#64400 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 16, 2006 9:46 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily Life, 96 nilovg Dear friends, The objects experienced by kåya-vi~n~naa.na are the following rúpas: solidity (experienced as hardness or softness) temperature (experienced as heat or cold) motion (experienced as oscillation or pressure) These objects are experienced through the doorway of the bodysense, which is rúpa. This rúpa, which has the capacity to receive bodily impressions, is all over the body, except in those parts where there is no sensitivity. Thus, summarizing the functions performed by the cittas which are the pa~nca-vi~n~naa.nas, they are: the function of seeing (dassana-kicca) the function of hearing (savana-kicca) the function of smelling (ghåyana-kicca) the function of tasting (såyana-kicca) the function of experiencing tangible object (phusana kicca) Seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and experiencing tangible object are different functions, not performed by a self but by citta. These cittas arise because of their appropriate conditions. In order to remind people of this truth the Buddha explained how cittas experience objects through the five senses and through the mind-door. He pointed out the different conditions for the arising of cittas and the impermanence of these conditions. Since the conditions for the arising of cittas are impermanent, cittas cannot be permanent. We read in the Kindred Sayings (IV, Saîåyatana-vagga, Kindred Sayings on Sense, Second Fifty, chapter IV, § 93, Duality II) that the Buddha said to the monks: Owing to a dual (thing), monks, consciousness comes into being. And what, monks, is that dual owing to which consciousness comes into being? Owing to the eye and objects arises eye-consciousness. The eye is impermanent, changing, its state is ``becoming otherness''. So also are objects. Thus this dual, mobile and transitory, impermanent, changing,--its state is ``becoming otherness''. Eye-consciousness is impermanent, changing, its state is ``becoming otherness''. That condition, that relation of the uprising of eye- consciousness,--they also are impermanent, changing, their state is ``becoming otherness''. This eye-consciousness, arising as it does from an impermanent relation,--how could it be permanent? Now the striking together, the falling together, the meeting together of these three things,--this, monks, is called ``eye-contact''. Eye- contact is impermanent, changing, its state is ``becoming otherness''. That condition, that relation of the uprising of eye- contact--they also are impermanent... This eye-contact, arising as it does from an impermanent relation,-how could it be permanent? Contacted, monks, one feels. Contacted, one is aware. Contacted, one perceives. Thus these states also are mobile and transitory, impermanent and changing. Their state is ``becoming otherness''... The same is said with regard to the other doorways. ***** Nina. #64401 From: "Joop" Date: Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Patisambhidamagga and emptiness jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Joop - > > I seem to miss your quoting something below. (????) > > With metta, > Howard > This: From the essay of "emptyuniverse": "Conditioned phenomena are 'merely' ultimately irreducible empirical phenomena, and as such have no inherent own-nature because they are dependently arisen. Furthermore, the analysis of all conditioned phenomena is entirely based on temporal linear discernment employing temporal linear causal relationships and conventional mental labels. Therefore this mode of knowledge which results in 'knowledge of the regularity of phenomena' (dhamma-thiti-nana), as valid as it is from the temporal linear perspective, still only represents relative truth. For the discernment of ultimate truth one needs to transcend the temporal mode of analysis altogether by direct valid cognition of nontemporal dhamma, which is the deathless element (amata dhatu), and which eventually results in direct realization of Nibbana (Nibbana- nana). Therefore, the nontemporal discernment of the deathless element (which is immediately present 'nowness') and the resultant fruition of Nibbana is the only Ultimate Truth (Paramattha-sacca). " A reaction follow tomorrow Joop #64402 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Oct 16, 2006 9:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Patisambhidamagga and emptiness upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 10/16/06 1:15:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@xs4 all.nl writes: > Hi Howard, > >You say: What has ceased is nothing at all. > I would like to add something: kamma has ceased but it has the > potential to produce result later on. > ----------------------------------- Howard: I would put it differently, Nina. The kamma - the intention (or intentional action) *had* that potential when it occurred. Then and there it was a condition, and then it ceased - utterly and forever. The *result* of that condition occured (or occurs, or will occur) at some later time when all other requisite conditions for its arising have come to pass. ----------------------------------- Akusala citta has ceased, but > > akusala qualities are accumulated and added to the latent tendencies > which lie dormant and can at any time condition the arising of > akusala citta at present. ----------------------------------- Howard: Well, you take accumulations more literally (more substantially) than I. ----------------------------------- > Each citta that has ceased conditions the arising of the next citta > by proximity-condition. > What has ceased bears on the present ---------------------------------- Howard: I certainly agree that all conditions that arise do in fact, at the time they exist, condition future conditions. After a condition has ceased, that condition is gone. It does not remain. There *is* no such condition any longer. And contiguity is not required for conditionalit, as I see the matter. To think it is required is to be influenced by everyday conventional reality. Some