, Daniel #62043 From: "Joop" Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:50 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Dhammas According to Karunadasa/KenH jwromeijn Hallo KenH Thanks for your response. I agree nearly with all you wrote. Only your last remark "We don't see it as scholastic, and I don't think Howard does either." I perceive a discussion a little quicker as "scholastic" than you do; but that's no problem Metta Joop the > > Teaching of the Buddha is not philospohy but soteriology: to awaken. > ----------- > > Yes, that's a good point. I would add that the way to awakening is > through hearing and considering the true Dhamma (with right > understanding). > > ---------------- > J: > Isn't it better to say that atta-belief is the illusion that > there is a self, and that the anatta-idea is to be free of that illusion? > ----------------- > > Yes. > > ---------------------- > J: > And then the difference between 'self', 'own being' or > 'self-existence' is not so big. Thus that this discussion is rather > scholastic? > ----------------------- > > I agree; if the purpose of a discussion is scholastic then it will not > lead to awakening. But, as I was saying to Howard, all of us who have > been questioning the use of "own being" and "self existence" have been > doing so because we think it overlies a significant difference in > understandings. We don't see it as scholastic, and I don't think > Howard does either. > > > Ken H > #62044 From: "Joop" Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 3:17 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Thanks Matheesha:-) jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Joop, (Chris, Math & James) > > > I once (seriously) suggested to James that he start a file with his own > selections when he also made a few comments. I thought it would be very > interesting, but it is a lot of work to maintain, we know! Why don't you > consider the same? Or perhaps collaborating with James or someone else? > I'm sure many people would be glad to see 'An Alternative U.P.'. > >..... > Metta, > > Sarah > p.s Joop, if I point you to one of your posts in U.P., do we get a pic:-)? > Hallo Sarah, all On your serious and your not to take serious question I had to say: of course not I looked many times in U.P. when I wanted to discuss a topic, to prevent I just repeated a discussion. And then it's a missed chance if only one side of the discussion is made visible in U.P. To repeat what I said before: there are two kinds of discussions in DSG - discussions WITHIN the frame of reference set by Ven. Buddhaghosa and mrs. Sujin - discussions ABOUT that frame of reference I think both discussions have value, and some contributions have more value than other contributions. And till now I thought your opinion was that critical contributions to the second kind of discussion can be 'Useful' too. And to repeat what I said many times (most recent to James): I see a danger in being too personal in DSG-messages, DSG is not a family (and, a silly topic I had to repeat: I don't have a picture of myself, and don't have a photo-apparatus.) My initial message in your "Thanks Matheesha"-thread was irony about my being 'shy': I may be shy but not modest: some of my messages belong to the Hall of Fame of DSG, aka Walhalla, aka U.P. It's no problem to me to repeat again and again for example my opinion that it's just Indian pessimism and not the Dhamma when somebody states that there is a decline of buddhasasana and that for that reason it's (nearly) impossible to awaken any more. Metta Joop #62045 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 3:29 am Subject: Always conditions for lobha... philofillet Hi all I heard the following two bits today and thought that I'd like to share them: "There are always conditions for desire (lobha) because we have accumulated so much of it." "The question is whether we really want to understand and be detached from realities or just get rid of the unpleasantness of life." Phil p.s If anyone wants to add a comment, please post to the group as a whole rather than me. Thanks! :) p.p.s they are not from Acharn Sujin. The first is from Edgar Allan Poe and the second is from Laura Bush, the First Lady of the American Empire. #62046 From: "gazita2002" Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 3:31 am Subject: new format gazita2002 hello dsg-ers and mods. just want to comment on the layout of posts these days. for me, an irregular poster, it is much easier to locate posts that I wish to read or reply to. I believe it is yahoo's doing and, so thanx, for what it is worth. may all beings be happy, azita #62047 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 3:38 am Subject: Emptiness of all conditioned dhammas. nilovg Hi Howard, thank you for your personal views on safety, I passed it on to Lodewijk. ------------- Howard: For one thing, once you have experienced the substantial unreality, even for a short while, of a personal self and have seen that all there is are experiences of sights, sounds, tastes, smells, emotions, thinking, etc, but none of it "me" or "mine", even though that may be terrifying at the time, which it was in my case, there is the discovery, after the fact, that with there being no "I", with there being nothing but "stuff" that is not-I, what harm could there ever truly come to "me"! And what would it matter were the flow of experience to change in content or even to cease - because it is all neither me nor mine to begin with! -------- N: That is well said: ... all there is are experiences of sights, sounds, tastes, smells, emotions, thinking... We also discussed with Kh Sujin the terrifying aspect, and she said: yes, it is if there is no pa~n~naa. We were discussing fear of rebirth with Kh Sujin, and she said that the sotaapanna who does not believe in ‘me’ who will be reborn has no fear. But, I think, worldlings cannot be sure of a happy rebirth, so that is a different matter. ------------ H: But there is more to it. With the realization of no-self in the empirical person plus the realization of no-self in conditioned dhammas, both of which I've had a "taste" of, but only the very slightest taste, there is a growing tendency towards releasing one's grasping at things. .... Ultimately, there is nothing and no one to lose, not even "oneself"! We are free right now. At this very moment we are free, but we just don't fully realize it. Right now there is nothing to grasp at and no one to do the grasping. Right now, seen rightly, there is only a vast openness and peace. ------- N: The parinibbaanasutta reminds us that Dhamma is our island, Dhamma our refuge, and this may condition a feeling of safety, but I think of Phil’s constant warnings that one may cling to feeling safe with Dhamma. Even when I say: Dhamma is my refuge, there are likely to also be moments of clinging. There is another matter that I find fearsome: the latent tendencies that lie dormant in each citta and can condition any time the arising of akusala, even of akusala one did not think oneself capable of. This can happen when they have not yet been eradicated. But I myself am immersed in grasping, and I go after images, I live in dreams. I think of Ken H’s words: Unless insight has been developed. Nina. #62048 From: "matheesha" Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 3:50 am Subject: Re: Intention and self view matheesha333 >M: > There is this idea that if an action is done intentionally it leads > to > > a strengthening or a self view. > > > > I would like to see where it says in the suttas that any action > done > > intentionally gives rise to that. > >> >A: I'm not sure that I recognise "this idea" from posts on DSG in the > form that you have put it. "Action done intentionally" probably > needs further definition (particularly as cetana is a universal > cetasika). > M: Thanks Andrew, for clarifying that. So the problem is not that something is done intentionally (yes, I did mean cetana) but rather that something is done? > In any event, the "hen and eggs" simile comes to mind from MN 16 and > MN 53. Where all the conditions are right for the eggs to hatch, > they hatch even though the hen didn't actually wish (intend?) them to > hatch. M: Yes I agree. The fact that the eggs had a hen sitting on top of them is a contributory factor for them to hatch as well. IF the hen wasnt intentionally on top of them, they wouldnt hatch. This is not to say that the hen had full control over the process, but it could influnce the outcome to some degree because it could keep the eggs warm. Extrapolating, just intending something to happen is not > necessarily sufficient for it to happen M: yes, of course. (and if it doesn't happen, > it's highly likely the intending was based on some not- understanding > that is likely to condition further not-understanding). M: Shall we clarify this relationship further? There is an intention to bake a cake. But the person thinks it can be done by looking at a car repair manual. So the problem is less his intention, and not the goal of baking a cake, but rather the wrong view that it could be done by looking at the repair manual. Would you agree? > > Of course, if the intending *is* based on gross ignorance (eg. the > dog ascetic intending to become a dog god), then the likelihood of > more ignorance being conditioned seems almost inescapable!? M: Here again, the intention is to become enlightenend. No problem in that. There is effort put in (nothing wrong with effort itself?), but with a wrong view of what he should be doing. would like to know your thoughts on the matter. with metta Matheesha #62049 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Intention and self view upasaka_howard Hi, Andrew (and Matheesha) - In a message dated 7/30/06 8:01:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, athel60@... writes: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "matheesha" > wrote: > > > >Hi everyone, > > > >There is this idea that if an action is done intentionally it leads > to > >a strengthening or a self view. > > > >I would like to see where it says in the suttas that any action > done > >intentionally gives rise to that. > > Hi Matheesha > > I'm not sure that I recognise "this idea" from posts on DSG in the > form that you have put it. "Action done intentionally" probably > needs further definition (particularly as cetana is a universal > cetasika). > > In any event, the "hen and eggs" simile comes to mind from MN 16 and > MN 53. Where all the conditions are right for the eggs to hatch, > they hatch even though the hen didn't actually wish (intend?) them to > hatch. Extrapolating, just intending something to happen is not > necessarily sufficient for it to happen (and if it doesn't happen, > it's highly likely the intending was based on some not-understanding > that is likely to condition further not-understanding). > > Of course, if the intending *is* based on gross ignorance (eg. the > dog ascetic intending to become a dog god), then the likelihood of > more ignorance being conditioned seems almost inescapable!? > > Those are a few thoughts off the top of my head. I'll be interested > to see if anyone else has any other possibilities. But I think the > issue you raise is governed by D.O. > > Best wishes > Andrew > > ======================== There are points that each one of you makes that I would like to address. First, Matheesha: You say "There is this idea that if an action is done intentionally it leads to a strengthening or a self view." I think that is close to the position I've detected, but is not exactly it. What I have picked up is that acting intentionally to achieve some goal is 1) impossible because of the "no control" aspect of anatta, and 2) acting intentionally involves a sense of self, and that fact destroys the possibility of the action leading to kusala (useful/wholesome consequences). I see both of these premisses as false. The first is false, because intentional action is carried out quite commonly with desired results being achieved. The second of these is partly true in that all worldlings and even all lesser ariyans always are beset by some degree of sense of self, and the more the sense of self and craving are present, the less easy it is to achieve the intended result. However, and this is where the second proposition is false, even with a degree of sense of self present, actions leading to useful results, including purification of the mind and lessening of that very sense of self, are possible. Were they not, the Buddhist goal would be a pipe dream, and the Buddha would not have repeatedly urged strong, consistent, intentional actions on the part of those taught by him. Now, Andrew: You say "Where all the conditions are right for the eggs to hatch, they hatch even though the hen didn't actually wish (intend?) them to hatch. Extrapolating, just intending something to happen is not necessarily sufficient for it to happen (and if it doesn't happen, it's highly likely the intending was based on some not-understanding that is likely to condition further not-understanding)." An essential one of the conditions needed for the eggs to hatch was the warmth provided by the intentional action of the hen sitting on them. Without that, even with all other conditions in place, there would be no hatching. And the simile is a good one. Without the "gestational warmth" which is a result of the intentional cultivation and purification *practices* of the Buddhist follower, all the other requisite conditions would be insufficient. You are right when you say that mere intention, mere "wishing", is inadequate. One cannot just intend to become wealthy - one must take appropriate steps to create wealth. One cannot just intend to be healthy - one must eat, sleep, and live in a way appropriate to create good health. And one cannot just intend to become an ariyan - one must take the steps laid out by the Buddha to achieve this. Intention without appropriate consequent action is like a shark that has had its teeth removed hopelessly chomping away on a lucky whale. And, of course, action not based on appropriate intention, is like a shark's chewing on a ship's hull, achieving nothing of value for him. What is needed, along with other requisite conditions, is intention, properly directed, and properly executed. With metta, Howard #62050 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 7:03 am Subject: Re: Not taking a footing and not exerting scottduncan2 Dear Ken H., Thanks for the reply. K: "I am happy to talk about Karunadasa's teaching, but I can't pretend to be very interested in it. I gather he puts his views above the Abhidhamma and commentaries (not in all cases, but where it suits him), which means he is on a path different from the one I am interested in." No need, Ken. See below. K: "I don't object to "definition by nature..." I just used the quote to show that I didn't think up this idea of definition by nature but, in a narrow sense, it seems to be correct. I'm not too into Mahayana either. I don't like it when I think for myself over what has already been laid down, let alone when others have done it in the past. K: "...But your point was the same as saying 'citta is the experiencing of an object' rather than 'citta experiences an object.' I think that's fine..." Yeah, that was my point. K: "Yes, it seems to come down to the law of averages: the more kusala has been accumulated, the more likely it is to prevail in any given situation. But that is only a rough guide, and no one can know in advance which way the coin will fall." Yeah, man. More later, gotta go. With loving kindness, Scott. #62051 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 7:33 am Subject: no Nina, No Lodewijk. nilovg Dear Andrew T, and others who are willing to take a go, What Howard wrote on this subject was very helpful for Lodewijk, and now I wonder whether you would also write on this. It is good for Lodewijk to hear different aspects. I can say the same thing to him and it does not click, but if others speak out it is very helpful. Don't take driving lessons from your partner it is said. It is not easy to explain that worldly relationships and paramattha dhammas are not contradictory. Many fall over it. I like Ken H's remark: Nina. #62052 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 3:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Emptiness of All Conditioned Dhammas, To Howard, please advise. upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 7/31/06 1:07:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > Well, I leave for Taiwan in a few hours. With the escalating > conflict here in the Mideast I guess I am getting out at just the > right time. Take care and stay in touch. > ===================== Have a good, safe trip, and a wonderful new phase of your life! (And, yes, I think your timing is perfect!!) With metta, Howard #62053 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 7:59 am Subject: commentaries nilovg Hi TG, TG writes: -------- N: It is good that you speak out your concern for the Dhamma. That is much better than sitting silently there. I do not quite know what to answer, because there have been a lot of discussions on this subject as you know, also with Michael. In Dutch we have a proverb: unknown makes unloved. If you have B.B.’s sutta translations you could slowly get used to commentaries, and than you may start to appreciate them. They do not add anything strange to the Buddha Dhamma, on the contrary, they help with explanations or elaborations. -------- TG: DO entails there is no sabhava. So without understanding what DO entails, I don't believe one's practice can accord with the Dhamma. -- "One who sees DO sees the dhamma, one who sees the Dhamma sees DO." -------- N: We cannot understand DO if we have not thoroughly studied and considered what citta is, what the five khandhas are, what the Patthana states about conditions. With Larry we are not as far yet, so I do not claim to understand DO. Today we have only come as far as jhana-condition. ------------ TG:I could go through the commentaries line by line and show how I believe they are, either individually or as a whole, protecting the idea of sabhava. But these things don't register to you because you seem to believe that seeing sabhava (own distinct characteristic) into conditions is a pinnacle of insight. --------- N: Knowing distinct characteristics of dhammas, visesa lakkhana, is only the beginning. ---------- TG: For me, mindfulness of states is not so that one sees states as having "own distinct characteristics," rather, it is for develop the insight that states do not have own distinct characteristics. One uses mindfulness of conditions to realize that conditions are utterly empty of "own characteristics." ------ N: Conditions describe the relations between different phenomena. As we discussed with Howard, they are concepts, and they themselves are not dhammas that appear to sati. ----------- TG: “Form is like a lump of foam, .... This Sutta is not to be analyzed in a manner that attempts to explain why each individual component is what it is. The Sutta is exemplifying that the 5 aggregates are utterly empty and impermanent. ------ N: I did not deny that. ------- TG: The commentary you provided walks a tightrope between the former and the latter. In so doing, it maintains "The Great Hope" of something of self about the world. ------ N: The Commentary states nothing else but what is the Buddha’s teaching, as far as I see it. But from now on, when you read something of the Co. that is quoted, do point at it. I have a feeling that people judge the Co when something is not quite clear to them. Then an additional explanation is needed. Nina. #62054 From: "Joop" Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 8:30 am Subject: Re: commentaries jwromeijn Hallo Nina, TG, Nina: "If you have B.B.'s sutta translations you could slowly get used to commentaries, and than you may start to appreciate them. They do not add anything strange to the Buddha Dhamma, on the contrary, they help with explanations or elaborations." Joop: That's not hundred procent correct, Nina In an interview in 'Inquiring mind' Bhikkhu Bodhi himself is saying it (the least) more subtle (Capitals me): BB: The relationship between the suttas and the commentaries is an extremely complex one and it is risky to make blanket judgments about it. The commentaries are not original works by Buddhaghosa, but edited versions of more ancient commentaries that had been preserved in Sri Lanka. Their historical origins are obscure, but clearly they begin with the suttas themselves; that is, there are suttas that are commentaries on other suttas (e.g. MN 141, SN 12:31, SN 22:3, 4). … To understand what the commentaries are doing at the doctrinal level, we have to remember that THE SUTTAS THEMSELVES ARE NOT UNIQUELY THERAVADA TEXTS. THEY ARE THE THERAVADIN TRANSMISSION OF A CLASS OF SCRIPTURES COMMON TO ALL THE EARLY BUDDHIST SCHOOLS, each of which must have had its own way of interpreting them. The commentaries that come to us from Buddhaghosa (and others) take up the task of interpreting these texts from the standpoint of the Theravada school. THEIR VIEW IS THUS NECESSARILY NARROWER THAN THAT OF THE SUTTAS because it is more specific: THEY VIEW THE THOUGHT-WORLD OF THE SUTTAS THROUGH THE LENS OF THE METHODS OF EXEGESIS DEVELOPED BY THE EARLY THERAVADIN TEACHERS, using these methods to explicate and elaborate upon the early teachings. If we compare the suttas to a vast expanse of open territory, reconnoitered from above as to the main features of its topography but with its details only lightly sketched, then we might compare the commentaries to a detailed account of the lay of the land. The question is: Are the commentaries simply coming in and describing the landscape in greater detail, or are they bringing in construction crews and building housing schemes, shopping malls and highways on the virgin territory. The answer, I think, would be a combination of both. To be brief, I would say there are two extreme attitudes one could take to the commentaries. One, often adopted by orthodox Theravadins, is to regard them as being absolutely authoritative almost on a par with the suttas. The other is to disregard them completely and claim they represent "a different take on the Dhamma." I find that a prudent middle ground is to consult the commentaries and use them, but without clinging to them. Their interpretations are often illuminating, but we should also recognize that they represent a specific systematization of the early teaching. THEY ARE BY NO MEANS NECESSITATED BY THE EARLY TEACHING, AND ON SOME POINTS EVEN SEEM TO BE IN TENSION WITH IT." Metta Joop #62055 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 5:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: commentaries TGrand458@... Hi Joop, Nina Thanks Joop so much for your posting below. I am in agreement with BB as to what he is saying here. On a scale of 1 -- 100, I'd probably be about 10 points more suspect than BB re: the commentaries; but I accept his position below as accurate enough to feel quite comfortable with it. BTW, I have all BB translations and read them more or less exclusively (over PTS) since they have come out. Including the CMA and PP ... the latter being Nanamoli. TG In a message dated 7/31/2006 9:30:55 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, jwromeijn@... writes: Hallo Nina, TG, Nina: "If you have B.B.'s sutta translations you could slowly get used to commentaries, and than you may start to appreciate them. They do not add anything strange to the Buddha Dhamma, on the contrary, they help with explanations or elaborations." Joop: That's not hundred procent correct, Nina In an interview in 'Inquiring mind' Bhikkhu Bodhi himself is saying it (the least) more subtle (Capitals me): BB: The relationship between the suttas and the commentaries is an extremely complex one and it is risky to make blanket judgments about it. The commentaries are not original works by Buddhaghosa, but edited versions of more ancient commentaries that had been preserved in Sri Lanka. Their historical origins are obscure, but clearly they begin with the suttas themselves; that is, there are suttas that are commentaries on other suttas (e.g. MN 141, SN 12:31, SN 22:3, 4). [cut] #62056 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:13 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily Life 39 nilovg We would like to live in a world of harmony and unity among nations and we are disturbed when people commit acts of violence. We should consider what the real cause is of war and discord between people: it is the defilements which people have accumulated. When we have aversion we think that other people or unpleasant situations are the cause of our aversion. However, our accumulation of dosa is the real cause for aversion to arise time and again. If we want to have less dosa we should know the characteristic of dosa and we should be aware of it when it arises. Dosa has many degrees; it can be a slight aversion or it can be more coarse, such as anger. We can recognize dosa when it is coarse, but do we realize that we have dosa when it is more subtle? Through the study of the Abhidhamma we learn more about the characteristic of dosa. Dosa is an akusala cetasika (mental factor) arising with akusala citta. A citta rooted in dosa is called in Påli: dosa-múla- citta. The characteristic of dosa is different from the characteristic of lobha. When there is lobha, the citta likes the object which it experiences at that moment, whereas when there is dosa, the citta has aversion towards the object it experiences. We can recognize dosa when we are angry with someone and when we speak disagreeable words to him. But when we are afraid of something there is dosa as well, because one has aversion towards the object one is afraid of. There are so many things in life we are afraid of; we are afraid of the future, of diseases, of accidents, of death. We look for many means in order to be cured of anguish, but the only way is the development of the wisdom which eradicates the latent tendency of dosa. Dosa is conditioned by lobha: we do not want to lose what is dear to us and when this actually happens we are sad. Sadness is dosa, it is akusala. If we do not know things as they are, we believe that people and things last. However, people and things are only phenomena which arise and then fall away immediately. The next moment they have changed already. If we can see things as they are we will be less overwhelmed by sadness. It makes no sense to be sad about what has happened already. In the Psalms of the Sisters (Therígåthå, 33) we read that the King's wife Ubbirí mourned the loss of her daughter Jívå. Every day she went to the cemetery. She met the Buddha who told her that in that cemetery about eighty-four thousand of her daughters (in past lives) had been burnt. The Buddha said to her: O, Ubbirí, who wails in the wood Crying, ``O Jívå! O my daughter dear!'' Come to yourself! See, in this burying-ground Are burnt full many a thousand daughters dear, And all of them were named like her. Now which of all those Jívås do you mourn? After Ubbirí pondered over the Dhamma thus taught by the Buddha she developed insight and saw things as they really are; she even attained arahatship. ***** Nina. #62057 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: commentaries nilovg Hallo Joop and TG, thanks for the B.B. quote. I am not surprised, I know modern authors who think that only the four Nikayas are only the Buddha's words. When it comes to history, I am no good and not very interested, up to a certain point. I rather look inside the texts, and above all: verify them myself through the development of satipatthana, that is in the last instance the only way. Nina. Op 31-jul-2006, om 17:30 heeft Joop het volgende geschreven: > we have to remember that THE SUTTAS THEMSELVES ARE NOT UNIQUELY > THERAVADA TEXTS. THEY ARE THE THERAVADIN TRANSMISSION OF A CLASS OF > SCRIPTURES COMMON TO ALL THE EARLY BUDDHIST SCHOOLS, #62058 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 12:21 pm Subject: born with pa~n~naa nilovg Dear Scott, N: "The term sensation is not so fortunate. We could not call indifferent feeling a sensation. Sensation is not a good translation of vedanaa." Scott:Neither "feeling" nor "sensation" seem apt, in a way, since one can't really suggest that "indifferent" refers to "feeling" either. Are we dealing with the need for a word to describe that which is experienced as a result of phassa. I guess this hasn't been satisfactorily figured out and if it hasn't by now, when? ------- N: We can learn the meaning of vedanaa when we study with what cittas what types of vedanaa arise. I do not know a better translation than feeling. Vedanaakkhandha arises and falls away each moment, it is never lacking. When we are seeing now it seems that there is no particular feeling that accompanies seeing: no happy feeling, no unhappy feeling. Then there is indifferent or neutral feeling, feeling that is neither pleasant nor unpleasant. Phassa is one of the conditions for feeling. Feeling accompanying seeing is the result of kamma, it is vipaaka. Feeling accompanying akusala citta rooted in lobha is conditioned by the roots of ignorance and attachment. N: "Many shades and degrees of pa~n~naa: it has different objects, there are diffrent levels and different intensities. Understanding of kamma and vipaaka, cause and result, can arise when performing daana or observing siila. ... -------- S: This is another complication, if it may be so labelled: that of vipaaka. I have to remember that, and please correct me if I've not got this quite right, experiences such as those I described must, for at least some of it, be vipaaka. Its still hard to get that straight for myself when watching what arises. ------ N: The sense-cognitions such as seeing, hearing, are vipaakacittas arising during life.It depends on kamma whether desirable objects or undesirable objects are seen or heard, but at the very moment of seeing or hearing we do not know whether kusala vipaakacitta or akusala vipaakacitta arises. It does not matter, it is gone immediately. Why should we find out. Seeing and hearing in a dream is thinking, not vipaakacitta. They are not the realities of seeing or hearing, only a memory of what was seen formerly. ------- S: I guess you speak conventionally when you note "...engage in daana and siila in order to have less defilements..." -------- N: I mean the cittas, kusala cittas have the pure intention for daana or siila, and there is even no need to think: I want less defilements. It can all be in a moment! ----------- N: "Pa~n~naa can accompany studying the Dhamma and considering what one learns, or it can be of the level of insight, or it can be lokuttara pa~n~naa." S:I guess it is what it is. Is it important to learn to distinguish the nature of pa~n~na if and when it arises? (Not a rhetorical question.) ------- N: That depends on the moment, whether there are conditions to know this, but this is possible through insight, not through thinking about it. -------------- N: "In the case of cittas of the sense sphere, when happy feeling arises there is also rapture, piiti. But it is hard to distinguish them. Not before the first stage of insight when the difference between nama and rupa is clearly known." Are "happy feeling" and "rapture,pitti" distinguished as naama is from ruupa? ------ N: No, they are both cetasikas. -------- S: The experience or sensation or whatever that I tentatively label "piiti" to myself seems to involve "the bodily sensations" but I have hesitated to suggest piiti is ruupa for that reason (that is, because *I* thought it seemed it had the body involved.) And this piiti is much more coarse than is happy feeling. ------- N: The Visuddhimagga describes degrees of piiti and also that it conditions bodily phenomena. As a jhanafactor it is abandoned before happy feeling, being more coarse. Vis. IV, 153. Beware of the transl: piiti is transl. as happiness and happy feeling as bliss. Naama (and not only piiti) conditions ruupa. ---------- N: "There was some relief of the sadness because of a degree of understanding, but nobody else can tell by what kind of feeling it was accompanied. ... ----- S: Yes, very intricate. A good word. I'd hazard that there was happy feeling to be clinging to dosa (the "exquisite sadness") and so this would have been lobha-mula citta, or a series of them. There was a happy feeling when thoughts of the Dhamma arose, ... _____ N: We cannot know exactly what happened when it is all gone. It is natural that we think and try to reconstruct, and then the present reality is thinking. There are conditions for thinking all the time. Nina. #62059 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 12:26 pm Subject: Fwd: Letters from Nina 20 nilovg Begin doorgestuurd bericht: > Onderwerp: Letters from Nina 20 > > Dear friends > > Letter to Susan Elbaum Jootla, Part III. > > Dear Susan, > > As you write in your book, investigation of phenomena is most > important. We should consider the Dhamma, there can be some > mindfulness now and then, in daily life. It has to be natural, we > cannot control anything. There are conditions already present, we > are in the position, as you also write, that we can still read the > scriptures. There should be no idea of starting with sati, starting > with this or that khandha as object of mindfulness, that is again > trying to control. Khun Sujin has such a direct way of pointing all > these things out, so that one understands better: this is not the > way, this is wrong. Is that not important? What attracts me to the > Dhamma is that it is about very ordinary phenomena of daily life. > One does not have to do anything special. > Alan Weller wrote "I very much like your article on the way to > study Dhamma. While I was reading about different contacts there > was a loud sound and immediately I had an unpleasant feeling and > then the thinking about the car horn. But no clear comprehension > yet. It was a very good reminder for me that the whole of the > teachings are for one very short moment of studying a > characteristic of reality which appears.” > > Reducing oneself into one moment of experiencing an object. This > must lead to detachment from the self. You asked about the latent > tendencies, and you speak about detachment from the khandhas and > the world, from everything. I think you already know that latent > tendencies are eradicated at different stages of enlightenment by > the magga-citta. Only the sotapanna has eradicated wrong view and > doubt about realities. It is the arahat who eradicates all clinging > to the khandhas, to any object. What matters now is knowing our > kilesas as conditioned elements, not self, in being aware of them > when they arise. We do not start with detachment from all objects. > We read about people sitting in meditation and suppressing the > hindrances, but how could they then realize them as they are? This > is the aim of samadhi: subduing kilesas, but not the aim of > vipassana. Don't you want to know the different akusala cittas > which arise? Our underlying motives which are not so beautiful, > even when we believe we perform kusala? I want to know the truth > about myself. It is of no use to flee, or to hide anything. I do > not want to be tricked. Total detachment is too far, too high for > me now. > > The Visuddhimagga and also the Patisambhidamagga deal with stages > of insight and with the three pariññas. When one reads, it all > seems theory but this is not so. The Path of Discrimination > (Patisambhidamagga) uses a very difficult English, not clear. Khun > Sujin deals with it in Thai, using the Pali as well and then it > becomes clearer. She makes it come to life, without her > explanations I would find it very difficult to understand. > I see that it is very important not to select any objects as object > of awareness. We have to apply anatta very consistently, in all > consequences. I do not have illusions that lobha arises seldom. > When I consider processes of cittas and their different functions > it is an excellent reminder of lobha coming in, and ignorance. > There was just now seeing, were the javana cittas kusala or > akusala? There was hearing, touching, all these moments were > followed by javana cittas. Kusala or akusala? We cannot answer, > thus, there is ignorance, akusala. I am moving a hand, or a foot, > that is not vipakacitta like seeing or hearing. Akusala cittas or > kusala cittas make the rupa move. If there is no dana, sila or > bhavana (samatha or vipassana) the citta is in such cases akusala. > So much akusala we do not notice at all. It makes us more careful. > We are warned that if we try to select objects, such as feeling, if > we limit the objects of awareness, if we try to do something > different, to concentrate, akusala citta arises already. There is > lobha with each move we make. We go to the left, we go to the > right, and there is lobha already. > I had a letter from a friend, Khun Kanchana, from Thailand. She > wrote: Dhamma discussion about seeing and visible object, it was good but > I still do not find it clear. Anyway every time I listen my > understanding grows. "There is never enough listening from life to > life," Khun Sujin said.> > And so it is. Visible object is all that appears through the eyes, > all that appears if we are not blind. We may try to focus, we may > have doubts, make ourselves ideas about it. We make it too > complicated, we confuse it with shape and form, which are the > objects of cittas which think and which come afterwards. I also > feel I have never enough of listening and considering, from life to > life. > > Nina. > #62060 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not taking a footing and not exerting upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Scott) - In a message dated 7/31/06 4:24:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > S: >Yes, and the mere existence of the belief in a persisting self is > ignorance itself. This is not mine, but an extrapolation of > Karunadasa's "bhava-sadhana" or "definition by nature...whereby the > abstract nature of the thing to be defined is brought into focus." He > gave the example: "The mere act of thinking itself is citta," and > asserted that "definition by nature" is valid from an ultimate point > of view "because this type of definition brings into focus the real > nature of a given dhamma without attributing agency or instrumentality > to it, an attribution which creates the false notion that there is a > duality within a unitary dhamma." > ------------ > > I don't object to "definition by nature" but this business about the > non-duality of a unitary dhamma is - as I understand it - Mahayana > Buddhism. If that is so, then that is where it belongs. Who is > Karunadasa that he thinks he can import it into Theravada at the > expense of the original texts? > ====================== What do "the original texts" say there is to a citta besides it being an act of knowing? (I think that bringing in "thinking" here is a mistake.) Is citta not just the knowing of an object? Is it not just vi~n~nana? If there is more to it, I'd like to know what. With metta, Howard #62061 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:35 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Abidhamma origins dacostacharles Dear Nina, Ok, so you do believe people exist, even if they are just the five khandhas, (includes nama and rupa), arising and falling away all the time. Now, to the statement ". . . when we say, there is no person this does not mean: there is nothing." I think it would be better to say what a person is to you rather than say, "There is no person!" Charles DaCosta _____ Dear Charles D, I understand that you find it confusing. We still listen to the Dhamma the Buddha taught, who could deny that? The Tathagata arose in the world we read. He also taught that what we take for a person are five khandhas, nama an rupa, arising and falling away all the time. Thus, when we say, there is no person this does not mean: there is nothing. We studied the five khandhas in the Visuddhimagga, and vi~n~naa.nakkhandha, include all cittas, even cittas that attain enlightenment! But after they have arisen they fall away. Thus, this does not mean that they have never been. Nina. <...> #62062 From: "Andrew" Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 5:11 pm Subject: Re: Intention and self view corvus121 Dear Matheesha You've asked for some further comments - not a wise thing to do in my case. I don't have much of a grasp of any of these things, so don't take my comments as authoritative. But they might help a bit ... > >A: I'm not sure that I recognise "this idea" from posts on DSG in > the > > form that you have put it. "Action done intentionally" probably > > needs further definition (particularly as cetana is a universal > > cetasika). > > > > M: Thanks Andrew, for clarifying that. So the problem is not that > something is done intentionally (yes, I did mean cetana) but rather > that something is done? I prefer not to see it as "this is a problem" and "that is a problem" but rather as "this is (said to be) the reality". It is said that the reality includes cetana of 2 types: kusala and akusala. I suspect that the "villains" you are chasing in this thread are the ideas that: 1. kusala is rare; and 2. akusala cannot condition kusala. > > In any event, the "hen and eggs" simile comes to mind from MN 16 > and > > MN 53. Where all the conditions are right for the eggs to hatch, > > they hatch even though the hen didn't actually wish (intend?) them > to > > hatch. > > M: Yes I agree. The fact that the eggs had a hen sitting on top of > them is a contributory factor for them to hatch as well. IF the hen > wasnt intentionally on top of them, they wouldnt hatch. This is not > to say that the hen had full control over the process, but it could > influnce the outcome to some degree because it could keep the eggs > warm. I would take it even one step further - all other conditions being in place, the eggs would hatch even if the hen was sitting on them UNintentionally e.g. she may have a debilitating illness such that she had no energy to move but really wanted to abandon the nest! But then, that is using the word "intentional" in a conventional sense and viewed over a longer period of time - the time it takes to incubate eggs! But in AN I,v,8, the Buddha said "No other thing do I know, O monks, that changes so quickly as the mind. It is not easy to give a simile for how quickly the mind changes". So, during the incubation period, we can take it that the hen's mind was not constant, but changed many times. This invites us to "microscope in" on the mind and try to see how it operates "non- conventionally". If we were to restrict the time period to a single, incredibly small mind-moment and view cetana as an impersonal, fleeting reality, we may glimpse a different view of how incubation happens (for it certainly does happen). I have a feeling that, in Dhamma, the "microscope view" holds the key to (right) understanding - and from that (right) understanding, there is a tendency to liberation. I have a feeling that the "microscope view" should be in the driver's seat and the conventional view in the passenger's seat (and not vice versa). My reason? Because that's the way arahants do it - they don't have conventional terms and assignations confusing them about the reality behind the terms. > (and if it doesn't happen, > > it's highly likely the intending was based on some not- > understanding > > that is likely to condition further not-understanding). > > M: Shall we clarify this relationship further? There is an intention > to bake a cake. But the person thinks it can be done by looking at a > car repair manual. So the problem is less his intention, and not the > goal of baking a cake, but rather the wrong view that it could be > done by looking at the repair manual. Would you agree? Problems aside, the reality is that a cake will not be baked by following instructions in a car manual. I have even had the experience of a car mechanical problem not being repaired by following the instructions in a car manual. Intentionally following instructions is one thing - unless this process includes a degree of right understanding, the desired goal does not eventuate. Right understanding comes first. > > > > Of course, if the intending *is* based on gross ignorance (eg. the > > dog ascetic intending to become a dog god), then the likelihood of > > more ignorance being conditioned seems almost inescapable!? > > M: Here again, the intention is to become enlightenend. No problem in > that. There is effort put in (nothing wrong with effort itself?), but > with a wrong view of what he should be doing. > > would like to know your thoughts on the matter. As I see it, the key question is not "am I working hard enough at Dhamma" or "am I putting in enough effort", but "do I understand?" And my experience suggests that this attitude doesn't result in my falling in a helpless, confused heap on the floor! ((-: I also happily acknowledge that I cannot know and say that an intentionally- charged goal-oriented meditator (conventionally speaking, of course!) does not experience right understanding during his/her meditation period. To make that claim would be conceit and to mix conventional and ultimate truth and I think it's best to separate them (but I give the final word to ultimate truth). Hope this isn't too muddy!? Best wishes Andrew #62063 From: "Andrew" Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 5:40 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Intention and self view corvus121 Hi Howard I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion before, so I won't comment at length. You like to emphasise the following: "intentional action is carried out quite commonly > with desired results being achieved" whereas I like to emphasise the opposite ie there are times when intentional action is carried out *without* desired results being achieved. What does that tell us about intention? I say it tells us that intention is not the beast we imagine it to be. You also say: An essential one of the conditions needed for the eggs to hatch was > the warmth provided by the intentional action of the hen sitting on them. But is that completely correct? What if, as I have posed to Matheesha, the hen was *not* intentionally sitting on the eggs at all? If intentional sitting on the eggs is an "essential condition", the eggs would not hatch. I say they *would* hatch - regardless of the intention! All other conditions being in place, so long as she sits on the eggs, they will hatch - even if the whole time she is actually straining (unsuccessfully) to get *off* the eggs! We agree - it's the warmth that matters, not the intention! So I pose the question - when we are throwing around this word "intention" (or "volition"), what do we really mean? In this thread, I think we are mixing conventional and ultimate versions. I think you are injecting conventional intention into an ultimate equation that actually works without it. Gotta rush, now. Best wishes Andrew #62064 From: "Andrew" Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 5:44 pm Subject: Re: no Nina, No Lodewijk. corvus121 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Andrew T, and others who are willing to take a go, > > What Howard wrote on this subject was very helpful for Lodewijk, and > now I wonder whether you would also write on this. It is good for > Lodewijk to hear different aspects. Dear Nina All I can say is, I hope Lodewijk likes eggs! ((-: I've put my head on the chopping block with Matheesha and Howard and will probably be "tarred and feathered", but it's all in a good cause! Best wishes to you both Andrew #62065 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: commentaries TGrand458@... In a message dated 7/31/2006 9:30:55 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, jwromeijn@... writes: Nina: "If you have B.B.'s sutta translations you could slowly get used to commentaries, and than you may start to appreciate them. They do not add anything strange to the Buddha Dhamma, on the contrary, they help with explanations or elaborations." Nina: Hallo Joop and TG, thanks for the B.B. quote. I am not surprised, I know modern authors who think that only the four Nikayas are only the Buddha's words. When it comes to history, I am no good and not very interested, up to a certain point. I rather look inside the texts, and above all: verify them myself through the development of satipatthana, that is in the last instance the only way. Nina. TG: I'm going to have to call a penalty on you on this one Nina. You can't reasonably say B.B.'s translation will show that the commentaries "do not add anything strange" to the (by "Buddha Dhamma" I presume you mean Suttas or Pitakas) and then say in a following post, after its shown that B.B. does indeed think they are not in sync with each other, that you're not surprised. And I guess your now saying B.B. is a modern author who thinks that only the four Nikayas are the Buddha's word? Excuse my many presumptions, but based on your posts I have no alternative but to guess at what you are saying. I too read and compare texts and I too practice mindfulness to the best of my ability. Yet we've come to different conclusions as to the way we think the Dhamma should be regarded. That's a matter of our different conditions. I don't think the commentaries can fully hold up to scrutiny when compared to the Suttas. Apparently you do. Although the commentaries for the most part look like very reasonable pieces of analysis, I think they flunk the test when "own characteristic" and the like get mixed in. This approach is the antithesis of what the Suttas are trying to convey and I think a mind geared in that direction has no chance of making full progress in letting go of conditions. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother butting heads with some folks here who I have much respect for. In other words, if I thought they were wrong but it was of no harm to them or others being influenced by them, I wouldn't bother about it. But since I think there is harm, I bother...sometimes. Many people in the world who believe in God derive great peace and comfort from that belief. However, I think the mere belief in God, is also a factor in preventing them from even higher peace and happiness...i.e., if they were to go further down the spiritual path of full detachment. I feel much the same way about the belief in Sabhava and Paramattha Dhammas. These thing are "off the mark" and are basically non-issues in the Suttas. They only become an issue to me when I think such notions are corrupting the Suttas meanings. Unfortunately, the idea of "own characteristic" bleeds into other areas of commentaries and affects them in various subtle ways. Therefore, one can happily read all of the commentaries and "see" 'own characteristic' throughout. Because the commentaries appear so closely in line with Suttas, it is an easy step to take such (corrupted) commentarial interpretation and inject that into Suttas...even though it is not in Suttas. It becomes superimposed upon them by the person engaged in such interpretation. Such a person becomes sincerely convinced that this is what the Suttas mean. Because they are studying them backwards. They are adjusting the Suttas to fit the commentaries instead of adjusting the commentaries to fit the Suttas. That's the way I see it working. TG #62066 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 6:56 pm Subject: Re: Not taking a footing and not exerting scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Some parenthetical remarks on: H: "What do "the original texts" say there is to a citta besides it being an act of knowing? (I think that bringing in "thinking" here is a mistake.) Is citta not just the knowing of an object? Is it not just vi~n~nana? If there is more to it, I'd like to know what." The PTS PED (not the be-all and end-all as Nina points out) defines "citta" as "the centre and focus of man's emotional nature as well as intellectual element which inheres in and accompanies its manifestations, i.e. thought...citta denotes both the agent and that which is enacted." Since women are left out its only half a definition. And not the clearest definition, but clearly notes "thought" and, by extension, in my opinion, thinking. I think "knowing" is the reserve of pa~n~na as I understand it. The paali for "to know" is, and I think you know that I'm just trying to learn in public and not stating that I "know" anything about this, "jaanaati." I see where the phrase "jaanaati-passati" is used to mean "to recognise, realise, know." Rather than "knowing" I'd vote for "cognises" as a compromise. I think the phrase "inheres in," above and in relation to citta, might be a bit tricky, but I think the meaning given by the PTS PED corresponds roughly to the definition-by-nature noted by Karunadasa. "Cinteti," related to citta, is "to think, to reflect." Again, a bit more evidence which suggests to me that it is okay to say "thinking" in relation to citta. My understanding of "vi~n~nana is that it is, as the fifth khandha, a term for general consciousness; that citta is a specific functional term. The paali "vijaanati" means "to have discriminating knowledge, to recognise, to apprehend, to ascertain." This verb is related to vi~n~nana, as I understand it. Corrections please! With loving kindness, Scott. #62067 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 7:07 pm Subject: Re: no Nina, No Lodewijk. philofillet Hi Nina (and Lodewijk) > It is good for > Lodewijk to hear different aspects. I can say the same thing to him > and it does not click, but if others speak out it is very helpful. First of all, there is the fact that, in the Buddha's teaching, persons/being do not have ultimate existence. "There is no Nina, no Lodewijk" is not a radical statement by a modern teaccher, it is the Buddha's teaching, plain and simple. As Acharn Sujin says "no one can change the Buddha's word." SN 35:23 At Saavatthi. "Bhikkhus, I will teach you the all. Listen to that... "And what, Bhikkhus, is the all? The eye and forms, the ear and sounds, the nose and odours, the tongue and tastes, the body and tactile objexts, the mind and mental phenomena. This is called the all. "If anyone, bhikkhus, should speak thus: 'Having rejected this all, I shall make know another all' - taht would be a mere empty boast on his part. If here were questioned he would not be able to reply and, further, he would meet with vexations. For what reason? because, bhikkhus, taht would not be within his domain.'" SN 5:10 "Why now do you assume 'a being?' Mara, is that your speculative view? This is a heap of sheer formations: Here no being is found" I could go on and on. There is no "person" in the Buddha's deep teaching (the only teaching I, for one, am really interested in) Suttas that refer to "4 kinds of persons" and so on (usually in Anguttara, it seems to me) do so because conventional language suited the audience at the time. Anyways, it seems to me that, to begin with, we can eestablish the "no Nina, no Lodewijk" fact pretty easily. Believing otherwise is a result of a lack of wisdom. If Lodewijk doesn't see this, perhaps there are not conditions for him to see the truth in this lifetime. And if that is the case, is it so awful? There may be conditions next time around. Don't we cling too much to what we get out of this one lifetime? Isn't your need for Lodewijk to "get it" in this one of many lifetimes a form of clinging to this one ephemeral lifetime. I often hear you in the talks expressing frustration at your inability to get the truth across to people. Isn't that a bit contrary to the teaching that people's understanding will develop due to conditions that are beyond their control, not to mention being beyond *your* control! You ahve written so many wonderful books that have helped many people, so of course you have strong accumulations to try to help others to understand, which is so very wholesome. As for the social relationships, I know Lodewijk appreciates the Buddha's sutta that says "the unwholesome can be eradicated and the wholesome cultivated." or words to that effect. There are no people, but the wholesome can be developed. I think faith in the Buddha's teaching can allow us to feel comfortable that staying in the light of the Dhamma will condition processes that lead to our being more caring, less harmful, more helpful etc. I certainly feel confident about that. Phil p.s please don't reply to this. Just putting in my 5 cents worth as we north americans says #62068 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 7:55 pm Subject: Re: no Nina, No Lodewijk. philofillet Hi again Nina, Still thinking about this, which was of course written more to you than to Lodewijk. Why do we want our loved ones to share the Buddha's deep teaching? It's not like Christianity, where they will be "saved" and get to go to God's Kingdom with us, Hallelulah Praise the Lord. I think of Naomi. I have on occasion, when asked, talked a little about Dhamma with her, but of course people who don't have conditions for it thinks it sounds ludicrous and laugh at it. I think of the time I, unwisely, wrote to James' friend Amr. The Buddha's teaching goes against the way of the world. Of course, I give up too easily, don't try to find better ways to put it. "It sounds too harsh" or something like that, Lodewijk said about "No Nina." But it we water down the true teaching, it is no longer the true teaching. And does it matter in conventional terms? You and Lodewijk have your wonderful love story together, your companionship. Because of our accumulated ignorance and lobha which are so very, very deep, your wonderful story together *will* be very real to you - that won't change! It can't cahnge even if you want it too. Lodewijk will seem ever so real to you and you to Lodewijk - there is not enough understanding to undo that in one lifetime. A sweet and wonderful dream about two caring, compassionate people - the dream, like all dreams, is really just a flash, and then another dream, and another, and on and on and on. And underlying it is more or less understanding of Dhamma - only more or less, not absolute understanding, not for us. So more or less understanding goes on and on and on, developing gradually (or accumulating in the acse of delusion) if there are conditions for it. More dreams to come, surely, as understanding develops, until the end of dreams. Phil > If Lodewijk doesn't see this, > perhaps there are not conditions for him to see the truth in this > lifetime. And if that is the case, is it so awful? There may be > conditions next time around. Don't we cling too much to what we get > out of this one lifetime? Isn't your need for Lodewijk to "get it" > in this one of many lifetimes a form of clinging to this one > ephemeral lifetime. I often hear you in the talks expressing > frustration at your inability to get the truth across to people. > Isn't that a bit contrary to the teaching that people's > understanding will develop due to conditions that are beyond their > control, not to mention being beyond *your* control! You ahve > written so many wonderful books that have helped many people, so of > course you have strong accumulations to try to help others to > understand, which is so very wholesome. > #62069 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 7:59 pm Subject: Re: born with pa~n~naa scottduncan2 Dear Nina, Sorry, but I think it is very fortunate to be able to actually converse with you. Thank you and apologies for the outpouring of respect. N: "We can learn the meaning of vedanaa when we study with what cittas what types of vedanaa arise. I do not know a better translation than feeling. Vedanaakkhandha arises and falls away each moment, it is never lacking. When we are seeing now it seems that there is no particular feeling that accompanies seeing: no happy feeling, no unhappy feeling. Then there is indifferent or neutral feeling, feeling that is neither pleasant nor unpleasant." I'll go with what you know (not as a sycophant, mind you, just accepting the say-so of someone wiser). N: "Phassa is one of the conditions for feeling. Feeling accompanying seeing is the result of kamma, it is vipaaka. Feeling accompanying akusala citta rooted in lobha is conditioned by the roots of ignorance and attachment." Okay. N: "The sense-cognitions such as seeing, hearing, are vipaakacittas arising during life.It depends on kamma whether desirable objects or undesirable objects are seen or heard, but at the very moment of seeing or hearing we do not know whether kusala vipaakacitta or akusala vipaakacitta arises. It does not matter, it is gone immediately. Why should we find out." Yes. N: "Seeing and hearing in a dream is thinking, not vipaakacitta. They are not the realities of seeing or hearing, only a memory of what was seen formerly." I've thought about where a dream fits in and what you say conforms to the conclusions I had reached. The dream is a special form of thinking and is, as such, a mind-object. N: "In the case of cittas of the sense sphere, when happy feeling arises there is also rapture, piiti. But it is hard to distinguish them. Not before the first stage of insight when the difference between nama and rupa is clearly known." Tell me about it. It is hard to label experience. S: "Are 'happy feeling' and 'rapture,pitti' distinguished as naama is from ruupa?" N: No, they are both cetasikas. Of course, thanks. N: "The Visuddhimagga describes degrees of piiti and also that it conditions bodily phenomena. As a jhanafactor it is abandoned before happy feeling, being more coarse. Vis. IV, 153. Beware of the transl: piiti is transl. as happiness and happy feeling as bliss. Naama (and not only piiti) conditions ruupa." I'm sorry, Nina. I'll read the citation but this above is not clear as of yet. If you have time, might you re-phrase or clarify? Are you referring to cittajaruupa? If I'm to beware, I'd better be clear of what. N: "We cannot know exactly what happened when it is all gone. It is natural that we think and try to reconstruct, and then the present reality is thinking. There are conditions for thinking all the time." Truly. I must really study more about thinking. Its a weak point for me. Thanks for your careful responses. I truly think it a great thing to study the Dhamma with you. With loving kindness, Scott. #62070 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 8:04 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Not taking a footing and not exerting ken_aitch Hi Howard ------- H: > What do "the original texts" say there is to a citta besides it being an act of knowing? (I think that bringing in "thinking" here is a mistake.) Is citta not just the knowing of an object? Is it not just vi~n~nana? If there is more to it, I'd like to know what. > -------- There is nothing more to it. Nor is there anything less to it. Citta (or more generally, nama) experiences an object. There is no experiencing without nama. There is no nama without experiencing. So we could, if we preferred, say nama is "the experiencing of an object." As for specific examples where the texts say nama experiences an object, I would say, 'everywhere.' But, loosely quoting from the Satipatthana Sutta: "There is a case where a monk who is walking knows he is walking." Of course, "monk" and "walking" are just conventional designations. The Buddha never intended us to be caught out by conventional designations but rather to understand (in this case) that, ultimately, panna directly "knows" a paramattha dhamma. The Satipatthana sutta does not say: "There is a unitary, non-dual, experiential event of monk-walking-knowingness." If it did then we might rightly infer that, ultimately, panna and its paramattha object were 'event contents' inseparable from the "namic-rupic-experiential event" no single part of which was either the knower or the known. I realise that Mahayana Buddhism comes to that latter conclusion, but I don't know how. As I understand it, Mahayana's "non-duality" means that every dhamma is at one with the universe (loka), meaning that no dhamma can have its own characteristics. This is very different from Theravada. If I understand you correctly, you are trying to meet the two doctrines half way. But I don't think it is working. It is causing more troubles than it is worth. IMHO :-) Ken H #62071 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Aug 1, 2006 1:09 am Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 502- Equanimity/Tatramajjhatataa(m) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) =============================================== Equanimity(Tatramajjhatataa) contd Questions i Why is it difficult to know the characteristic of equanimity? ii When there is neither like nor dislike is there always equanimity? iii When we are generous there is equanimity with the kusala citta. What is its function? iv When one begins to be mindful of nåma and rúpa which appear, is there equanimity with the kusala citta? v What is sixfold equanimity and why is it sixfold? vi In what way can sixfold equanimity be developed? ***** Equanimity/Tatramajjhatataa finished! Metta, Sarah ====== #62072 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Aug 1, 2006 2:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: no Nina, No Lodewijk. nilovg Dear Andrew, I did not see any choppingblock, I think your dialogue with Howard was great and very friendly. With Mattheesha I did not follow all. I am a bit dense in wordplays, what are the eggs referring to? It is my lack of mastering all finesses in English, especially when you guys are joking. You express some frustration? Needless. We all like to hear more from you for sure. Nina. Op 1-aug-2006, om 2:44 heeft Andrew het volgende geschreven: > All I can say is, I hope Lodewijk likes eggs! ((-: I've put my head > on the chopping block with Matheesha and Howard and will probably > be "tarred and feathered", but it's all in a good cause! #62073 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Aug 1, 2006 2:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: no Nina, No Lodewijk. nilovg Hi Phil, I especially appreciate what you write about dreams. Very true. No, at the moment no frustration, one unlearns that in dsg. I just try the best I can. For Lodewijk: he understand about paramattha dhammas and agrees. He only objects to the way it is at times brought. He would like to show that there is no contradiction and that the Buddha very much took into account compassion, metta, all good qualities to be developed when we are with our fellowmen. He is concerned that this aspect goes too much to the background, when it is said: we are only nama and rupa. He likes to be careful, and thinks that one may unnecessarily drive people away. Nina. Op 1-aug-2006, om 4:55 heeft Phil het volgende geschreven: > A sweet and wonderful > dream about two caring, compassionate people - the dream, like all > dreams, is really just a flash, and then another dream, and another, > and on and on and on. And underlying it is more or less > understanding of Dhamma - only more or less, not absolute > understanding, not for us. So more or less understanding goes on and > on and on, developing gradually (or accumulating in the acse of > delusion) if there are conditions for it. More dreams to come, > surely, as understanding develops, until the end of dreams. > #62074 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Aug 1, 2006 2:57 am Subject: breath as concept as dhatu? philofillet Hi Nina I was listening to a talk about breath. I heard this - "concept of breath can be object of samattha, but reality ofreath is object of vipasanna." A couple of questions - If one sneezes on one's hand, say, the awareness of the breath will be as concept, but it can also be dhatu, I heard. Dhatu can be concept, I heard. This surprised me. Doesn't dhatu mean element? Mustn't dhatu be paramattha dhamma? For the breath to be known as reality, it would need to be the rupa that it produced by citta, I heard, and this is too subtle, too difficult. So people who develop samattha have the nimitta as object - did I get that right? And in the recent talks there is the talk about nimitta, that when we are aware of characteristics it will be as nimitta. Is this the same thing as the nimitta that samatha has as object? I guess not, because I think I heard Acharn Sujin say that samattha is not about understanding, but surely knowing characteristics is about understanding. Thanks in advance for any feedback, and please no hurry. (Also, again, no need for a reply to my post about "no nina") Phil #62075 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Aug 1, 2006 3:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Emptiness of All Conditioned Dhammas nilovg Hi Howard, you say, > When we say that a table is hard, we > think of its hardness as a characteristic of the table, but a > hardness rupa is > just what it is - it is "such". I agree, when hardness appears, there is only the characteristic of hardness, no thought of a table. The question is different when we say: the element of solidity, the earth element, appears as hardness or softness. It is allowable to say: it has the charac. of hardness or softness. And then the three general characteristics: citta is impermanent, or it has the charac. of impermanence, dukkha, anattaa. However, when a characteristic is realized, there is no thinking anyway, no need to think: it is a characteristic or it has a characteristic. Nina. Op 30-jul-2006, om 18:24 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Just one more point with regard to "characteristic": It seems to me > that a dhamma, hardness for example, is, itself, the "distinguishing > characteristic", and not something that *has* a distinguishing > characteristic. At the > level of paramattha dhammas, there really is no distinction to be > made between > dhammas, conditions, and characteristics. When we say that a table > is hard, we > think of its hardness as a characteristic of the table, but a > hardness rupa is > just what it is - it is "such". #62076 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Aug 1, 2006 3:06 am Subject: [dsg] Re: no Nina, No Lodewijk. philofillet Hi Nina We crossed paths! >and thinks that one may unnecessarily > drive people away. I remember when I first met Rob K I told him that I thought it was good to have a very soft kind of comfortable Dhamma to get people in the door, and then they will have the opportunity to get at the true Dhamma. You can imagine how confidently and eloquently he talked about the need to get at the true Dhamma, at the heart of the Buddha's teaching. I feel that way now. I think if we worry about driving people away because they will not respond to the Buddha's teaching, we will not be helping anyone, in the long run. Let's stick to the truth! Let's stick to that cold shower. That's the way I feel now, but that could change. Of course Lodewijk has spent so many years serving humanity as a diplomat that it is perfectly natural and right that he should hope for a Dhamma that is more accessible. He is certainly not alone in that. Phil #62077 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Intention and self view upasaka_howard Hi, Andrew - In a message dated 7/31/06 8:41:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time, athel60@... writes: > Hi Howard > > I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion before, so I won't comment > at length. You like to emphasise the following: > > "intentional action is carried out quite commonly > >with desired results being achieved" > > whereas I like to emphasise the opposite ie there are times when > intentional action is carried out *without* desired results being > achieved. What does that tell us about intention? I say it tells us > that intention is not the beast we imagine it to be. ------------------------------------------ Howard: But I agree with you! I don't take intention to be a be-all and end-all. It is one condition among many - extremely important (it is kamma) but not all-important, and certainly not all-powerful. My argument is with those who see it as close to nothing. ------------------------------------------- > > You also say: > > An essential one of the conditions needed for the eggs to > hatch was > >the warmth provided by the intentional action of the hen sitting on > them. > > But is that completely correct? What if, as I have posed to > Matheesha, the hen was *not* intentionally sitting on the eggs at > all? > ------------------------------------- Howard: But there *is* the impulse to sit on the eggs, and it leads to that sitting. Of course many things, many of them quite useful, can occur unintentionally. That's obvious. ------------------------------------- If intentional sitting on the eggs is an "essential condition", > > the eggs would not hatch. ------------------------------------ Howard: Please read what I said more carefully. It is the warmth that I said was essential. In eggeries (or whatever they are called), heat lamps are used in lieu of hens. However, intention is a background condition there as well, it so happens. My only point is the false claim of impotency of intention. ------------------------------------- I say they *would* hatch - regardless of > > the intention! All other conditions being in place, so long as she > sits on the eggs, they will hatch - even if the whole time she is > actually straining (unsuccessfully) to get *off* the eggs! We agree - > it's the warmth that matters, not the intention! ---------------------------------- Howard: No disagreement, at least as far as direct conditioning is concerned. Of course, the very existence of the hen grew out of conditions including intention. Intention was involved as background condition whether the hatching was done by a mama hen or by human contrivance. Your own existence here "in this lifetime" and "in this place", and, thus, everything that you do and all that you impact, had intention as a background condition - yours, and your parents', and that of many others'. -------------------------------- > > So I pose the question - when we are throwing around this > word "intention" (or "volition"), what do we really mean? In this > thread, I think we are mixing conventional and ultimate versions. I > think you are injecting conventional intention into an ultimate > equation that actually works without it. ----------------------------------- Howard: Underlying the conventional intention, a complex amalgam of conditions, is cetana as one of those conditions. ------------------------------------- > > Gotta rush, now. ------------------------------- Howard: Intentionally? ;-)) ------------------------------- > > Best wishes > Andrew > > ================== With metta, Howard #62078 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Aug 1, 2006 3:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sati, Samadhi, Samatha, Vipassana and Panna - but mainly samadhi jonoabb Hi Mateesha Thanks for your further comments. matheesha wrote: >Hi Jon, > > >>J: I think the suttas emphasise the development of samatha and >>vipassana, and the importance of samadhi in that development, >>but without suggesting the need for any separate development >>of that samadhi. >> >M: I agree with the above, but what would you say if I suggested that >samatha samadhi developed to a some degree (ie-being one pointed, but >not enough to give rise to jhana), can be used, as in 'vipassana based >on samatha' of the yuganadda sutta? What does it mean to based on >samatha? The here and now, tangible result of samatha, which is present >even immediately after it is stopped (unlike jhana),is samadhi, a >unified, one pointed mind. Does this samadhi citta 'apply' to >everything it touches after that - I think it does, based on my >experience, but also abhidhamma would agree as well I think that if a >mind was unified (a strong samadhi) it would apply to whatever arises >in conjunction with that citta. > The question you raise is whether samadhi that has been developed in samatha can be used in vipassana. This is an often-heard idea, but not one that is directly mentioned in the recorded teachings, as far as I'm aware, so we should be careful about inferring it from the suttas. But I think there is a more fundamental question here and that is whether, for the person who is interested in the teachings and sees the value in developing insight, the development of samatha is something that needs to be given special attention and is of particular assistance in the development of insight. As regards the Yuganaddha Sutta, this describes the ways by which people who have become enlightened have attained that enlightenment. It mentions 4 ways, namely, (a) by having developed insight that was preceded by tranquillity, (b) by having developed tranquility that was preceded by insight, (c) by having developed samatha and vipassana in tandem (or 'joined in pairs'), and (d) by having overcome the 10 "corruptions of insight" ('vipassanuupakilesa'). Each of the scenarios (a), (b) and (c) involves both samatha and vipassana, but there is no specific mention of the relationship between the 2. Of course, in the case of (c) it is apparent that the insight that lead to enlightenment was somehow based on the samatha/jhaana, but it does not mention the idea of samadhi of samatha being used in insight. To my understanding, however, the insight must have been developed in its own right as in any other case, and is not something that comes into being on the strength of the attainment of jhana. >'For a long time I have known the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One >that 'There is knowledge for one who is concentrated, not for one >who is not concentrated.' > >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.073.than.html > >M: I think the above sentence says it clearly, that there has to be a >degree of concentration for 'knowledge' (by which I believe means >knowledge arising from direct experiencing and not really relavent for >other types of panna) ,as can be seen as well from the sutta below > I agree that this sutta states the importance of samadhi to the development of insight. Indeed, the suttas generally emphasise the importance of samadhi in the development of both samatha and vipassana. The question is, whether this samadhi is developed separately from the samatha or insight and, if so, how. The quote I gave previously from AN IV, 41 seems to be saying that the samadhi is developed along with the development of the samatha or insight itself. >"Develop concentration, monks. A concentrated monk discerns things >as they actually are present. And what does he discern as it >actually is present? > >"He discerns, as it actually is present, that 'The eye is >inconstant'... >(sorry I seemed to have lost the reference link). > Right. But is there any way that kusala samadhi can be developed other than by the development of kusala itself (that is to say, by the development of dana, sila, samatha bhavana or vipassana bhavana)? >... > > >M: Just to let you know of the incompatibility of thoughts (papanca) >and concentration: >"There is the case where evil, unskillful thoughts — connected with >desire, aversion, or delusion — arise in a monk while he is referring >to and attending to a particular theme. He should attend to another >theme, apart from that one, connected with what is skillful. When he is >attending to this other theme, apart from that one, connected with what >is skillful, then those evil, unskillful thoughts — connected with >desire, aversion, or delusion — are abandoned and subside. With their >abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, >and concentrates it. >-vitakkasantana sutta > Yes, the Vitakkasantana Sutta ('The Removal of Distracting Thoughts') has been discussed here before ;-)). It deals with the case of a bhikkhu who is "pursuing the higher mind" ('adhicitta') which, according to the commentary, "is the mind of the eight meditative attainments used as a basis for insight; it is called "higher mind" because it is higher than the ordinary (wholesome) mind of the ten wholesome courses of action." It ends with mention of the attainment of insight. As you can see from this, it is addressing the development of insight in a particular context. I do not read this sutta as saying that a quiet mind is a prerequisite to the development of insight as described in the Satipatthana Sutta. Jon #62079 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not taking a footing and not exerting upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 7/31/06 10:09:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: > Dear Howard, > > Some parenthetical remarks on: > > H: "What do "the original texts" say there is to a citta besides it > being an act of knowing? (I think that bringing in "thinking" here is > a mistake.) Is citta not just the knowing of an object? Is it not > just vi~n~nana? If there is more to it, I'd like to know what." > > The PTS PED (not the be-all and end-all as Nina points out) defines > "citta" as "the centre and focus of man's emotional nature as well as > intellectual element which inheres in and accompanies its > manifestations, i.e. thought...citta denotes both the agent and that > which is enacted." Since women are left out its only half a definition. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Aside from the old-fashioned sexist terminology, I think that in the context of our discussion, this definition is terrible. It deals not with the paramattha dhamma called "citta", but actually with the amalgam sometimes called "mind", and referring to a much more general "mentality". But the definition is even worse than in that respect. All one has to read is "... citta denotes both the agent and that which is enacted" to see that the author is beset by atta-view! And do note that there is no explanation of the nature of that "agent"! Vagueness always sets in when speaking of an agent, because there just ain't no such thing!! But there is an atta-bound mentality involved in giving that incoherent definition. (I refer to the definer here, of course, and not to you, Scott!) ---------------------------------------- > > And not the clearest definition, but clearly notes "thought" and, by > extension, in my opinion, thinking. I think "knowing" is the reserve > of pa~n~na as I understand it. > --------------------------------------- Howard: Definitely not. Pa~n~na is deep, clear, and uninfected comprehension. Vi~n~nana is consciousness of the mere object. --------------------------------------- The paali for "to know" is, and I> > think you know that I'm just trying to learn in public and not stating > that I "know" anything about this, "jaanaati." I see where the phrase > "jaanaati-passati" is used to mean "to recognise, realise, know." > Rather than "knowing" I'd vote for "cognises" as a compromise. > > I think the phrase "inheres in," above and in relation to citta, might > be a bit tricky, but I think the meaning given by the PTS PED > corresponds roughly to the definition-by-nature noted by Karunadasa. > > "Cinteti," related to citta, is "to think, to reflect." Again, a bit > more evidence which suggests to me that it is okay to say "thinking" > in relation to citta. > > My understanding of "vi~n~nana is that it is, as the fifth khandha, a > term for general consciousness; that citta is a specific functional > term. > ---------------------------------- Howard: They are synonyms. ---------------------------------- The paali "vijaanati" means "to have discriminating knowledge,> > to recognise, to apprehend, to ascertain." This verb is related to > vi~n~nana, as I understand it. Corrections please! --------------------------------- Howard: Vi~n~nana has two senses that I'm aware of. One of these is general consciousness of object-content, and the other is the defiled knowing of an object in the D.O. scheme, infected by avijja via sankhara. In each case, however, it is consciousness of an object. ---------------------------------- > > With loving kindness, > > Scott. > > ==================== With metta, Howard #62080 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Aug 1, 2006 4:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Dependent Origination ... How about upadana? And bhava ? jonoabb Hi Joop Joop wrote: >>Am I in your opinion wrong when I perceive them also as the desire to >>reduce anxiety? Or don't you like such psychological language? >> >> > >Jon (some days ago): "Could you give an example of what you have in >mind by 'desire to reduce anxiety' in this context? Thanks" > >Joop (now): That example can of course be #2 of the aspects of 'wrong >view': finding rules and rituals important, doing them out of some >magical thinking. > >And my question of a week ago ("Or don't you like such psychological >language?") had also to do with a discussion between us some weeks ago > You ask whether I think it's wrong to regard erroneous views, rules and ritual and personality-belief in this link of DO as 'desire to reduce anxiety'? I think my answer must be: Not necessarily wrong, but not particularly helpful either. I say that because I don't see how it adds anything of any value to the original text and the 'standard' explanation. As a matter of interest, do you limit the explanation of 'desire to reduce anxiety' to just these 3 factors in the context of this link, or would you also apply that description to the same factors in other contexts, or to other factors also? >On your question, Jon: "By the way, you haven't said why you find the >passage (of Payutto) so helpful. Would you like to say a little about >this?" > >I answered, Joop: "I used the term "psychological" and that's why I >find the passage of Payutto so helpful. It's modern language of >people who are used to think in psychological terms, a way of >thinking and a language that only exist a hundred year or so." > > I am all in favour of the ancient texts being made more accessible to today's reader. >A second 'thread' >On your question (some weeks ago), Jon: "However, if you'd like to >adopt any passage from the article as reflecting your own view, I'd >be very happy to discuss the passage on that basis." ... > > >Joop: All your questions can be answered if you read Payutto >yourself, it's really helpfull to understand D.O. better (even if you >don't agree with all his text) >( www.buddhismtoday.com/english/philosophy/thera/002-dependent5.htm >and appendix A) > > If I have a chance I'll take a look but, for reasons already given, I prefer not to get into a discussion of a third party's views. >And about your question :"Also, is there some particular significance >in the author's use of 'causal'? I do not understand the conditioning >factors in DO to be necessarily 'causal' in their effect." >My answer is: Of course we use the term 'causal' here in the meaning >as the Buddha did, as 'conditioning', with the words: "When there is >this, that comes to be; with the arising of this, that arises. When >this is absent, that does not come to be; with the cessation of this, >that ceases." > > My point on the use of the word 'causal' was that to say "When there is this, that comes to be; with the arising of this, that arises" is not the same as saying "This causes that". There are many ways that A can condition B, without A being a cause of B. Jon #62081 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Aug 1, 2006 12:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not taking a footing and not exerting upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 7/31/06 11:04:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > Hi Howard > > ------- > H: > What do "the original texts" say there is to a citta > besides it being an act of knowing? (I think that bringing in > "thinking" here is a mistake.) Is citta not just the knowing of an > object? Is it not just vi~n~nana? If there is more to it, I'd like to > know what. > > > -------- > > There is nothing more to it. > --------------------------------------- Howard: Good! ----------------------------------------- Nor is there anything less to it. Citta> > (or more generally, nama) experiences an object. There is no > experiencing without nama. There is no nama without experiencing. So > we could, if we preferred, say nama is "the experiencing of an object." ------------------------------------------ Howard: I prefer. ----------------------------------------- > > As for specific examples where the texts say nama experiences an > object, I would say, 'everywhere.' But, loosely quoting from the > Satipatthana Sutta: "There is a case where a monk who is walking knows > he is walking." > > Of course, "monk" and "walking" are just conventional designations. -------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, sutta formulation is quite conventional. When involved with an Abhidhammic level of analysis, the speech should be less conventional, with great care taken (in that context) to avoid even a hint of agency. --------------------------------------------- > The Buddha never intended us to be caught out by conventional > designations but rather to understand (in this case) that, ultimately, > panna directly "knows" a paramattha dhamma. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree. --------------------------------------------- > > The Satipatthana sutta does not say: "There is a unitary, non-dual, > experiential event of monk-walking-knowingness." If it did then we > might rightly infer that, ultimately, panna and its paramattha object > were 'event contents' inseparable from the "namic-rupic-experiential > event" no single part of which was either the knower or the known. > > I realise that Mahayana Buddhism comes to that latter conclusion, but > I don't know how. As I understand it, Mahayana's "non-duality" means > that every dhamma is at one with the universe (loka), meaning that no > dhamma can have its own characteristics. This is very different from > Theravada. > ------------------------------------ Howard: If that were Mahayana non-duality, it would be different from "my" non-duality as well! It sounds much more like a monism to me than any sort of non-duality. I do believe you are conflating Mahayana with Vedanta here. ---------------------------------- If I understand you correctly, you are trying to meet the> > two doctrines half way. But I don't think it is working. It is causing > more troubles than it is worth. IMHO :-) > ------------------------------------- Howard: No, I'm not trying to do anything of the sort. My sense of non-duality is based ntirely on suttas. In any case, why are you introducing a matter irrelevant to this issue? The duality/non-duality issue has no bearing on my post that you are replying to. l that I asked was the following: "What do "the original texts" say there is to a citta besides it being an act of knowing? ... Is citta not just the knowing of an object? Is it not just vi~n~nana? If there is more to it, I'd like to know what." ------------------------------------ > > Ken H > > ===================== With metta, Howard #62082 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Aug 1, 2006 4:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Dependent Origination ... And being outrageous jonoabb Hi Joop Joop wrote: >Hallo Jon, Herman, Andrew, all > >Jon, I forgot to give a reaction to your question: " but I don't >think I've seen DO described as as an explanation of a causal process >within a moment. I'm not sure what >that means exactly." > >First with a quoute of mrs Sujin in "A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas" >"The Buddha explained the Dhamma by different methods, for example, > by way of the four paramattha dhammas, > by way of the four noble Truths or > by way of the "Dependent Origination". >These different methods concern the dhammas that occur at each >moment, also now, at this very moment." > > I agree that the 4 paramattha dhammas, the Four Noble Truths and DO all concern the dhammas that occur at each moment. I am not sure what is meant by the expression 'a causal process within a moment'. Jon #62083 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Aug 1, 2006 4:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Knowledge of the Difference Between Naama and Ruupa: Making The... jonoabb Hi Scott Scott Duncan wrote: >J: "The idea of 'no practice' takes a bit of getting used to, but I >find it helps to think of the 'development' of understanding as >'growth' of understanding, something that, if the right conditions are >in place, happens imperceptiblely but nevertheless inevitably." > >I've come to appreciate this way of seeing it as well. And I like the >word "cultivation" as well, as this relates to growth if one takes the >analogy of a seed growing into a plant. The cultivator has no control >over the actual growth process animating the seed but can "act" to >ensure that conditions for growth are adequate. > > I'm not sure we can say the same about the development of insight. There are prerequisites for the arising of panna, but they are not a matter of "acting" in this way or that. I've snipped the rest of your post, as I agree with your comments ;-)) Jon #62084 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Aug 1, 2006 4:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ven. Cunda's Advice jonoabb Hi James Hope you had a good trip, and are settling in well in Taipei. buddhatrue wrote: >Thanks for this very cute story! You sure do seem to have a light >touch lately. That's good, now when we meet for lunch I won't have >to perform an exorcism of Mara! ;-)). > >But I wonder what the moral of your story is. If Eric joins this >group, and he believes that meditation is the heart of the Buddha's >teaching, he is going to be faced with endless debates which >question that core belief. Why do you want him to join? Do you >want to convince him that his meditation practice is wrong? Do you >want him to debate with the members of the group to make it >livelier? Do you have an unconscious desire for him to convince you >of the usefulness of meditation? ;-)) > > NOA ;-)). There is, I hope, a lot more to this list than 'debate' about meditation. I think anyone, regardless of their views on that issue, can benefit from discussion about the recorded teachings. >Remember, Eric didn't express any interest in learning about the >Abhidhamma, he expressed an interest in practicing jhana. Would >this be the right group for him- where he has to justify his >interest in practicing jhana every time he posts? > > In fact he did not express any particular interest in jhana, and I have no idea what his views are on that. But he would be in just the same position as any other member ;-)) Looking forward to our meeting next week. Jon #62085 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Aug 1, 2006 12:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Emptiness of All Conditioned Dhammas upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 8/1/06 6:05:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > you say, > >When we say that a table is hard, we > >think of its hardness as a characteristic of the table, but a > >hardness rupa is > >just what it is - it is "such". > I agree, when hardness appears, there is only the characteristic of > hardness, no thought of a table. > The question is different when we say: the element of solidity, the > earth element, appears as hardness or softness. It is allowable to > say: it has the charac. of hardness or softness. > ----------------------------------- Howard: Yes, I agree entirely. The "element of solidity" in that case is a concept including all instances of occurences of hardness and softness. Any particular hardness or softness, though, is a paramattha dhamma, a specific rupa which is exactly what it is. --------------------------------- And then the three > > general characteristics: citta is impermanent, or it has the charac. > of impermanence, dukkha, anattaa. > However, when a characteristic is realized, there is no thinking > anyway, no need to think: it is a characteristic or it has a > characteristic. > ====================== With metta, Howard #62086 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue Aug 1, 2006 5:22 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Knowledge of the Difference Between Naama and Ruupa: Making The... scottduncan2 Dear Jon, Thanks for the reply. I wonder if one can cultivate insight: J: "I'm not sure we can say the same about the development of insight. There are prerequisites for the arising of panna, but they are not a matter of "acting" in this way or that. I'm thinking of the study of the Dhamma. Although, I suppose this needn't be one of the "prerequisites." But perhaps, in this day and age, it might be. I think one can cultivate insight through study and consideration of the Dhamma. An intellectual understanding can serve as condition for more insight. Do you think so? Things arise and fall away whether one studies or