conditioning is immediate, but there is no reason to presume that all conditioning is immediate, IMO. ========================= With metta, Howard #64403 From: Daniel Date: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:37 am Subject: Re: Self sbhtkk Hello Charles, I am very sorry for not replying. I do not own a Pc, so I check my email from internet cafes. So sometimes it happens that I am not checking my email for quite some time. Well, I do not think I understand the 4 noble truths well enough. I am still contemplating and thinking... As we all are, aren't we? Yours, Daniel Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:56 pm (PST) Daniel, Your lack of a response leads me to believe you don't (for what ever reason). If you just want the information then it doesn't matter what you believe. I use to pride my self on being a walking textbook, however life got really tough so I need help. This made me need a practical approach, after all I needed help. Charles DaCosta ------------------- From Charles : Daniel, Do you believe the 4 noble truths are correct? Do you believe the 8 Fold path is the way to live ones life? Charles DaCosta #64404 From: Daniel Date: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:45 am Subject: Re: Mind (Nama&Rupa also) sbhtkk Hi Charles and all, Charles DaCosta : > Who Knows how the Theravadan School define the Mind and its > functions? Tibetans define it as 'mere clarity and knowing'. But I think one needs lots of study to understand what this definition means... The members of the group often use the words "nama" and "rupa". Perhaps someone can try to describe what does s\he mean specificaly by each of these words? What is the diference between them? What is the relationship? I am trying to understand now not the way those words are used in the Pali texts, and their definitions in the Pali texts, but what do the people in this email group mean by those words. What are their meanings, differences, similarities, and relationships? I would be very glad if someone could explain it without using Pali words at all. Yours, Daniel #64405 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Mon Oct 16, 2006 2:31 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Self dacostacharles Hi Daniel, Which Truths are you stuck on? Charles DaCosta -----Original Message----- From: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Daniel Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 20:37 Hello Charles, I am very sorry for not replying. I do not own a Pc, so I check my email from internet cafes. So sometimes it happens that I am not checking my email for quite some time. Well, I do not think I understand the 4 noble truths well enough. I am still contemplating and thinking... As we all are, aren't we? <...> #64406 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Mon Oct 16, 2006 2:44 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] What is Mind, Abhidhamma. dacostacharles Hi Nina, Thanks, and to set the record straight, it is not just the Abidharma, I have a problem reading "." I don't really enjoy reading, I am would rather discuss things. I learn from discussions better. Now, I would like to take your advice so which site should I down load a copy of the first book of the Abhidhamma. I have just started reading: "The Dynamic Psychology of Early Buddhism" by Rune E. Johansson (C:1978) Charles DaCosta _____ From: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Nina van Gorkom Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 16:26 To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [dsg] What is Mind, Abhidhamma. Dear Charles D, I have heard this before. I would like to help if this is so. Perhaps you could indicate where you start to sleep? We can apply the texts to our daily life, and this is the purpose of the Abhidhamma. If we forget the purpose we tend to have a wrong idea about Abhidhamma. Would you like to start with the list of the Dhammasangani, the first book of the Abhidhamma? It is best to look at the texts themselves. Nina. <...> #64407 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Oct 16, 2006 5:46 pm Subject: Re: Abhidhamma in Daily Life, 96 scottduncan2 Dear Nina, Regarding the below: "...Owing to the eye and objects arises eye-consciousness. The eye is impermanent, changing, its state is 'becoming otherness'..." Is this "becoming otherness" from a~n~nathaabhaavi? Might you discuss briefly the nature of the pali compound translated as "becoming otherness"? Sincerely, Scott. #64408 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Nina, Lodewijk and Howard at the Petrossian restaurant christine_fo... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Sarah - > > In a message dated 10/16/06 6:19:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > > > Dear Nina, Howard, Lodewijk and James, > > > > Thank you so much for the trouble you all went to to upload the photos of > > the get-together into the DSG meetings photo album. What a nice compliment > > to Nina's series on the discussions. Nina, I think I can see you eating > > ice-cream!! And outside the restaurant, Nina and Howard look more like two > > teenagers.... > > ----------------------------------------- > Howard: > LOLOL! I think Nina & Lodewijk look great throughout. As for me, in > the interior shots I look like a skinny old man, and in the outside shots I look > like a younger overweight guy. Oh, well! ;-) > -------------------------------------------- >>>>snipped for brevity<<<< > ====================== > With metta, > Howard Dear Howard, We all go through it when someone else puts our photos on dsg. I can remember years ago when Sukin (I think) posted one of me on my first visit to Bangkok, and I obsessed for weeks about my 'flat hair'. :-) After that, there were various ones in Sri Lanka, Burma or India when I thought 'Can that really be me? Surely I'm really thinner/younger/shorter/taller/more devastatingly attractive :-) (select adjective) ...' But dear dhamma friends simply pointed out the definition of 'mana'. :-) Howard, I think you look 'just right'. metta Chris #64409 