not, or whether one can label them or not, but doesn't an intellectual understanding of the Dhamma, or aspects of the Dhamma, serve to alert one to what is going on? With loving kindness, Scott. #62087 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Aug 1, 2006 6:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Emptiness of All Conditioned Dhammas nilovg Hi Howard, just one remark I would like to add. Element of solidity or earth, element, dhaatu, is a reality, not a concept. In fact it is included in the list of twentyeight ruupas and these are ruupas, not concepts. It is right that it includes all instances of hardnesses, because when softness is experienced, there is a lesser degree of solidity. Same with temperature or fire: cold is in fact a lesser degree of the element of heat Nina. . Op 1-aug-2006, om 13:34 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > The "element of solidity" in that case is a > concept including all instances of occurences of hardness and > softness. Any > particular hardness or softness, though, is a paramattha dhamma, a > specific rupa > which is exactly what it is. #62088 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Aug 1, 2006 7:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: commentaries nilovg Hi TG, I would say, B.B.'s translation work is very good, but as to his remarks about Co. I do not go with him. Neither with his remarks about different schools. But he adds notes from the Co, he does not really reject them. What always hinders me is that he does not translate the complete co, because if one does not one misses out some essential things. I notice this when I compare with my Thai translations. On the other hand one person cannot do all, life is too short. But I like to come to the essence with you, TG! You reject sabhaava, but let us replace it by characteristic. At this moment when touching the keyboard, is there no hardness, to be experienced without thinking? This is different from seeing, hardness and seeing have different characteristics. Hardness is hard, it is ruupa that does not know anything. Seeing is an element that cognizes visible object. It is an element, not a person who sees. You cannot change the characteristic of hardness into seeing, thus from this point of view they are inalterable. That is actually the meaning of ultimate realities, nothing more, nothing less. Realities that have inalterable characteristics. Lobha is always lobha, it cannot be dosa. And that is the meaning of 'own characteristic', it does not mean that there is a possessor. I think that you read far too much into sabhaava. Nina. Op 1-aug-2006, om 3:32 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende geschreven: > You can't > reasonably say B.B.'s translation will show that the commentaries > "do not > add anything strange" to the (by "Buddha Dhamma" I presume you mean > Suttas or > Pitakas) and then say in a following post, after its shown that > B.B. does > indeed think they are not in sync with each other, that you're not > surprised. #62089 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Aug 1, 2006 3:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Emptiness of All Conditioned Dhammas upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 8/1/06 9:39:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > just one remark I would like to add. Element of solidity or earth, > element, dhaatu, is a reality, not a concept. In fact it is included > in the list of twentyeight ruupas and these are ruupas, not concepts. > It is right that it includes all instances of hardnesses, because > when softness is experienced, there is a lesser degree of solidity. > Same with temperature or fire: cold is in fact a lesser degree of the > element of heat > Nina. ===================== I don't think we are differeing in substance. Every instance of solidity, whether is is a relative hardness or relative softness - there really is only one sort of phenomenon involved, but with a range of values/degrees - is a paramattha dhamma. What I was maintaining was that "the element of solidity" viewed as a category, and including all instances, is a concept. With metta, Howard #62090 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Aug 1, 2006 3:54 am Subject: A Bit More Re: [dsg] Emptiness of All Conditioned Dhammas upasaka_howard Hi again, Nina - In a message dated 8/1/06 10:25:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: > I don't think we are differing in substance. Every instance of > solidity, whether is is a relative hardness or relative softness - there > really is > only one sort of phenomenon involved, but with a range of values/degrees - > is a > paramattha dhamma. What I was maintaining was that "the element of solidity" > > viewed as a category, and including all instances, is a concept. > > ====================== To further clarify: Solidity is a concept, but every solidity (rupa) is a paramattha dhamma. Hardness is a concept, but every hardness is a paramattha dhamma. Sight is a concept, but every sight is a paramattha dhamma. Seeing is a concept, but each seeing is a paramattha dhamma. We never smell odor, but we do smell *an* odor. We never taste flavor, but we do taste *a* flavor. We never hear sound, but we do hear *a* sound. Everything that is real is concrete, specific, and immediate. With metta, Howard #62091 From: Ken O Date: Tue Aug 1, 2006 8:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhammas According to Karunadasa/KenH ashkenn2k Hi Howard Substanliality is defined by you as the philosophical notion of substance, the term literally meaning "standing under", is, as given in the Wikipedia article, "that element of an object without which it would not exist, or what exists only by itself (causa sui)." Nina said before that <> k: furthermore there is always an misunderstanding in this usage of "bearing their own characteristics, they are dhammas". I think below is a quote that I like about the clarity of the meaning of sabhava and the misunderstanding cause by the relative way of speaking of discribing sabhava Abdhidhamma and Exposition of the Topics of Abdhidhamma translated by R.P. Wijeratne and Rupert Gethin. In the commentary of the Prologue, there is an explanation of the Utimate Dhammas "Alternatively, consciouness is the mere act of being conscious (cintana) . For it is its mere occurence in accordance with conditions that is called 'a dhamma with its own particular nature' (sabhava-dhamma). In consideration of this, it is the definition of the particular nature of ultimate dhammas that is taken as absolute: the explanation by way of agent (kattar) and instrument (karana) should be seen as a relative manner of speaking. For a dhamma's being treated as an agent and also its being[treated] in consequence as an instrument, by attributing the state of agent to a group of conascent dhammas, are both taken as a relative manner of speaking. The explanation in these terms should be understood as for the purpose of indicating the non-existence of an agent, etc apart for the particular nature of a dhamma." k: sabhava is to describe the characteristics of each khandha. It does not meant, it must have an agent or a being to exhibit characteristics. When it is used as bearing its own characteristics, it is used in relative speaking because there no such thing as self or "own" or agent. It is used to describe the uniqueness of each khandha or the distinction between khandhas. As you mentioned before English could not present the meaning of the dhamma, just like essential nature which is at times synoymous with uniqueness. Howeve essential nature can attribute to substantial. I believe Nyanamoli translation of individual essence is base on the phrase "bearing its own characteristics" or the derivation of essential nature. In fact I felt the word essence is also taboo. However by adding individual essence, it makes the meaning slanting towards "a being" and "a self" which is not the position of the commentaries. k: From here I realise why so many people question this term, due to in my personal opinion in the inaccuracy of translation, in which I concur with Nina. Cheers Ken O #62092 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Aug 1, 2006 11:01 am Subject: Letters from Nina 21 nilovg Dear friends, The Hague, March, '77 Dear Mr. Walter, Thank you for your letter. First of all, I will repeat your remarks on Buddhism, and then comment on them. 'I am rooted in the Christian culture and tradition and therefore I find the world of Buddhism a world which is strange to me. I have only an academic interest in Buddhism, but I believe that Buddhism may help me to know myself better. What I do not like is the idea of self-redemption in Buddhism.' Yes, of course we are rooted in the tradition and culture in which we have been brought up. It is natural that we feel at home with what is familiar to us. The Buddha's teachings do not require one to give up his tradition and culture, his likes and dislikes. Through the Buddhist teachings there will be more understanding of the conditions for our actions, speech and thoughts, more understanding of the causes of pleasant and unpleasant experiences. We do not have to try to change our life, but, through the Buddhist teachings there can be more understanding of it. I understand that you do not like the idea of 'self-redemption'. We cannot be redeemed by anyone. We cannot be redeemed by a 'self' either, but it is right understanding which can make us more free, less enslaved to our many defilements. The Buddha showed us the Path leading to the end of defilements. We follow this Path in developing right understanding of all phenomena in and around ourselves. When you see that the Buddha's teachings can help us to know ourselves, you may no longer think of these teachings as belonging to a particular culture which you find strange. You may think it worth while to find out whether these teachings can help you directly, now, in your daily life. ****** Nina. #62093 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Aug 1, 2006 11:04 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily Life, 40. nilovg Dear friends, Envy (isså) is another cetasika which can arise with dosa-múla-citta. There is envy when we do not like someone else to enjoy pleasant things. At that moment the citta does not like the object it experiences. We should find out how often envy arises, even when it is more subtle. This is a way to know whether we really care for someone else or whether we only think of ourselves when we associate with others. Stinginess (macchariya) is another akusala cetasika which may arise with dosa-múla-citta. When we are stingy there is dosa as well. At that moment we do not like someone else to share in our good fortune. Dosa always arises with an unpleasant feeling (domanassa vedanå). Most people do not like to have dosa because they do not like to have an unpleasant feeling. As we develop more understanding of realities we want to eradicate dosa not so much because we dislike unpleasant feeling, but rather because we realize the adverse effects of akusala. Dosa can arise on account of the objects experienced through the five sense-doors and the mind-door. It can arise when we see ugly sights, hear harsh sounds, smell unpleasant odours, taste unappetizing food, experience unpleasant tangible objects through the bodysense and think of disagreeable things. Whenever there is a feeling of uneasiness, no matter how slight, it is evident that there is dosa. Dosa may often arise when there is the experience of unpleasant objects through the senses, for example, when the temperature is too hot or too cold. Whenever there is a slightly unpleasant bodily sensation dosa may arise, be it only of a lesser degree. Dosa arises when there are conditions for it. It arises so long as there is still attachment to the objects which can be experienced through the five senses. Everybody would like to experience only pleasant things and when one does not have them any more, dosa may arise. ****** Nina. #62094 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Aug 1, 2006 8:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhammas According to Karunadasa/KenH upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 8/1/06 11:43:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ashkenn2k@... writes: > Hi Howard > > Substanliality is defined by you as the philosophical notion of > substance, the term literally meaning "standing under", is, as given > in the Wikipedia article, "that element of an object without which it > would not exist, or what exists only by itself (causa sui)." > > Nina said before that < (sabhava) as individual essence.>> -------------------------------------- Howard: I agree with Nina that that is an unfortunate translation, given that "individual essence" is, happily, not the meaning in Theravada. --------------------------------------- > > k: furthermore there is always an misunderstanding in this usage of > "bearing their own characteristics, they are dhammas". I think > below is a quote that I like about the clarity of the meaning of > sabhava and the misunderstanding cause by the relative way of > speaking of discribing sabhava --------------------------------------- Howard: Actually, I think it possible that dhammas "bearing their own characteristics" may well mean that each dhamma is exactly its characteristic. Hardness, for example, is just hardness. -------------------------------------- > > Abdhidhamma and Exposition of the Topics of Abdhidhamma translated > by R.P. Wijeratne and Rupert Gethin. In the commentary of the > Prologue, there is an explanation of the Utimate Dhammas > > "Alternatively, consciouness is the mere act of being conscious > (cintana) . > ------------------------------- Howard: A good formulation, IMO. ------------------------------ For it is its mere occurence in accordance with> > conditions that is called 'a dhamma with its own particular nature' > (sabhava-dhamma). In consideration of this, it is the definition of > the particular nature of ultimate dhammas that is taken as absolute: > the explanation by way of agent (kattar) and instrument (karana) > should be seen as a relative manner of speaking. For a dhamma's > being treated as an agent and also its being[treated] in consequence > as an instrument, by attributing the state of agent to a group of > conascent dhammas, are both taken as a relative manner of speaking. > The explanation in these terms should be understood as for the > purpose of indicating the non-existence of an agent, etc apart for > the particular nature of a dhamma." --------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, as I recall, the commentary describes the definition by agency as conventional and not ultimate. (I also think it is dangerous.) ------------------------------------- > > k: sabhava is to describe the characteristics of each khandha. It > does not meant, it must have an agent or a being to exhibit > characteristics. > ------------------------------------- Howard: That's fine. I accept that being the case in Theravada every bit as much as in Mahayana.(That was not so in all the early schools, Sarvastivada for example.) ----------------------------------- When it is used as bearing its own characteristics,> > it is used in relative speaking because there no such thing as self > or "own" or agent. It is used to describe the uniqueness of each > khandha or the distinction between khandhas. As you mentioned before > English could not present the meaning of the dhamma, just like > essential nature which is at times synoymous with uniqueness. Howeve > essential nature can attribute to substantial. ------------------------------------ Howard: We seem to be very much "on the same page" on this matter, Ken. ------------------------------------ > I believe Nyanamoli translation of individual essence is base on the > phrase "bearing its own characteristics" or the derivation of > essential nature. In fact I felt the word essence is also taboo. > However by adding individual essence, it makes the meaning slanting > towards "a being" and "a self" which is not the position of the > commentaries. -------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, I think that terminology is quite poor. ------------------------------------- > > k: From here I realise why so many people question this term, due to > in my personal opinion in the inaccuracy of translation, in which I > concur with Nina. > > > Cheers > Ken O > ====================== With metta, Howard #62095 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Aug 1, 2006 12:12 pm Subject: born with pa~n~naa nilovg Dear Scott, N: "In the case of cittas of the sense sphere, when happy feeling arises there is also rapture, piiti. But it is hard to distinguish them. Not before the first stage of insight when the difference between nama and rupa is clearly known." ---------- S: Tell me about it. It is hard to label experience. ----------- N: I just repeat as I got it from Kh Sujin. When we are hearing a sound we learn that hearing is naama and sound is ruupa. Naama experiences an object, ruupa does not experience anything. We understand this on an intellectual level, but not yet through insight. We confuse hearing and sound, but when there is awareness, it can be aware of only one reality, nama or rupa. After a sense object such as sound is experienced in an ear-door process, it is also experienced in a following mind-door process. Later on, in other mind-door processes we define the sound and think about it, then the object is a concept. Thus, each ruupa that is sense object, experienced in a sense-door process, is also experienced in a following mind-door process. But just now the mind-door process is as it were hidden, it seems that seeing, hearing, all follow upon each other. We do not know mind-door processes in between. Now it may be clearer that so long as we do not know what naama is, pure naama as Kh Sujin says, we are bound to be confused as to cittas and cetasikas. We can notice lobha and dosa, but do we know their true characteristics as naama? Sati and pa~n~naa can begin, but we cannot say that there is clear understanding. We do not really know the difference between citta and cetasika. Evenso, we cannot clearly know the difference between happy feeling and piti. When we speak about the difference between nama and rupa, we should not think that this means between seeing and visible object, hearing and sound, thus, pairwise, because it depends on the sati what types of realities appear when there is the first vipassanaa ~naa.na. Some people think that it has to be pairwise. That is not so. When there are conditions for the arising of the first stage of vipassanaa ~naa.na, naama and ruupa are experienced one at a time in several mind-door processes. Then it is clear what a mind-door process is. Naama is clearly known as naama, not blended or mixed with ruupa such as is the case right now. ---------- N: "The Visuddhimagga describes degrees of piiti and explains also that it conditions bodily phenomena. As a jhanafactor it is abandoned before happy feeling, being more coarse. Vis. IV, 153. Beware of the transl: piiti is transl. as happiness and happy feeling as bliss. Naama (and not only piiti) conditions ruupa." I'm sorry, Nina. I'll read the citation but this above is not clear as of yet. If you have time, might you re-phrase or clarify? Are you referring to cittajaruupa? If I'm to beware, I'd better be clear of what. ------ N: It struck me that you said, piiti is more coarse than happy feeling, and then I found that the jhaanafactor piti is more coarse, when reading the Vis. Jhaanafactors have to be developed in order to attain jhaana, but as higher stages are attained not all factors are needed, they are abandoned. The coarser ones are abandoned stage by stage, because jhaana becomes more refined. The translation is confusing, because piiti is transl. as happiness and happy feeling as bliss. I am referring to cittajaruupa, mind-produced ruupa, and that includes piit that in particular conditions bodily phenomena. An example is given of a girl who wanted to hear Dhamma and could levitate the body in her enthusiasm. Also akusala piiti, apart from jhaana can condition levitation. ------ N: "We cannot know exactly what happened when it is all gone. It is natural that we think and try to reconstruct, and then the present reality is thinking. There are conditions for thinking all the time." -------- S:Truly. I must really study more about thinking. Its a weak point for me. ------ N: In Bgk we discussed thinking: it is hard to know what one is thinking, because it falls away immediately. Kh Sujin said that when one asks what do you think, it is hard to answer this. We cannot know precisely. Nina. #62096 From: "Andrew" Date: Tue Aug 1, 2006 4:49 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: no Nina, No Lodewijk. corvus121 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Andrew, > I did not see any choppingblock, I think your dialogue with Howard > was great and very friendly. With Mattheesha I did not follow all. > I am a bit dense in wordplays, what are the eggs referring to? It is > my lack of mastering all finesses in English, especially when you > guys are joking. You express some frustration? Needless. > We all like to hear more from you for sure. Dear Nina Sorry to be obscure - I was joking 100% about all the talk of hens and eggs. I think the main problem in the discussion is that when we talk about a person doing something and getting or not getting a result, we are really talking in conventional terms about millions of mind-moments and the language makes it very easy for us to assume a self acting and to tie the intention firmly to the result. Whereas when we try to examine the same thing in Abhidhamma terms, we encounter selfless, fleeting phenomena that interplay in a very complex way that, to me, suggests a less central role for intention. Therefore, conversing by mixing between conventional and ultimate terms of reference is perhaps not so fruitful. Best to stick to one at a time. And when we go back to our usual conventional discourse, perhaps we are not so attached to recurring notions of me and mine? It reminds me a little of the poet and the scientist discussing "love" - the poet who praises the bliss d'amour and the scientist who describes the same phenomenon as a secretion and mixing of hormones etc. They both have their place, of course! Best wishes Andrew #62097 From: "Andrew" Date: Tue Aug 1, 2006 5:44 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Intention and self view corvus121 Dear Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > But I agree with you! I don't take intention to be a be-all and > end-all. It is one condition among many - extremely important (it is kamma) but not > all-important, and certainly not all-powerful. My argument is with those who > see it as close to nothing. How do we accomodate the idea that intention is conditioned and that, when it arises in the present, there is no control over it? I'm thinking, too, of that scientific experiment I posted about ages ago - the one where the scientists found that the body was already preparing to do something before the conscious intention to do it arose. All this suggests to me that there is something enormously complex going on - as to how intention arises and the role it plays in conditioning the future. When I think in conventional terms, I'm tempted to believe that "I" can make a decision and successfully steer things through to a desired result. As you say, there is no shortage of examples in daily life where that appears to occur. But is it just a conventional appearance? Is conventional truth ultimately false? Is there any wisdom in saying that ultimate truth is conventionally false? > Howard: > Please read what I said more carefully. It is the warmth that I said > was essential. In eggeries (or whatever they are called), heat lamps are used > in lieu of hens. However, intention is a background condition there as well, it > so happens. My only point is the false claim of impotency of intention. My example of the hen UNintentionally sitting on the eggs did seem a bit far-fetched, although it's not really when I think about it. I believe there are some egg-laying species that only incubate successfully because one parent uses duress to make the other parent incubate. So it seems to me that, whilst intention is always on the team, we shouldn't always dress it in the captain's jersey. [insisting on the prescriptive language = prescriptive meaning equation in the suttas is IMO close to always dressing intention in the captain's jersey - but that's another issue!] > Howard: > Underlying the conventional intention, a complex amalgam of > conditions, is cetana as one of those conditions. Nicely put! But then we get the urge to try to manipulate the "right" cetana to take us closer to the "right" result. That's the big DSG question, isn't it - just *how* does the right result occur? Can't say I really know myself, but I have an inkling that it is very complex and that understanding plays a pivotal role. > > Gotta rush, now. > > ------------------------------- > Howard: > Intentionally? ;-)) > ------------------------------- Yes, of course! ((-: But then I stayed at the computer and wrote a note to Nina! Best wishes Andrew #62098 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Aug 1, 2006 3:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: commentaries TGrand458@... In a message dated 8/1/2006 8:04:02 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: But I like to come to the essence with you, TG! You reject sabhaava, but let us replace it by characteristic. At this moment when touching the keyboard, is there no hardness, to be experienced without thinking? This is different from seeing, hardness and seeing have different characteristics. Hardness is hard, it is ruupa that does not know anything. Seeing is an element that cognizes visible object. It is an element, not a person who sees. You cannot change the characteristic of hardness into seeing, thus from this point of view they are inalterable. That is actually the meaning of ultimate realities, nothing more, nothing less. Realities that have inalterable characteristics. Lobha is always lobha, it cannot be dosa. And that is the meaning of 'own characteristic', it does not mean that there is a possessor. I think that you read far too much into sabhaava. Nina. Hi Nina I think the above type of theoretical outlook and analysis is not a factor of the Buddha's teaching. To me its a different topic than what the Buddha taught. I think the Buddha was not so interested in -- "hardness just being hardness and seeing just being seeing, etc. ... ESPECIALLY if it meant that the mind doing such perceiving was going to go toward the direction of concluding that these things are in anyway "inalterable." The idea of inalterablility of elements is the antithesis of Buddha's teaching. The food that sustains the body could be considered predominantly hardness. But that hardness, along with the other 3 Great Elements conjoins to sustain life and the ability to see. So I would far prefer to see hardness as a state subject to constant transformation and in fact...transforming into the ability to see!!! And how can 'seeing' turn into 'hardness'? Well, if I saw a beautiful woman and was in an unmindful state....need I say more? Indeed, I think the Buddha wanted us to see these things as continually transforming and fluctuating from one state to another. Your vision, as I see it, wants to see states as "their own thing" with their own characteristic. When I experience something, I want the insight to realize that such experience is merely a transformation of something else which is also a transformation of something else. Ultimately, these states are empty of anything unto themselves... and "own characteristic" is exactly what they do Not have. So, when I feel hardness, I understand conditional circumstances related to that feeling and understand that it is a moving, changing phenomena and that there are really no characteristics upholding such experience. (Yes conditions are upholding, but not characteristics.) Any supposed "characteristics" are merely altering shadows other shadows and are utterly empty of anything unto themselves. TG #62099 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Tue Aug 1, 2006 8:08 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Not taking a footing and not exerting ken_aitch Hi Howard, ------ <. . .> Howard: Yes, sutta formulation is quite conventional. When involved with an Abhidhammic level of analysis, the speech should be less conventional, with great care taken (in that context) to avoid even a hint of agency. ------ Normally, I would have thought agency meant acting on someone else's behalf. But you seem to understand it as any kind of acting (as distinct from an "act of acting"). I certainly don't believe citta experiences an object on behalf of a third party. However, if the term "citta experiences" implies the kind of agency you are referring to, then where's the harm in that? -------------- <. . .> KH: > > panna directly "knows" a paramattha dhamma. Howard: > I agree. --------------- I should leave well alone, but let's be clear on this. Are you agreeing it is perfectly in order to say, "Panna knows?" Hasn't your point always been that panna did not know, and that panna was, more correctly, "the act of knowing?" ----------- <. . .> KH: > > As I understand it, Mahayana's "non-duality" means that every dhamma is at one with the universe (loka), meaning that no dhamma can have its own characteristics. This is very different from Theravada. > > Howard: > If that were Mahayana non-duality, it would be different from "my" non-duality as well! It sounds much more like a monism to me than any sort of non-duality. I do believe you are conflating Mahayana with Vedanta here. ------------ I may have accidentally combined a little of both there, I'm not sure. I was summarising part of an article by Bhikkhu Bodhi (the article I mentioned earlier). Here is a snippet that could be called its bottom line on the matter: "The teaching of the Buddha as found in the Pali Canon does not endorse a philosophy of non-dualism of any variety, nor, I would add, can a non-dualistic perspective be found lying implicit within the Buddha's discourses." http://www.vipassana.com/resources/bodhi/dhamma_and_nonduality.php ---------------- KH: > > If I understand you correctly, you are trying to meet the two doctrines half way. <. . .> > > Howard: > No, I'm not trying to do anything of the sort. My sense of non-duality is based entirely on suttas. In any case, why are you introducing a matter irrelevant to this issue? The duality/non-duality issue has no bearing on my post that you are replying to. l that I asked was the following: "What do "the original texts" say there is to a citta besides it being an act of knowing? ... Is citta not just the knowing of an object? Is it not just vi~n~nana? If there is more to it, I'd like to know what." ---------------- I wasn't aware of introducing anything. I would have thought non-duality and plurality were already an intricate part of DSG's long-running conversations about agency (especially the Karunadasa article I was discussing with Scott). Ken H #62100 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue Aug 1, 2006 8:40 pm Subject: Re: born with pa~n~naa scottduncan2 Dear Nina, Thank you very much for: N: "I just repeat as I got it from Kh Sujin. When we are hearing a sound we learn that hearing is naama and sound is ruupa. Naama experiences an object, ruupa does not experience anything. We understand this on an intellectual level, but not yet through insight. We confuse hearing and sound, but when there is awareness, it can be aware of only one reality, nama or rupa." Hearing is naama, sound is ruupa. I find myself repeating this to myself. I think this is correct. I was considering this today, while contemplating sound and listening and thought the same. And this is only on the intellectual level. I seem naturally to focus on sound and hearing, for some reason, as I go about my day. I guess this is why I like this statement and find it to be correct. N: "After a sense object such as sound is experienced in an ear-door process, it is also experienced in a following mind-door process. Later on, in other mind-door processes we define the sound and think about it, then the object is a concept." That's right. I notice this. I can't experience pure "sound" yet - pa~n~na doesn't arise. I can notice how very very quickly there is thinking about sound. Like passing two people who are talking. I hear, as if the sound didn't even happen, only snippets of a conversation - already a whole and meaningful and everything. Certainly not sound. N: "Thus, each ruupa that is sense object, experienced in a sense-door process, is also experienced in a following mind-door process. But just now the mind-door process is as it were hidden, it seems that seeing, hearing, all follow upon each other. We do not know mind-door processes in between." There is so much that is not known. N: "Now it may be clearer that so long as we do not know what naama is, pure naama as Kh Sujin says, we are bound to be confused as to cittas and cetasikas. We can notice lobha and dosa, but do we know their true characteristics as naama? Sati and pa~n~naa can begin, but we cannot say that there is clear understanding. We do not really know the difference between citta and cetasika." That's true. I can't tell. Is it theoretically possible for pa~n~na to arise to such a degree that one can actually differentiate dhammas in this fashion? N: "When we speak about the difference between nama and rupa, we should not think that this means between seeing and visible object, hearing and sound, thus, pairwise, because it depends on the sati what types of realities appear when there is the first vipassanaa ~naa.na. Some people think that it has to be pairwise. That is not so." Sati arises when it does. For me, as I mentioned, sound/hearing seems to become a focus. Maybe someday I'll know something about this. But not all neat and pair-wise - however it arises. N: "When there are conditions for the arising of the first stage of vipassanaa ~naa.na, naama and ruupa are experienced one at a time in several mind-door processes. Then it is clear what a mind-door process is. Naama is clearly known as naama, not blended or mixed with ruupa such as is the case right now." I'm still prone to take the above literally, that is, that one would actually experience this - some sort of metaphor like "time-lapse photography" comes always to mind - but I don't really know how this is said to actually be experienced. N: "It struck me that you said, piiti is more coarse than happy feeling, and then I found that the jhaanafactor piti is more coarse, when reading the Vis." I think I've experienced it. I'm not sure. It feels "bodily" somehow. N: "Jhaanafactors have to be developed in order to attain jhaana, but as higher stages are attained not all factors are needed, they are abandoned. The coarser ones are abandoned stage by stage, because jhaana becomes more refined. The translation is confusing, because piiti is transl. as happiness and happy feeling as bliss." It is confusing to me. N: "I am referring to cittajaruupa, mind-produced ruupa, and that includes piiti that in particular conditions bodily phenomena. An example is given of a girl who wanted to hear Dhamma and could levitate the body in her enthusiasm. Also akusala piiti, apart from jhaana can condition levitation." The levitation would be ruupa? Cittajaruupa in particular? And, whether one or the other, of no final consequence, really. N: "In Bgk we discussed thinking: it is hard to know what one is thinking, because it falls away immediately. Kh Sujin said that when one asks what do you think, it is hard to answer this. We cannot know precisely." I find it easy to say what I'm thinking because I imagine that it is coherent, and hangs together, and is meaningful. I have yet to experience thinking that falls away immediately. It seems to just flow on. Ignorance. A pleasure as always, Nina. With loving kindness, Scott. #62101 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Aug 1, 2006 5:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not taking a footing and not exerting upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 8/1/06 11:12:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > ------ > <. . .> > Howard: > Yes, sutta formulation is quite conventional. When involved > with an Abhidhammic level of analysis, the speech should be less > conventional, with great care taken (in that context) to avoid even a > hint of agency. > ------ > > Normally, I would have thought agency meant acting on someone else's > behalf. But you seem to understand it as any kind of acting (as > distinct from an "act of acting"). I certainly don't believe citta > experiences an object on behalf of a third party. However, if the term > "citta experiences" implies the kind of agency you are referring to, > then where's the harm in that? -------------------------------------------- Howard: The harm is that it makes a citta into a "little self", a thing that acts, when in fact all it is is consciousness. Note: The dictionary entry for 'agent' is as follows: ------------------ Main Entry: agent Function: noun Pronunciation: 'A-j&nt Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin agent-, agens, from Latin, present participle of agere to drive, lead, act, do; akin to Old Norse aka to travel in a vehicle, Greek agein to drive, lead 1 : one that acts or exerts power (Secondary meanings omitted) ------------------ Just as there is no real being who is conscious, there is no entity by any other name (like 'citta') that is conscious. There is just the consciousness of an object occurring. -------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------- > <. . .> > KH: >>panna directly "knows" a paramattha dhamma. > > > Howard: > I agree. > --------------- > > I should leave well alone, but let's be clear on this. Are you > agreeing it is perfectly in order to say, "Panna knows?" Hasn't your > point always been that panna did not know, and that panna was, more > correctly, "the act of knowing?" -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I was letting that language-usage slide on this one, not wanting to keep up this much more. But, if you insist, yes, pa~n~na is not a thing that exhibits insight; it is the insight. --------------------------------------------------- > > ----------- > <. . .> > KH: >>As I understand it, Mahayana's "non-duality" means that every > dhamma is at one with the universe (loka), meaning that no dhamma can > have its own characteristics. This is very different from Theravada. > >> > > Howard: > > If that were Mahayana non-duality, it would be different from > "my" non-duality as well! It sounds much more like a monism to me than > any sort of non-duality. I do believe you are conflating Mahayana with > Vedanta here. > ------------ > > I may have accidentally combined a little of both there, I'm not sure. > I was summarising part of an article by Bhikkhu Bodhi (the article I > mentioned earlier). Here is a snippet that could be called its bottom > line on the matter: > > "The teaching of the Buddha as found in the Pali Canon does not > endorse a philosophy of non-dualism of any variety, nor, I would add, > can a non-dualistic perspective be found lying implicit within the > Buddha's discourses." > > http://www.vipassana.com/resources/bodhi/dhamma_and_nonduality.php > > ---------------- > KH: >> If I understand you correctly, you are trying to meet the > two doctrines half way. <. . .> > >> > > Howard: > > No, I'm not trying to do anything of the sort. My sense of > non-duality is based entirely on suttas. In any case, why are you > introducing a matter irrelevant to this issue? The duality/non-duality > issue has no bearing on my post that you are replying to. l that I > asked was the following: "What do "the original texts" say there is to > a citta besides it being an act of knowing? ... > Is citta not just the knowing of an object? Is it not just vi~n~nana? > If there is more to it, I'd like to know what." > ---------------- > > I wasn't aware of introducing anything. I would have thought > non-duality and plurality were already an intricate part of DSG's > long-running conversations about agency (especially the Karunadasa > article I was discussing with Scott). ------------------------------------------------ Howard: It isn't relevant in reply to what I had written and to which you are replying. ------------------------------------------------ > > Ken H > > ========================= With metta, Howard #62102 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Aug 2, 2006 3:03 am Subject: breath as concept? nilovg Hi Phil, Ph: I was listening to a talk about breath. I heard this - "concept of breath can be object of samattha, but reality of breath is object of vipasanna." If one sneezes on one's hand, say, the awareness of the breath will be as concept, ------ N: sneezing is not breathing. --------- Ph: but it can also be dhatu, I heard. Dhatu can be concept, I heard. This surprised me. Doesn't dhatu mean element? Mustn't dhatu be paramattha dhamma? ------ N: right, dhaatu is devoid of self. --------- Ph: For the breath to be known as reality, it would need to be the rupa that it produced by citta, I heard, and this is too subtle, too difficult. So people who develop samattha have the nimitta as object - did I get that right? ------ N: Those who develop samatha with breath as subject know it first by touch, and then when they are more advanced they acquire a mental image of it. Also for samatha it is a very subtle subject of meditation. One has to know precisely that ruupa where it touches the nose or upperlip. But that ruupa is not known as anattaa. -------- Ph: And in the recent talks there is the talk about nimitta, that when we are aware of characteristics it will be as nimitta. Is this the same thing as the nimitta that samatha has as object? I guess not, because I think I heard Acharn Sujin say that samattha is not about understanding, but surely knowing characteristics is about understanding. ----- N: The meditation subjects of samatha are mostly concepts. Tthe object may first be known through eyes (by looking at a kasina) or through touch, a mental image, nimitta is acquired and this is a concept. Kh Sujin said that also for samatha understanding is needed, but it is of another level. Nimitta of characteristics, this is different. It is sankhaara nimitta. Nimitta of conditioned realities that arise and fall away, and then the nimitta remains. Nina. #62103 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Aug 2, 2006 2:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Knowledge of the Difference Between Naama and Ruupa: Making The... jonoabb Hi Scott Scott Duncan wrote: >Dear Jon, > >Thanks for the reply. I wonder if one can cultivate insight: > A good question ... >J: "I'm not sure we can say the same about the development of insight. >There are prerequisites for the arising of panna, but they are not a >matter of "acting" in this way or that. > >I'm thinking of the study of the Dhamma. Although, I suppose this >needn't be one of the "prerequisites." But perhaps, in this day and >age, it might be. I think one can cultivate insight through study and >consideration of the Dhamma. An intellectual understanding can serve >as condition for more insight. Do you think so? > Hearing the dhamma explained in a way that is meaningful for or understandable to us is one of the prerequisites. This in turn occurs in dependence on coming across others who have understood the teachings -- another of the prerequisites. (The 'hearing' of course includes reading.) Then what has been heard and understood must be appropriately reflected upon; this is a third prerequisite. But this appropriate reflection is not, as I understand it, specifically a matter of deliberate thinking about dhamma. Appropriate reflection refers I believe to a reflexive process that happens because of one's interest in and appreciation of what has been heard, and it happens at different levels: as one is actually hearing the dhamma one is evaluating it, afterwards one perhaps mulls it over further, and later still what has been heard percolates through one's mind as one goes about other activities. In short, study and consideration of dhamma are not to be understood as formal or even deliberate activities. The kind of intellectual knowledge gained by formal or deliberate study and consideration undertaken with the idea that it will give rise to understanding is not likely to be a condition for insight, as far as I can see. >Things arise and fall away whether one studies or not, or whether one >can label them or not, but doesn't an intellectual understanding of >the Dhamma, or aspects of the Dhamma, serve to alert one to what is >going on? > > Intellectual understanding of course precedes direct understanding. But neither occurs through the doing of any particular kind of activity, as I see it. Jon #62104 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Aug 2, 2006 3:14 am Subject: sandhi nilovg Dear Connie, Thank you for the quotes. ------------ Connie wrote: I like this from the section in Netti on Conveying Synonyms: << 291. 'Enticements': some believe in forms, some believe in sounds, some believe in odours, some believe in flavours, some believe in tangibles, some believe in ideas (cf.#568).>> ------- N: In the same section before this one: _____ By the way, just in case you have it typed out (but do not type for me), Maung Tin, I only have until 542. Now with Larry we are until magga-paccaya. So I am near the end of Maung Tin. Nina. #62105 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Aug 2, 2006 3:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abidhamma origins nilovg Dear Charles D, You are right, it is better to say: what we take for a person are in reality the five khandhas arising and falling away. In ordinary speech we could explain: there is no person, as we used to think, but when we are more precise, we add: as above. Nina. Op 31-jul-2006, om 20:35 heeft Charles DaCosta het volgende geschreven: > Ok, so you do believe people exist, even if they are just the five > khandhas, > (includes nama and rupa), arising and falling away all the time. > > Now, to the statement ". . . when we say, there is no person this > does not > mean: there is nothing." I think it would be better to say what a > person is > to you rather than say, "There is no person!" #62106 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Aug 2, 2006 3:20 am Subject: 'As Tears Go By'......(was:Born with pa~n~na.) sarahprocter... Dear Scott, (Azita, Phil, Nina & all), Thank you for sharing more about your experiences and sharing your reflections on grief and so on (#61932). Of course it's very much in line -- the dhamma really is for daily life, otherwise what's the use? I hope you won't mind me adding a little more to your other discussions with Nina: --- Scott Duncan wrote: > After the Dream: I wake up and I'm actually crying. I have a series > of thoughts about the process of grief, interpreting elements of the > dream to myself, and then focus on the deep sadness and think, while > feeling it, what a very exquisite thing this sadness is. .... Sarah: I remember after my father died (a long time ago now), I'd wake up every night crying for quite a long time. Strong dreams too. As you'd know, it's all very natural. When we were last in Thailand with Nina and my mother also, the topic of sadness and the passing away of beloved ones came up. K. Sujin was making some comments about when there's understanding, one realizes such sadness is very common and has to arise by conditions. But it cannot last at all. Then she made a comment which struck me at the time: "It cannot last, even if you'd like to have it for a long time." I thought, who'd like to have sadness for a long time? But as you suggest as well, there can be clinging even to the sadness, the unhappy feelings and the loss of the "beautiful pictures of beautiful people relating with one another" (as Ken H put it so eloquently). K.Sujin stressed that the common understanding we have about grief and sadness is not enough. It'll continue to go on and on arising, lifetime after lifetime, by conditions whilst ignorance hasn't been eradicated. She asked us: "when it's time for more sadness, then what? It just depends whether there's any understanding of it as a conditioned, impermanent dhamma or not". Azita asked what the conditions are for sadness and K.Sujin gave a simple answer: "Attachment." The discussion continued with how there can be sadness and tears even when we're looking at the newspaper or T.V. or a movie. I was also interested in your brief comment about guilt at enjoyment, such as discussions with friends here at such times. I think this kind of guilt (another aspect of dosa, of course) is also an aspect of the grief (yes more 'dosa' still). It's all so natural and can all be seen for what it is. Yes, in psychology and other ways of thinking, we do have different ideas about emotions, feelings, perception and so on. Don't we even look at some of these aspects of dosa, for example, as being 'noble' in some way? I think our understanding of kusala and akusala and conditioned dhammas really does turn such kinds of understanding that we've been trained in upside down. That's how it's been for me over the years anyway. And then before we looked to 'working out the story', 'reflecting over the dreams', 'determining what kind of past thoughts or impressions we had'. Slowly, we begin to appreciate that there are only the present dhammas arising and falling away and those that have passed have completely gone. What we're left with is the clinging to the memory of them. If the present dhammas are the cittas (and cetasikas) which are thinking about those dreams, it is the present cittas which are real, not the dreams. It's not an easy path .... > I go downstairs and out on the verandah and sit on the steps, tears > falling, totally caught up in the "exquisite sadness" and then the > thought: "This is deep, deep clinging - this moment of exquisite > sadness is a pristine moment of lobha-mula citta." The feeling shifts > immediately upon this thought and seems rather intense and joyful as > another thought arises: "Noticing the clinging is a moment of > 'mahaa-kusula citta with pa~n~na,' there is no "forever," and there is > no wife anymore, only that feeling which, in clinging to it as if it > were my wife, comes to feel so 'exquisite.'" ..... Sarah: Yes, the clinging is so deeply rooted. On a somewhat related topic of a practice at another time, I also heard K.Sujin on a tape this morning talking about how there's always a turning away from this moment. "It's not a matter of place or time, it's the matter of right understanding of reality now. If there's no understanding of reality right now, it's moving away from understanding reality right now, because what is real is just now. The one which has fallen away and the one which hasn't come yet cannot be the object of understanding." She goes on to say that as soon as one thinks a quiet place would be better, for example, it indicates one doesn't have confidence in panna. When a friend asked about taking steps, such as going on a retreat or studying Pali, she was given the same answer - that there's always a turning away from present realities when there's not enough understanding. And again, her wise comments: "Everyone clings to what one takes as real when (actually) it's not real, it's like a dream. We consider this life so very important, but it will be like a dream for the next life. So what about yesterday - happiness, enjoyment, clinging - they're gone, so it's like a dream. It seems so important, but actually it's not - it's only thinking about people and things. For the whole life, there (maybe) no understanding of realities at all, (and) not just one life, many, many lives. This is the path - the developing of understanding - otherwise, there are no conditions for right understanding at all because right understanding must be unexpectedly arising by conditions, pure conditions." ..... > I wonder if the above is an example of the way these things come about > in the course of a day .... S: Yes, whatever comes, comes by conditions, completely uncontrollable by any self. It has to be a path of detachment from what arises from the beginning, even with the intellectual understanding about dhammas. And finally, I'd like to come back to our grief and tears for the loss of loved ones. Azita told me once that sometime after the loss of a very dear friend and partner, she went down to the sea where she lives in Queensland, Australia and reflected on the following sutta about the tears we shed life after life in our grief: SN15:3 Tears (Assu Sutta), B. Bodhi transl: "At Savatthi. "Bhikkhus, this samsara is without discoverable beginning. A first point is not discerned of beings roaming and wandering on hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving. What do you think, bhikkhus, which is more: the stream of tears that you have shed as you roamed and wandered on through this long course, weeping and wailing because of being united with the disagreeable and separated from the agreeable - this or the water in the four great oceans?" ".......The stream of tears that you have shed as you roamed and wandered through this long course, weeping and wailing because of being united with the disagreeable and separated from the agreeable - this alone is more than the water in the four great oceans. For a long time, bhikkhus, you have experienced the death of a mother; as you have experienced this, weeping and wailing because of being united with the disagreeable and separated from the agreeable, the stream of tears that you have shed is more than the water in the four great oceans. "For a long time, bhikkhus, you have experienced the death of a father....brother...sister...son...daughter....the loss of relatives....the loss of wealth...loss through illness; as you have experienced this, weeping and wailing because of being united with the disagreeable and separated from the agreeable, the stream of tears that you have shed is more than the water in the four great oceans. For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, this samsara is without discoverable beginning...It is enough to experience revulsion towards all formations, enough to become dispassionate towards them, enough to be liberated from them." Thank you again for sharing your reflections, Scott. They're most helpful for us all and I hope I haven't over-stepped the mark in my belated response. Metta, Sarah p.s. Thanks also to Azita's reflections quoted here and to Phil's recent 'dream' reflections. Pls add more if you care to! ======================= #62107 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Aug 2, 2006 3:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just to confirm re "noble instructed disciple" (Nina) jonoabb Hi Mateesha This is a very interesting sutta and I thank you for bringing it up. I find the similes in the sutta very descriptive and inspiring. I think the advice given in the sutta can be summarised as this: Pay no attention to the person's faults, but instead pay attention to his virtues and, if he has no virtue, then he merits compassion. (See the elided version of your passage I have set out below.) This is advice that we can all certainly take to heart. Two comments: A. The paying attention to virtues and not to faults that is recommended in the sutta must, I think, be a reference to kusala. It is not a way of thinking to be 'practice'. Thus it needs a person of well-developed kusala to be able to successfully pay attention as described. The sutta that we are referred to at the end of your quoted passage (AN 5.161), tells of the 5 ways of getting rid of a grudge towards someone: 1-3 Cultivate metta, karuna or upekkhaa towards that person 4. Pay no attention to the person 5. Reflect on the fact of ownership of kamma as regards that person. Obviously, these are all references to kusala mind-states and not some kind of directed 'practice' which may or may not include moments of such kusala. B. The sutta does not link (the absence of) thoughts of hatred to the development of insight. Given the nature of the monk's life and the many rules to be followed, hatred towards another, especially a fellow monk, could if unchecked lead to breaches of the vinaya or to thoughts of disrobing. Therefore it is important that such thoughts not get too strong a grip on a monk. Jon matheesha wrote: >Hi Phil, > > > >>If we stay open to the Buddha's teaching, wholesome dhammas >>are developed. I'm confident about that. There is no need >>to try to fix bad moods or bad behaviour by doing silly >>things such as intentionally feeling "metta" for this person >>or that. >> >> > >M: Well that might be too difficult. How about this: > > >AN 5.162 >Aghatavinaya Sutta >Subduing Hatred (2) > >Then Ven. Sariputta addressed the monks: "Friend monks." > >"Yes, friend," the monks responded to him. > >Ven. Sariputta said: "There are these five ways of subduing hatred >by which, when hatred arises in a monk, he should wipe it out >completely. Which five? > >... > >"Now as for a person who is impure in his bodily behavior but pure >in his verbal behavior, ... one should at that >time pay no attention to the impurity of his bodily behavior, and >instead pay attention to the purity of his verbal behavior. > >"And as for a person who is impure in his verbal behavior, but pure >in his bodily behavior, ... one should at that time pay no attention >to the impurity of his verbal behavior, and instead pay attention to >the purity of his bodily behavior. > >"And as for a person who is impure in his bodily behavior & verbal >behavior, but who periodically experiences mental clarity & calm, >... one should at that time pay no attention to the impurity of his >bodily behavior...the impurity of his verbal behavior, and instead >pay attention to the fact that he periodically experiences mental >clarity & calm. > >"And as for a person who is impure in his bodily behavior & verbal >behavior, and who does not periodically experience mental clarity & >calm, ... one should do what one can out of compassion, >pity, & sympathy for him, thinking, 'O that this man should abandon >wrong bodily conduct and develop right bodily conduct, abandon wrong >verbal conduct and develop right verbal conduct, abandon wrong >mental conduct and develop right mental conduct. Why is that? So >that, on the break-up of the body, after death, he won't fall into >the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, >purgatory.' > >"And as for a person who is pure in his bodily behavior & verbal >behavior, and who periodically experiences mental clarity & calm, >... one should at that time pay attention to the >purity of his bodily behavior...the purity of his verbal behavior, >and to the fact that he periodically experiences mental clarity & >calm. Thus the hatred for him should be subdued. An entirely >inspiring individual can make the mind grow serene. > >"These are five ways of subduing hatred by which, when hatred arises >in a monk, he should wipe it out completely." > > >------------------------------------------------------------- > >See also: AN 5.161. > >------------------------------------------------------------- >Revised: Sunday 2006-06-18 >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.162.than.html > > #62108 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Aug 2, 2006 3:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not taking a footing and not exerting nilovg Dear Scott, citta and vi~n~naa.na are the same. We read in the “Kindred Sayings” (II, Nidaana-sa.myutta, Ch VII, 61: However, in different contexts there is a differentiation of terms. The aggregate of consciousness is called vi~n~naa.nakkhandha, and it includes all cittas. For seeing-consciousness, the word cakkhuvi~n~naa.na is used. Vijaanaati means to cognize, understand. Citta clearly knows an object, but it is different from pa~n~na. Nina. Op 1-aug-2006, om 3:56 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: > My understanding of "vi~n~nana is that it is, as the fifth khandha, a > term for general consciousness; that citta is a specific functional > term. The paali "vijaanati" means "to have discriminating knowledge, > to recognise, to apprehend, to ascertain." This verb is related to > vi~n~nana, as I understand it. Corrections please! #62109 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Aug 2, 2006 3:28 am Subject: Visuddhimagga, Ch XVII, 92 and Tiika. nilovg Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 92. Jhaana-condition, Jhaana-paccaya. Intro: In the case of jhaana-condition, jhaana-paccaya, the cetasikas which are jhaana- factors are the conditioning dhammas which cause the citta and accompanying cetasikas, the conditioned dhammas, to fix themselves firmly on the object which is experienced. The word jhaana has been explained as being derived from "jhaayati'', to contemplate, or to think closely of an object. Or else (derived from a different root) "jhaayati'' that means to burn (Vis.IV,119), since the jhaana-factors which are developed burn the "hindrances'' (akusala cetasikas) away. The jhaana-factors which are developed in samatha are sobhana cetasikas, they have to be developed together with paññaa which knows the way to develop calm, so that absorption can be attained. However, jhaana-factors can also be taken in a wider sense, they can even be akusala. That is why the Dhammasaga.ni mentions in the "Summary'' jhaana-factors arising not only with the mahaa-kusala cittas which are accompanied by pa~n~naa, but also with those which are ~naa.na-vippayutta, unaccompanied by pa~n~naa, as well as with each of the akusala cittas. Not only kusala citta but also akusala citta needs jhaana-factors which assist the citta to be firmly fixed on an object. Even when someone performs evil deeds he needs jhaana- factors which accompany the akusala citta, so that he is concentrated on the object of akusala; these jhaana-factors condition the akusala citta by way of jhaana-condition. We read in the "Pa.t.thaana''(Faultless Triplet,VII, Investigation Chapter, §431) that akusala jhaana-factors are related to their associated aggregates (the other naamakkhandhas) by jhaana-condition. Without the assistance of the jhaana- factors good or evil deeds cannot be performed. When jhaana is taken in its widest sense, the following cetasikas are seven jhaana-factors: applied thinking (vitakka) sustained thinking (vicaara) rapture or interest (piiti) pleasant feeling (sukha) unpleasant feeling (domanassa) indifferent feeling (upekkhaa) concentration (samaadhi) ******* Text Vis. 92. (17) All the seven jhaana factors classed as profitable, etc.--leaving out the pair, pleasant and painful feeling, in the case of the two sets of five consciousnesses-- -------- N. profitable etc. refers to kusala, akusala, vipaaka and kiriya. The pleasant bodily feeling and painful bodily feeling accompanying the two types of body-consciousness (one kusala vipaaka and one akusala vipaaka) are excepted. ------------- Text Vis. : which factors assist in the sense of constituting a state of jhaana, are 'jhaana conditions', according as it is said: 'The jhaana factors are a condition, as jhaana condition, for the states associated with jhaana and for the kinds of materiality originated thereby' (P.tn.1,6). -------- N: As to the expression, ‘ constituting a state of jhaana’, this is the translation of upanijjhaana, meaning contemplation. The Tiika states that applied thinking, vitakka, and so on, when they have approached an object, contemplate it, consider it, think of it (nijjhaana.m, pekkhana.m, cintana.m). The Tiika mentions this as an extraordinary engagement of these factors. The seven jhaanafactors are a condition for the conascent naama- dhammas and also for the mind-produced ruupa by way of jhaana-paccaya. The Tiika emphasizes with regard to all seven jhaanafactors that are jhaana-condition, that this does not concern all cittas. As we have seen, the feelings accompanying the two types of body-consciousness are excepted. These are too weak to be jhaana-condition. In the following section (Vis. 93) it is mentioned that cetasikas accompanying ahetuka cittas are not included according to the Co. to the Pa.t.thaana. --------- Text Vis.: But in the Question Section it is said: 'At the moment of rebirth-linking, resultant indeterminate jhana factors are a condition, as jhaana condition, for associated aggregates and for the kinds of materiality due to kamma performed' (P.tn.1,175). ------- N: At the moment of rebirth the jhaana-factors accompanying the rebirth-consciousness which is vipaakacitta condition the other naamadhammas and also the ruupa produced by kamma by way of jhaana- condition. ********* Conclusion: as we have seen, jhaana-factors are not only operating while one cultivates samatha, they are conditions which function time and again in daily life, no matter whether we perform wholesome or unwholesome deeds. The subcommentary to the "Khandha-Vibha.nga''(Book of Analysis) explains the role of the jhaana-factors in relation to mind produced ruupa. This subcommentary calls the jhaana-factors "strength- givers'' (bala-daayaka), they are intensifying factors which assist the citta and accompanying cetasikas to be fixed on an object. The jhaana-factors vitakka and vicaara play a specific role when citta conditions speech. At that moment kusala vitakka or akusala vitakka condition the citta and mind-produced ruupa by way of jhaana- condition. When our objective is not daana (generosity), síla (morality) or bhaavanaa (mental development), we speak with akusala citta. When citta produces a facial expression of gladness, or when we smile, the jhaana-factor sukha (which is somanassa, happy feeling) plays its specific role, it conditions citta and mind-produced ruupa by way of jhaana-condition. In the 'Guide to Conditional Relations' by U Naarada (p. 65) it is explained that no action, kusala or akusala, can be performed without jhaana-condition. The jhaana-factors are the condition that an act can be completely performed from the beginning to the end. He explains that without jhaana-condition it is impossible Thus, these factors perform their functions, with regard to kusala or akusala. The sobhana jhaanafactors are jhaana-condition for the kusala citta that develops samatha or vipassanaa. The Tiika begins this section (Vis. 92) with the compound: jhaana as ‘contemplation of the characteristics and of objects’, lakkha.naaramma.nuupanijjhaana. The characteristics, lakkha.na, are impermanence, dukkha and anattaa, to be realized through the development of insight. The objects, aaramma.na, are the thirtyeight meditation subjects of samatha. Thus, this compound refers to samatha and vipassanaa. In the Sallekhasutta (M.N. I,8), for example, the Buddha tells the monks: ‘meditate’ (jhaayathaa). We read in the Co. to this sutta, the Papa~ncasuudanii, about the two meanings of jhaana referring to samatha and vipassanaa: <’Meditate’. By contemplating the thirtyeight objects of samatha, and by contemplating the characteristics, beginning with impermanence, with regard to the khandhas and the aayatanas. It is said: develop samatha and vipassanaa. Do not be indolent, do not be negligent.> [Jhaayathaa ti. aaramma.nuupanijjhaanena a.t.thati.msaaramma.naahi, lakkha.nuupanijjhaanena ca aniccaadito khandhaayatanaadiini upanijjhaayatha. Samatha~n ca vipassana~ca va.d.dhetaa ti vutta.m hoti. Maa pamaadatthaati maapamajjittha.] ******** Nina. #62110 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Aug 2, 2006 3:36 am Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 504- Six Pairs of Beautiful Cetasikas (a) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) =============================================== Chapter 31 Six Pairs of Beautiful Cetasikas Among the sobhana cetasikas, beautiful cetasikas, which accompany each sobhana citta, there are twelve cetasikas which are classified as six pairs. Of each pair one cetasika is a quality pertaining to the accompanying cetasikas and one a quality pertaining to citta. The first pair is: tranquillity of body, kåya-passaddhi tranquillity of mind, citta-passaddhi The Påli term kåya means body, but it can also stand for the “mental body” which are the cetasikas. According to the Dhammasangaùi (§ 40, 41) tranquillity of body is the calming, the tranquillizing of the cetasikas and tranquillity of citta is the calming, the tranquillizing of citta. Thus, tranquillity of body allays agitation of the accompanying cetasikas and conditions the quiet, smooth and even way of their functioning(1); tranquillity of citta allays agitation of the citta it accompanies. *** 1) See Abhidhamma Studies, by Ven. Nyanaponika, Chapter IV, 10. In this section an explanation is given about the “Six Pairs” (B.P.S. Kandy, 1976). ***** Six Pairs of Beautiful Cetasikas to be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #62111 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed Aug 2, 2006 4:41 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Not taking a footing and not exerting scottduncan2 Dear Nina, Thank you for the help. N: "citta and vi~n~naa.na are the same. We read in the �Kindred Sayings� (II, Nidaana-sa.myutta, Ch VII, 61: However, in different contexts there is a differentiation of terms. The aggregate of consciousness is called vi~n~naa.nakkhandha, and it includes all cittas. For seeing-consciousness, the word cakkhuvi~n~naa.na is used. Vijaanaati means to cognize, understand. Citta clearly knows an object, but it is different from pa~n~na." This is a very good clarification. How does the way citta "knows" differ from the way pa~n~na "knows?" My guess is that citta knows in a clear but global way, pa~n~na by specifically penetrating an objects impermanence, non-self, and unsatisfactoriness. With loving kindness, Scott. #62112 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Aug 2, 2006 12:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Intention and self view upasaka_howard Hi, Andrew - In a message dated 8/1/06 8:46:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, athel60@... writes: > Dear Howard > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > But I agree with you! I don't take intention to be a be-all > and > >end-all. It is one condition among many - extremely important (it > is kamma) but not > >all-important, and certainly not all-powerful. My argument is with > those who > >see it as close to nothing. > > How do we accomodate the idea that intention is conditioned and that, > when it arises in the present, there is no control over it? > -------------------------------------------- Howard: There is never any control over what has already arisen. There certainly is no control over what was before but no longer is. And, of course, how could there be control over what does not yet exist? [The preceding is a Nagarjuna-like argument. It is sort of immobilizing, isn't it! LOLOL!] Now what are the facts? As I see it, what is done now, and that includes current willing, serves as condition for future events. Current intention is a condition, among many, and a complex sequence of acts of intention, expenditures of energy, and resultant activities together serve to lead to future events. That is not "control", but it certainly is influence. It is conditioning. As to the fact that intention itself is conditioned, so what? Of *course* it is! Nothing arises randomly. Everything arises according to causes and conditions, and that includes conventional willing and all the cetanas and other realities underlying it. And, BTW, what desirability would even the most atta-bound mentality find pleasing in random intention? Speaking conventionally, do we not will something for a reason? Among the many factors, does not our willing arise out of desire?And is not that desire conditioned? -------------------------------------------------- I'm > thinking, too, of that scientific experiment I posted about ages ago - > the one where the scientists found that the body was already > preparing to do something before the conscious intention to do it > arose. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Most intention is subliminal. In fact, for almost all of us, and almost always, the intention arises first and only later are we aware of it. Intention is an impulsion arising in response to conditions. There is no one who intends anything. Intention is entirely impersonal. Imagine: Someone says "Andrew", and your head quickly turns and your attention shifts and heightens! Did "you" do that? Not at all. But intention was definitely a central element to that event. ----------------------------------------------------- > All this suggests to me that there is something enormously > complex going on - as to how intention arises and the role it plays > in conditioning the future. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Certainly. ---------------------------------------------------- When I think in conventional terms, I'm > > tempted to believe that "I" can make a decision and successfully > steer things through to a desired result. As you say, there is no > shortage of examples in daily life where that appears to occur. But > is it just a conventional appearance? > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. ---------------------------------------------------- Is conventional truth > > ultimately false? Is there any wisdom in saying that ultimate truth > is conventionally false? ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: It is better to speak of conventional *speech* and ultimate (or preferably literal) *speech*, than of *truth*. (Truth is truth.) As for conventional speech being ultimately false, conventional (or figurative) speech is always false when treated as literal speech. But, when understood as a useful shorthand for an enormous complexity of literal speech, conventional speech may be true or false depending on conditions - depending on the facts. --------------------------------------------------- > > >Howard: > > Please read what I said more carefully. It is the warmth > that I said > >was essential. In eggeries (or whatever they are called), heat > lamps are used > >in lieu of hens. However, intention is a background condition there > as well, it > >so happens. My only point is the false claim of impotency of > intention. > > My example of the hen UNintentionally sitting on the eggs did seem a > bit far-fetched, although it's not really when I think about it. I > believe there are some egg-laying species that only incubate > successfully because one parent uses duress to make the other parent > incubate. So it seems to me that, whilst intention is always on the > team, we shouldn't always dress it in the captain's jersey. > [insisting on the prescriptive language = prescriptive meaning > equation in the suttas is IMO close to always dressing intention in > the captain's jersey - but that's another issue!] > > >Howard: > > Underlying the conventional intention, a complex amalgam of > >conditions, is cetana as one of those conditions. > > Nicely put! But then we get the urge to try to manipulate > the "right" cetana to take us closer to the "right" result. That's > the big DSG question, isn't it - just *how* does the right result > occur? Can't say I really know myself, but I have an inkling that it > is very complex and that understanding plays a pivotal role. ------------------------------------------- Howard: Of course it does. ------------------------------------------ > > >>Gotta rush, now. > > > >------------------------------- > >Howard: > > Intentionally? ;-)) > >------------------------------- > > Yes, of course! ((-: But then I stayed at the computer and wrote a > note to Nina! > > Best wishes > Andrew > > > ==================== With metta, Howard #62113 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed Aug 2, 2006 5:02 am Subject: Re: 'As Tears Go By'......(was:Born with pa~n~na.) scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, I very much appreciate what you have written. I'm glad my post was not out of line. S: "Thank you for sharing more about your experiences and sharing your reflections on grief and so on (#61932). Of course it's very much in line -- the dhamma really is for daily life, otherwise what's the use? I hope you won't mind me adding a little more to your other discussions with Nina..." No, thanks for what you've written. A couple of responses, out of many possible: This was good to think about: "...I also heard K.Sujin on a tape this morning talking about how there's always a turning away from this moment. 'It's not a matter of place or time, it's the matter of right understanding of reality now. If there's no understanding of reality right now, it's moving away from understanding reality right now, because what is real is just now. The one which has fallen away and the one which hasn't come yet cannot be the object of understanding.'" As I go through a day I think I must constantly seek to avoid grief - grief in the momentary sense I suppose. I don't find that I dwell much on the future. I guess I've tamed my anxiety, which seems to arise along with living in an imaginary future. I see how I am constantly dwelling in the moment past. It is all thinking and, I guess, dreaming in the sense meant by K. Sujin. The dead moment. Its like the mind literally grasps and clings to past moments, whether thinking about an event, a conversation, what was seen, or heard. I can't grasp the moment now, but I do see how constantly I am back in the recent or distant past. I really like the Assu sutta you cited. A very profound teaching. I take the Buddha literally of course. All the tears... With loving kindness, Scott. #62114 From: "matheesha" Date: Wed Aug 2, 2006 5:19 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just to confirm re "noble instructed disciple" (Nina) matheesha333 Hi Jon, >J: This is a very interesting sutta and I thank you for bringing it up. I > find the similes in the sutta very descriptive and inspiring. > > I think the advice given in the sutta can be summarised as this: Pay no > attention to the person's faults, but instead pay attention to his > virtues and, if he has no virtue, then he merits compassion. (See the > elided version of your passage I have set out below.) > > This is advice that we can all certainly take to heart. > > Two comments: > A. The paying attention to virtues and not to faults that is > recommended in the sutta must, I think, be a reference to kusala. It is > not a way of thinking to be 'practice'. Thus it needs a person of > well-developed kusala to be able to successfully pay attention as > described. M: Well I'm not sure what you mean exactly by the above. It's obviously not a formal sitting down meditation, if that's what you mean. It is simply to look at the other person's good aspects, and this in turn leads to a reduction in anger. Now, when somene is caught up in anger (to a degree that it needs reducing) this needs to be done intentionally for it to happen. Because anger conditions more anger and resentment, not wisdom or compassion. So it is a good technique of reducing anger - one to be remembered and used when needed. It is not a 'practice' in that it can only be practiced when anger arises... then again we could make a proper practice of it by looking at the good in other people all the time. You say it takes a person of well-developed kusala to do it? Why? Anyone who wants to look at someone's good qualities can do it, surely? :) I don't think it needs to be complicated for it to qualify as teachings of the Buddha... and effective ones at that. >J: The sutta that we are referred to at the end of your quoted > passage (AN 5.161), tells of the 5 ways of getting rid of a grudge > towards someone: > 1-3 Cultivate metta, karuna or upekkhaa towards that person > 4. Pay no attention to the person > 5. Reflect on the fact of ownership of kamma as regards that person. > Obviously, these are all references to kusala mind-states and not some > kind of directed 'practice' which may or may not include moments of such > kusala. "When you give birth to hatred for an individual, you should develop good will for that individual. Thus the hatred for that individual should be subdued. "When you give birth to hatred for an individual, you should develop compassion for that individual. Thus the hatred for that individual should be subdued. "When you give birth to hatred for an individual, you should develop equanimity toward that individual. Thus the hatred for that individual should be subdued. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.063.than.html M: You say that the above is not directed practice. But there is nothing in the above to suggest that it is not. There are other suttas which show that intentional practice can be a useful aspect (samatha of course) of the path. "Then you should train yourself thus: 'Good-will, as my awareness- release, will be developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, & well-undertaken.' That's how you should train yourself. When you have developed this concentration in this way, you should develop this concentration with directed thought & evaluation, you should develop it with no directed thought & a modicum of evaluation, you should develop it with no directed thought & no evaluation, you should develop it accompanied by rapture... not accompanied by rapture... endowed with a sense of enjoyment; you should develop it endowed with equanimity. "When this concentration is thus developed, thus well-developed by you, you should then train yourself thus: 'Compassion, as my awareness-release... Appreciation, as my awareness-release... Equanimity, as my awareness-release, will be developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, & well-undertaken.' That's how you should train yourself. When you have developed this concentration in this way, you should develop this concentration with directed thought & evaluation, you should develop it with no directed thought & a modicum of evaluation, you should develop it with no directed thought & no evaluation, you should develop it accompanied by rapture... not accompanied by rapture... endowed with a sense of enjoyment; you should develop it endowed with equanimity. M: Ceto-vimutti (awareness release) is not going arise out of nowhere. It is a very powerful state which must be slowly and intentionally developed. This sutta goes on to say how this can be used as a basis for satipatthaana practice. I say that intentional development of metta is a part of the path and appears in many forms, including formal meditation. Metta is at the heart of precepts and used to subdue hinderences. > > B. The sutta does not link (the absence of) thoughts of hatred to the > development of insight. Given the nature of the monk's life and the > many rules to be followed, hatred towards another, especially a fellow > monk, could if unchecked lead to breaches of the vinaya or to thoughts > of disrobing. Therefore it is important that such thoughts not get too > strong a grip on a monk. M: This sutta doesnt. But hatred is one of the 5 hidrences. They are called the 5 hindrences because they hinder the whole path, (note samma sankhappa - harmlessness) leading to panna. with metta Matheesha #62115 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Aug 2, 2006 5:52 am Subject: 0.4 to 1.7 philofillet Hi all I went to Akihabra the other day, where there are all the electronics stores selling the latest gadgets. I picked up one of those new Hitachi Verite things. You may have read about them - you put the sensor on your temple, and it measures the time it takes for your brain to process decisions. Kinda neat. So I have been testing it here at DSG. I've read some posts in which a poster places his own opinion/interpretation over that of the ancient commentaries, and I measured the time it took for me to decide whether to believe the poster or the ancient commentaries. The title of this post refers to the range of time (in seconds) that I have recorded so far. This concerns me a bit. Perhaps I shouldn't be so quick about deciding to believe the commentaries rather than some fellow posting on the internet. I really should be a bit more reflective on this point. I really hope my decision time increases to at least the 2 to 3 second range. Phil #62116 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed Aug 2, 2006 6:02 am Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga, Ch XVII, 92 and Tiika. scottduncan2 Dear Nina, There is much in your post. I like this: N: "In the 'Guide to Conditional Relations' by U Naarada (p. 65) it is explained that no action, kusala or akusala, can be performed without jhaana-condition. The jhaana-factors are the condition that an act can be completely performed from the beginning to the end. He explains that without jhaana-condition it is impossible Thus, these factors perform their functions, with regard to kusala or akusala." A very subtle aspect of jhaana-factors. With loving kindness, Scott #62117 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Aug 2, 2006 6:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sati, Samadhi, Samatha, Vipassana and Panna - but mainly samadhi jonoabb Hi Mateesha matheesha wrote: >J: > Samadhi/concentration (ekaggataa) is one of the universal >cetasikas, > >M: The budha speaks of giving rise to samadhi, through piti etc. >Again a question arises that if it were universal, why does he speak >of samadhi arising after a specific sequence of causal factors. I >think you might suggest that he was only talking of kusala samadhi. >But micca samadhi is also clearly described by venAnanda in the >suttas as samadhi that should not be developed. > >So the suttas speak of both kusala and akusala samadhi. I think it >is fair to say that the idea that samadhi is univeral and arises >every moment is not reflected in the suttas. It is of commentarial >origin. Having said that I have some sympathy with the idea that >every moment requires at least a very weak type of samadhi. But >whether the Buddha would define such a thing under the label of >samadhi is another matter. > > Thanks for these comments. Actually, it is not so much the fact that samadhi is a universal cetasika that I wished to draw attention to, as the fact that is a cetasika that arises with both kusala and akusala cittas. In other words, samadhi is not a quality that is kusala in and of itself. So kusala samadhi (i.e., the kind that is to be developed, the kind referred to in all the suttas except where miccha samadhi is specified) can only arise with a citta that is kusala, that is to say, that is a moment of dana, sila or bhavana (samatha or vipassana). >>J:..Thus any reference to the development of >>samadhi is a reference to the development of >>one or other of these forms of kusala. There >>is no such thing as the development of [kusala] >>samadhi in and of itself. >> >> > >M: Samadhi (as defined as what is over and above what arises every >moment) is obviously liked with bhaavana. Now in the conceptual >framework of formal meditation this means developing one-pointedness >by being focused and mindful of the breath (anapanasati) for >example. It is linked to the object of meditation -the breath. > > I'm not sure that I follow your line of reasoning what here. Samatha bhavana is not limited to a chosen object of meditation, even where there is such a chosen object for a given individual. As regards vipassana bhavana, there is no particular chosen object of meditation, to my understanding. In any event, I don't think we have yet come across in the quoted texts the idea of samadhi being 'linked to the object of meditation'. >There is something called animitta samadhi as well, were 'the mind >doesnt follow the drift of nimittas' as mentioned in the sutta. This >more difficult to explain (and do). I'm not clear how well it sits >with abhidhammic explanations of samadhi? > >Either way, there is some aspect of bhaavana or formal meditation >(which ever you like) involved in the development of samadhi. So I >agree with you on this. > > Actually, what I have been saying is that samadhi involves some aspect of bhavana only where the reference is to samadhi of bhavana ;-)) >>>M: This sutta shows progression of samatha to >>>vipassana. >>> >>> >>Yes, for the person who is accomplished in samatha. >>That person has the potential to attain enlightenment >>with jhana as basis. But it is not addressed to those >>who are not already (or potentially) accomplished in >>samatha, as I see it. >> >> > >M: The question here is what is it that 'transfers over' or helps in >the development of insight. How can there be such an entity >as 'vipassana based on samatha'. What is this base? I say it the >quality of samadhi developed, the flip side of the coin being less >arising of hiderences which is conducive to insight (there are some >definitions of panna in the suttas which uses hinderences). > >This samadhi conditions succeeding citta to have (strong) samadhi as >well. > > In brief, insight 'based on' jhana means that the immediately fallen away jhana citta is taken as the object of a moment of insight consciousness. But I think we should leave aside the yuganaddha situation for the time being, as it is a special case. >>J: I think the suttas emphasise the development >>of samatha and vipassana,and the importance of >>samadhi in that development, but without suggesting >>the need for any separate development of that samadhi. >> >> > >M: The Buddha said that panna is for the concentrated, not for the >unconcentrated. It then seems that some (higher level of) samamdhi >is required for the panna (of the direct experiencing type) to >arise. Since the buddha says that there are people who are not >concentrated as well, it is clear that his definition of samadhi >does not include it as a universal element. > >I say that as a simple quality of one-pointedness of citta, samadhi >of samatha and vipassana are interchangeable (even though there >maybe differences in the levels of kusala generated) and that >samadhi generated by one, purely as a quality of the mind, can be >useful in the other, through successive conditioning of cittas. >Note: vipassana based on samatha, sati giving rise to samadhi in the >noble eightfold path and the five faculties. > > But is the idea of 'interchangeable' samadhi mentioned or alluded to in the suttas? I would say rather the opposite: samadhi of samatha requires samatha, while samadhi of vipassana requires vipassana. I re-post the summary of AN IV, 41: <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< There is a development of concentration [samaadhi-bhaavanaa] that leads to: (a) a pleasant dwelling in this very life; (b) obtaining knowledge and vision; (c) mindfulness and clear comprehension; (d) the destruction of the taints. And what, monks, is [that] development of concentration …? Here, (a) secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a monk enters and dwells in the first jhaana, … the second jhaana, … the third jhaana, … the fourth jhaana, … This is called the development of concentration that leads to a pleasant dwelling in this very life. (b) a monk attends to the perception of light, … he develops a luminous mind. This is called the development of concentration that leads to obtaining knowledge and vision. (c) for a monk feelings are understood as they arise, as they remain present, as they pass away; perceptions are understood …; thoughts are understood … . This is called the development of concentration that leads to mindfulness and clear comprehension. (d) a monk dwells contemplating rise and fall in the five aggregates subject to clinging … . This is called the development of concentration that leads to the destruction of the taints. AN IV, 41; NDB #59 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ATI link to the same sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.041.than.html] So, putting together the text from both parts of the sutta, for items (a) and (d): - the *development* of the samadhi that leads to a pleasant dwelling in this very life [J: I believe this is a reference to jhana] means that a monk enters and dwells in the first, second, third or fourth jhana, - the *development* of the samadhi that leads to the destruction of the taints [J: I believe this is a reference to path consciousness] means that a monk dwells contemplating rise and fall in the five aggregates subject to clinging. I don't see any need to assume either a separate development of samadhi, or the idea of transference to samadhi from samatha to vipassana. Jon #62118 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Aug 2, 2006 7:06 am Subject: Emptiness of aall condiitoned dhammas, abhidhamma and vipassanaa. nilovg Hi Howard, You bring here an interesting point. -------------- H: Solidity is a concept, but every solidity (rupa) is a paramattha dhamma. Hardness is a concept, but every hardness is a paramattha dhamma. Sight is a concept, but every sight is a paramattha dhamma. Seeing is a concept, but each seeing is a paramattha dhamma. We never smell odor, but we do smell *an* odor. We never taste flavor, but we do taste *a* flavor. We never hear sound, but we do hear *a* sound. Everything that is real is concrete, specific, and immediate. ----------- N: You formulated this well, and I take the consequences of this concerning the meaning of the Abhidhamma. On account of your words I would like to elaborate on my thoughts, but this is not meant as any argument against what you say, on the contrary. The Abhidhamma does not deal with categories or abstractions, only with realities. It deals with hardness, colour, sound, that is experienced. If this is not understood it can lead to wrong practice of vipassanaa. Take colour, people may look for a neutral or grey colour, instead of realizing that all the different colours that appear now are visible object that is the object of which understanding should be developed of. No Neutral sound, but all the different sounds appearing now are the object of insight. We may read in the book about the Element of Earth, but this is not an abstract category. The word element indicates already that it is a reality devoid of self, appearing now, not an abstraction. I like your words: Your words bring me to a quote from Rob K's forum Abhidhamma Vipassana, which was posted here before, but which I like to post again. It is from Sayadaw Sitagu who shows that Abhidhamma and vipassanaa should not be separated: end quote. ( Note: - This is the talk , Sitagu Sayadaw gave on a special occasion of Abhidhamma, translated into English by the Department of Research and Compilation, International Buddhist Academy, Sagaing Hill, Myanmar ) ***** Nina. #62119 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Wed Aug 2, 2006 7:50 am Subject: Bruce Lee's Jeet Kun Do As Application Of Sati ( Re: Buddhist physical exercises abhidhammika Dear Daniel and all How are you? Daniel asked: "Are there any buddhist-based systems, perhaps physical practices in Theravada?" Burmese martial artists always base their profession on Buddhist moral principles. They won't teach you martial arts if you cannot keep Buddhist precepts - five precepts at the minimum level. You will also be required to practice mindfulness meditation (satipa.t.thaana) to move on to the advanced level. Any Asian martial artist begin to apply mindfulness practice to martial arts when they reach advanced level. As Bruce Lee explained in one of the documentaries about him, he went beyond the form of martial arts he had learnt, and trained himself to be alert and mindful at all time in his execution of movements. The Buddha said the following in Section 375, Mahaasatipat.t.thaana Suttam, Mahaavaggo, Dighanikaayo, "yathaa yathaa vaa panassa kaayo pa.nihito hoti, tathaa tathaa nam pajaanaati. "He is well aware of whatever positioning his body is in." If one can apply the above Theravada teaching of the Buddha to the physical practices such as martial arts, then one will become invincible and unreachable by one's assailants. With kind regards, Suan Lu Zaw --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Daniel wrote: > > Hi all, > > I am wondering if anyone is familiar with a system of physical exercises > that is based on Buddhism? Yoga has roots in Hinduism, and Tai-Chi I think is > based upon chinese thought, perhaps on Taoism or something like that. Are there > any buddhist-based systems, perhaps physical practices in Theravada? > #62120 From: "Joop" Date: Wed Aug 2, 2006 8:03 am Subject: [dsg] Re: commentaries jwromeijn Hallo TG, Nina I agree with TG regarding the opinion of Bhikkhu Bodhi BTW the whole interview can be found at www.inquiringmind.com/Articles/Translator.html Although the topic 