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Oct 16, 2006 9:07 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: some points on art philofillet Hi Jon Ph: > > For example, a few years of development of guarding the sense > > doors has resulted in my, automatically and without a moment of > > thought, cutting off proliferation that arises from looking at all > > the lovely women here in Japan. It's just become my habit to drop > > it. At times I don't -I proliferation runs amock at times - but it > > is definitely a marked habit, and an important habit, one that has > > been developed by staying open to the Buddha's teaching and > > reflecting. > Jon: > I know what you mean, but I think we need to be careful about making any > assumptions as to how permanent any such change in behaviour is, and > whether it represents any underlying change in our accumulations. This is a very interesting point, one that I have been thinking a lot about recently. While it is true that we are all beginners, etc, and that there is not set or established character, it is also true that we are in a more conventional sense at different stages in terms of loosening the pull of the gross defilements, the ones that rise in transgression. For example, except for the period last year during which you fell prey to methamphetamines and were running amok on the streets of Hong Kong, mugging passers-by to get cash to feed your habit, you, Jon, have led a consistently moral life over the last couple of decades. I say that with a strong degree of confidence, though of course who knows? For you, a consideration of accumulations, of anusayas, is timely, appropriate. I've come to see that for me, with such very strong tendencies to transgress, it's a bit premature to to study much about the anusayas, though they are very interesting to know about in theory. For me, for the time being, first things first. More consideration of sila before there is concern about bhanava. I think the sila > concentration > bhavana progression has been disputed here, but while I still don't understand quite what is involved in concetration and bhavana, I'm feeling that I have been too slack in establishing a foundation of sila. Yes, self involved, but it is very clear to me that the Buddha *does* give clear instructions about dropping gross forms of akusala, in countless suttas, and I think there is no need to worry about whether self or lobha are involved here. MN 19, the two kinds of thought, is just one good example of such a sutta. There are so, so many in SN 35. I think when Acharn Sujin talks to the group in Bangkok, she is talking to a group of people who have -generally speaking - made considerable progress in overcoming transgression by the development of sila, whether they see sila as coming first or not. It has come first, whether in an intentional way or not. It hasn't come first for me yet. > > While the dropping away of a bad habit may well be related to our > interest in and appreciate of the teachings, it does not mean that there > has been any lessening of the underlying (latent) tendency. Right. The latent tendency will be there. But the transgression aspect of the kilesa may be lessened, the probability of transgression occuring may be dramatically reduced by laying down a foundation of sila. I do believe that now. As for the bhavana that will lead to loosening the latent tendencies, that is another matter. That is where acharn sujin is so helpful in pointing out that if self or lobha are involved here, there can be no loosening. So to paraphrase her statement "there muyst be detachment from the beginning" I would say there must be detachement at any moment of bhavana, but that is not necessarily the case when dropping gross forms of akusala is involved. For > example, someone may turn over a new leaf on just a first hearing of the > teachings. > > Given the mass of unwholesome tendencies that must have been accumulated > to date, I think any net change within the space of a single lifetime > can only be very small indeed, not even measurable I suspect. I would disagree with this. Again, the net change with the anusayas, yes, you're right. But people's lives can be dramatically changed, and for the better, by taking the Buddha's teaching as a guiding light in a more conventional way. THeir accumulated greed, hatred and ignorance hasn't been reduced, maybe, and as you learned in that drug craze last year, we never know when transgression may arise, but there is an effect in terms of buildling a more moral character on the surface, at least. And that more moral character may be helpful in setting up conditions for deeper understanding to arise, I think. No expectations re bhavana, but as for the lessening of moral transgression, yes, there are expectations there. My tone has changed, hasn't it? Two factors at work here. For some reason I haven't been able to find the DSG CD-ROMs. I'm such a slob that they are probably under the junk in some closet somewhere. Naomi denies tossing them, but in a fit of rage, who knows? :) In the meanwhile, I have been listening to the Bhikkhu Bodhi MN talks that Matheesha linked us to, and predictably enough being that I am such an impressionable guy they have swung understanding in a new direction. No, it's not a new direction. We're all going on the same direction. Just an emphasis has shifted, or something. I will have to cut short our discussion, Jon, as I am going off the internet for a few months. (See ps.) Always a pleasure talking with you and listening to you (I've done more of that) and looking forward to many years to come, unless you go on another meth- amphetamine binge and crash a stolen Porsche into Hong Kong Harbour, or something like that. Phil p.s to nina, sarah, scott, and azita and others whom I owe replies to. Talk to you again in February. Now that the baseball season is over for me and I'm not obliged to get on and check my fantasy teams, I will enjoy a break from the internet. Time goes so fast that you know we'll be talking again soon. #64410 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Oct 16, 2006 5:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Nina, Lodewijk and Howard at the Petrossian restaurant upasaka_howard Hi, Chris - In a message dated 10/16/06 11:13:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time, cforsyth1@... writes: > Howard, I think you look 'just right'. > ====================== Very sweet of you, Chris! Thanks!! :-) The fact of the matter, though, from the Dhamma perspective is that I'll actually look just right when I can't "see myself" at all! ;-) Looks like that'll be a long time from now! ;-)) With metta, Howard #64411 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Books on Dhamma ken_aitch Hi Howard, In every post on this thread I have tried to make one particular point, namely, that the tilakkhana are not concepts. You obviously disagree, which is fine, but I just want to make it clear: as I understand it, anicca, dukkha and anatta are not concepts. I'll admit that they are not paramattha dhammas. Normally, we say something has to be either a paramattha dhamma or a concept, and so there is bound to be confusion over 'characteristics of paramattha dhammas.' Characteristics are not classified as paramattha dhammas because they do not have their own sabhava. They are sabhava. -------------- H: > Cessation is just as much (or as little) concept as change, for change is no more than cessation and arising. Hey, Ken, do Abhidhamma and the commentaries speak of processes, and sequences of states? They are concept. Shall the tilakkhana be dismissed due to being concept? -------------- Processes of cittas are not, in themselves, dhammas. They do not arise and fall, they do not possess sabhava, and therefore, they do not really exist. The tilakkhana, on the other hand, do exist. ------------------------------- H: > Actually, all three of the tilakkhana are denials which is about as close as speech can get to reality. ------------------------------- That is your understanding of the texts, and you might be right, but I believe otherwise. --------------------------------------------- H: > They deny that anything conditioned remains, that anything conditioned satisfies, and that anything has/is self. ---------------------------------------------- I agree, except I would not classify such denials as speech. I would classify them as manifestations of panna, which directly knows the characteristics of dhammas. ----------------------------------------------------------- H: > As for "change", dhammas cease, do they not? New dhammas arise, do they not? Does that all happen at the same time? At differing times? Statements such as "There is just 'now'." are merely conceptualizing, and when the content is relentlessly pursued, it doesn't hold up. ------------------------------------------------------------ The statement "There is only the present moment" is, of course, a concept. It refers to a specific set of dhammas that forms the entire universe (of the present moment). Confusingly, the present moment can be divided into three sub-moments in which dhammas arise, persist, and fall away respectively. But they are the same dhammas (no dhammas are added or removed), and so the concept of one present moment is a valid concept. -------------------------------------------- H: > Concepts are just pointers. ALL concepts are just pointers. That includes all the concepts of the Buddhadhamma. Dhamma is not about concepts. It is about training to directly see what is what and to awaken. --------------------------------------------- Yes, but it is a training in which there is no trainee. That is the crucial point that so many Buddhists overlook. They put anatta in the 'too hard' basket. Or maybe they put it in the 'don't want to know' basket. That would be because they desire - more than anything else - to be the trainee. ------------------------------------- H: > My point is not one of clinging to particular concepts, Ken. In fact, it is exactly the opposite - namely to point out that all conceptualization is fundamentally flawed, and that what is needed is to see *through* all that. -------------------------------------- Self is a mere concept. Dhammas are realities. Words such as "citta" and "cetasika" are concepts, but the dhammas they refer to are realities. I think some people (e.g., Geoff as quoted by Joop) take the petulant attitude: 'If the self can't be real then dhammas can't be real either!' ----------------------------- KH: > >Anicca, on the other hand, is not a concept. It is a characteristic of every conditioned dhamma, and it can be directly observed. H: > Cessation can be directly observed. So can arising. Stop thinking about it and start looking. ----------------------------- Insight is a matter of understanding, not of looking. -------------------- H: > Until and unless we see reality directly, all this talk is nothing but concept. Some is useful pointing, and some is harmful pointing, but all of it is merely a pointing. --------------------- We occasionally see a reference to "merely pointing" "fingers pointing to the moon" and that sort of thing, but I must admit I don't get it. Is it another way of saying, "Stop thinking - just do it?" Pointing seems to be synonymous with teaching, which is what the Buddha did. Did he ever say, "Don't listen to me! Just do it!" ------------ <. . .