'sabhaava' is not my main problem at which I see the commentaries are stating something else then the Suttas, I will say something about it because this theme also occurs in another thread now. When I understand the explanation of Nina well, 'sabhaava' simply means that dhamma's (ultimate phenomena) have properties. I think 'properties' is a less mystifying word then 'characteristics' or 'self-nature' or other translations: see below. In physics the elementary particles (electron, muon etc) have properties like electric charge, spin; and having properties don't make them less elementary. The problem however is that's easy to discover in Theravada-texts an other meaning than Nina states Nanamoli in a footnote in his PATH OF PURIFICATION, pages 317-8, states: "In the Pitakas the word sabhaava seems to appear only once...," it appears several times in Milindapanha, and it is used quite a bit in the PoP and it commentaries. He states it often roughly corresponds to dhaatu, element and to lakkhana, characteristic. An interesting passage from the PoP reads: "On the contrary, before their rise [the bases, aayatana] they had no individual essence [sabhaava], and after their fall their individual essence are completely dissolved. And they occur without mastery [being exercisable over them] since they exist in dependence on conditions and in between the past and the future." Page 551 XV 15." (I found this quote in the forum e-sangha) 'Individual essence' gives more problems than 'characteristics', I think; it's close to atta-belief, too close. That was one of the main points of criticism of Nagarjuna and Mahayanists to Theravada and an older school, the Sarvastivada. Metta Joop #62121 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Aug 2, 2006 10:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: commentaries nilovg Hallo Joop, yes, that is why I would rather not translate as Individual essence, especially essence. The quote is right, only at the present its characteristic appears, but before it did not appear and afterwards it is no more. Nina. Op 2-aug-2006, om 17:03 heeft Joop het volgende geschreven: > "On the contrary, before their rise [the bases, aayatana] they had no > individual essence [sabhaava], and after their fall their individual > essence are completely dissolved. And they occur without mastery > [being exercisable over them] since they exist in dependence on > conditions and in between the past and the future." Page 551 XV 15." > (I found this quote in the forum e-sangha) > > 'Individual essence' gives more problems than 'characteristics', I > think; > it's close to atta-belief, too close. #62122 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Aug 2, 2006 11:19 am Subject: all the tears nilovg Dear Scott, Today I just select the passage on thinking, reading your answer to Sarah. BTW I am glad you found Vis. Tiika useful. In the sense of jhaanafactor the meaning of jhaana is very wide. And even for thinking, you need the jhaanafactors vitakka, and concentration, otherwise you could not think anything. N: "In Bgk we discussed thinking: it is hard to know what one is thinking, because it falls away immediately. Kh Sujin said that when one asks what do you think, it is hard to answer this. We cannot know precisely." -------- S: I find it easy to say what I'm thinking because I imagine that it is coherent, and hangs together, and is meaningful. I have yet to experience thinking that falls away immediately. It seems to just flow on. Ignorance. --------------- N: As you say, ignorance. We know roughly what we were thinking, but since cittas arise and fall away in processes so fast it is hard to know precisely. Because of memory we know more or less what we were thinking. And also, thinking is done with kusala cittas or akusala cittas. Who could tell exactly what type of citta was thinking? I discussed your remark with Lodewijk after I read to him Abh. and Letters. He think it is disturbing the way thinking goes on and on, uncontrollable. But we all have that, thinking of the past. --------- S: As I go through a day I think I must constantly seek to avoid grief - grief in the momentary sense I suppose. I don't find that I dwell much on the future. ... I see how I am constantly dwelling in the moment past. It is all thinking and, I guess, dreaming in the sense meant by K. Sujin. The dead moment. Its like the mind literally grasps and clings to past moments, whether thinking about an event, a conversation, what was seen, or heard. I can't grasp the moment now, but I do see how constantly I am back in the recent or distant past. ----- N: That is the way it is and Lodewijk and I think that we should not try to change ourselves or avoid thinking with grief. It is impossible. But it helps to know that it is conditioned. Lodewijk referred to the beginning of Gradual Sayings: The opposite is said of the developed mind. Lodewijk finds these suttas so full of compassion. I told him of Sayadaw Sitagu I quoted to Howard, That appeals to him: the human condition (la condition humaine). I liked Sarah's quote about dreams, I have often heard it from Kh Sujin, but before it clicks. Hard to apply it: It is good to remember that there is not only this life I share with Lodewijk. And then she stresses that the arising of understanding is unexpected, because the right conditions are in place. If there is no right understanding now, even a beginning, there will not be any conditions for future moments. Nina. #62123 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Aug 2, 2006 11:33 am Subject: commentaries nilovg Hi TG, TG writes: The idea of inalterablility of elements is the antithesis of Buddha's teaching. ------- N: I only said: lobha cannot be changed into dosa. Their characteristics are inalterable. But I never would say: they stay or cannot fall away. Seeing has the characteristic of seeing, not of hearing, but of course it is subject to change, all the time. Here you misunderstood me! ---------- T.G.:The food that sustains the body could be considered predominantly hardness. But that hardness, along with the other 3 Great Elements conjoins to sustain life and the ability to see. ... ------ N: Just a small addition: nutritive essense is a rupa that is indispensable for sustaining the body. See the sutta on morsel like food. ------- T.G.:Your vision, as I see it, wants to see states as "their own thing" with their own characteristic. ... ------- N: I find the quote given by Ken O very clear. It indicates that there is a relative manner of speaking. But see it for yourself: Abdhidhamma and Exposition of the Topics of Abdhidhamma translated by R.P. Wijeratne and Rupert Gethin. In the commentary of the Prologue, there is an explanation of the Utimate Dhammas "Alternatively, consciouness is the mere act of being conscious (cintana) . For it is its mere occurence in accordance with conditions that is called 'a dhamma with its own particular nature' (sabhava-dhamma). In consideration of this, it is the definition of the particular nature of ultimate dhammas that is taken as absolute: the explanation by way of agent (kattar) and instrument (karana) should be seen as a relative manner of speaking. For a dhamma's being treated as an agent and also its being[treated] in consequence as an instrument, by attributing the state of agent to a group of conascent dhammas, are both taken as a relative manner of speaking. The explanation in these terms should be understood as for the purpose of indicating the non-existence of an agent, etc apart for the particular nature of a dhamma." Ken O: sabhava is to describe the characteristics of each khandha. It does not meant, it must have an agent or a being to exhibit characteristics. When it is used as bearing its own characteristics, it is used in relative speaking because there no such thing as self or "own" or agent. It is used to describe the uniqueness of each khandha or the distinction between khandhas. -------- Nina. #62124 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Aug 2, 2006 11:38 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily Life, 41 nilovg Dear friends, Another condition for dosa is ignorance of the Dhamma. If we are ignorant of kamma and vipåka, cause and result, dosa may arise very easily on account of an unpleasant experience through one of the senses and thus dosa is accumulated time and again. An unpleasant experience through one of the senses is akusala vipåka caused by an unwholesome deed we performed. When we, for example, hear unpleasant words from someone else, we may be angry with that person. Those who have studied the Dhamma know that hearing something unpleasant is akusala vipåka which is not caused by someone else but by an unwholesome deed performed by oneself. A moment of vipåka falls away immediately, it does not stay. Are we not inclined to keep on thinking about an unpleasant experience? If there is more awareness of the present moment one will be less inclined to think with aversion about one's akusala vipåka. When we study the Abhidhamma we learn that there are two types of dosa-múla-citta: one of these is unprompted (asa"nkhårika) and one is prompted (sasa"nkhårika). Dosa is prompted (sasa"nkhårika) when, for example, one becomes angry after having been reminded of the disagreeable actions of someone else. Dosa-múla-cittas are always accompanied by domanassa (unpleasant feeling). There are two types of dosa-múla-citta which are the following: 1. Accompanied by unpleasant feeling, arising with anger, unprompted (Domanassa-sahagata.m, pa.tigha-sampayutta.m, asa"nkhårikam eka.m). 2. Accompanied by unpleasant feeling, arising with anger, prompted (Domanassa-sahagata.m, pa.tigha-sampayutta.m, sasa"nkhårikam eka.m). As we have seen, there are many degrees of dosa; it may be coarse or more subtle. When dosa is coarse, it causes akusala kamma-patha (unwholesome deeds) through body, speech or mind. Two kinds of akusala kamma-patha through the body can be performed with dosa-múla- citta: killing and stealing. If we want less violence in the world we should try not to kill. When we kill we accumulate a great deal of dosa. The monk's life should be a life of non-violence; he should not hurt any living being in the world. However, not everyone is able to live like the monks. Defilements are anattå (not self); they arise because of conditions. The purpose of the Buddha's teaching is not to lay down rules which forbid people to commit ill deeds, but to help people to develop the wisdom which eradicates defilements. There are precepts for laypeople, but these are rules of training rather than commandments. ****** Nina. #62125 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Aug 2, 2006 11:42 am Subject: Letters from Nina 22. nilovg Dear friends, We may find Buddhism too intellectual. It may seem that we have to force ourselves to follow all our different moments of consciousness and that we could not live in a natural way. This is not so. We do not try to change anything which occurs, we could not anyway, since all phenomena arise because of their appropriate conditions. We need not try not to feel close to other people, not to have affection for them, but we can develop a clearer understanding of the different phenomena of our life. It is better to know that one is not wholesome all the time than not to know, to delude oneself. The Buddha taught what is wholesome and what is not wholesome. Non-attachment or generosity is wholesome. Non-hate or kindness is wholesome. Wisdom is wholesome. These are the three 'roots' of wholesomeness. There are three 'roots' of evil: attachment or clinging, aversion or anger and ignorance. We may be used to thinking in terms of sin. However, unwholesomeness is not exactly what in society is meant by 'sin'. Even when one does not do an evil deed there can still be unwholesome consciousness. Also attachment or aversion which is more subtle is unwholesome, it is not beneficial. As we have seen, there are different degrees of unwholesomeness. We are so ignorant about ourselves that we do not know whether this very moment is wholesome or not wholesome. Is there attachment now? Do we like what we see? Or is there aversion? If there is a slight feeling of uneasiness or tiredness there is bound to be aversion. Gradually we can develop more knowledge of the present moment. This is the only way to know oneself. ***** Nina. #62126 From: "matheesha" Date: Wed Aug 2, 2006 4:24 pm Subject: Bruce Lee's Jeet Kun Do As Application Of Sati ( Re: Buddhist physical exercises matheesha333 Hi Daniel, > "Are there any buddhist-based systems, perhaps physical practices in > Theravada?" Walking for miles on end doing walking meditation was done by groups of monks who used to walk in a single file, changing the leader ever so often, while travelling in between monasteries. Buddha had praised walking meditation for it's healthy qualities. I think the mind and the body are inseperable. Healthy mind, healthy body. I remember my cholesterol levels suddenly going down when I started meditating. :) with metta, Matheesha #62127 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Aug 2, 2006 5:22 pm Subject: Re: Abhidhamma in Daily Life, 41 philofillet Hi Nina > An unpleasant > experience through one of the senses is akusala vipåka caused by an > unwholesome deed we performed. This has been such a lifechanging teaching for me. While I am still bad-mannered and irritable at DSG, for some reason, in daily life "out there" the things that used to bother me deeply very rarely bother me any more. I understand that all that I experience through the sense doors is vipaka, and that really helps to let go of things. >Those who > have studied the Dhamma know that hearing something unpleasant is > akusala vipåka which is not caused by someone else but by an > unwholesome deed performed by oneself. I remember when I first came to DSG I used to struggle with the logic of this. For example, I posted a question to you "if I am lying in bed and am awoken by drunk men shouting in the street, how can that be my vipaka?" It didn't seem logical, and I struggled with it. Now I don't struggle with it. The web of kamma and vipaka is too deep and impenetrable to be understood through logical thinking. It is one of the things that the Buddha said would drive us crazy if we tried to figure it out logically. Let go of the logical wrestling and be open to the liberation that lies in the Buddha's teaching. >A moment of vipåka falls away > immediately, it does not stay. Are we not inclined to keep on > thinking about an unpleasant experience? The Buddha's teaching really helps us to drop the stories. And it also helps us to understand that even if we *do* keep thinking about a story, proliferating on it, that's conditioned too. We have accumulated the tendency to do so. If we think "wrong to keep thinking, wrong to keep thinking" and try to cut it off when it keeps running on, that is self at work, akusala desire to be a person who has control over what he or she thinks. (When control arises, it's wonderful - but when we try to impose it, we go wrong.) Phil p.s thanks for the feedback in the other thread, re breath/sammata. #62128 From: "matheesha" Date: Wed Aug 2, 2006 5:34 pm Subject: Re: Sati, Samadhi, Samatha, Vipassana and Panna - but mainly samadhi matheesha333 Hi Jon, J:it is not so much the fact that > samadhi is a universal cetasika that I wished to draw attention to, as > the fact that is a cetasika that arises with both kusala and akusala > cittas. In other words, samadhi is not a quality that is kusala in and > of itself. So kusala samadhi (i.e., the kind that is to be developed, > the kind referred to in all the suttas except where miccha samadhi is > specified) can only arise with a citta that is kusala, that is to say, > that is a moment of dana, sila or bhavana (samatha or vipassana). > M: Yes, I think we can lay that matter to rest now - it is clear and I agree. > >M: Samadhi (as defined as what is over and above what arises every > >moment) is obviously liked with bhaavana. Now in the conceptual > >framework of formal meditation this means developing one- pointedness > >by being focused and mindful of the breath (anapanasati) for > >example. It is linked to the object of meditation -the breath. > > > > > >J: I'm not sure that I follow your line of reasoning what here. Samatha > bhavana is not limited to a chosen object of meditation, even where > there is such a chosen object for a given individual. As regards > vipassana bhavana, there is no particular chosen object of meditation, > to my understanding. In any event, I don't think we have yet come across > in the quoted texts the idea of samadhi being 'linked to the object of > meditation'. > M: Sorry for using unconventional terminology. To clarify - samadhi is a quality of a citta - and in samatha that citta is focused on a single object (of meditation) most of the time. The citassaekaggata- the one-pointedness - is directed towards the obejct of meditation. (Its clunky to have to say it piece by piece - it is clear immediately when you actually do it). Experientially - if one stops meditating (samatha) then the citta with samadhi remains focued on whatever comes to it's grasp longer (ie-gives rise to more moments of similar citta) than it would otherwise. Or to put it in another way, it is less distracted and not jumping to other novel stimuli. J: Actually, what I have been saying is that samadhi involves some aspect > of bhavana only where the reference is to samadhi of bhavana ;-)) > M: :) > >>>M: This sutta shows progression of samatha to > >>>vipassana. > >>> > >>> > >>Yes, for the person who is accomplished in samatha. > >>That person has the potential to attain enlightenment > >>with jhana as basis. But it is not addressed to those > >>who are not already (or potentially) accomplished in > >>samatha, as I see it. > >> M: Well then, maybe it is a good idea to get some skill in it, considering how important it is for the path! Nobody starts off with skill in samatha. It has to be developed. > >> > > > >M: The question here is what is it that 'transfers over' or helps in > >the development of insight. How can there be such an entity > >as 'vipassana based on samatha'. What is this base? I say it the > >quality of samadhi developed, the flip side of the coin being less > >arising of hiderences which is conducive to insight (there are some > >definitions of panna in the suttas which uses hinderences). > > > >This samadhi conditions succeeding citta to have (strong) samadhi as > >well. > > > > > > In brief, insight 'based on' jhana means that the immediately fallen > away jhana citta is taken as the object of a moment of insight > consciousness. But I think we should leave aside the yuganaddha > situation for the time being, as it is a special case. > M: Well jhana can be taken as an object of insight. But why climb a mountain if it can be had at the base? Any moment can be similarly used. There is something more here. Why is the 4th jhana a good base for vipassana? I think the visuddhimagga would say that equanimity that it has is uesful for vipassana. That is not simply looking back at a moment gone by, but useful in experiencing the current moment. I dont think the yuganaddha can be kept aside. It is the first one in the four paths leading to enlightenment. Jhana is well praised by the Buddha. It is part of the 'sukkha magga' to nibbana. It is part of samma samadhi. We need to accept samatha as a definite part of practice. > >>J: I think the suttas emphasise the development > >>of samatha and vipassana,and the importance of > >>samadhi in that development, but without suggesting > >>the need for any separate development of that samadhi. > >> > >> > > > >M: The Buddha said that panna is for the concentrated, not for the > >unconcentrated. It then seems that some (higher level of) samamdhi > >is required for the panna (of the direct experiencing type) to > >arise. Since the buddha says that there are people who are not > >concentrated as well, it is clear that his definition of samadhi > >does not include it as a universal element. > > > >I say that as a simple quality of one-pointedness of citta, samadhi > >of samatha and vipassana are interchangeable (even though there > >maybe differences in the levels of kusala generated) and that > >samadhi generated by one, purely as a quality of the mind, can be > >useful in the other, through successive conditioning of cittas. > >Note: vipassana based on samatha, sati giving rise to samadhi in the > >noble eightfold path and the five faculties. > > > > > > But is the idea of 'interchangeable' samadhi mentioned or alluded to in > the suttas? I would say rather the opposite: samadhi of samatha requires > samatha, while samadhi of vipassana requires vipassana. I re-post the > summary of AN IV, 41: > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > There is a development of concentration [samaadhi-bhaavanaa] that leads to: > (a) a pleasant dwelling in this very life; > (b) obtaining knowledge and vision; > (c) mindfulness and clear comprehension; > (d) the destruction of the taints. > > And what, monks, is [that] development of concentration …? Here, > (a) secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a > monk enters and dwells in the first jhaana, … the second jhaana, … the > third jhaana, … the fourth jhaana, … This is called the development of > concentration that leads to a pleasant dwelling in this very life. > (b) a monk attends to the perception of light, … he develops a luminous > mind. This is called the development of concentration that leads to > obtaining knowledge and vision. > (c) for a monk feelings are understood as they arise, as they remain > present, as they pass away; perceptions are understood …; thoughts are > understood … . This is called the development of concentration that > leads to mindfulness and clear comprehension. > (d) a monk dwells contemplating rise and fall in the five aggregates > subject to clinging … . This is called the development of concentration > that leads to the destruction of the taints. > AN IV, 41; NDB #59 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > [ATI link to the same sutta: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.041.than.html] > > I don't see any need to assume either a separate development of samadhi, > or the idea of transference to samadhi from samatha to vipassana. > M: What is different in these 4 'types' of samadhi? -one is obviously the outcome -the other is the actual practice (vipassan/samatha) method used Why are these developments of samadhi and not simply developments in vipassana, samatha etc? The reason is that they have a common element -that is samadhi - as a root and a base. Citassaekaggata is just that and nothing else. It is common to all these. How it is weilded will decide what it will give rise to. A bit like how dough can give rise to many different types of food depending on how it is weilded. How will you give rise to the samadhi of vipassana? In one of right mindfulness, right concentration comes into being... In one of right concentration, right knowledge... In one of right knowledge, right release comes into being. -mahacattasarika sutta Right concentration is predominantly defined as jhana 1-4. Now The sutta above says these are sequential, as can be seen. Otherwise there is no reason to say in one of right ..., right ... comes into being and keep repeating it. The reasonable (unless trying to adapt a square peg into a round hole) way to understand is that. How can sati give rise to samma samadhi, often defined as jhana? How can samadhi give rise to panna? But the Buddha says that jhana is essential only at the anagami stage. How are we to understand this then? What can be said about a sotapanna's panna level? The reasonable way to understand it is that there is development of both samatha and vipassana samadhi with satipatthana practice (it gives rise to both as mentioned in suttas), and that a level required for a sotapanna something like access concentration is adquate. It has to serve a purpose in development of direct experiencing, which is deeper levels of panna, more than theoretical understanding. If you focus on the present moment, even for a moment (!), there is focusing. There is some samadhi there. with metta Matheesha #62129 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Aug 2, 2006 6:44 pm Subject: Re: Abhidhamma in Daily Life, 41 philofillet Hi again > (When control > arises, it's wonderful - but when we try to impose it, we go wrong.) And I would add (to myself) control *will* arise when there is understanding. We can feel confident about that. I certainly do. But understanding *will not* arise if we try to force/control the arising of it. That is all about attachment to results, and when there is attachment to results, understanding simply cannot arise. (Unless there is understanding of the attachment - big "unless!") Phil #62130 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed Aug 2, 2006 7:11 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Knowledge of the Difference Between Naama and Ruupa: Making The... scottduncan2 Dear Jon, Quite interesting, this below: J: "Hearing the dhamma explained in a way that is meaningful for or understandable to us is one of the prerequisites. This in turn occurs in dependence on coming across others who have understood the teachings -- another of the prerequisites. (The 'hearing' of course includes reading.)" This is correct. I'm only here discussing this with you because one day, on e-sangha, I read a response given by Rob K. to a question I had asked. The depth of the answer shocked me equally deeply and without much of an intellectual grasp I simply knew it was right. This stands out because I did not have any idea about the deep anatta teachings in terms of having read Abhidhamma but it just hit me like a ton of bricks. J: "...Appropriate reflection refers I believe to a reflexive process that happens because of one's interest in and appreciation of what has been heard, and it happens at different levels: as one is actually hearing the dhamma one is evaluating it, afterwards one perhaps mulls it over further, and later still what has been heard percolates through one's mind as one goes about other activities." Again, to refer to the above episode, I think I can confirm this since I recall a swift evaluative response while I was reading, which did seem to take place at several levels. Interestingly, at first there was aversion ("What the hell!") which quickly gave way. Then, as you say, all the mulling and percolating. Et me voila! J: "In short, study and consideration of dhamma are not to be understood as formal or even deliberate activities. The kind of intellectual knowledge gained by formal or deliberate study and consideration undertaken with the idea that it will give rise to understanding is not likely to be a condition for insight, as far as I can see." Yes, this is often said, and I don't doubt it. What do you think it is, out of curiosity, that would *prevent*, if that is what you intend to mean, "study with the idea that it will give rise to understanding" from conditioning understanding? It is not that the idea (atta) jinxes the whole endeavour, or I hope not. Its not "a watched pot never boils," or, again, I hope not. Couldn't one have this misinformed pseudo-intention, for example, while conditions are still suddenly conducive to understanding anyway, despite the foolish idea? J: "Intellectual understanding of course precedes direct understanding. But neither occurs through the doing of any particular kind of activity, as I see it. Are you perhaps saying that the fact that one finds oneself with the desire to study and the energy to study and the effort to study (and hence studies Dhamma) that these could all be related to mental factors fortuitously arising with citta according to conditions? Just wondering. Thanks, Jon. A pleasure. With loving kindness, Scott. #62131 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Aug 2, 2006 3:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Knowledge of the Difference Between Naama and Ruupa: Making The... upasaka_howard Hi, Scott (and Jon) - In a message dated 8/2/06 10:12:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: > J: "In short, study and consideration of dhamma are not to be > understood as formal or even deliberate activities. The kind of > intellectual knowledge gained by formal or deliberate study and > consideration undertaken with the idea that it will give rise to > understanding is not likely to be a condition for insight, as far as I > can see." > > Yes, this is often said, and I don't doubt it. What do you think it > is, out of curiosity, that would *prevent*, if that is what you intend > to mean, "study with the idea that it will give rise to understanding" > from conditioning understanding? It is not that the idea (atta) > jinxes the whole endeavour, or I hope not. Its not "a watched pot > never boils," or, again, I hope not. Couldn't one have this > misinformed pseudo-intention, for example, while conditions are still > suddenly conducive to understanding anyway, despite the foolish idea? > > J: "Intellectual understanding of course precedes direct > understanding. But neither occurs through the doing of any particular > kind of activity, as I see it. > ========================== What sort of deliberate study do you guys have in mind? Anything like purposely going through the Visuddhimagga posted by Larry on DSG or Nina's writings as posted by Sarah? ;-) With metta, Howard #62132 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed Aug 2, 2006 7:59 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Knowledge of the Difference Between Naama and Ruupa: Making The... scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Good question. H: "What sort of deliberate study do you guys have in mind? Anything like purposely going through the Visuddhimagga posted by Larry on DSG or Nina's writings as posted by Sarah? ;-)" I'm waiting for Jon's reply to see if I'm getting what he is saying. I'd say the above noted examples qualify as "deliberate study" but Jon's point seems to focus more on the self-belief inherent in the intention to study specifically to make understanding arise and less on the actual study part, if you know what I mean. One can simply study, I guess. I don't really know. I personally read all I can and never seem to have enough time. Why am I doing it? Worthwhile asking myself... With loving kindness, Scott. #62133 From: connie Date: Wed Aug 2, 2006 8:57 pm Subject: black mail nichiconn dear scott. it is getting late and Luke will need a story so, let the Udana (1) Paavaasutta.m (7) The Discourse about Paavaa begin with a bit of hearsay: Eva.m me suta.m: Thus I heard: eka.m samaya.m Bhagavaa Paavaaya.m viharati, at one time the Auspicious One was dwelling near Paavaa, Ajakalaapake Cetiye, Ajakalaapakassa yakkhassa bhavane. near the Flock of Goats Shrine, at the domicile of the Flock of Goats yakkha. Tena kho pana samayena Bhagavaa, Then at that time the Auspicious One, rattandhakaaratimisaaya.m, abbhokaase nisinno hoti, in the darkness of the night, was sitting in the open air, devo ca ekam-eka.m phusaayati. and the sky-god was raining lightly drop by drop. Atha kho Ajakalaapako yakkho Then the Flock of Goats yakkha Bhagavataa bhaya.m chambhitatta.m lomaha.msa.m uppaadetukaamo, desiring to give rise to fear, terror, and horror in the Auspicious One, yena Bhagavaa tenupasaïkami, went to the Auspicious One, upasaïkamitvaa, Bhagavato avidåre tikkhattu.m: and after going, not far away from the Auspicious One three times (he called out): "Akkulo pakkulo" ti akkulapakkulika.m akaasi, "Confusion, great confusion", and he made a great confusion, "Eso te sama.na pisaaco!" ti "This is a demon for you, ascetic!" Atha kho Bhagavaa, etam-attha.m viditvaa, Then the Auspicious One, having understood the significance of it, taaya.m velaaya.m ima.m udaana.m udaanesi: on that occasion uttered this exalted utterance: "Yadaa sakesu dhammesu ~ paaragu hoti brahma.no, "He is a braahma.na when he has gone beyond in regard to his own things, Atha eta.m pisaaca~n-ca ~ pakkula~n-caativattatii" ti. Then has he transcended this demon and the great confusion." {www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/Texts-and-Translations/Udana/1-Bodhivaggo-07.htm ânandajoti Bhikkhu} and the obligatory corroborating witness: 7. Thus have I heard. On a certain occasion the Blessed One dwelt at Pâtali, at the Ajakalâpaka monastery, in the cell of the Yakkha, Ajakalâpaka. Now at that time the Blessed One was sitting in the open air, the darkness of the night was profound, and from a cloud there fell, one by one, drops of rain. And the Yakkha, Ajakalâpaka, desirous of causing terror, trembling, and horripilation to the Blessed One, approached the Blessed One, and when he had arrived quite close to him, he uttered three piercing shrieks, crying out, "This, O Samana, is thy evil spirit." And the Blessed One, in this connection, on that occasion, breathed forth this solemn utterance: "When the Brahmana, in knowledge, has passed beyond the conditions of existence, Him neither goblin nor fiend can terrify." {www.sacred-texts.com/bud/udn/index.htm UDANA - DMStrong [London, 1902]} and turn to the commentary: 7. At Paavaa In the seventh: at Paavaa (Paavaaya.m): at the city of the Malla kings so named. At the Ajakalaapaka Shrine (Ajakalaapake cetiye): at the place thought much of by humans that had acquired the name of "Ajakalaapaka" on account of the fact that it was occupied by the yakkha named Ajakalaapaka. [64] It is said that that yakkha would accept a food-offering (only if it were) accompanied by a parcel, with goats forming a part of it, after goats (aje) had been made into bundles (kalaape katvaa) - and not otherwise - as a result of which he became well known as "Ajakalaapaka". Some, however, say that he was (called) "Ajakalaapaka" since he would cause beings to bleat (laapeti) as if they were little goats (ajake); it is said that when beings presented a food-offering to him, he would become satisfied at such times as they made the sound of a goat as they offered that food-offering - as a result of which he came to be called "Ajakalaapaka". Moreover, that yakkha, possessed of majesty, ferocious, and harsh, had been assigned there, as a result of which humans paid homage to that place, continuously offered a food-offering, for which reason "At the Ajakalaapaka Shrine" was said. Within the realm of the yakkha Ajakalaapaka (Ajakalaapakassa yakkhassa bhavane): within the vimaana of that yakkha. It is said that the Teacher, desiring to tame that yakkha, had at that time gone on alone, without a partner, at a particula occasion during hte evening, taking bowl and robe, to the door to the realm of the yakkha Ajakalaapaka and (there) begged its door-keeper for entrance into that realm, who said "Ferocious, Lord, is the yakkha Ajakalaapaka; he reveres (no one) as recluse or as brahmin. Therefore, you yourself should be aware (of this), but it would be improper on mypart where there no announcemtne to him", and then straightaway went with the force of the wind into the presence of Ajakalaapaka who was gone to a meeting of the yakkhas. The Teacher enetered his realm's interior and seated himself on the appointed seat in the seating pavilion. The yakkha's concubines approached the Teacher, saluted, and then stood to one side, whereupon the Teacher talke Dhamma-talk to them befitting the occasion, for which reason "Was staying at Paavaa, at the Ajakalaapaka Shrine within the realm of the yakkha Ajakalaapaka" was said. On that occasion, Saataagira and Hemavaa, who had been going to the meeting of the yakkhas over the top of Ajakalaapaka's realm, in adverting to what the reason might be when their progress was not proving successful, saw the Teacher seated in Ajakalaapaka's realm; they went there saluted the Lord,a nd then begged leave, saying "We are going to the meeting of the yakkhas, Lord", circumambulated him by the right, and then went on their way. Upon seeing Ajakalaapaka in the yakkha-congregation, they declared their satisfaction saying "It is a gain for you, friend Ajakalaapaka, on whose account the Lord, the chief person in this world, together with its devas, is seated in your realm; [65] you should approach, sit round the Lord paying homage, and hear Dhamma." Overcome with anger upon hearing this talk of theirs, thinking "These talk of that bald-headed recluse being seated in my realm", he then thought "Today there will be battle between me and that recluse", emerged from that yakkha-congregation, cast up his right foot and stepped onto a mountain peak measureing sixty yojanas, splitting this into two pieces. The remainder of that which ought to be spoken of in this connection is to be understood in the same manner as that handed down in the Exposition of the Aa.lavakasutta (Sn-a 217-240); for Ajakalaapaka's meeting was exactly similar to Aa.lavaka's meeting, save for the putting of questions, their being answered, and (the Buddha's) emergence from, and re-entry into, that realm three times. For Ajakalaapaka, having been unable to bring about even the slightest dislodgement of the Lord with the nine 'rains', starting with the whirlwind, that he had caused to rise up, as he had still been coming, believing "With these alone I'll put that recluse to flight", was not only unable, subsequent to his having approached the Lord accompanied by the troop of ghosts that he had conjured up, of a form fearful in the extreme, with divers weapons in their hands, to bring about dislodgement from his sitting position of even so much as the Lord's hair-tip even though he continued to perform improprieties of divers types the whole night long as he romaed from one end to the other, but moreover flared up by way of anger at the thought that "This recluse has seated himself after entering my realm without begging leave of me". Then the Lord, upon coming to know this thought-arising of his, thought "Just as one might, indeed, burst a bile(-container) at teh nose of a quick-tempered dog, such that it would become all the more quick-tempered (cp Vin ii 188; S ii 242), so will this yakkha poison his own mind with me (continuing to be) seated here; perhaps I should leave for outside", and then left that realm entirely of his own accord and seated himself in the open air, [66] for which reason "And on that occasion, the Lord was seated in the open air, at night, in the dimness, in the darkness" was said. Herein: At night, in the dimness, in the darkness (rattandhakaaratimisaaya.m): at night, in the dimness, in the gloom, meaning in the thick dimness devoid of any arising of eye-consciousness. It is said that the dimness that occurred at that time was one possessed of the four limbs. The (sky-)deva (devo): a storm-cloud was causing small (rain-)spots, drops of water, to fall one by one. Then the yakkha, thinking "I will put this recluse to flight after terrorising him with this sound", went into the Lords' vicinity and made that frightening (din) by way of "Akkula" and so on, for which reason "Then (the yakkha) Ajakalaapaka" and so forth was said. Herein: p103 p105 This goblin is for you, recluse (eso te sama.na pisaaco) {Udaana Cy vol.1 Masefield} peace, c. ps. Tad Eka.m is practically of an age and i am wondering if he will go by plane or sail from Reservation Harbour. my going is out of ? (and i don't mean to be offensive or cross any boundaries) but it's just as well. better sarah deal with the robe & maybe one of the van gorkoms would take pity if there was any question of him being malnourished. i leave it to you to make whatever arrangements you deem most suitable as (not-veiled threat:) it is the "fit father" thing to do. #62134 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Aug 3, 2006 12:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not taking a footing and not exerting sarahprocter... Hi Scott, (Matheesha & all), --- Scott Duncan wrote: > "Cinteti," related to citta, is "to think, to reflect." Again, a bit > more evidence which suggests to me that it is okay to say "thinking" > in relation to citta. .... S: When there is thinking, cittas arise and experience objects (concepts), but we need to remember that cittas also arise and experience objects when there is seeing, hearing and other sense door experiencing, also at moments of bhavanga cittas, jhana cittas, lokuttara cittas and so on! .... > My understanding of "vi~n~nana is that it is, as the fifth khandha, a > term for general consciousness; that citta is a specific functional > term. The paali "vijaanati" means "to have discriminating knowledge, > to recognise, to apprehend, to ascertain." This verb is related to > vi~n~nana, as I understand it. Corrections please! .... S: They are probably related, but isn't vijaanaati (vi+~naa+naa; ~na is changed to jaa), to know/understand more closely related to vijaanana (knowledge)? Vi~n~naa.na (consciousness, citta) as in Vi~n~naa.na khandha is a synonym for citta (as Nina mentioned). At each moment, even moments with ignorance, citta or Vi~n~naa.na khandha is arising and performing its function of experiencing its object. See lots more in U.P. under 'Citta -definitions' etc ***** Also for Math, TG & others, you may care to take a look in U.P. under: - Vitakka Santhana Sutta - Yuganadha Sutta - Sabhava - Phena Sutta - Kaccanagotta Sutta - Samadhi Sutta - Samadhi Further comments and disagreements welcome on anything you find! Metta, Sarah ====== #62135 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Aug 3, 2006 1:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: no Nina, No Lodewijk. sarahprocter... Dear Nina,(Lodewijk & Phil) --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > For Lodewijk: he understand about paramattha dhammas and agrees. He > only objects to the way it is at times brought. He would like to show > that there is no contradiction and that the Buddha very much took > into account compassion, metta, all good qualities to be developed > when we are with our fellowmen. .... S: As you wrote in a message some time ago(to Phil), 'When pa~n~naa sees the truth, there is detachment instead of attachment. Attachment and metta do not go together. Pa~n~naa leads to pure metta. We can still think of persons and take care of them. With more understanding and less selfishness. In this way the Brahma Viharas can be developed.' Again, I think it comes back to the confidence in pa~n~naa as K.Sujin always stresses. The more confidence there is, the less inclined we are to think of other approaches or activities that take us away from the understanding of the presently appearing dhammas. Otherwise, it's always self that studies, listens, develops the brahma viharas or performs good deeds. You also quoted K.Sujin's comments about hiri and ottappa: "Without shame, hiri, and fear of blame, ottappa, one finds it useless to understand this moment. When hiri and ottappa arise they see the danger of not knowing realities. Ignorance and wrong view take everything for 'I'.' This is so true. When understanding begins to develop, there is more and more confidence in the value, more and more hiri and ottappa arising and seeing the shame of not understanding present dhammas. The sotapanna's hiri and ottappa are far purer because of such developed wisdom. When there is no understanding at this moment, there is bound to be clinging. This is why the 'cold showers', the discussions about namas and rupas, about the dear person being a dream which passes all the time, is the only really compassionate way to help us all. You mentioned before that such talk of ephemeral dhammas is not comforting, not giving security, but it is the truth as Phil stressed. I think that hearing the truth, understanding, that what appears is really not a person, but hardness, visible object, thinking and so on, is actually far more comforting and liberating than the dream world we are used to living in. And as the understanding of dhammas slowly grows, there is less and less conflict with daily life issues as you and Lodewijk suggest, such as the consideration of others or the behaving in a friendly way. We carry on as before, just developing more understanding and detachment from what is conditioned already now as we speak. Metta, Sarah ========= #62136 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Aug 3, 2006 1:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Knowledge of the Difference Between Naama and Ruupa: Making The... nilovg Dear Scott, please would you share this with us? Nina. Op 3-aug-2006, om 4:11 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: > on e-sangha, I read a response given by Rob K. to a question I > had asked. The depth of the answer shocked me equally deeply and > without much of an intellectual grasp I simply knew it was right. > This stands out because I did not have any idea about the deep anatta > teachings in terms of having read Abhidhamma but it just hit me like a > ton of bricks. #62137 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Aug 3, 2006 1:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not taking a footing and not exerting nilovg Dear Scott, As Sarah also explained, this knowing or cognizing of citta has a very general meaning: seeing, cognizing that is kusala, akusala, or bhavangacitta. Citta arises at each and every moment and always cognizes an object. Pa~n~naa is a sobhana cetasika, it arises with sobhana cittas (sobhana including also vipaakacitta and kiriyacitta). It is said that pa~n~naa illuminates the object, but, as discussed, there are many degrees of it. It begins with intellectual understanding. The penetration of the three characteristics is the end of a long process of development. Nina. Op 2-aug-2006, om 13:41 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: > This is a very good clarification. How does the way citta "knows" > differ from the way pa~n~na "knows?" My guess is that citta knows in > a clear but global way, pa~n~na by specifically penetrating an objects > impermanence, non-self, and unsatisfactoriness. > #62138 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Aug 3, 2006 1:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The growth of panna & understanding of sakkaya ditthi sarahprocter... Hi Phil & all, I liked the quote you gave on sakkaya ditthi a lot here: --- Phil wrote: > Re the 20 sakkaya dithi, I think perhaps it can be helpful to > reflect on the similes that are given in the commentaries (I don't > know which one.) Here is what the commentarial note in BB's notes to > the Khandasamyutta (p.1044) say: > > "He regards form as self by regarding form and the self as > indistinguishable, just as the flame of an oil lamp and its colour > are indistinguishable. He regards self as possessing form when he > takes the formless (ie the mind or mental factors) as a self that > possesses form, in the way a tree possesses a shadow; form as in > self, when he takes the formless(mind) as a self within which form > is sitting, as the scent is in a flower; self as in form, when he > takes the formless (mind) as a self situatied in form, as a jew in a > casket" (And he goes on to teach about which of these are said to be > annihalist view, which eternalist etc.) ..... S: You go on to say: ... > Now you know and I know, and anyone else who has listened at > length knows, Acharn Sujin has insight into this sort of thing. > There is a desire for her to talk about what she understands about > these similes, for example, rather than saying "when the reality is > not arising there is no use thinking about it" or something like > that. But she does us such a huge favour when she says that - she > understands the way we hunger for answers to our questions like > bears hungering for honey, hungry, greedy bears that end up getting > their heads stuck in the pots with their bottoms sticking out! > (unexpected turn of the sentence, hmmm.) .... S: :-)) She knows when we're just looking for a book answer that'll be forgotten by the next day or likely to take us off-track again. The aim is to develop understanding, not to solve problems (as I heard her saying). Sometimes it's also a question of what has taken place in a discussion before and who's asking the question and for what reason. If it's something which can be looked up in a book or mere curiosity, she's not so inclined to answer. Sometimes she maybe tired or sick too! ... > p.s and perhaps i will reflect on those similes. There is no > telling. With deep and subtle points, I take a look, see if > understanding there, and drop it quickly when I see that it isn't. > It is *not* to be had by *bear*ing down! .... S: And if we get stuck in the honey pot from time to time, that's fine too - just more conditioned dhammas to be known:-). .... > pps No time to re-read the rest of the post, but as you as we can > just exchange what we hear without worrying about replying. ... S: Deal! Yes, let's just exchange snippets from time to time without the need for any response at all. We're in sync on this. Metta, Sarah p.s That was a zany whacky masterpiece this morning:-) Let us know if you get up to 3 secs! ================= #62139 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Aug 3, 2006 2:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Letters from Nina, 15. sarahprocter... Dear Nina & all, The following struck home. We hear all the time about the being lost in our dreams and in stories about dhammas and yet we continue to try and 'work it out', especially when it comes to all those various shades of dosa we'd like to be rid of (whilst clinging so much to ourselves and our pleasant experiences): --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear friends, > > Someone thought that knowing the conditions for dosa (aversion) would > help to eliminate it. He thought that knowing the conditions means > thinking about the circumstances, the 'story'. However, that is not > pa~n~na which realizes conditions, it is thinking about a 'story', > about concepts. And is there not an idea of ' my dosa' about which > one thinks? > > How can one know dosa as it really is, since that is the only way to > eventually eliminate it? It should be known as nama, not self, > arising because of conditions. Not only dosa should be known as it > is, but all realities which appear through the six doors. As regards > dosa, the real cause of aversion or anger is not the circumstances, > not the other people, but our accumulations of dosa. Dosa is not > self, but a conditioned reality. > > Thus we can see that in thinking about the story, about the > circumstances, we do not come to know more about dosa. We have > accumulations to think a great deal. When there is thinking about > dosa, the thinking can be realized as nama, not self. > > Ignorance of realities can never be eradicated by merely thinking > about them. .... S: The story about dhammas as we're always reminded.....and the subtle (or not so subtle) selection of dhammas to be known or developed. It reminded me of some comments I heard in Nalanda about those who had thought they could become enlightened by thinking and had taken such conceptual ideas for enlightenment. I think it touches on the discussions of dualism/non-dualism and sabhava etc. As you, Ken O and others pointed out nicely, if dhammas are known directly, the characteristic is apparent and there's no concern about terms such as sabhava. Metta, Sarah ======== #62140 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Aug 3, 2006 2:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: no Nina, No Lodewijk. nilovg Dear Andrew, this is very well said, thank you. Nina. Op 2-aug-2006, om 1:49 heeft Andrew het volgende geschreven: > I think the main problem in the discussion is that when we talk > about a person doing something and getting or not getting a result, we > are really talking in conventional terms about millions of mind- > moments > and the language makes it very easy for us to assume a self acting and > to tie the intention firmly to the result. Whereas when we try to > examine the same thing in Abhidhamma terms, we encounter selfless, > fleeting phenomena that interplay in a very complex way that, to me, > suggests a less central role for intention. #62141 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Aug 3, 2006 1:32 am Subject: Awareness = Sati ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: What is the Awareness (Sati) Link to Awakening! The Awareness Link to Awakening (sati-sambojjhanga) is basically the same mental property (sati-cetasika), which inherently is included in: The Four Foundations of Awareness (satipatthana) The Ability of Awareness (satindriya) The Power of Awareness (satibala) The Right Awareness Path Factor (samma-sati-magganga) Trained, developed and refined in a degree that gradually enlightens! The Buddha once said: What mental fermentations (asava) should be overcome by development? If a Bhikkhu by careful & rational attention develops the Awareness Link to Awakening based on seclusion, disillusion, ceasing, and culminating in relinquishment, neither can any fermentation, nor any fever, nor any vexation ever arise in him. MN 2 [i 11] The Ability of Awareness is to remain anchored on any chosen object & when this ability is unshakable and well fixed, it is a Power of Awareness! Awareness is a Foundation (patthana), when well Established (upatthana) continually - without interrupting distractions - on these four objects: 1: Body as mere form: Just a group of foul & fragile organs... 2: Feeling as a reactive response assigned to any contact... 3: Mind as only a changing set of mentalities & moods... 4: Phenomena simply as momentary mental states... Not lasting but transient! Not pleasure but pain! Not Self but impersonal! Neither neglecting nor forgetting that these universal characteristics are relevant & true for absolutely all aspects of these four objects, the false & distorted perception of beauty in what really is disgusting, of pleasure in what really is painful, of self in what really is selfless and impersonal, gradually fades away and the mental fermentations (asava) of sensing, of views, of ignorance and of becoming are overcome by elimination. Further inspirations on this lucid quality of Awareness: Training of Clear Comprehension (sampajanna): http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Clear_Comprehension.htm Training of the Four Foundations of Awareness (satipatthana): http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/Manual/Meditation.Manual.htm What is Right & Noble Awareness? Answer and Details at: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/What_is_Right_Awareness.htm Further studies in this universally superb mental state: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Sati_Studies.htm Friendship is the Greatest ... Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. <...> #62142 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Aug 3, 2006 2:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: no Nina, No Lodewijk. nilovg Dear Sarah, This is a good post to reflect on. True: always an idea of self who develops the Brahmaviharas. Op 3-aug-2006, om 10:25 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > Again, I think it comes back to the confidence in pa~n~naa as K.Sujin > always stresses. The more confidence there is, the less inclined we > are to > think of other approaches or activities that take us away from the > understanding of the presently appearing dhammas. Otherwise, it's > always > self that studies, listens, develops the brahma viharas or performs > good > deeds. ------------- N: And I find this helpful: S: This is why the 'cold showers', the discussions about namas and rupas, about the dear person being a dream which passes all the time, is the only really compassionate way to help us all. You mentioned before that such talk of ephemeral dhammas is not comforting, not giving security, but it is the truth as Phil stressed. -------- N: Yes and it helps me to consider that this short life is only one life in the endless series of lives. -------- S: I think that hearing the truth, understanding, that what appears is really not a person, but hardness, visible object, thinking and so on, is actually far more comforting and liberating than the dream world we are used to living in. And as the understanding of dhammas slowly grows, there is less and less conflict with daily life issues as you and Lodewijk suggest, such as the consideration of others or the behaving in a friendly way. We carry on as before, just developing more understanding and detachment from what is conditioned already now as we speak. ------- N: It also helps when others are not behaving in a friendly way. There will be less and less conflict, but no eradication of akusala of course, not yet. You speak of detachment and Kh Sujin said that the development of pa~n~naa is with detachment from the very beginning to the end. But the degree is of course very weak in the beginning. I sent the post to Lodewijk. Nina. #62143 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Aug 3, 2006 4:30 am Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 505- Six Pairs of Beautiful Cetasikas (b) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) =============================================== Chapter 31 Six Pairs of Beautiful Cetasikas The Atthasåliní (Book I, Part IV, Chapter I, 130) explains about tranquillity of body and tranquillity of mind: * "… These two states taken together have the characteristic of pacifying the suffering of both mental factors and of consciousness; the function of crushing the suffering of both; the manifestation of an unwavering and cool state of both; and have mental factors and consciousness as proximate cause. They are the opponents of the corruptions, such as distraction (uddhacca), which cause the disturbance of mental factors and of consciousness." * The Visuddhimagga (XIV, 144) gives a similar definition. Tranquillity is the opponent of restlessness or distraction, uddhacca, which prevents the arising of kusala citta. When we, for example, strive after something with attachment, there is also restlessness and there cannot be calm. Not only when we want to have something for ourselves, but also when we merely like something such as a particular colour there is restlessness, and then there is no calm. We keep on being infatuated with pleasant sense objects and we may not notice attachment which is subtle. At such moments there is restlessness. ***** Six Pairs of Beautiful Cetasikas to be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #62146 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Aug 3, 2006 6:07 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Knowledge of the Difference Between Naama and Ruupa: Making The... scottduncan2 Dear Nina, Sure. N: "please would you share this with us?" I was asking about something related to a phrase I was trying to understand, and looking back I can't even remember where I got it, but it was "dhamma is called self (atta)." At any rate, the discussion evolved and considered compassion in terms of who or what is its (compassion's) object. Robert responded, in his pithy fashion: "Compassion is merely a conditioned reality, a cetasika. No need for self. It takes a concept (a living being) as object." And later: "...the object of compassion is always a concept." He gave reference to Kh. Sujin's book and the chapters on concepts. I didn't know what "conditioned reality" meant. I didn't know what a "cetasika" was. I had never for a moment considered "a living being" to be a concept. As I said though, it hit home with great force such that I knew it was correct and that I had suddenly a direction to pursue a study of the Dhamma. Chris later suggested I come to DSG and... As an aside, its interesting to note that learning after that moment is about concepts, really. I'm thinking in conventional ways about things I remember then forget then consolidate - mundane learning really. The shock of encountering the Dhamma Robert showed me had its effect quite quickly but seems to entail little of conventional learning. That is done "the hard way." I hope that answers your question, Nina. With loving kindness, Scott. #62147 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Aug 3, 2006 6:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ven. Cunda's Advice sarahprocter... Dear Joop, --- Joop wrote: > J (a week ago) > And more important: this Sutta we can apply to > ourselves! > .... > S: Definitely -- otherwise no point in reading suttas. > > J: I'm glad to hear that from you. So what the commentators said > about the being ariyans of the monks in this Sutta was totally > irrelevant (and perhaps wrong) > More general: we should not discuss how it is to be an ariyan, there > is time enough for starting that when we got streamenterer. .... S: We can however, appreciate and respect the wisdom and other qualities developed by the ariyans. .... > S: The point of drawing attention to the insights of these monks > again is to show that defilements are deeply rooted. We are bound to > have disagreements or disputes for a long time to come. > > J: To me having disagreements (for example with you) and disputes is > not a defilement ! .... S: I agree with you that disagreeing (such as in discussions here) is not necessarily indicative of any defilement. Different mental states at different times. We can disagree with compassion, for example. In the sutta, however, I believe there was definitely the suggestion of unwholesome states involved in the disputes. .... > S: However, for all of us here, I think there's a difference between > accepting and respecting someone's viewpoint (even if we don't agree > with it) and agreeing that all kinds of viewpoint about practice or > meditation are correct and what the Buddha taught. What do you think? > J: Accord, when we change "all kinds" in "many kinds" .... S: OK .... > S: Instead of using the word meditation, can we use bhavana or mental > development? > > J: Better not ! > 'Mental development' is a result, a mental state so to say. > And 'meditation' is an activity, something we do in trying to get a > mental state. > And we can do that sitting an a cushion, walking, eating etc. > > S: Do you think there can be bhavana now as we discuss our viewpoints? > > J: An important but a difficult question. > I think BEING MINDFULL (that's vipassana-meditation a la Mahasi) and > discussing (with oneself or with another sentient being) are hard to > combine. .... S: Isn't that because of an idea of an activity rather than mindfulness of whatever dhammas are conditioned at this moment, no matter whether we're sitting, talking, arguing or anything else? ... > The discursive thinking, needed in discussion, forces us to be aware > of different cognitions (opinions) at the same moment. .... S: But the way I see the development of mindfulness, that is not any hindrance. It's not a question of not attending to different opinions or anything else. Otherwise, isn't there likely to be an idea of changing the present dhammas which have been conditioned to arise already? .... > But more superficial, as an aspect of right speech it is possible. > That's not the case with 'absorption', one of the other aspects of > the NEP we had to do; the concentration needed for that and > discussions can not be combined at the same moment. .... S: Can it really be the NEP when we have any idea of having to do anything? Aren't the teachings applicable at any time to any dhammas arising? .... > But there is no problem: one part of the day we can meditate (of > course : in silence); another part we can study Dhamma, and on some > moments we can discuss Dhamma. .... S: So this is the difference in our ideas of bhavana (mental development/meditation). As I see it, if we think it has to be at another time and in silence, it indicates a lack of confidence in bhavana now as a possibility. And another time or silence may not come. Then what? .... > S: "It is a nama dhamma which cognizes an object as we read > throughout the texts. > I don't think we can't say this is wrong." > > J: Perhaps "we" can't but I can say that "It is a nama dhamma which > cognizes an object" is wrong because that supposes that that specific > nama dhamma already existed before it cognized and that is not the > case: it arises IN cognizing. .... S: No, a nama dhamma doesn't exist before cognizing an object. 'It arises IN cognizing' if you like, OK. There is no cakkhu vinnana citta (seeing consciousness) which arises and doesn't perform the function of seeing. Same for all other cittas. .... > My question: to what texts of the Tipitaka (so not a commentary) do > you base this opinions? .... S: Throughout the Tipitaka, we can read about these various dhammas. For example, my SN text just fell open at the following in SN 35:27 'Full Understanding': "Bhikkhus, without directly knowing and fully understanding the all, without developing dispassion towards it and abandoning it, one is incapable of destroying suffering. "And what, bhikkhus, is the all....? "The eye and forms and eye-consciousness and things to be cognized by eye-consciousness. The ear and sounds and ear-consciousness adn things to be cognized by ear-consciousness......." Metta, Sarah ========= #62148 From: "Joop" Date: Thu Aug 3, 2006 6:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Dependent Origination ... And being outrageous jwromeijn Hallo Jon After some days of reflecting I had to say that your messages 62080 and 62082 did not inspire me. I think my messages did also not inspire you to give creative reactions. So the best to do is end this thread. Only one remark because that made me sad. You ask some weeks ago what I meant with the term 'causal'; I answered that I meant the kind of causility used by the Buddha, for which many times also the term 'conditioning' is used. (I did not say it but the implication was that there are many kinds of causality and that I of course did not use 'causal' in the way of modern natural science here) So why did you again remark in both your messages you doubted if the term 'causal' is correct: I used 'causal' in a very general way. If you cannot think with this kind of general concepts: forget my use of the word 'causal' and read 'conditioning' every time I said 'causal'. If you have any ideas on D.O. that maybe helping me, give them. Metta Joop #62149 From: "Phil" Date: Thu Aug 3, 2006 7:22 am Subject: Re: Abhidhamma in Daily Life, 41 philofillet Hi again all > And I would add (to myself) control *will* arise when there is > understanding. And revising again, thinking as I walked, that it would be a good idea to say moments of control conditioned by moments of understanding. There is nothing more than moments, of course, but not everybody accepts that, so good to clarify. "We wish to disregard the impermanence of dhammas" is a line that is never far from arising these days.... Phil #62150 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Aug 3, 2006 3:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ven. Cunda's Advice upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Joop) - In a message dated 8/3/06 9:19:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > > Dear Joop, > > --- Joop wrote: > >J (a week ago) >And more important: this Sutta we can apply to > >ourselves! > >.... > >S: Definitely -- otherwise no point in reading suttas. > > > >J: I'm glad to hear that from you. So what the commentators said > >about the being ariyans of the monks in this Sutta was totally > >irrelevant (and perhaps wrong) > >More general: we should not discuss how it is to be an ariyan, there > >is time enough for starting that when we got streamenterer. > .... > S: We can however, appreciate and respect the wisdom and other qualities > developed by the ariyans. > .... > >S: The point of drawing attention to the insights of these monks > >again is to show that defilements are deeply rooted. We are bound to > >have disagreements or disputes for a long time to come. > > > >J: To me having disagreements (for example with you) and disputes is > >not a defilement ! > .... > S: I agree with you that disagreeing (such as in discussions here) is not > necessarily indicative of any defilement. Different mental states at > different times. We can disagree with compassion, for example. In the > sutta, however, I believe there was definitely the suggestion of > unwholesome states involved in the disputes. --------------------------------------- Howard: But there's no control over suggestions, hmm? -------------------------------------- > .... > >S: However, for all of us here, I think there's a difference between > >accepting and respecting someone's viewpoint (even if we don't agree > >with it) and agreeing that all kinds of viewpoint about practice or > >meditation are correct and what the Buddha taught. What do you think? > >J: Accord, when we change "all kinds" in "many kinds" > .... > S: OK > .... > >S: Instead of using the word meditation, can we use bhavana or mental > >development? > > > >J: Better not ! > > 'Mental development' is a result, a mental state so to say. > >And 'meditation' is an activity, something we do in trying to get a > >mental state. > >And we can do that sitting an a cushion, walking, eating etc. > > > >S: Do you think there can be bhavana now as we discuss our viewpoints? > > > >J: An important but a difficult question. > >I think BEING MINDFULL (that's vipassana-meditation a la Mahasi) and > >discussing (with oneself or with another sentient being) are hard to > >combine. > .... > S: Isn't that because of an idea of an activity rather than mindfulness of > whatever dhammas are conditioned at this moment, no matter whether we're > sitting, talking, arguing or anything else? --------------------------------------- Howard: But there's no control of what ideas arise, hmmm? -------------------------------------- > ... > >The discursive thinking, needed in discussion, forces us to be aware > >of different cognitions (opinions) at the same moment. > .... > S: But the way I see the development of mindfulness, that is not any > hindrance. It's not a question of not attending to different opinions or > anything else. Otherwise, isn't there likely to be an idea of changing the > present dhammas which have been conditioned to arise already? -------------------------------------- Howard: What about creating conditions that influence the arising and nonarising of possible future dhammas? -------------------------------------- > .... > >But more superficial, as an aspect of right speech it is possible. > >That's not the case with 'absorption', one of the other aspects of > >the NEP we had to do; the concentration needed for that and > >discussions can not be combined at the same moment. > .... > S: Can it really be the NEP when we have any idea of having to do > anything? Aren't the teachings applicable at any time to any dhammas > arising? ----------------------------------------- Howard: Do the teachings apply themselves? (Are the teachings now agents? ;-) Or must there have been the intentional studying of those teachings, and now, remembering them, acting upon them with intention and effort/energy? ---------------------------------------- > .... > >But there is no problem: one part of the day we can meditate (of > >course : in silence); another part we can study Dhamma, and on some > >moments we can discuss Dhamma. > .... > S: So this is the difference in our ideas of bhavana (mental > development/meditation). As I see it, if we think it has to be at another > time and in silence, it indicates a lack of confidence in bhavana now as a > possibility. And another time or silence may not come. Then what? --------------------------------------- Howard: There is so much talk about things depending on conditions - the right conditions. Do you not think that (the dhammas underlying) silence and seclusion are among the useful conditions for cultivation? -------------------------------------- > .... > >S: "It is a nama dhamma which cognizes an object as we read > >throughout the texts. > > I don't think we can't say this is wrong." > > > >J: Perhaps "we" can't but I can say that "It is a nama dhamma which > >cognizes an object" is wrong because that supposes that that specific > >nama dhamma already existed before it cognized and that is not the > >case: it arises IN cognizing. ------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, Joop, quite correct. It IS the cognizing. ------------------------------------ > .... > S: No, a nama dhamma doesn't exist before cognizing an object. 'It arises > IN cognizing' if you like, OK. There is no cakkhu vinnana citta (seeing > consciousness) which arises and doesn't perform the function of seeing. > Same for all other cittas. > .... > >My question: to what texts of the Tipitaka (so not a commentary) do > >you base this opinions? > .... > S: Throughout the Tipitaka, we can read about these various dhammas. For > example, my SN text just fell open at the following in SN 35:27 'Full > Understanding': > > "Bhikkhus, without directly knowing and fully understanding the all, > without developing dispassion towards it and abandoning it, one is > incapable of destroying suffering. > > "And what, bhikkhus, is the all....? > > "The eye and forms and eye-consciousness and things to be cognized by > eye-consciousness. The ear and sounds and ear-consciousness adn things to > be cognized by ear-consciousness......." > > Metta, > > Sarah > ===================== With metta, Howard #62151 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Aug 3, 2006 4:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ven. Cunda's Advice upasaka_howard Hi again Sarah & Joop - In a message dated 8/3/06 10:33:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: > Howard: > There is so much talk about things depending on conditions - the right > conditions. Do you not think that (the dhammas underlying) silence and > seclusion are among the useful conditions for cultivation? > ==================== The foregoing was unclear. What I should have written as the last sentence is "Do you not think that (the dhammas underlying) silence and seclusion are among the useful conditions for cultivation of the mind?" [My point was that the silence and seclusion support mental cultivation, which makes them worthy of pursuit.] BTW, there are so many places in the suttas where the Buddha urges seeking out secluded, peaceful places for meditation. He also, of course, urges mental practices which calm the mind, creating internal peace and silence, which is the most important silence. With metta, Howard #62152 From: "matheesha" Date: Thu Aug 3, 2006 9:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sati, Samadhi, Samatha, Vipassana and Panna matheesha333 Hi Howard, > > There are people around today, self-styled meditation masters, who > think that absorption is all that is required for awakening, and they hawk that > view all over the net and the meditation circuit. Most unfortunate. M: Quite so. They are quite stuck on their views as well. Not to mention thinking that they are enlightened! This is what happens when people selectively focus on just part of the suttas. regards Matheesha #62153 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Aug 3, 2006 5:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sati, Samadhi, Samatha, Vipassana and Panna upasaka_howard Hi, Matheesha - In a message dated 8/3/06 12:43:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, dhammachat@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > > > > There are people around today, self-styled meditation masters, > who > >think that absorption is all that is required for awakening, and they > hawk that > >view all over the net and the meditation circuit. Most unfortunate. > > M: Quite so. They are quite stuck on their views as well. Not to > mention thinking that they are enlightened! > ------------------------------------ Howard: LOL! We must have some of the same people in mind! ;-)) ---------------------------------- This is what happens when > > people selectively focus on just part of the suttas. > > regards > > Matheesha > ==================== With metta, Howard #62154 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Aug 3, 2006 10:46 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily Life 42 nilovg Dear friends, As regards stealing, this can either be performed with lobha-múla- citta or with dosa-múla-citta. It is done with dosa-múla-citta when there is the intention to harm someone else. Doing damage to someone else's possessions is included in this kamma-patha. Four kinds of akusala kamma-patha through speech are performed with dosa-múla-citta: lying, slandering, rude speech and frivolous talk. Lying, slandering and frivolous talk can either be done with lobha- múla-citta or with dosa-múla-citta. Slandering, for example, is done with dosa-múla-citta when there is the intention to cause damage to someone else, such as doing harm to his good name and causing him to be looked down upon by others. Most people think that the use of weapons is to be avoided, but they forget that the tongue can be a weapon as well, a weapon which can badly wound. Evil speech does a great deal of harm in the world; it causes discord between people. When we speak evil we harm ourselves, because at such moments akusala kamma is accumulated and it is capable of producing akusala vipåka. We read in the Sutta Nipåta (Chapter III, the Great Chapter, 10, Kokåliya, ``Khuddaka Nikåya'') that while the Buddha was staying at Såvatthí, the bhikkhu Kokåliya visited him. Kokåliya spoke evil of Såriputta and Moggallåna, saying that they had evil desires. Three times the Buddha told him not to speak in that way. After Kokåliya had departed boils developed all over his body which became bigger and bigger and discharged pus and blood. He died and was reborn in the Paduma hell. Later on the Buddha told the monks about Kokåliya's evil speech and his rebirth in hell. We read (vs. 657, 658) that the Buddha said: ``Surely in the mouth of a man, when born, an axe is born, with which the fool cuts himself, saying a badly-spoken (utterance). He who praises him who is to be blamed, or blames him who is to be praised, accumulates evil by his mouth. Because of that evil he does not find happiness... As regards akusala kamma-patha through the mind performed with dosa- múla-citta, this is the intention to hurt or harm someone else. People often speak about violence and the ways to cure it. Who of us can say that he is free from dosa and that he will never kill? We do not know how much dosa we have accumulated in the course of many lives. When the conditions are present we might commit an act of violence we did not realize we were capable of. When we understand how ugly dosa is and to what deeds it can lead we want to eradicate it. ***** Nina. #62155 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Aug 3, 2006 10:50 am Subject: Letters from Nina, 23. nilovg Dear friends, Our life consists of ever-changing phenomena which are beyond control. One may find it difficult to understand what the Buddha meant, when he taught that there is no self. Our clinging to the self is so deeply rooted. We would like to be master of our body, we would like to be master of our moments of consciousness, our feelings, all our experiences. However, one can see that the body consists of changing phenomena. We cannot control the body, we cannot prevent its decay. What we call mind changes all the time. We would like to be kind and wise all the time but instead we are often attached, unkind and ignorant of realities. We would like to hear kind words from other people, but instead we may hear harsh words, or people may treat us badly. We would like to have only pleasant experiences but this is impossible. Consequently we tend to feel frustrated and even bitter. The seeing of pleasant and unpleasant objects, the hearing of pleasant or unpleasant sounds, all our experiences are phenomena which arise because of their appropriate conditions, we are not master of them. Instead of blaming other people when life is not as we want it to be, instead of giving way to feelings of frustration, there could be development of right understanding of the phenomena of our life. The Buddha taught us to be aware of the phenomena which occur at the present moment, no matter they are wholesome or unwholesome, pleasant or unpleasant. This is the only way to have less clinging to an idea of 'self' which tries to control life, to have less clinging to 'my feelings', 'my thoughts', 'my body', and is this not a gain? ******* Nina. #62156 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Aug 3, 2006 11:27 am Subject: Knowledge of the Difference Between Naama and Ruupa, compassion. nilovg Dear Scott, thank you for sharing your experience and the way the coin dropped. How this happens is different for each individual. You say, that is done "the hard way." I think it takes a long time of developing understanding of this moment, before the Dhamma sinks in. We may say, living beings are concepts, but it takes long to really understand this. Nina. Op 3-aug-2006, om 15:07 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: > > At any rate, the discussion evolved and considered compassion in terms > of who or what is its (compassion's) object. Robert responded, in his > pithy fashion: > > "Compassion is merely a conditioned reality, a cetasika. No need for > self. It takes a concept (a living being) as object." And later: > > "...the object of compassion is always a concept." > > .... I had never for a moment considered "a living being" > to be a concept. As I said though, it hit home with great force such > that I knew it was correct and that I had suddenly a direction to > pursue a study of the Dhamma. Chris later suggested I come to DSG > and... > > As an aside, its interesting to note that learning after that moment > is about concepts, really. I'm thinking in conventional ways about > things I remember then forget then consolidate - mundane learning > really. The shock of encountering the Dhamma Robert showed me had its > effect quite quickly but seems to entail little of conventional > learning. That is done "the hard way." > #62157 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Aug 3, 2006 11:52 am Subject: born with pa~n~naa nilovg Dear Scott, --------------- I can't experience pure "sound" yet - pa~n~na doesn't arise. I can notice how very very quickly there is thinking about sound. Like passing two people who are talking. I hear, as if the sound didn't even happen, only snippets of a conversation - already a whole and meaningful and everything. Certainly not sound. -------- N: It does not matter, then thinking is the reality that appears. ------------ N: "Now it may be clearer that so long as we do not know what naama is, pure naama as Kh Sujin says, ....Sati and pa~n~naa can begin, but we cannot say that there is clear understanding. We do not really know the difference between citta and cetasika." -------- S:That's true. I can't tell. Is it theoretically possible for pa~n~na to arise to such a degree that one can actually differentiate dhammas in this fashion? ------- N: Sure, otherwise there would be no Path as taught by the Buddha. Only, we do not know when, but again, this does not matter. We can begin again and again, as Kh Sujin says. ---------- N: "When we speak about the difference between nama and rupa, we should not think that this means between seeing and visible object, hearing and sound, thus, pairwise, because it depends on the sati what types of realities appear when there is the first vipassanaa ~naa.na. Some people think that it has to be pairwise. That is not so." ------- S: Sati arises when it does. For me, as I mentioned, sound/hearing seems to become a focus. Maybe someday I'll know something about this. But not all neat and pair-wise - however it arises. ----- N: As you say, however it arises. For another person hardness or feeling may appear more often, no rule at all. --------- N: "When there are conditions for the arising of the first stage of vipassanaa ~naa.na, naama and ruupa are experienced one at a time in several mind-door processes. Then it is clear what a mind-door process is. Naama is clearly known as naama, not blended or mixed with ruupa such as is the case right now." ------- S: I'm still prone to take the above literally, that is, that one would actually experience this - some sort of metaphor like "time-lapse photography" comes always to mind - but I don't really know how this is said to actually be experienced. ----------- N: I do not know about photos (hardly ever take one), but one thing is sure: we cannot have any idea how this is. When time comes. I just remember Kh Sujin's words: now the mind-door is as it were hidden, but then, at the moment of insight, the sense-door is as it were hidden, since insight knowledge realizes through the mind-door nama as nama and rupa as rupa. --------- N: "It struck me that you said, piiti is more coarse than happy feeling, and then I found that the jhaanafactor piti is more coarse, when reading the Vis." ------- S: I think I've experienced it. I'm not sure. It feels "bodily" somehow. ---- N: It causes bodily phenomena. --------- N: "Jhaanafactors have to be developed in order to attain jhaana, but as higher stages are attained not all factors are needed, they are abandoned. The coarser ones are abandoned stage by stage, because jhaana becomes more refined. The translation is confusing, because piiti is transl. as happiness and happy feeling as bliss." ------ S:It is confusing to me. ------ N: This is Nyanamoli. Therefore better stick to the Pali: piiti and sukha (meaning here somanassa). ---------- N: "I am referring to cittajaruupa, mind-produced ruupa, and that includes piiti that in particular conditions bodily phenomena. An example is given of a girl who wanted to hear Dhamma and could levitate the body in her enthusiasm. Also akusala piiti, apart from jhaana can condition levitation." --------- S:The levitation would be ruupa? Cittajaruupa in particular? And, whether one or the other, of no final consequence, really. ------- N: Yes, bodily phenomena, cittajaruupa, and piiti in particular condiitoned that. Not so important, not essential. It just happened. When we see so called miracles they are phenomena due to the proper conditions. ---------- Nina. #62158 From: "matheesha" Date: Thu Aug 3, 2006 3:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sati, Samadhi, Samatha, Vipassana and Panna matheesha333 Hi Howard, > > > There are people around today, self-styled meditation masters, > > who > > >think that absorption is all that is required for awakening, and they > > hawk that > > >view all over the net and the meditation circuit. Most unfortunate. > > > > M: Quite so. They are quite stuck on their views as well. Not to > > mention thinking that they are enlightened! > > > ------------------------------------ > Howard: > LOL! We must have some of the same people in mind! ;-)) > ---------------------------------- M: Probably. I tried to reason it out with them but it was impossible. Fortunately the arahath later became a sotapanna. ;-) Conceit is a defense mechanism. It can't be easy for him. I guess just like the hindu gods creeping into buddhism, this will be the latest distortion history throws at buddhism, courtesy of US of A. The internet also has a way of distorting the relative importance of what is on the web, when in reality it is just a handful of people holding extreme views. metta Matheesha #62159 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Thu Aug 3, 2006 4:42 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: no Nina, No Lodewijk. ken_aitch Hi Sarah and Nina, Don't let me interrupt. I just want to point out something that has already been made obvious. I think Lodewijk is concerned about Nina (or anyone) having cold water tipped over her. Or, at least, having it tipped over at the wrong time. Sarah wrote: ------- This is why the 'cold showers', the discussions about namas and rupas, about the dear person being a dream which passes all the time, is the only really compassionate way to help us all. You mentioned before that such talk of ephemeral dhammas is not comforting, not giving security, but it is the truth as Phil stressed. -------- One has to know how much ice to put in the bucket. [Speaking of buckets] imagine we are at the beach and I launch into one of my tirades against those damned longboarders (who, let's be honest, have ruined the noble sport of surfing): "See how they are always first to catch the waves! And what do they do once they've caught them? They stand there like useless lunks stopping proper surfers from having a go!" (And so on - on and on and on.). Knowing you as I do, I am sure you wouldn't interrupt me with "That's just dosa!" More likely, you would make some mollifying remarks about the naughty longboarders and how dare they do that to Ken H. As soon as I had calmed down enough to wonder why I was getting so upset, you would remind me there was only dosa and other dhammas (no Ken H at all). The same thing happens all the time in daily life: when someone tells us, "My little girl has won the spelling bee at school - I am so pleased for her!" we don't say, "That's just attachment! That's unwholesome!" But we might say something like that later at a Dhamma discussion or whenever the time was right for a cold shower. Like I said: just stating the obvious, Ken H > > I think that hearing the truth, understanding, that what appears is really > not a person, but hardness, visible object, thinking and so on, is > actually far more comforting and liberating than the dream world we are > used to living in. And as the understanding of dhammas slowly grows, there > is less and less conflict with daily life issues as you and Lodewijk > suggest, such as the consideration of others or the behaving in a friendly > way. We carry on as before, just developing more understanding and > detachment from what is conditioned already now as we speak. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ========= > #62160 From: "Phil" Date: Thu Aug 3, 2006 6:06 pm Subject: yatha-sabhavam (knowledge comprehends things clearly as they are) philofillet Hi Nina (or others knowledgeable on Pali) This morning I was studying the wholesome sense-sphere citta section in CMA and thought the nanasampayutta/nanvippayutta dichotomy seemed very important. (accompanied or unaccompanied by understanding/knowledge) The nanasampayutta is said to refer to yatha-sabhaavam (knowledge comprehends things clearly as they are) Does this "sabhava" have something to do with the word, which I forget now, which refers to the defining characteristics of dhammas? Their individual essence or something like that? So does "comprehending things clearly as they are" refer to the universal characteristics (anatta etc) or particular characteristics, or both or...what? Thanks in advance for any feedback. Phil #62161 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Aug 3, 2006 7:59 pm Subject: Re: born with pa~n~naa scottduncan2 Dear Nina, Thank you very much, as always. N: "It does not matter, then thinking is the reality that appears." Yes. This is it, isn't it? Each reality as it appears. S: "Is it theoretically possible for pa~n~na to arise to such a degree that one can actually differentiate dhammas in this fashion? N: "Sure, otherwise there would be no Path as taught by the Buddha. Only, we do not know when, but again, this does not matter. We can begin again and again, as Kh Sujin says." Again, yes. It doesn't matter but I'm glad to have an answer to this question! N: "When there are conditions for the arising of the first stage of vipassanaa ~naa.na, naama and ruupa are experienced one at a time in several mind-door processes. Then it is clear what a mind-door process is. Naama is clearly known as naama, not blended or mixed with ruupa such as is the case right now." N: "I just remember Kh Sujin's words: now the mind-door is as it were hidden, but then, at the moment of insight, the sense-door is as it were hidden, since insight knowledge realizes through the mind-door nama as nama and rupa as rupa." Okay, this is really deep. And it makes sense somehow. Insight knowledge is a mind-door phenomenon. In effect this is saying that a reversal of the ordinary way occurs. The usual sense-door process is occluded and the realisation occurs through the mind door. This would mean that the realisation itself is, of course, naama. How is it that ruupa is known as ruupa? S:" The levitation would be ruupa? Cittajaruupa in particular? And, whether one or the other, of no final consequence, really." N: "Yes, bodily phenomena, cittajaruupa, and piiti in particular conditioned that. Not so important, not essential. It just happened. When we see so called miracles they are phenomena due to the proper conditions." Thanks, that makes sense. I'm learning a lot from you, Nina. With loving kindness, Scott. #62162 From: connie Date: Thu Aug 3, 2006 8:08 pm Subject: the latest distortion nichiconn hey math, just smiling. not just conceit, but My conceit. Nothing new to give the big, bad Empire credit for. But just a bit of Udaana Commentary: << For this reason "Then a devataa who had been a former blood-relation of Baahiya, the Wood-robed One" was said. Herein: Possessing pity for him (anukampikaa): of a helping nature exceeding that of compassion. Desiring his welfare (atthakaamaa): with a desire for his well-being exceeding that of loving kindness. And in this connection, he indicates, by means of the former expression, the desire on the part of that devataa for the removal of Baahiya's dukkha, by means of the latter the allocation of well-being. With his mind (cetasaa): with his own consciousness (cittena): and, in this connection, mind-embracing knowledge is to be understood as included under the heading of "mind" (ceta). The reflection in the mind (cetoparivitakka.m): the occurrence of that thought of his. Upon understanding (a~n~naaya): upon coming to know. Approached (ten'upasa"nkami): just as a strong man might stretch out a contracted arem, or contract an outstretched arm, just to did he disappear in the Brahmaloka and approach by way of appearing before Baahiya. Uttered this (etad avoca): the Brahmaa uttered this utterance now on the point of being uttered commencing with "You, Baahiya, are certainly no arahant", as if seizing a robber together with the goods, to Baahiya to whom the false reflection of "Whoever there be in this world who are arahants" and so on had occurred. [83] You, Baahiya, are certainly no arahant (n'eva kno tva.m Baahiya arhaa): by this means he rejects asekkha status for Baahiya at that time. Nor even one who has attained the arahant-path (n'aapi arahattamagga.m vaa samaapanno): by this means (he rejects) sekkha status; whilst by means of both he elucidates his status to be completely non-ariyan. Nor is this practice of yours one by which you could become an arahant or one who has attained the arahant-path (saa pi te pa.tipadaa n'atthi yaaya tva.m arahaa vaa assa arahattamagga.m vaa samaapanno): whereas in this way he rejects even the status of the virtuous puthujjana for him. >> peace, connie #62163 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Aug 3, 2006 5:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sati, Samadhi, Samatha, Vipassana and Panna upasaka_howard Hi, Matheesha - In a message dated 8/3/06 6:28:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, dhammachat@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > >>> There are people around today, self-styled meditation > masters, > >>who > >>>think that absorption is all that is required for awakening, > and they > >>hawk that > >>>view all over the net and the meditation circuit. Most > unfortunate. > >> > >>M: Quite so. They are quite stuck on their views as well. Not to > >>mention thinking that they are enlightened! > >> > >------------------------------------ > >Howard: > > LOL! We must have some of the same people in mind! ;-)) > >---------------------------------- > > M: Probably. I tried to reason it out with them but it was > impossible. Fortunately the arahath later became a sotapanna. ;-) ---------------------------------------- Howard: LOL! Yes, that's the main person I had in mind. ;-) ---------------------------------------- > Conceit is a defense mechanism. It can't be easy for him. > I guess just like the hindu gods creeping into buddhism, this will > be the latest distortion history throws at buddhism, courtesy of US > of A. ---------------------------------------- Howard: It's a good news / bad news story. Good that jhanas get their due, bad thay they get more than is due - at least, jhanas as fully absorbed states. (Ven. Vimalaramsi has a different idea of what the Buddha's jhanas were. His interpretation I find to be similar to the perspective of Ch'an.) ------------------------------------------ > > The internet also has a way of distorting the relative importance of > what is on the web, when in reality it is just a handful of people > holding extreme views. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, you're entirely correct. ---------------------------------------- With metta, Howard #62164 From: "matheesha" Date: Thu Aug 3, 2006 11:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sati, Samadhi, Samatha, Vipassana and Panna matheesha333 Hi Howard, > > ---------------------------------------- > Howard: > It's a good news / bad news story. Good that jhanas get their due, bad > thay they get more than is due - at least, jhanas as fully absorbed states. > (Ven. Vimalaramsi has a different idea of what the Buddha's jhanas were. His > interpretation I find to be similar to the perspective of Ch'an.) > ------------------------------------------ M: You have got me interested. What is the Ch'an (and Ven.Vimalasiri's) perspective on the matter? with metta Matheesha #62165 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Aug 3, 2006 11:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: no Nina, No Lodewijk. sarahprocter... Hi Ken H, (Nina, Azita & all), --- ken_aitch wrote: > Hi Sarah and Nina, > > Don't let me interrupt. I just want to point out something that has > already been made obvious. I think Lodewijk is concerned about Nina > (or anyone) having cold water tipped over her. Or, at least, having it > tipped over at the wrong time. .... Never an interruption. You've made some good points about 'cold showers' and I agree there certainly is a time and place for them and of course, we all make well-intentioned mistakes in this regard, I'm sure. To follow the surfing analogy just a little, if I thought for a minute you really were serious about the long-boarders being the cause of your problems, given your keen interest in dhamma, I wouldn't hesitate to give you a 'cold shower' with plenty of ice:-). But, I know that berating them is just your little bit of fun and if you had all the waves to yourself, you'd soon start missing them. Lol! Now as a real beginner on a surf-board (especially when a typhoon approaches), I come away with a lot of bruises, dings, knocks and scrapes, whilst the experts seem to take the waves and winds in their stride. In a place like Hong Kong, most beginners soon give up because it's just too tough to follow along the steep learning curve in what is one's precious leisure time. It's not a sport for the faint-hearted. When it comes to learning about dhammas and developing awareness of them as mere elements, the learning curve (whether in Bangkok discussions or here on the internet, for example) is very tough too, I think. Egos get bruised, it is repeatedly pointed out how little understanding there really is and how much wrong view is on display. Yes, people walk away often, even in Bangkok after a discussion with K.Sujin, the 'master' of compassion and understanding. In fact, after Jon left Bangkok, there were no regular English discussions at all for a very long time because of a lack of interest by enough people to take the bitter medicine or cold showers on a regular basis. There simply are not many brave Ninas or Jons who go back week after week, year after year, decade after decade, for more cold showers! When we were last in Bangkok last February, some people questioned whether the cold showers really had too much ice in them. At one point in the discussions (which you will hear in due course), after receiving about a dozen super-icy showers, Vince openly questioned the approach of being repeatedly picked up on every comment he was making about right practice. He suggested to K.Sujin in some pretty strong language that it's just not encouraging to have it suggested there is wrong view at every turn. She coolly (and compassionately) responded that the encouragement he (and the rest of us) yearn for, is "the encouragement to go round and round in the circle of birth and death". That struck me because we do have the precious opportunity to hear the truth now, but we need to hear it often given such strong inclinations to move away from knowing present dhammas as elements, not people and things. Are we really just looking for approval to keep going round and round in the circle? She added that "when it's not the understanding of reality right now, it (the understanding) cannot develop because it keeps on going away from reality which is conditioned to arise. Nobody can condition any reality right now but if one thinks one can make some conditions, then it's not right. If that person has such an idea (fixed), nobody can show the right path that it has to be (with) detachment from the very beginning as well. It (the right path) doesn't mean 'we'll have the clinging and then let go of it one day' - it 's impossible." So, isn't it like your question before about whether anatta can be taken too far? Can there really be too many cold showers? I'm not sure. People at least remember them and sometimes decades later come back for more (as Azita will confirm).....after the warm, fuzzy encouragement which takes us round and round has not helped at all. Thanks again for your kind comments......Now as an expert in handing out cold showers, please don't start adding too much warm water and bubbly. Just don't expect to be thanked for them:-) Metta, Sarah ======== #62166 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Aug 3, 2006 11:43 pm Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 506- Six Pairs of Beautiful Cetasikas (c) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) =============================================== Six Pairs of Beautiful Cetasikas (i tranquillity/calm) When the citta is kusala citta there is calm of citta and cetasikas, there is no restlessness nor agitation at that moment. There is a “cool state of mind”, no infatuation with the object which is experienced, no restlessness. However, it is not easy to recognize the characteristic of calm. The different types of citta succeed one another very rapidly and shortly after the kusala cittas have fallen away akusala cittas tend to arise. Right understanding has to be keen in order to know the characteristic of calm. If there is no right understanding we may take for calm what is not calm but another reality. For example, when we are alone, in a quiet place, we may think that there is calm while there is actually attachment to silence. ***** Six Pairs of Beautiful Cetasikas to be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #62167 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Aug 4, 2006 12:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ven. Cunda's Advice sarahprocter... Hi Howard,(& Joop), Thanks for joining in the discussion. --- upasaka@... wrote: > > S: I agree with you that disagreeing (such as in discussions here) is > not > > necessarily indicative of any defilement. Different mental states at > > different times. We can disagree with compassion, for example. In the > > sutta, however, I believe there was definitely the suggestion of > > unwholesome states involved in the disputes. > > --------------------------------------- > Howard: > But there's no control over suggestions, hmm? > -------------------------------------- .... S: agreed.....??? .... > > >J: An important but a difficult question. > > >I think BEING MINDFULL (that's vipassana-meditation a la Mahasi) and > > >discussing (with oneself or with another sentient being) are hard to > > >combine. > > .... > > S: Isn't that because of an idea of an activity rather than > mindfulness of > > whatever dhammas are conditioned at this moment, no matter whether > we're > > sitting, talking, arguing or anything else? > > --------------------------------------- > Howard: > But there's no control of what ideas arise, hmmm? > -------------------------------------- .... S: agreedt again....??? ..... > > S: But the way I see the development of mindfulness, that is not any > > hindrance. It's not a question of not attending to different opinions > or > > anything else. Otherwise, isn't there likely to be an idea of changing > the > > present dhammas which have been conditioned to arise already? > > -------------------------------------- > Howard: > What about creating conditions that influence the arising and > nonarising of possible future dhammas? > -------------------------------------- .... S: Who or what creates these conditions? So, we agree there are only ever the present dhammas now. Either there is or there isn't mindfulness of them when they appear, wouldn't you say? When there's thinking about creating other conditions to influence future dhammas, isn't such thinking moving further and further away from such present mindfulness which we're discussing? .... > > S: Can it really be the NEP when we have any idea of having to do > > anything? Aren't the teachings applicable at any time to any dhammas > > arising? > > ----------------------------------------- > Howard: > Do the teachings apply themselves? (Are the teachings now agents? > ;-) > Or must there have been the intentional studying of those teachings, and > now, > remembering them, acting upon them with intention and effort/energy? > ---------------------------------------- ..... S: I think the NEP factors apply themselves when there are the conditions in place;-) Again, it comes back to this moment. If there has been sufficient wise considering, mindfulness may arise and be aware of a dhamma appearing now. Of course, it may not arise either and that's fine too. At least by appreciating that it's only ever now, we won't go off-track by thinking we can do certain things or act upon them. Yes, it is a path of patience in a way because such mindfulness and understanding cannot be at any other moment, even if there's very little of them. With more and more confidence that there's nothing a self or agent can do at all, the path factors develop. .... > > S: So this is the difference in our ideas of bhavana (mental > > development/meditation). As I see it, if we think it has to be at > another > > time and in silence, it indicates a lack of confidence in bhavana now > as a > > possibility. And another time or silence may not come. Then what? > > --------------------------------------- > Howard: > There is so much talk about things depending on conditions - the > right > conditions. Do you not think that (the dhammas underlying) silence and > seclusion are among the useful conditions for cultivation? > -------------------------------------- .... S: When there's mindfulness, there's mental seclusion already. Whether typing on the internet or in a busy New York crowd in the heat-wave, there's seclusion whenever the doors are guarded, whenever there is sati. As it just said in the Cetasika post on calm, "when we are alone, in a quiet place, we may think that there is calm while there is actually attachment to silence." Are we bothered about being disturbed or interrupted? Do we mind if the telephone rings? I think that gives some indication. I think the main conditions for right mindfulness are wise attention and understanding. But, even here, if we read this as suggesting an action to follow, we'll be moving away from the presently appearing dhamma again. .... > Howard: > Yes, Joop, quite correct. It IS the cognizing. > ------------------------------------ >>S: SN 35:27 'Full Understanding': > > > > "Bhikkhus, without directly knowing and fully understanding the all, > > without developing dispassion towards it and abandoning it, one is > > incapable of destroying suffering. > > > > "And what, bhikkhus, is the all....? > > > > "The eye and forms and eye-consciousness and things to be cognized by > > eye-consciousness. The ear and sounds and ear-consciousness and things > to > > be cognized by ear-consciousness......." ..... S: Thanks again for your input, Howard. Metta, Sarah p.s I had a note from James to say he'd arrived safely in Taiwan but not without some airport problems. If anyone has anything to put on our Monday discussion agenda, go ahead! ======= #62168 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Aug 3, 2006 8:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sati, Samadhi, Samatha, Vipassana and Panna upasaka_howard Hi, Matheesha - In a message dated 8/4/06 2:24:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, dhammachat@... writes: > M: You have got me interested. What is the Ch'an (and > Ven.Vimalasiri's) perspective on the matter? > > ==================== It's that of a heightened state of calmness and clarity, with all the features that are given in the suttas, but also, as in the Anupada Sutta, the ability to exercise volition and investigate dhammas *from within jhanas*, and not having exited from them (with the exception of the 8th). Basically, the calmness is full and powerful, and the concentration as well, except the concentration is a concentrating on "staying present", observing whatever arises, but not fixed on and absorbed in a single object. All the standard jhana factors are present, but there isn't fixed absorption. Rather, it is a "wide" perspective. I'm not giving that perspective it due. To get a better idea, you should read the materials on his website, http://www.dhammasukha.org/. With metta, Howard #62169 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Aug 3, 2006 9:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ven. Cunda's Advice upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Joop)- In a message dated 8/4/06 3:13:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > Hi Howard,(& Joop), > > Thanks for joining in the discussion. > > --- upasaka@... wrote: > >>S: I agree with you that disagreeing (such as in discussions here) is > >not > >>necessarily indicative of any defilement. Different mental states at > >>different times. We can disagree with compassion, for example. In the > >>sutta, however, I believe there was definitely the suggestion of > >>unwholesome states involved in the disputes. > > > >--------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > But there's no control over suggestions, hmm? > >-------------------------------------- > .... > S: agreed.....??? > .... > >>>J: An important but a difficult question. > >>>I think BEING MINDFULL (that's vipassana-meditation a la Mahasi) and > >>>discussing (with oneself or with another sentient being) are hard to > >>>combine. > >>.... > >>S: Isn't that because of an idea of an activity rather than > >mindfulness of > >>whatever dhammas are conditioned at this moment, no matter whether > >we're > >>sitting, talking, arguing or anything else? > > > >--------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > But there's no control of what ideas arise, hmmm? > >-------------------------------------- > .... > S: agreedt again....??? > ..... > >>S: But the way I see the development of mindfulness, that is not any > >>hindrance. It's not a question of not attending to different opinions > >or > >>anything else. Otherwise, isn't there likely to be an idea of changing > >the > >>present dhammas which have been conditioned to arise already? > > > >-------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > What about creating conditions that influence the arising and > >nonarising of possible future dhammas? > >-------------------------------------- > .... > S: Who or what creates these conditions? So, we agree there are only ever > the present dhammas now. Either there is or there isn't mindfulness of > them when they appear, wouldn't you say? When there's thinking about > creating other conditions to influence future dhammas, isn't such thinking > moving further and further away from such present mindfulness which we're > discussing? ---------------------------------------- Howard: You ask, rhetorically: "Who or what creates these conditions?" Literally, no one does, but the conditions are created nonetheless by other conditions foremost among which are cetana and viriya and chanda. Conventionally, however, you and I are creating these conditions by our actions - the same people who are talking to each other on DSG. We ARE conversing, are we not? It IS our intention to do so, is it not? And we ARE succeeding, are we not? You study the Abhidhamma, don't you? Does that or does it not establish useful conditions? Are you not studying Abhidhamma for a purpose? Don't you consider it useful? And doesn't that usefulness pertain to kusala dhammas arising in the future? C'mon,Sarah! You can't have your cake and eat it too! ----------------------------------------------------- > .... > > >>S: Can it really be the NEP when we have any idea of having to do > >>anything? Aren't the teachings applicable at any time to any dhammas > >>arising? > > > >----------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > Do the teachings apply themselves? (Are the teachings now agents? > >;-) > >Or must there have been the intentional studying of those teachings, and > >now, > >remembering them, acting upon them with intention and effort/energy? > >---------------------------------------- > ..... > S: I think the NEP factors apply themselves when there are the conditions > in place;-) -------------------------------------------- Howard: I can make no sense whatsoever out of that statement. I asked you about the teachings, and you answered about something else. In any case, it is the same answer you always give, involving "when there are the conditions in place." HOW DO THE CONDITIONS COME TO BE IN PLACE??? Randomly? Then anyone can become an ariyan, and no one can, and the Dhamma becomes utterly pointless. ------------------------------------------ > > Again, it comes back to this moment. If there has been sufficient wise > considering, mindfulness may arise and be aware of a dhamma appearing now. ------------------------------------------ Howard: If there has been, fine, and if there hasn't been not so fine. But there is, according to you, no choosing one way or the other. So, it's random, a matter of sheer luck. What a teriffic doctrine! Fortunately, it's not what the Buddha taught. ------------------------------------------- > Of course, it may not arise either and that's fine too. > ------------------------------------------ Howard: Sure, just a matter of dumb luck - or no luck! Either way fine. Bodhi or not, both just as good! Then what is Buddhism about, Sarah? ----------------------------------------- At least by> > appreciating that it's only ever now, we won't go off-track by thinking we > can do certain things or act upon them. ---------------------------------------- Howard: So, we can't do things or act upon things. Man! The Buddha simply wasted 45 years! -------------------------------------- Yes, it is a path of patience in a> > way because such mindfulness and understanding cannot be at any other > moment, even if there's very little of them. With more and more confidence > that there's nothing a self or agent can do at all, the path factors > develop. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Where does such confidence come from? In my case, it came from seeing that there really is no self, and that came from intentional meditation. You speak of patience. But patience presumes that what is sought will come at some time. But why should it come when nothing is done to make it come? That leaves it as entirely random, in which case there is no more reason for success than for failure. ---------------------------------------- > .... > >>S: So this is the difference in our ideas of bhavana (mental > >>development/meditation). As I see it, if we think it has to be at > >another > >>time and in silence, it indicates a lack of confidence in bhavana now > >as a > >>possibility. And another time or silence may not come. Then what? > > > >--------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > There is so much talk about things depending on conditions - the > >right > >conditions. Do you not think that (the dhammas underlying) silence and > >seclusion are among the useful conditions for cultivation? > >-------------------------------------- > .... > S: When there's mindfulness, there's mental seclusion already. Whether > typing on the internet or in a busy New York crowd in the heat-wave, > there's seclusion whenever the doors are guarded, whenever there is sati. ------------------------------------------- Howard: Again, it's "when there's this, and when there's that"! But with no actions taken for there to be this or that, this is just plain nonsense. It is like a person who desires a long life saying "When there's good health and no mishaps, there will be long life." No need to eat and exercise properly, no need to ever see a doctor, no need to ever take medication! And it's like an aspiring actor who desires success in that profession never practicing the art but just saying "When my acting becomes really excellent I'll be a success." Someone then asks him how he expects his acting to ever become good, and the best he can come up with is some muttering about "accumulations"! -------------------------------------------- > > As it just said in the Cetasika post on calm, "when we are alone, in a > quiet place, we may think that there is calm while there is actually > attachment to silence." > > Are we bothered about being disturbed or interrupted? Do we mind if the > telephone rings? I think that gives some indication. > I think the main conditions for right mindfulness are wise attention and > understanding. But, even here, if we read this as suggesting an action to > follow, we'll be moving away from the presently appearing dhamma again. --------------------------------------- Howard: Without taking any action, there will be no wise attention and no understanding, because you need to PAY attention. If you go with the flow, and and let yourself be led by what you find easy and pleasant - for that is what we do when we go with the flow, you are *not* following the Dhamma, because the Dhamma goes *against* the flow. --------------------------------------- > .... > >Howard: > > Yes, Joop, quite correct. It IS the cognizing. > >------------------------------------ > >>S: SN 35:27 'Full Understanding': > >> > >>"Bhikkhus, without directly knowing and fully understanding the all, > >>without developing dispassion towards it and abandoning it, one is > >>incapable of destroying suffering. > >> > >>"And what, bhikkhus, is the all....? > >> > >>"The eye and forms and eye-consciousness and things to be cognized by > >>eye-consciousness. The ear and sounds and ear-consciousness and things > >to > >>be cognized by ear-consciousness......." > ..... > S: Thanks again for your input, Howard. ----------------------------------------- Howard: Are you sure? ;-) ---------------------------------------- > > Metta, > > Sarah > p.s I had a note from James to say he'd arrived safely in Taiwan but not > without some airport problems. If anyone has anything to put on our Monday > discussion agenda, go ahead! > ===================== With metta, Howard #62170 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Aug 4, 2006 3:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: no Nina, No Lodewijk. nilovg Dear Sarah, Ken H, (Howard, Scott, Han, and others!) Op 4-aug-2006, om 1:42 heeft ken_aitch het volgende geschreven: > when someone tells > us, "My little girl has won the spelling bee at school - I am so > pleased for her!" we don't say, "That's just attachment! That's > unwholesome!" But we might say something like that later at a Dhamma > discussion or whenever the time was right for a cold shower. ------------- To tell the truth (Sarah won't mind) Lodewijk was upset again by Sarah's last post. He feels confortable with Howard's post, also with his second post, he understands what Howard means. Han, would you also try, please, to explain to Lodewijk that paramattha dhammas and compassion go together? Kh Sujin in her daily life, as Sarah indicated, is full of compassion, she does not think of herself at all. This appears in her conduct time and again. I think that when there is less clinging or no clinging to the idea of self, this is the consequence, must be the consequence. But, we do not have to wait and delay mettaa and compassion until insight is fully developed. Lodewijk is unconfortable with the way it is explained; o, just nama and rupa, no Nina, no Lodewijk; he feels we have to be careful with the context. Also as to Kh Sujin quotes we should be very careful lest they are taken out of context. He asked me to print out Sarah's post again, and in eight days we have a four days walking trip. That is the best time for him for discussion. A pity Sarah leaves for Australia on that day. So it is the dosage and the right timing that is important. Scott made me think about all this when he quoted Rob K: compassion is a cetasika and a person is a concept. He took it the right way. I had a short discussion with Lodewijk, about being alone with Dhamma (the title of my last India report). Kh Sujin said: we are born alone, the rebirth-consciousness, nobody else there. We see alone, the citta that sees, we die alone, the dying-consciousness. She also said: On account of what is seen we think of concepts, we live in the world of thinking. Last night I listened to Nalanda 1, Oct 005. I can recommend this also to Scott and others. The current of life is attachment, but the Path is to be developed with detachment, and this is against the current of life. That is why it takes so long, Kh Sujin said. I asked Lodewijk whether it is clinging that conditions his being upset. He understands all this. He knows. He said that he just puts Sarah's post aside for a few days. Nina. #62171 From: "Joop" Date: Fri Aug 4, 2006 3:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ven. Cunda's Advice jwromeijn Hallo Sarah, Howard, all The way I want to understand the Noble Eightfold Path is that I had to DO again and again the eight aspects of it. Sarah, you say it's about 'path factors' that develop (or not). I remember a discussion with Jon half a year ago about the NEP in which I toke the example of 'right livelihood' in explaining that 'right livelihood' is not something what happens if conditions arise but is a active moral decision one had to take many moments in one's life. I do not agree with your use of the term 'path factors' of the NEP Perhaps said in ultimate language we are talking about a difference between us of the term VIRIYA; 'effort', sometimes also tranlated as 'energy' but that is not a good idea because 'energy' in physics is a potential and we are not talking about a potential but about what in fact happens. (And yes, I did the chapter om viriya in Nina's book about cetasikas) Viriya is (to me) not alone something what just happens when there are conditions, one should also try to use it. Otherwise it is not an effort. You are getting hopeless in a paradox (an effort that just happens without trying) by calling viriya a dhamma that arises (just happens) when there are conditions. In fact you are saying that too: S: "Again, it comes back to this moment. If there has been sufficient wise CONSIDERING, mindfulness may arise and be aware of a dhamma appearing now." J: Look good at the term 'considering' What is 'to consider' ? It can not be something else as a (mental) activity. Is it a dhamma or are you in between using a conventional term? Another point that surprises me that you so easy say "we agree there are only ever the present dhammas now" Are you forgotten the discussions (for example with me) about "accumulations". Is'nt it better to say: there are present dhammas plus accumulations? For the rest: I agree with Howard about the need (some part of the day) of silence and seclusion. Of course one can be attached to silence, but good mindfulnes is mindful about that attachment too. And of course: it's possible that one is mindfull at other moments of the day, when not (formal) meditating. It's not an "either-or" point; I propose (not original at all) to do both. The only point is: as long as I'm not perfect, being mindful in meditation is helping me in being mindful in daily life. Metta Joop #62172 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Aug 4, 2006 5:32 am Subject: Re: black mail scottduncan2 Dear connie, Thanks for the goblin. The yakkha: Does he exist in the peta realm or as an inhabitant of one of the higher realms, i.e. a sort of deva? Thanks as well for the paali. I'll need to learn more about the Udaana. c:"...p105 This goblin is for you, recluse (eso te sama.na pisaaco) {Udaana Cy vol.1 Masefield}" Also, I am given to think again of taking literally these events. I'm tempted to, against the more "rational" aspects of my nature. c: "ps.Tad Eka.m is practically of an age and i am wondering if he will go by plane or sail from Reservation Harbour. my going is out of ? (and i don't mean to be offensive or cross any boundaries) but it's just as well. better sarah deal with the robe & maybe one of the van gorkoms would take pity if there was any question of him being malnourished. i leave it to you to make whatever arrangements you deem most suitable as (not-veiled threat:) it is the "fit father" thing to do." Paali lesson: "tad eka.m" means "that one" or "that thing?" I'm afraid I've yet to sense offense or boundary crossage and am too dense, hopefully momentarily, to note the threat not-veiled. With loving kindness, Scott. #62173 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Aug 4, 2006 6:40 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily Life 43 nilovg Dear friends, In doing kind deeds to others we cannot eradicate the latent tendency of dosa, but at least at those moments we do not accumulate more dosa. The Buddha exhorted people to cultivate loving kindness (mettå). We read in the Karaniya Mettå-sutta (Sutta Nipåta, vs. 143-152) that the Buddha spoke the following words. What should be done by one skilful in good So as to gain the State of Peace is this: Let him be able, and upright, and straight. Easy to speak to, gentle, and not proud, Contented too, supported easily, With few tasks, and living very lightly, His faculties serene, prudent and modest, Unswayed by the emotions of the clans; And let him never do the slightest thing That other wise men might hold blamable. (And let him think) ``In safety and in bliss May creatures all be of a blissful heart. Whatever breathing beings there may be, No matter whether they are frail or firm, With none excepted, be they long or big Or middle-sized, or be they short or small Or thick, as well as those seen or unseen, Or whether they are dwelling far or near, Existing or yet seeking to exist, May creatures all be of a blissful heart. Let no one work another one's undoing Or even slight him at all anywhere; And never let them wish each other ill Through provocation or resentful thought.'' And just as might a mother with her life Protect the son that was her only child, So let him then for every living thing Maintain unbounded consciousness in being, And let him too with love for all the world Maintain unbounded consciousness in being Above, below, and all around in between, Untroubled, with no enemy or foe. And while he stands, or walks or while he sits Or while he lies down, free from drowsiness, Let him resolve upon mindfulness: This is Divine Abiding here, they say. But when he has no traficking with views, Is virtuous, and has perfected seeing, And purges greed for sensual desires, He surely comes no more to any womb. ***** Nina. #62174 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Aug 4, 2006 6:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Knowledge of the Difference Between Naama and Ruupa: Making The... jonoabb Hi Scott Scott Duncan wrote: >J: "In short, study and consideration of dhamma are not to be >understood as formal or even deliberate activities. The kind of >intellectual knowledge gained by formal or deliberate study and >consideration undertaken with the idea that it will give rise to >understanding is not likely to be a condition for insight, as far as I >can see." > >Yes, this is often said, and I don't doubt it. What do you think it >is, out of curiosity, that would *prevent*, if that is what you intend >to mean, "study with the idea that it will give rise to understanding" >from conditioning understanding? It is not that the idea (atta) >jinxes the whole endeavour, or I hope not. Its not "a watched pot >never boils," or, again, I hope not. Couldn't one have this >misinformed pseudo-intention, for example, while conditions are still >suddenly conducive to understanding anyway, despite the foolish idea? > > When a person undertakes a particular form of study or reflection with the idea that it will give rise to understanding, there is present both wrong view and the expectation of results. Both are factors that prevent the arising of panna which sees things as they truly are. To answer the last part of your question, I suppose there is nothing to say that moments of right view could not arise in the midst of moments of wrong view, but how likely that would be in practice I cannot say. >J: "Intellectual understanding of course precedes direct >understanding. But neither occurs through the doing of any particular >kind of activity, as I see it. > >Are you perhaps saying that the fact that one finds oneself with the >desire to study and the energy to study and the effort to study (and >hence studies Dhamma) that these could all be related to mental >factors fortuitously arising with citta according to conditions? > > I think that's what I'm saying ;-)) In a sense, though, I think everything could be said to be related to mental factors arising with citta according to conditions ;-)) If one studies the teachings in the belief that that is going to give rise to moments of direct knowledge, or that more studying means more insight, or the like, then this is the kind of thing I have in mind when I refer to 'doing a particular kind of activity'. On the other hand, one could study the teachings out of an interest in the teachings and with a recognition of the importance of coming to a better understanding of them, but with no expectation of immediate or direct result (based on one's understanding of the way things work). Sure, the act of studying will involve some 'intentional action'. Intention is present in every moment of consciousness. What distinguishes the two situations is the mental state (and of course that is something that defies objective description). Hoping this makes sense. Jon #62175 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Aug 4, 2006 6:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just to confirm re "noble instructed disciple" (Nina) jonoabb Hi Mateesha Thanks for coming back with further comments. I'm finding our exchange useful, and hope you are too. matheesha wrote: >>A. The paying attention to virtues and not to faults that is >>recommended in the sutta must, I think, be a reference to >>kusala. It is not a way of thinking to be 'practice'. Thus >>it needs a person of well-developed kusala to be able to >>successfully pay attention as described. >> > >M: Well I'm not sure what you mean exactly by the above. It's >obviously not a formal sitting down meditation, if that's what you >mean. It is simply to look at the other person's good aspects, and >this in turn leads to a reduction in anger. Now, when somene is >caught up in anger (to a degree that it needs reducing) this needs to >be done intentionally for it to happen. Because anger conditions more >anger and resentment, not wisdom or compassion. So it is a good >technique of reducing anger - one to be remembered and used when >needed. It is not a 'practice' in that it can only be practiced when >anger arises... then again we could make a proper practice of it by >looking at the good in other people all the time. > > Let me try to explain in more detail. You mention a practice of "looking at the good in other people all the time". While I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment, I think the reality is that only the anagami and the arahant can actually see the good in others all the time. For the rest of us, our latent defilements will ensure that, notwithstanding any good resolutions about it, there will be plenty of attachment and aversion as we try to focus on the good in the person. Now when the Buddha speaks of seeing the good in others, he is referring to kusala moments only, and not to any akusala that might arise intermingled with kusala moments. So as I see it he is not recommending a *'practice' of trying to see only the good in others*; he is recommending the *cultivation of kusala* of that kind (i.e., metta). >You say it takes a person of well-developed kusala to do it? Why? >Anyone who wants to look at someone's good qualities can do it, >surely? :) I don't think it needs to be complicated for it to qualify >as teachings of the Buddha... and effective ones at that. > > Yes, in a sense it can be said that anyone who wants to look at someone's good qualities can do so, but will it be kusala? Not wholly, certainly, and not necessarily at all. And akusala that arises in the course of following a kind of 'practice' seems to involve an element of wrong practice, so it's something we need to be careful about. >>J: The sutta that we are referred to at the end of your quoted >>passage (AN 5.161), tells of the 5 ways of getting rid of a grudge >>towards someone: >>1-3 Cultivate metta, karuna or upekkhaa towards that person >>4. Pay no attention to the person >>5. Reflect on the fact of ownership of kamma as regards >>that person. >>Obviously, these are all references to kusala mind-states and >>not some kind of directed 'practice' which may or may not >>include moments of such kusala. >> > >"When you give birth to hatred for an individual, you should develop >good will for that individual. Thus the hatred for that individual >should be subdued. > >"When you give birth to hatred for an individual, you should develop >compassion for that individual. Thus the hatred for that individual >should be subdued. > >"When you give birth to hatred for an individual, you should develop >equanimity toward that individual. Thus the hatred for that >individual should be subdued. > >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.063.than.html > >M: You say that the above is not directed practice. But there is >nothing in the above to suggest that it is not. > > Well what I was trying to say is that the Buddha would not be recommending anything that involved the development of aksuala. As I see it, any directed practice or technique will inevitablely involve mindstates that are not kusala. What the Buddha is recommending is the cultivation of metta, karuna and upekkhaa. >There are other >suttas which show that intentional practice can be a useful aspect >(samatha of course) of the path. > >"Then you should train yourself thus: 'Good-will, as my awareness- >release, will be developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a >basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, & well-undertaken.' >That's how you should train yourself. ..." > >M: Ceto-vimutti (awareness release) is not going arise out of >nowhere. It is a very powerful state which must be slowly and >intentionally developed. This sutta goes on to say how this can be >used as a basis for satipatthaana practice. I say that intentional >development of metta is a part of the path and appears in many forms, >including formal meditation. Metta is at the heart of precepts and >used to subdue hinderences. > Ceto-vimutti is a very exalted state, and I don't think it has much direct relevance for us. However, the basic issues are the same: any exhortation by the Buddha to develop a particular mindstate or quality is a reference to kusala only, and should not be read as referring to the following of a technique which, for those with kilesas remaining, will necessarily involve moments of akusala. >>B. The sutta does not link (the absence of) thoughts of >>hatred to the development of insight. Given the nature >>of the monk's life and the many rules to be followed, >>hatred towards another, especially a fellow monk, could >>if unchecked lead to breaches of the vinaya or to thoughts >>of disrobing. Therefore it is important that such >>thoughts not get too strong a grip on a monk. >> > >M: This sutta doesnt. But hatred is one of the 5 hidrences. They are >called the 5 hindrences because they hinder the whole path, (note >samma sankhappa - harmlessness) leading to panna. > (Now you're going to find what follows really controversial ;-)) ) The 5 hindrances hinder the development of insight only at the moments of their actual arising (as latent tendencies they cannot be hindrances). So for starters they are not hindrances as regards insight into moments of kusala citta, vipaka citta or kiriya citta or their objects. Then as regards the moments of their actual arising we need to keep in mind that the Satipatthana Sutta makes it clear (in the section 'The Contemplation on Mental Objects') that the hindrances can be the object of mindfulness, in just the same way that kusala mindstates, or rupas (such as the breath), can. (See the extract posted at the end of this message.) This means the moments of kusala consciousness with mindfulness are arising interspersed with moments of 5-hindrances consciousness. I'm aware of the often-expressed view that a temporary suppression of the hindrances -- as may occur at moments of jhana -- is necessary for, or somehow hastens or facilitates, the development of insight. But as far as I can see nothing like this is actually stated in the recorded teachings. Jon >From The Way of Mindfulness (Soma Thera): "And how, O bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu live contemplating mental objects in mental objects? "Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu lives contemplating the mental objects in the mental objects of the five hindrances. "How, O bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu live contemplating mental objects in the mental objects of the five hindrances? "Here, O bhikkhus, when sensuality is present, a bhikkhu knows with understanding: 'I have sensuality,' ... When anger is present, he knows with understanding: 'I have anger,' ... When sloth and torpor are present, he knows with understanding: 'I have sloth and torpor,' ... When agitation and worry are present, he knows with understanding: 'I have agitation and worry,' ... When doubt is present, he knows with understanding: 'I have doubt,' ... "Thus, indeed, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu lives contemplating mental object in the mental objects of the five hindrances." #62176 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Aug 4, 2006 6:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Knowledge of the Difference Between Naama and Ruupa: Making The... jonoabb Hi Scott (and Howard) Scott Duncan wrote: >Dear Howard, > >Good question. > >H: "What sort of deliberate study do you guys have in mind? Anything >like purposely going through the Visuddhimagga posted by Larry on DSG >or Nina's writings as posted by Sarah? ;-)" > >I'm waiting for Jon's reply to see if I'm getting what he is saying. >I'd say the above noted examples qualify as "deliberate study" but >Jon's point seems to focus more on the self-belief inherent in the >intention to study specifically to make understanding arise and less >on the actual study part, if you know what I mean. One can simply >study, I guess. I don't really know. > I wasn't planning to reply, as Howard's post was addressed mainly to you, and in any event I have nothing to add to what you say here ;-)) As I think you noticed, my original comments were not in reference to deliberate study per se but to "deliberate study undertaken with the idea that it will give rise to understanding". I suppose one could liken it to "giving with the idea that it will bring reward in the form of a happy rebirth". The general concept is not 'wrong' but the 'giving' is flawed if the anticipated reward is the motivating factor. >I personally read all I can and never seem to have enough time. Why >am I doing it? Worthwhile asking myself... > The motives are bound to be mixed, but no need to dwell too much on it. Jon #62177 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Aug 4, 2006 6:49 am Subject: Letters from Nina 24 nilovg Dear friends, The Hague, March '79. Dear Maud, You asked me whether the Buddha's teachings could console our friend Ina, who lost her husband and who has to bring up her children all by herself. The Buddha's teachings can help us to have right understanding about life and death. What is life? Why must we die? We make ourselves believe that life is pleasant, but there are many moments of pain and sickness, sorrow and grief. And inevitably there is death. Everything which arises must fall away, it cannot stay. We are born and therefore we have to die. The body does not disintegrate only at the moment of death, there is decay each moment. We notice that we have become older when we see a photograph taken some time ago. But the change which is noticeable after some time proves that there is change at each moment. There are many phenomena taking place in our body and they change each moment. Temperature changes: we feel sometimes hot, sometimes cold. We feel motion or pressure in our body time and again. What we take for 'our body' are many different elements which arise and than fall away, but we are so ignorant that we do not notice it. The Buddha reminds us that our body is like a corpse, because it is disintegrating, decaying each moment. Our body does not belong to us but we cling to it, we are ignorant of the truth. We may understand intellectually that the body does not really exist and that it is only physical elements which change all the time. However, intellectual understanding is thinking, and thinking, even if it is right thinking, cannot eradicate wrong understanding of reality. We should learn to experience the truth directly. ****** Nina. #62178 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Aug 4, 2006 6:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Dependent Origination ... And being outrageous jonoabb Hi Joop Joop wrote: >After some days of reflecting I had to say that your messages 62080 >and 62082 did not inspire me. >I think my messages did also not inspire you to give creative >reactions. >So the best to do is end this thread. > > I am not strong on 'creative reactions' (although some would describe my interpretation of the teachings as *very* creative ;-)) >Only one remark because that made me sad. >You ask some weeks ago what I meant with the term 'causal'; I >answered that I meant the kind of causility used by the Buddha, for >which many times also the term 'conditioning' is used. (I did not say >it but the implication was that there are many kinds of causality and >that I of course did not use 'causal' in the way of modern natural >science here) >So why did you again remark in both your messages you doubted if the >term 'causal' is correct: I used 'causal' in a very general way. >If you cannot think with this kind of general concepts: forget my use >of the word 'causal' and read 'conditioning' every time I >said 'causal'. > > In fact I thought I was commenting on a usage by the author of the article (so I was holding you to a higher standard than might otherwise apply ;-)). I have no objection to your continued use of that word, if that's what you want to do, but my view remains that it's not a great choice as a substitute for 'conditioned'. >If you have any ideas on D.O. that maybe helping me, give them. > > The dhammas arising now, or many of them, are links in the chain of DO. By developing a better understanding of the presently arising dhammas, there will be a better understanding of DO. Jon #62179 From: Illusion Date: Fri Aug 4, 2006 7:38 am Subject: How Faith, Truth and Wisdom Are Related vvhite_illusion Excerpt: How Faith, Truth and Wisdom Are Related Do you 'believe you believe', 'believe you know', 'know you believe', or 'know you know'? - stonepeace ... "But, Master Gotama (the Buddha), in what way is there the preservation of truth? How does one preserve truth? We ask the Master Gotama about the preservation of truth." "If a person has faith, Bharadvaja, he preserves truth when he says: 'My faith is thus'; but he does not yet come to the definite conclusion: 'Only this is true, anything else is wrong.' In this way. Bharadvaja, there is preservation of truth; in this way he preserves truth; in this way we describe the preservation of truth. But as yet there is no discovery of truth."