> KH: > > I think you are saying we should not take the Abhidhamma too > literally. Other people (e.g., Bhikkhu Thanissaro) have told us not to take anatta too literally. They say anatta is just a device for > getting meditators in the right frame of mind. The same people tell us that paramattha dhammas should not be taken literally. H: > I'm saying to not confuse maps for terrain, to not confuse stories with reality. I'm saying to stop thinking and start looking. ------------ Dhamma stories are about ultimate reality, and they must be understood. When there is right understanding the other right factors arise with it. There is no place in Dhamma-practice for looking. ------------------- H: > And please don't throw the "not-self-strategy" nonsense at me as an accusation. I have never accepted that, and if you've paid attention to what I've written before you would know that. ------------------- I do know that, and I wasn't making an accusation. In an effort to be concise, I might have left a few i's undotted and t's uncrossed. Reading it again, I see that I wrote, "Other people have told us." That would normally mean "not you" would it not? You are very exacting in your demands for clarity! But I can understand that. I wouldn't want to be associated with the anatta-as-strategy crowd either. :-) ---------------------------- KH: > > It is not in the Tipitaka, it is not Dhamma, and it is a wrong path. > > H: > LOL! I am quite confident that the Buddha would heartily disagree with you! ---------------------------- Phew! I got off lightly with that one! :-) Ken H #64412 From: "Joop" Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu jwromeijn Hallo Sometimes I think that I'm the only one who understands D.O. is about the present situation and not an abstract description of three lifetimes. But I'm not. From the notes of a student of prof. Karunadasa (www.geocities.com/lee_mengkai/early_buddhism5.doc): "Nanavira challenged the commentator's account and he said these twelve factors refer to personal existence and not rebirth. Professor Karunadasa is agreeable to this view because to be born again or rebirth implies that one has to be born again as a human. Please do not be dogmatic. There is no direct evidence in the Suttas to show that doctrine of DO is an explanation of rebirth. Buddha has identified the doctrine of DO with his Dhamma. His doctrine is sanditthiko. If you know the doctrine of DO you know who you are, what you really are. You are a chain of twelve factors or links of DO. In each person at any given moment these twelve factors operate. This doctrine of DO refers to present birth. It implies a temporal sequence. It is not future birth. Hence it is not really an explanation of rebirth." This text is really a solace to me Metta Joop #64413 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Nina, Lodewijk and Howard at the Petrossian restaurant nilovg Hi Howard, There can be a beginning: learning that seeing only sees what appears through the eyesense, colour. Then due to sa~n~naa there is defining: I am standing here in front of the Petrossian restaurant. The understanding that one dhamma appears one at a time through the relevant sense door or mind-door that is a condition for sati to be directly aware of characteristics of dhammas, without naming or thinking. We do not think of a long time from now, then one may become disheartened or one may have doubts about the development of understanding. It can be done! Nina. Op 17-okt-2006, om 6:13 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > The fact of the matter, though, from the Dhamma perspective is that > I'll actually look just right when I can't "see myself" at all! ;-) > Looks like > that'll be a long time from now! ;-)) #64414 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:07 am Subject: Patisambhidamagga and emptiness, accumulations. nilovg Hi Howard, It is your expression it is nothing that could be modified, as Swee Boon suggested. There is no annihilation, just like the dying- consciousness that falls away and conditions the rebirth- consciousness of a new life. As you yourself once quoted: it is neither the same nor another. But we have to talk more on accumulations. -------- H: Akusala citta has ceased, but > > akusala qualities are accumulated and added to the latent tendencies > which lie dormant and can at any time condition the arising of > akusala citta at present. ----------------------------------- Howard: Well, you take accumulations more literally (more substantially) than I. -------- N: I agree that it is difficult to imagine how accumulations operate. But think of sa~n~naa: how come you can remember what is past and gone, say, a mental image of the Petrossian restaurant? You yourself said: nothing arises from a vacuum. Sa~n~naa arises and falls away completely with the citta, but since each citta is succeeded by a next one there is a connection between past and present. This is possible since our life is an uninterrupted chain of cittas. Also when fast asleep and there are no objects impinging on the doorways, there are still cittas arising and falling away: the bhavangacittas. You did not see the sense of knowing about bhavangacittas since their object cannot be known. Right, but, it is important to know about them, otherwise we cannot understand how good and bad inclinations, how kamma (actually kusala and akusala volition or intention) can be accumulated from one moment to the next moment. What is accumulated in the citta arises and falls away, so there is nothing lasting. Moreover, accumulations change: time and again kusala citta or akusala citta arises and falls away and then the kusala and akusala qualities are accumulated. Otherwise we could never retain what we once learnt, or wisdom could not grow and develop. ****** Nina. #64415 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:39 am Subject: Mind (nama and rupa also) nilovg Dear Daniel and Charles D, good questions, Daniel. ------- Daniel: The members of the group often use the words "nama" and "rupa". Perhaps someone can try to describe what does s\he mean specifically by each of these words? What is the diference between them? What is the relationship? ------- Nama: mental phenomena, namely consciousness and mental factors that can accompany consciousness. rupa: physical phenomena, both of the body and outside it. These are names denoting realities that can be directly known. Nama and rupa are not abstractions, they have characteristics that can be experienced when they appear. For example hardness or heat can be experienced through the bodysense. These are rupas. Rupa does not know anything, it does not know: I am touching the bodysense. Nama is the reality that knows or experiences something. Seeing is nama, it experiences colour or visible object. Colour or visible object does not know anything, it does not know that it is seen. As to the relationship of nama and rupa: nama conditions rupa, for instance when you are angry or excited (this is nama: consciousness with anger) it conditions heat in the body. Rupa conditions nama: eyesense is a rupa in the body and it is one of the conditions for seeing. Seeing knows an object, eyesense does not know anything. When you have well understood that one nama or rupa at a time is the object of sati, there are condiitons for the arising of sati and in this way you become more familiar with the different characteristics of nama and rupa. Later on it can be realized that the body and the mind we are so attached to are impermanent rupas and namas which do not have a possessor or owner. Please ask more. Can you print out in the Internet Cafe? Nina. #64416 From: "Plamen Gradinarov" Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What is Mind, Abhidhamma. pgradinarov Dear Charles (and Daniel), We live in a relational world. When you take nama-rupa, mind is nama; when you take pancakkhandha, mind is vinnana; when you take vinnana- kkhandha, mind is mano, etc. Kindest regards, Plamen #64417 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What is Mind, Abhidhamma. nilovg Dear Charles, this is not on line. But in Rob's web a summary is given. This is very extensive. It would be best to discuss the first type of mahaakusala citta that is assisted by many beautiful cetasikas. The hard cover in English: Buddhis Psychological Ethics, PTS. Nina. Op 16-okt-2006, om 23:44 heeft Charles DaCosta het volgende geschreven: > Now, I would like to take your advice so which site should I down > load a > copy of the first book of the Abhidhamma. #64418 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:56 am Subject: re: ADL 96 nilovg Dear Scott, ------- S:"...Owing to the eye and objects arises eye-consciousness. The eye is impermanent, changing, its state is 'becoming otherness'..." Is this "becoming otherness" from a~n~nathaabhaavi? Might you discuss briefly the nature of the pali compound translated as "becoming otherness"? ------- N: It is another word for changing, susceptible to change. Becoming different. This is a figurative, conventional way of explaining that the eyesense does not last, that it falls away. We can notice changes in the eyesense and in the whole body after a long time and this is a reminder that in reality each rupa of the body falls away immediately and is replaced by a new rupa so long as there are conditions for it. At each moment, there is nothing left of the body but there are conditions for new rupas. When the Buddha said: the body is becoming other, it was a gentle way of pointing to the impermanence of all conditioned dhammas. Nina. #64419 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:13 am Subject: Fwd: Retreat inspiration was Name change in Canberra sarahprocter... off-list reply from Michael K which he says I'm welcome to f/w to DSG. ====================================================================== --- Michael Kalyaano wrote: > Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 15:02:44 -0000 > From: "Michael Kalyaano" > To: sarah abbott > Subject: Retreat inspiration was Name change in Canberra > > Hi Sarah > > > Hmm... I thought this might happen. Earlier there was an intention not > to write at all and then later an intention to write just a little > (the first post yesterday) and then no more. Here we go. I'm a chatter > box no doubt. I love communicating. Your skillfully crafted e-mail got > me going again. > > I've rearranged the sequence of your questions relative to my previous > posting. I don't mind if you want to post this to DSG or share it with > others. It is rather long and maybe not interesting to DSG scholars. > I don't wish to enter into a discussion about the cannonical > references justifying practice at this time. That was one reason I > hesitated to participate in DSG at all. I might get into that kind of > discussion next year or later. > > > > S: I'll look forward to reading your notes and hearing about the > retreat details. Any chance of being in Bkk around Sat, Jan 13th when > many of us will be there? (Let me know off-list if you prefer) > > M: I plan to be in Thailand on 1-3 December and then be in Myanmar > from 3 December - 21 January. I may not make it to the DSG centre in > Bangkok for the usual Saturday afternoon discussion because I'm due to > fly back to Australia on 26 January. These are plans and subject to > change. If I return to Thailand earlier then I shall make an effort > to meet you and other DSG people. My main priority on this trip is > the retreat. > > Khun Sukin suggested off-line that he and Ivan would be able to meet > with me sometime between 21-26 January in Bangkok. Would you and > others be there at that time too? If that doesn't work out we could > do a phone call in February or later. I'm not sure how long before > I'll go back to Thailand. > > > > S: Dhamma is truly the only refuge, just as when life is running > more smoothly, don't you find? > > M: You are right. Though when life is not running smoothly, I don't > seem to have time or inclination to look for refuge in the Dhammma - > busy minimizing pain. When life is relatively smooth, kusala cittas > appear more frequently. Knowing that this will eventually change for > the worse, get sick and die etc., motivates one - samvega. I guess > previous Dhamma study comes to mind so now no matter how good life > appears to be, we know it won't last. Best make hay while the sun > shines. > > I'm in good health, I have spare time for Dhamma study and practice, I > live comfortably with a good job in a safe city with excellent weather > and beautiful environment. The Buddha said that even to be born a > human at all is so rare. How much rarer to be in my very fortunate > circumstances and also to have an interest in the Dhamma? Odds are > very high indeed. I shouldn't squander this opportunity. How many > lifetimes before it comes again? > > I am aware that I could easily take another distracting path of > interesting obstacles and diversions. This is only latent for now. > Even so, such a path would not be satisfying for long. The Dhamma > always