... TDEditor : To blindly stick to faith that something is definitely true is to destroy truthfulness - even if that believed in is absolutely true. Being open-minded when unsure preserves truth and truthfulness, thus safeguarding the integrity of one's spiritual path. Having faith about something being the truth is not yet being one with truth itself, while to realise the truth is to cultivate true faith. Strong faith might be based on strong delusions. Thus, truly strong faith is strong because it is based on personal experience, based on actual knowing and seeing of the truth, of the way things truly are; it is not based on mere belief. While we might not realise the whole truth straightaway, we can cultivate wisdom to realise more and more facets of the truth. - In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon (Edited by Bhikkhu Bodhi) -- []\/[][]D (Maya Putra) #62180 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Aug 4, 2006 3:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ven. Cunda's Advice upasaka_howard Hi again, Sarah & Joop - Sarah, a postscript to my previous post: What it seems to me you are doing is losing the distinction between conventional (figurative) and ultimate (literal). Specifically, you are taking the literal truth that there is no one to do anything, that there are no actions to be taken by a "person", and treating it as a conventional truth, which it is not. As a conventional assertion, it is entirely false, it is dead wrong, and it serves to do nothing but prevent the practice of the Dhamma. The conflating of literal with figurative is a disaster for the Dhamma and for Dhamma practice. There are conventional truths that are literal falsehoods, and there are are literal truths that are conventional falsehoods. The Buddha, himself, uttered innumerable conventional truths that were literal falsehoods. And the main one of them was his constant urging to intentional kusala action! (Do this! Refrain from that! You can do this - if you could not I would not tell you to do this!) With metta, Howard #62181 From: "Phil" Date: Fri Aug 4, 2006 8:42 am Subject: Different doorway! Different doorway! philofillet Hi all One of my personal favourite little moments in the recorded talks is when Acharn says this, a little bit more urgently than usual. The talk is on a very interesting point. If we hear a loud noise, and there is pain, it is not the hearing that is causing the pain, because - of course - hearing is accompanied by neutral feeling. But there is the rupa of hardness that is contact the body sense in addition to the rupa of sound that is contacting the ear sense. They are not wrapped together. Different doorway, different doorway, with bhavangas between. It is difficult to approach this sort of thing without becoming polluted by considerations of science, but still good to pick up now and then, and look at, and put down again, because our understanding is only developed enough for that extent of consideration, for now. (Unless it isn't.) Phil p.s if I have got this wrong, about the rupas and the doorways, please let me know - if you know about abhidhamma, that is. #62182 From: "Kenneth" Date: Fri Aug 4, 2006 10:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Canonical Corrobation. ashkenn2k Hi Sarah the word kaayo pi passambhati according to the Dispeller of Delusion <> > Later, I gave this commentary note which B.Bodhi includes in his text: "Spk: Tranquillity of body (kaayappassaddhi) is the tranquillizing of distress in the three mental aggregates (feeling, perception, volitional formations), tranquillizing of mind (cittappassaddhi)the tranquillizing of distress in the aggregate of consciousness." k: these similiar statements can be found in para 1534 cheers Ken O #62183 From: Ken O Date: Fri Aug 4, 2006 10:28 am Subject: [dsg] some notes from Dispeller of Delusion - of arisen evil ashkenn2k Hi All Just like to share this.. of arisen evil, arisen is eightfold, I just write the two interesting ones <<1451 (6)After the eyes have been opened once, when an object has been grasped as a sign, it cannot be said that defilements will not rise at any moment [the object is] remembered. Why Because the object has been taken up. Like what? Just as it cannot be said that milk will not issue from a place in a milk tree which has been repeatedly struck a hatchet. This is called "arisen because an object has been taken up" 1452 (7) But when the defilements are not suppressed by an attainment, it is not to be said that they will not arise in that situation. Why? Because of non-suppression. Like What? Like it cannot be said that milk if one will to strike a milk tree with a hatchet milk tree would not issue from the very spot. This is called "arien through non-suppression". Cheers Ken O #62184 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Aug 4, 2006 10:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Different doorway! and bhavangacitta. nilovg Hi Phil, Perhaps it is good to mention that bodysense is all over the body, also in what we denote as ear, or deep inside the ear. This example also shows that countless processes of cittas experiencing different objects follow upon each other. And bhavanga-cittas in between. It seems that we are hearing and seeing or hearing and feeling pain all at the same time, but in between each process of cittas there have to be bhavangacittas. We asked Kh Sujin whether it would be possible to know bhavangacitta. She said, for what else do we study the Abhidhamma? In other words, it is not for the sake of book knowledge. Nina. Op 4-aug-2006, om 17:42 heeft Phil het volgende geschreven: > If we hear a loud noise, and there is pain, it is not the hearing > that is causing the pain, because - of course - hearing is > accompanied by neutral feeling. But there is the rupa of hardness > that is contact the body sense in addition to the rupa of sound that > is contacting the ear sense. They are not wrapped together. > Different doorway, different doorway, with bhavangas between. #62185 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Aug 4, 2006 11:28 am Subject: reborn with pa~n~naa nilovg Dear Scott, Op 4-aug-2006, om 4:59 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven:= N: "I just remember Kh Sujin's words: now the mind-door is as it were hidden, but then, at the moment of insight, the sense-door is as it were hidden, since insight knowledge realizes through the mind-door nama as nama and rupa as rupa." --------- S.: Okay, this is really deep. And it makes sense somehow. Insight knowledge is a mind-door phenomenon. In effect this is saying that a reversal of the ordinary way occurs. The usual sense-door process is occluded and the realisation occurs through the mind door. This would mean that the realisation itself is, of course, naama. How is it that ruupa is known as ruupa? ------- N: Through the mind-door. Ruupa, a sense object, whatever it maybe, is experienced through the relevant sense-door and then through the mind-door, as is always the case. But insight knowledge that arises realizes that ruupa as ruupa in a mind-door process . There are so many sense-door processes and mind-door processes alternating, with bhavangacittas in between, and one does not count them, impossible. The late Ven. Dhammadharo asked Kh. Sujin (I was present): how does ruupa appear through the mind-door, does it appear just as it appears through the sense-door? Kh Sujin answered: it appears as the same, exactly the same. I want to add something about trying to focus on particular namas or rupas. When we learn about nama and rupa we all do this for a while, and then we see for ourselves that this does not help. It is thinking, perhaps with subtle lobha. But nobody else can tell. ______ Nina. #62186 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Aug 4, 2006 11:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] yatha-sabhavam (knowledge comprehends things clearly as they are) nilovg Hi Phil. I looked up the Co, in T.A. (Topics of Abh., p. 27): Things is the translation of dhammas. The expression yaatha bhuuta: as it really is, is also used in texts. It begins with the visesa lakkhana, the distinctive characteristics of nama and rupa, before the three general characteristics can be realized, the sama~n~na lakkha.na. I do not have your edition, is it on line? Nina. Op 4-aug-2006, om 3:06 heeft Phil het volgende geschreven: > This morning I was studying the wholesome sense-sphere citta section > in CMA and thought the nanasampayutta/nanvippayutta dichotomy seemed > very important. (accompanied or unaccompanied by > understanding/knowledge) > > The nanasampayutta is said to refer to yatha-sabhaavam (knowledge > comprehends things clearly as they are) #62187 From: "Joop" Date: Fri Aug 4, 2006 12:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ven. Cunda's Advice jwromeijn Hallo Howard, Sarah Howard, I think you are right in your diagnosis. But (to me) it's not a good idea to say conventional=figurative and ultimate=literal. The reason is I use the distinction metaphorical versus literal in the way we can understand the Dhamma. Or more personal: some of the Teachings I don't believe to be true in the literal way, but as useful in metaphorical way. Metta Joop > Sarah, a postscript to my previous post: > What it seems to me you are doing is losing the distinction between > conventional (figurative) and ultimate (literal). #62188 From: LBIDD@... Date: Fri Aug 4, 2006 3:31 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,93 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII 93. (18) The twelve path factors classed as profitable, etc., which assist in the sense of an outlet from whatever it may be, are 'path conditions', according as it is said: 'The path factors are a condition, as path condition, for states associated therewith and for the kinds of materiality originated thereby' (P.tn.1,6). But in the Question Section it is said: 'At the moment of rebirth-linking, resultant indeterminate path factors are a condition, as path condition, for aggregates associated therewith and for the kinds of materiality due to kamma performed' (P.tn.1,176). But these two, namely, jhana and path conditions, should be understood as inapplicable to the two sets of five consciousnesses and to the consciousnesses without root-cause ((34)-(41), (50)-(56), (70)-(72). *********************** 93. yato tato vaa niyyaana.t.thena upakaarakaani kusalaadibhedaani dvaadasa magga"ngaani maggapaccayo. yathaaha ``magga"ngaani maggasampayuttakaana.m dhammaana.m ta.msamu.t.thaanaana~nca ruupaana.m maggapaccayena paccayo''ti (pa.t.thaa0 1.1.18). pa~nhaavaare pana ``pa.tisandhikkha.ne vipaakaabyaakataani magga"ngaani sampayuttakaana.m khandhaana.m ka.tattaa ca ruupaana.m maggapaccayena paccayo''tipi (pa.t.thaa0 1.1.432) vutta.m. ete pana dvepi jhaanamaggapaccayaa dvipa~ncavi~n~naa.naahetukacittesu na labbhantiiti veditabbaa. #62190 From: "matheesha" Date: Fri Aug 4, 2006 4:41 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Just to confirm re "noble instructed disciple" (Nina) matheesha333 Hi Jon, >J: Thanks for coming back with further comments. I'm finding our exchange > useful, and hope you are too. > M: Glad to be of assistance. > matheesha wrote: > > >>A. The paying attention to virtues and not to faults that is > >>recommended in the sutta must, I think, be a reference to > >>kusala. It is not a way of thinking to be 'practice'. Thus > >>it needs a person of well-developed kusala to be able to > >>successfully pay attention as described. > >> > > > >M: Well I'm not sure what you mean exactly by the above. It's > >obviously not a formal sitting down meditation, if that's what you > >mean. It is simply to look at the other person's good aspects, and > >this in turn leads to a reduction in anger. Now, when somene is > >caught up in anger (to a degree that it needs reducing) this needs to > >be done intentionally for it to happen. Because anger conditions more > >anger and resentment, not wisdom or compassion. So it is a good > >technique of reducing anger - one to be remembered and used when > >needed. It is not a 'practice' in that it can only be practiced when > >anger arises... then again we could make a proper practice of it by > >looking at the good in other people all the time. > > > > > >J: Let me try to explain in more detail. You mention a practice of > "looking at the good in other people all the time". While I agree > wholeheartedly with the sentiment, I think the reality is that only the > anagami and the arahant can actually see the good in others all the > time. For the rest of us, our latent defilements will ensure that, > notwithstanding any good resolutions about it, there will be plenty of > attachment and aversion as we try to focus on the good in the person. > M: Yes, I didnt mean 'all the time' literally of course :) C'mon Jon, talk normally will you?! >J: Now when the Buddha speaks of seeing the good in others, he is referring > to kusala moments only, and not to any akusala that might arise > intermingled with kusala moments. So as I see it he is not recommending > a *'practice' of trying to see only the good in others*; he is > recommending the *cultivation of kusala* of that kind (i.e., metta). > M: Why should he be speaking of developing metta only and not simply looking at the good? Compared to being angry with someone continuously, having kusala and akusala intermixed is a lot better. The Buddha did preach according to the listener. He didnt teach singala abhidhamma or satipatthana. He taught him simply a few good ways of living (singalovada sutta). The Buddha was always looking at way to improve things along a spectrum from akusala to kusala. Your ability to see how things are in one moment is commendable and a rare skill. It is also important to be able to string up a few of those moments together. Compared to 10,000 moments of anger/akusala, 5,000 of kusala mixed with 5.000 of akusala is better. Best would 10,000 moments of kusala. But no one can suddenly get there. There is a process leading up to it. > >You say it takes a person of well-developed kusala to do it? Why? > >Anyone who wants to look at someone's good qualities can do it, > >surely? :) I don't think it needs to be complicated for it to qualify > >as teachings of the Buddha... and effective ones at that. > > > > > > Yes, in a sense it can be said that anyone who wants to look at > someone's good qualities can do so, but will it be kusala? Not wholly, > certainly, and not necessarily at all. And akusala that arises in the > course of following a kind of 'practice' seems to involve an element of > wrong practice, so it's something we need to be careful about. > M: :) go on, tell me why it is wrong practice :) > >>J: The sutta that we are referred to at the end of your quoted > >>passage (AN 5.161), tells of the 5 ways of getting rid of a grudge > >>towards someone: > >>1-3 Cultivate metta, karuna or upekkhaa towards that person > >>4. Pay no attention to the person > >>5. Reflect on the fact of ownership of kamma as regards > >>that person. > >>Obviously, these are all references to kusala mind-states and > >>not some kind of directed 'practice' which may or may not > >>include moments of such kusala. > >> > > > >"When you give birth to hatred for an individual, you should develop > >good will for that individual. Thus the hatred for that individual > >should be subdued. > > > >"When you give birth to hatred for an individual, you should develop > >compassion for that individual. Thus the hatred for that individual > >should be subdued. > > > >"When you give birth to hatred for an individual, you should develop > >equanimity toward that individual. Thus the hatred for that > >individual should be subdued. > > > >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.063.than.html > > > >M: You say that the above is not directed practice. But there is > >nothing in the above to suggest that it is not. > > > > > > Well what I was trying to say is that the Buddha would not be > recommending anything that involved the development of aksuala. As I > see it, any directed practice or technique will inevitablely involve > mindstates that are not kusala. What the Buddha is recommending is the > cultivation of metta, karuna and upekkhaa. > M: There is a sutta called the 'the thief' in AN. In this the buddha tells a thief not to kill and rape when stealing. This is interesting in that he doesnt tell him not to steal. (sorry I cant find it on the net). He was all for minimising akusala as much as possible. really as much as the listner practically could. So I dont accept tht his approach was all or nothing, black or white. Even cultivation of metta, karuna etc will have moments of akusala in between, would it not? How can someone suddenly become perfectly kusala - that is impossible - thats why there is a gradual path. Anupubbiya sikkha. > >There are other > >suttas which show that intentional practice can be a useful aspect > >(samatha of course) of the path. > > > >"Then you should train yourself thus: 'Good-will, as my awareness- > >release, will be developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a > >basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, & well- undertaken.' > >That's how you should train yourself. ..." > > > >M: Ceto-vimutti (awareness release) is not going arise out of > >nowhere. It is a very powerful state which must be slowly and > >intentionally developed. This sutta goes on to say how this can be > >used as a basis for satipatthaana practice. I say that intentional > >development of metta is a part of the path and appears in many forms, > >including formal meditation. Metta is at the heart of precepts and > >used to subdue hinderences. > > > > Ceto-vimutti is a very exalted state, and I don't think it has much > direct relevance for us. However, the basic issues are the same: any > exhortation by the Buddha to develop a particular mindstate or quality > is a reference to kusala only, and should not be read as referring to > the following of a technique which, for those with kilesas remaining, > will necessarily involve moments of akusala. > M: Like I said, in that case no one will ever be able to develop such states. which makes it a senseless statement by the buddha to even suggest it. :) > >>B. The sutta does not link (the absence of) thoughts of > >>hatred to the development of insight. Given the nature > >>of the monk's life and the many rules to be followed, > >>hatred towards another, especially a fellow monk, could > >>if unchecked lead to breaches of the vinaya or to thoughts > >>of disrobing. Therefore it is important that such > >>thoughts not get too strong a grip on a monk. > >> > > > >M: This sutta doesnt. But hatred is one of the 5 hidrences. They are > >called the 5 hindrences because they hinder the whole path, (note > >samma sankhappa - harmlessness) leading to panna. > > > >J: (Now you're going to find what follows really controversial ;- )) ) M: :) appreciate the warning jon. The > 5 hindrances hinder the development of insight only at the moments of > their actual arising (as latent tendencies they cannot be hindrances). > So for starters they are not hindrances as regards insight into moments > of kusala citta, vipaka citta or kiriya citta or their objects. > > Then as regards the moments of their actual arising we need to keep in > mind that the Satipatthana Sutta makes it clear (in the section 'The > Contemplation on Mental Objects') that the hindrances can be the object > of mindfulness, in just the same way that kusala mindstates, or rupas > (such as the breath), can. (See the extract posted at the end of this > message.) This means the moments of kusala consciousness with > mindfulness are arising interspersed with moments of 5-hindrances > consciousness. > M: I agree with you entirely! But again you need to look at not just the momentary view, but the view of several moments strung up together. How much of the time during the day are we free of hinderences? In what circumstances does such a situation free of hinderences arise? If we were free of hindrences (temporarily and relatively) would it make panna more likely to arise? [as for them being inculded in the satipatthana my reply was best stated by howard - in what you called the 'sweet spot'!] > I'm aware of the often-expressed view that a temporary suppression of > the hindrances -- as may occur at moments of jhana -- is necessary for, > or somehow hastens or facilitates, the development of insight. But as > far as I can see nothing like this is actually stated in the recorded > teachings. > "These are the five hindrances & obstructions that overcome awareness & weaken discernment. Which five? Sensual desire is a hindrance & obstruction that overcomes awareness & weakens discernment. Ill will... Sloth & drowsiness... Restlessness & anxiety... Uncertainty is a hindrance & obstruction that overcomes awareness & weakens discernment... Suppose there were a river, flowing down from the mountains, going far, its current swift, carrying everything with it: If a man were to open watercourses leading off from both sides, the current in the middle of the river would be interrupted, diverted, & dispersed. The river would not go far, its current would not be swift, and it would not carry everything with it. In the same way, if a monk has not rid himself of these five hindrances... there is no possibility that he can know what is for his own benefit, or the benefit of others, or both, or that he should come to realize a superior human attainment, a truly noble knowledge & vision..." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.051.than.html M: Well there you are :). Hope things are well with you and Sarah, with metta Matheesha #62191 From: han tun Date: Fri Aug 4, 2006 5:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: no Nina, No Lodewijk. hantun1 Dear Nina, Nina: Han, would you also try, please, to explain to Lodewijk that paramattha dhammas and compassion go together? -------------------- Han: Yes, I strongly believe that paramattha dhammas and compassion go together. In this connection, I would like to recall your comments in your message # 62004. “the world in the ariyan discipline, thus, appearing through the six doors, arising and falling away, empty of self, and the world of human relations are not in conflict.” which is very true. And also, Howard’s excellent explanations that followed, which I like very much. I am not as good as Howard, but I will try to present my humble views as best as I can. An arahant, who sees paramattha dhammas with direct knowledge, also abides in brahma-vihara. If he sees only paramattha dhammas, or if paramattha dhammas and compassion do not go together, how can he radiate metta and karuna to other beings? The original teacher of paramattha dhamma, the Lord Buddha, is more compassionate than any other being. There were many instances in which the Buddha’s compassion and loving kindness were expressed in the normal language and action of normal human beings. Once, Patacari who lost her family, also lost her mind, and was wandering around in circles, near naked. People drove her from their doors, until one day she arrived in Jetavana, where the Buddha was preaching the dhamma. The people around him tried to stop her from coming close, but the Buddha called her to him and talked to her. With the power of his gentleness and compassion, she got her mind back, and sat and listened to the Buddha. [In a Burmese book, I read that the Buddha called her “My sister, don’t be afraid, don’t be sad, come here and I will extinguish your soka and parideva,” in a normal language. There was no “no-Patacari”.] After all, one of the six nanas (cha-asaadhaarana nanas) possessed only by the Buddhas, is “mahaa karuna samaapatti nana.” Another proof is in Abhidhamma Pitaka. If absolute truth and conventional truth cannot go hand-in-hand, why would the Buddha bother to teach Puggalapannatti Pali, after Dhammasangani Pali, Vibhanga Pali, and Dhatukatha Pali? Respectfully, Han #62192 From: "Phil" Date: Fri Aug 4, 2006 6:50 pm Subject: Re: Different doorway! and bhavangacitta. philofillet Hi Nina > We asked Kh Sujin whether it would be possible to know bhavangacitta. > She said, for what else do we study the Abhidhamma? In other words, > it is not for the sake of book knowledge. But also she reminds us not to be *too* interested in these cittas that are unlikely to arise to our attention. Understand them in theory, and understand that the Buddha enlightened them, and understand that it is not impossible for us, no matter how unlikely. But it is the realities that do often arise that our keen interest should turn to. "Everybody sees," as Acharn says. Phil #62193 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Aug 4, 2006 3:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ven. Cunda's Advice upasaka_howard Hi, Joop - > Howard, I think you are right in your diagnosis. > But (to me) it's not a good idea to say conventional=figurative and > ultimate=literal. > The reason is I use the distinction metaphorical versus literal in > the way we can understand the Dhamma. Or more personal: some of the > Teachings I don't believe to be true in the literal way, but as > useful in metaphorical way. > > Metta > > Joop > ====================== I understand you. There is more than one sense of 'literal', one which opposes it to 'metaphorical', but also one which opposes it to 'figurative'. I try to avoid 'conventional', because all speech is a matter of convention. With literal (not metaphorical ;-) metta, Howard #62194 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Aug 4, 2006 8:29 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Knowledge of the Difference Between Naama and Ruupa: Making The... scottduncan2 Dear Jon, Thank you, sorry for the delay in responding. J: "If one studies the teachings in the belief that that is going to give rise to moments of direct knowledge, or that more studying means more insight, or the like, then this is the kind of thing I have in mind when I refer to 'doing a particular kind of activity'." That makes it clear. This is almost aphoristic, isn't it? As you say, the wrong view associated with the act of study for a particular reason, that is for the purpose of somehow wilfully causing insight to arise, will simply condition the non-arising of insight, if one can phrase it that way. "On the other hand, one could study the teachings out of an interest in the teachings and with a recognition of the importance of coming to a better understanding of them, but with no expectation of immediate or direct result (based on one's understanding of the way things work). Sure, the act of studying will involve some 'intentional action'. Intention is present in every moment of consciousness." This too, I imagine, would have to have a natural quality, a sort of insouciance associated with it, a more or less pure non-desire for simple better understanding and that's it. One cannot fool the dhammas into arising by pretending not to be studying to hasten the arising of any particular dhamma. The trouble is, one can fool one's self quite easily. "What distinguishes the two situations is the mental state (and of course that is something that defies objective description)." Yes. I think you're right about that. I've ommitted the rest because I understand and agree. Thanks again, Jon. With loving kindness, Scott. #62195 From: connie Date: Fri Aug 4, 2006 10:51 pm Subject: re: black mail nichiconn Dear Scott, Tad Eka.m, yes. That One will be 7 soon enough & you'll be giving blessings for his going forth. You know, the adoption... best he become a breastborn son of the Buddha. Perhaps you will follow him. I'll be kicking rocks along the shore of personality. I wonder what his name will be. Piglet's ashy these days. The heatwave's past but wildfire season rages on & some of the smoke filtered shading effects are really striking. Of course, I have to get all caught up in thinking about kalapas and visible objects & wherever all I'm led off after, but something's got to colour my worldviews. The red moons recalled that << In course of time to the fair-bosomed Yasodhara, who was truly glorious in accordance with her name, there was born from the son of Suddhodana a son named Rahula, with a face like the enemy of Rahu >> and talking to the Eclipse Demon all the more. Or none the less. The two biggest fires have gobbled up almost 50000 acres so far and the wind is kicking up again. If you've a bit of time to burn, see www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/y/yakkha.htm but in case you don't, it ends: But do we take them there things literally? I'm not sure what that means, but "The mind which is soiled with ditthi is called ditthicitta, and one who adheres to wrong view is called a micchaditthi, a heretic. (With regard to the remaining mental factors, please note how minds and persons are named in accord with the accompanying cetasikas.)" Ashin Janakabhivamsa's ADL. Awhile back, Piglet took me riding on traditional sacred ground around one of the healing lakes. Maybe the outcroppings are yakkhaa (plural sp?) or maybe they are non-percipient ones or just plain old visible object painted so bhikkhus appear, truly still as they sit so much nearer the Blessed One than I, hearing on that occasion, no voice of the wild. But really, pilgrim, it would be nice if Joop could take pictures of some outlying foothills here to put in the album, too. peace, connie disclaimer: << ...or else they are "those seeking becoming" so long as they do not attain any posture other than that in which they were born, being thereafter "those who are become". For when there is a straightforward meaning that follows the (canonical) Pali, what business is there in postulating an intermediate becoming of unspecified capacity?>> [....] << [94] "The ripening of karma is unthinkable" (A ii 80) - therefore this is simply mere speculation on their part. For dhammas are in their own nature dhammas having an own nature that is unthinkable - in some places they appear in a region in which they are interrupted by way of conditions, in some places in a region in which they are not (so) interrupted. For instance, a reflection or an echo and so on, that is arisen by way of conditions, is detected coming into being in a location such as a mirror or a mountain and so forth, (that is to say) in some region other than that in which (there was an occurrence of) the conditions (that gave rise to it) such as the face or the sound and so on; therefore one ought not to cite everything as evidence under all circumstances.>> Udaana Cy, vol 1, p138. #62196 From: han tun Date: Fri Aug 4, 2006 11:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cetasikas' study corner - Non-Aversion (adosa) hantun1 Dear Sarah and Nina, Please allow me to answer the questions on Non-Aversion (adosa). Please correct me if my answers are wrong or inadequate. -------------------- Question (i) Why must there be right understanding of the characteristic of loving kindness in order to develop it as a subject of calm? Answer: There must be right understanding of the characteristic of any of the 40 subjects in order to develop it as a subject of calm. But in the case of loving kindness, the significance of it is to distinguish, with right understanding, between loving kindness and selfish affection. But there is one question I would like to pose to Sarah and Nina. Nina wrote However, in Visuddhimagga and in some suttas I find “mettaacetovimutti” mentioned (translated as the mind-deliverance of lovingkindness in Vism, and the liberation of mind by lovingkindness in suttas). If the loving kindness is not the object of the highest stage of jhaana, I would be grateful to know how one can attain mettaacetovimutti? ------------------------------ Question (ii) Why is the "near enemy' of loving kindness attachment? Answer: In Nina’s treatise, the following paragraph provides an excellent answer to the above question. However, I would like to add a few points. In an Abhidhamma book it is mentioned that the direct enemy of loving kindness is hatred or ill-will (dosa) or aversion (kodha). But its indirect enemy is selfish affection. Selfish affection can have many names, such as, delight and lust (nandi-raaga), or attachment and affection (tanhaa-pema), or sineha. I like the word “sineha.” Sineha means (1) viscous, sticky liquid like a glue, or (2) affection, love, desire, lust. When a husband and a wife love each other there is sineha sticking them together, and one cannot let the other get out of sight. That sticky ingredient is “tanhaa”. But due to any reason, if that sticky ingredient gets dried up and not sticky anymore, one cannot even see the other. This type of love is not loving kindness, but it is the indirect enemy of loving kindness. There are many degrees of adosa, and in the arahant adosa has reached perfection. If a worldling (puthujjana) has developed a loving kindness, that adosa may not yet be unshakeable, and with a conditioning factor the adosa may be easily turned into dosa. That conditioning factor is selfish affection, and thus it is called the indirect enemy of loving kindness. In some books, the direct enemy of loving kindness is called “far enemy” and the indirect enemy is called “near enemy”. Nina used the word “near enemy.” I like the word “near enemy” very much because it portrays exactly what it is – it is near us all the time although we may not notice it as a near enemy. In this connection I would like to refer to a passage from SN 35.238 Aasiivisopama sutta (The Simile of the Vipers). Quote [“Then, bhikkhus, afraid of the four vipers of fierce heat and deadly venom, and of the five murderous enemies, that man would flee in one direction or another. They would tell him: “Good man, a sixth murderer, an intimate companion, is pursuing you with drawn sword, thinking, ‘Whenever I see him I will cut off his head right on the spot.’ Do whatever has to be done, good man!”] End quote. Commentary explanation: The king spoke to his ministers thus: “first, when he was pursued by the vipers, he fled here and there, tricking them. Now, when pursued by five enemies, he flees even more swiftly. We can’t catch him, but by trickery we can. Therefore send as a murderer an intimate companion from his youth, one who used to eat and drink with him.” The ministers then sought out such a companion and sent him as a murderer. Towards the end of the sutta, the Buddha explained that “The sixth murderer, the intimate companion with drawn sword: this is a designation for delight and lust (nandi raaga).” Thus, selfish affection is like an enemy who is near us all the time, who can kill us anytime like the intimate companion murderer in SN 35.238, and yet we may not even be aware of it as a near enemy. ------------------------------ Question (iii) Can there be kindness with indifferent feeling? Answer: This is a very good question. The answer will depend on how one interprets the “indifferent feeling.” Is the “indifferent feeling” of the question associated with kusala cittas with upekkhaa component (or) akusala cittas with upekkhaa component? Does the “indifferent feeling” of the question mean upekkhaa vedanaa which is associated with fourth jhaana (or) adukkha-masukha vedanaa (sometimes, also called upekkhaa vedanaa) which is associated with moha cetasika? Adukkha-masukha vedanaa (neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling) with the underlying tendency to ignorance (avijjaanusaya) is best described in MN 148 Chachakka Sutta, page 1134 of A New Translation of Majjhima Nikaya by Bhikkhu Nanamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi. If the “indifferent feeling” of the question is the one associated with kusala cittas with upekkhaa component, or if it is NOT the kind of adukkha-masukha vedanaa mentioned in MN 148, the answer to the question is “Yes”. ---------------------------- Question (iv) Can there be non-aversion, adosa, towards an object which is not a being? Answer: Yes, there can be adosa with regard to an object which is not a being and then it can be described as patience. There can be adosa or patience with regard to heat, cold, bodily pain or other unpleasant objects. Respectfully, Han #62197 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Sat Aug 5, 2006 1:16 am Subject: [dsg] Re: no Nina, No Lodewijk. ken_aitch Hi Sarah, Thank you for this excellent post. Yes, I can see how it has to be either a cold shower or encouragement to go round and round in the circle of birth and death. I would be very disappointed to travel all the way to Bangkok to see K Sujin, only to be given some platitude she thought I wanted to hear. That would never happen, of course, and no sensible person would want it to. ----------- <. . .> S: > It (the right path) doesn't mean 'we'll have the clinging and then let go of it one day' - it's impossible." ----------- Yes, it's impossible whichever way you look at it. That occurs to me every time DSG discusses formal practice (as Scott, Jon and Howard are currently doing with regard to study). When we consider that dhammas are beyond control we must see that a prescribed (ritual) way to enlightenment is clearly impossible. The same applies to *any* ultimately real practice, good or bad. If it was possible - if dhammas were controllable - then the entire universe would be different from the way it is, and Buddhas would simply wave magic wands instead of teaching. That would be absurd. It is impossible whichever way you look at it. Ken H #62198 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Aug 5, 2006 1:49 am Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 507- Six Pairs of Beautiful Cetasikas (d) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) =============================================== Six Pairs of Beautiful Cetasikas (tranquillity/calm) There are likely to be misunderstandings about calm. What we call calm or tranquillity in conventional language is not the same as the realities of tranquillity of cetasikas and tranquillity of citta. Someone may think that he is calm when he is free from worry, but this calm may not be kusala at all. There may be citta rooted in attachment which thinks of something else in order not to worry. At such a moment he cannot at the same time think of the object of his worry since citta can experience only one object at a time. Or people may do breathing exercises in order to become relaxed. Tranquillity of cetasikas and tranquillity of citta which are sobhana cetasikas are not the same as a feeling of relaxation which is connected with attachment. We should know the characteristic of true calm which is wholesome. ***** Six Pairs of Beautiful Cetasikas to be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #62199 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Aug 5, 2006 1:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ven. Cunda's Advice sarahprocter... Hi Howard (& Joop), --- upasaka@... wrote: > Howard: > You ask, rhetorically: "Who or what creates these conditions?" > Literally, no one does, but the conditions are created nonetheless by > other > conditions foremost among which are cetana and viriya and chanda. > Conventionally, > however, you and I are creating these conditions by our actions - the > same people > who are talking to each other on DSG. We ARE conversing, are we not? It > IS our > intention to do so, is it not? And we ARE succeeding, are we not? ..... S: :-) I hear you.... Conventionally speaking, yes to all. But you and I know that conventional truths are only conventional truths, not ultimate truths. Really, there is no WE doing anything:-) Yes, cetana, viriya and chanda are important factors among many other important factors for acts to take place. Of them, only viriya (right effort) is of course a path factor. .... > You study the Abhidhamma, don't you? Does that or does it not > establish useful conditions? Are you not studying Abhidhamma for a > purpose? Don't you > consider it useful? And doesn't that usefulness pertain to kusala > dhammas > arising in the future? C'mon,Sarah! You can't have your cake and eat it > too! > ----------------------------------------------------- .... S: :-) For me, Abhidhamma is just about dhammas arising and falling now. In the end, if there's no understanding now as we speak (or eat, or watch TV, or do exercise or whatever), any study has no use at all. If now I think 'Oh, I'd better pick up an Abhidhamma text in order to have more kusala tomorrow', then it seems to me to be more indicative of an attachment to 'my future kusala' than of any present mindfulness of what's appearing. Of course, whilst thinking like that, there can be mindfulness and that's the point - the dhamma now which can be known, whether it be thinking, attachment or anything else. Usually when I pick up a text, I just pick it up out of interest (which can of course be kusala or akusala) or commonly because of a comment or question raised here or in discussion. But, there's no rule or guideline to follow with regard to studying texts - it always comes back to the present understanding always. ..... > Howard: > I can make no sense whatsoever out of that statement. I asked you > > about the teachings, and you answered about something else. > In any case, it is the same answer you always give, involving > "when > there are the conditions in place." HOW DO THE CONDITIONS COME TO BE IN > PLACE??? > Randomly? Then anyone can become an ariyan, and no one can, and the > Dhamma > becomes utterly pointless. > ------------------------------------------ ..... S: The one thing conditions are certainly not is random! Now we happen (not randomly at all) to be having this discussion. As a consequence, there is likely to be more reflection. Such reflection (not random) may be a condition for mindfulness and wisdom to arise, because it's reflection on present dhammas. If we talk about present thinking, attachment or frustration, about dhammas as elements, it may be a condition immediately for a degree of mindfulness. But, we can never say it will or that we can make such mindfulness arise by reflecting in such a way (even conventionally!). No atta to perform such miracles and too many complex conditions involved. If we discuss or read Abhidhamma and hope to have mindfulness, then again the reality is just hoping, a kind of lobha. .... > Howard: > If there has been, fine, and if there hasn't been not so fine. > But > there is, according to you, no choosing one way or the other. So, it's > random, a > matter of sheer luck. What a teriffic doctrine! Fortunately, it's not > what the > Buddha taught. > ------------------------------------------- ... S: No, it's not what the Buddha taught or what I've ever said either! There is no randomness or luck involved in the development of the path. But when we mind about whether there is mindfulness now or not and we see such minding as being right, we're on a path of attachment, not detachment. ..... > >S: Of course, it may not arise either and that's fine too. > > ------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Sure, just a matter of dumb luck - or no luck! Either way fine. > Bodhi > or not, both just as good! Then what is Buddhism about, Sarah? > ----------------------------------------- .... S: It's about the development of acceptance and detachment from what arises. It's about the development of awareness and understanding that dhammas are conditioned with no luck involved and no self that can ever make them any other way at this moment (or any other moment). ..... > At least by> > > appreciating that it's only ever now, we won't go off-track by > thinking we > > can do certain things or act upon them. > ---------------------------------------- > Howard: > So, we can't do things or act upon things. Man! The Buddha simply > wasted 45 years! > -------------------------------------- .... S: You don't like Agent talk and for 45 years the Buddha taught that there is no Self, no Agent who can do anything. Yes, there is cetana arising at each moment and viriya at most moments, but these are conditioned dhammas which arise with other dhammas and fall away. No one can make cetana or viriya a certain way by following particular activities. ..... > Howard: > Where does such confidence come from? In my case, it came from > seeing > that there really is no self, and that came from intentional meditation. .... S: In the texts, I believe that the proximate cause of confidence is given as objects worthy of confidence and in particular, the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha. As understanding grows, there is more and more confidence in the Buddha's virtues, in the teachings and nature of dhammas and also in the virtues of those who have followed the Path and become enlightened as the Sangha. I understand your point and of course only you can know about your experience, but such experience and confidence might have occurred when you were deliberately loading the washing machine too, perhaps. One wouldn't then suggest that intentional washing machine loading was the way to go:-). ..... > You speak of patience. But patience presumes that what is sought > will > come at some time. But why should it come when nothing is done to make > it > come? That leaves it as entirely random, in which case there is no more > reason for > success than for failure. > ---------------------------------------- .... S: No, it's not like that. By beginning to understand dhammas appearing now, such as seeing, hearing, thinking and frustration too, confidence grows in such understanding at the present moment being the only way. This in turn is a condition for it to develop further and it will continue to develop unless one starts to follow a wrong track. As I see it, trying to make it come and thinking it's 'no more reason for success than for failure' are conditions for following such a wrong track. Basically, the doubts and lack of confidence and patience are feeding the Agent's or Self's craving to DO something to get results. .... > > S: When there's mindfulness, there's mental seclusion already. Whether > > typing on the internet or in a busy New York crowd in the heat-wave, > > there's seclusion whenever the doors are guarded, whenever there is > sati. > > ------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Again, it's "when there's this, and when there's that"! But with > no > actions taken for there to be this or that, this is just plain nonsense. > It is > like a person who desires a long life saying "When there's good health > and no > mishaps, there will be long life." No need to eat and exercise properly, > no > need to ever see a doctor, no need to ever take medication! And it's > like an > aspiring actor who desires success in that profession never practicing > the art but > just saying "When my acting becomes really excellent I'll be a success." > > Someone then asks him how he expects his acting to ever become good, and > the best > he can come up with is some muttering about "accumulations"! ..... S: :-) And if we were to think that nothing should be done in these scenarios, that would be just as indicative of wrong view. But in the end, whatever medications are taken, whatever expertise the actor develops or not, it will depend on accumulations and other conditions at work. I'm certainly not saying 'Don't eat properly' or 'Don't work hard!'. However, for those who can appreciate it, understanding can develop however life unfolds, one moment at a time, whether one takes the medicine or works hard or not. .... > Howard: > Without taking any action, there will be no wise attention and no > understanding, because you need to PAY attention. If you go with the > flow, and and > let yourself be led by what you find easy and pleasant - for that is > what we > do when we go with the flow, you are *not* following the Dhamma, > because the > Dhamma goes *against* the flow. > --------------------------------------- ..... S: Whatever action is taken or not taken, whether life is easy and pleasant or the reverse, dhammas can be known at the present moment and the path factors can be developed. That's the Middle Way -- 'not striving and not standing still' (as Ken H and others have written some nice posts on recently imho) .... > > S: Thanks again for your input, Howard. > ----------------------------------------- > Howard: > Are you sure? ;-) > ---------------------------------------- .... S: lol, lol :-) And please keep writing your kind posts to Lodewijk - I'm sure you can sympathise well with his frustrations listening to K.Sujin and talking to me and others here! Metta, Sarah p.s Joop, just seen your further comments - will get back to them when I have time. Also, Howard, just seen your follow-up note. ======