comes back to mind eventually. > > > > S: Thanks for your good wishes and for letting us know how you are, > Michael. I often used to ask Sukin if he had news of you - conditions > to think of you for a long time after you took your break from DSG. > > M: I don't have many Dhamma friends in Canberra. There are various > Buddhist communities that provide pastoral support to the various > ethnic groups and many Tibetan oriented groups. About once or twice a > year I go to the Thai temple. Even though I speak Thai well enough, I > am disappointed the monks don't speak English. These particular monks > are focussed on recieving daana, chanting and doing ceremonies. I > have a Burmese Australian friend, Dr Thin, who listens patiently to me > raving on. When I stop talking she smiles me and reminds me to keep > practicing. > > > S: I remember your keen study and knowledge of the texts and your > faith in Buddhadhamma. Btw, part of an edited recording of a > discussion you had with K.Sujin is in the 'files' section of DSG. > (Other edited discussions with her can be found on > www.dhammastudygroup.org). > > Wow, this is what really made me write again this evening. That > coversation and other DSG conversations in 2000 made a deep > impression. I didn't realise this recording was in the files section. > I've tried listening to some of the conversations online from Bodhgaya > and elsewhere but couldn't sustain interest for long. I have a > relatively orderly mind that dislikes the disorder of the audio > recordings. Perhaps, 'you had to be there'. However, the recording of > the conversation I participated in was different for me because of the > topics I was interested in then and now. Editing is good. I blushed > so much during the first 25% of listening to it again this evening. > > That promise near the end to do research and find the support for > meditation is still pending. I haven't forgotten. A few times, I've > thought, why not just refer DSG to commentaries/discourses by Mahasi > Sayadaw and other vipassana meditation teachers. I might do it myself > eventually. I want to try the meditation option a while longer. I > know others have meditated and found that hasn't worked so they went > back to books, tapes, conversations and thinking. That might happen > to me but somehow, I have faith that it won't. I have faith that > insights will arise through intense mindfulness. > > Until DSG in 2000, I hadn't found anyone focussed on vipassana but > against meditation. I still disagree. This is not my opinion so much > as a point of faith arising from practice experiences. Some people > meditate and faith arises while for others it doesn't. Its not a > matter of control or willing it to happen. It just happened, like by > the way... > > Why meditate if the intention is not to 'make' faith, energy, > mindfulness, concentration and wisdom arise? It is because meditation > is the base, it is the seed bed, the nurturing environment for all > those things to grow. > > > > S: Can you tell us more about what inspired you from your last > retreat? > > The 7 day retreat in November 2005 led by Sayadaw U Lakkhana was a > milestone. Dr Thin translated for me. Even though the retreat was in a > Mon temple located in Canberra, I was the only non-Mon, non-Burmese > person to complete the 7 days. Three non-Mon, non-Burmese women > stopped after 3 days. Only one other man completed the 7 days (a > retired Burmese opthalmologist). The food was great but I got a bad > allergic rash from the dusty kuti. .... Oh yes what inspired me? > > I assume you have read about Mahasi Sayadaw vipassana technique. It > involves noting whatever arises at the six sense doors as it arises in > whatever posture one happens to be in. Retreats are intense in the > sense that from waking until sleeping, one is mindful of the six sense > doors (or not). The retreat is 8 precepts, wake at 4:30 AM and retire > at 10 PM with alternating one hour sitting and walking sessions. There > is a breakfast around 6:30 AM and a lunch around 11:00 AM. There was a > single five minute interview each day with the Sayadaw between 9:00 AM > and 11:00 AM. During the interview, I reported on the nature of > mindfulness and the symptoms arising. > > At first through lack of recent practice, the mind wandered about. > Mindfulness was weak. Even so, I noted the mental and physical > phenomenon arising and passing. I noted the difference between nama > and rupa. I felt there was some improvement in mindfulness by the > third day but I was distracted by unwanted thoughts. This was quite > uncomfortable. It clearly and crudely demonstrated the three > characteristics - anatta, anicca and dhukkha. There were pains and > other symptoms. By the fourth day, I felt great remorse for past > misdeeds, imagining that "I" had been stupid to do this and that. I > felt unworthy to be in the company of dilligent meditators and the > Sayadaw. I felt unworthy to recieve the food from the faithful donors. > I must emphasise that all this arose without any prompting from the > teacher or anyone else. It just came out like a waste product. When I > reported this to the Sayadaw, he reminded me to be mindful and not > dwell on the conceptual reality in the thoughts, just to note the > thoughts and feelings as 'thinking, thinking, thinking'...'regret, > regret, regret' and so forth. I felt so bad I wanted to give up and > leave. > > The weather been hot, dry and dusty. On the afternoon of the fourth > day, I was sitting mindfully drinking tea after a sitting session and > about to do a walking session. The weather suddenly became gusty and > blew the marquee about. The drink things were disturbed. Then it > showered a little and the gusts became strong enough to blow the > marquee over. I had been mindfully noting this and feelings of sadness > when I realised that retraint was not an option at this point. I lept > from my seat place my tea cup under the chair and fixed the fallen > marquee polls. I also stored the drinking things out of the rain. The > water coolled and relaxed my body somewhat. I later speculated that > some devas must have had pity on the meditators and arranged the > weather to help us (or me at least). The rain shower and wind gusts > stopped as suddenly as they came and I finished my tea before > contiuing the sheduled walk. > > However, after that unexpected incident my mood changed considerably. > I seemed to have more energy and faith. I felt happier, lighter and > more at ease. Sitting for the the hour was easier and mindfulness > seemed much stronger. There were fewer lapses into video memories and > fantasies. I speculated less on what was happening. For someone like > me to stop the rationalising and matching practice with theory is not > easy. Like "oh so this is anicca", or "this symptom of bright lights, > that must be vipassana kilesa" and so forth. There was a lot of bodily > joy and happiness arising while sitting, walking or even eating. Time > appeared to pass differently as though in slow motion (I'm thinking > Neo in the Matrix). There is a certain amount of pride (maana) > arising as well. I noted craving for these pleasant mental and bodily > feelings. But they passed as well. The fifth and sixth days passed > like this with various pleasant sensations. I was not controlling them > or willing them to arise. I followed the Sayadaw's instruction to just > note the phenomenon as it arose, whatever it was. There were times > when there were neither plesant nor unplesant feelings yet mindfulness > was still strong. Sometimes while sitting I was aware that there was > pain in my knee but there was little or no aversion. Just noting the > pain, like sparklers (fireworks on sticks), or like electricity > sparking on and off quickly. The rising breath and the falling breath > appeared to be comprised of many segments arising and passing. > Similarly the movements of the body, either by walking or by moving > the spoon to my mouth, were sometimes shuddering/flickering. This > awareness was not constant. Sometimes, I seemed to stop breathing or > was not aware of the breath. I was confused at that point and then > started thinking and speculating. I later recalled this experience was > like a child exploring a new room. I felt fascination, wonder.... I > reported this in due course but the Saydaw was not impressed. He said > if the object disappears, just note whatever is present. There is no > object, yet sati knows, yet no object... This didn't last long > because sati declined a little and I began looking for an object. I > realised later this was a beginner's mistake. Then all too soon the > retreat was over. I felt as though I'd been through a lifetime of > struggle on those seven days. I recalled retreats I'd done in Thailand > as a monk in 1982-84 where I'd been meditating for 2 months but didn't > seem to get past feeling unworthy. In fact, that was one of the > reasons I quit being a monk. So maybe all that Dhamma study I'd done > in the 20 years between 1984 and 1985, all the life experiences, and > maybe the maturity led me to develop stonger mindfulness and > resillience. > > I worked out later that before the rain storm, I had been doing OK but > was applying too much effort. This can happen when there is desire for > progress. I can see this with yoga asana practice. Just relaxing a > little helped a lot. It wasn't intentional though. It was an > environmental factor that impacted a maybe like a Zen slap on the back > or the smile of a baby at the supermarket. > > I haven't written this before now. Thank you for asking me Sarah. I > know you probably didn't expect this MUCH though. > > Before I stop. I want to say that the inspiration wasn't the > particular teacher. I value good teachers as guides. I have faith in > them as people who have gone down this road before and know some of > the pit falls. They encourage us to keep noting and provide a sense of > proportion and a reality check with the worries and fantasies. Sayadaw > U Lakkhana is a good guide/teacher. He doesn't exude charisma or mega > loving-kindness etc. Even so, I would retreat with him anytime. > > From here, I'm curious about what might happen on a longer retreat. > In a worldly way, I also wonder whether I can get this meditation > thing out of my system. It is something I've procrastinated on for > over 20 years. Now many obstacles are gone and the opportunity appears > to be arising. Curious, curious... > > Now it is past 1:00 AM and I must rest before work tomorrow. Sarah, > thank you once again for your goodwill and kindness. > > Metta > > Michael > > > #64420 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:18 am Subject: Patisambhidamagga and Emptiness, sabhava etc. nilovg Hallo Joop (and Howard), ------- Joop: ----------- N: In the Patisambhidamagga, p. 362 of the english edition, there is a footnote rendering the Commentary. It is heavy reading. Note: the word idea is used for dhamma, reality. This may be confusing when reading the translation. Sabhava is translated in different ways. It may interest you that this term came up time and again in dsg, and that there are a number of posts by Ven. Dammanando, Sarah, Robert. I recently quoted some parts of Rob K's forum. A quote by Rob K: Sarah: < In the Vism quote above it mentions the nature (sabhava) of hardness. As I understand (just from my own considering now), the nature of hardness when touched now is quite different to the nature of heat or cold. Furthermore the sabhava of the hardness experienced at this moment of touching is very different again from the sabhava of hardness experienced a moment later. Each reality has its own sabhava even though they have common characteristics (lakkhana) such as the tri-lakkhana which themselves are asabhava (without sabhava). If these realities had no sabhava and no lakkhana, they would not arise, fall away and be inherently unsatisfactory. Anatta (sunyata) is one of the lakkhana of all realities. We don’t talk about the conditioned nature of anatta, lakkhana or sabhava because they are always the characteristics and nature of the paramattha dhammas.> ---------- N: Sabhava is sometimes translated as individual essence, or own nature, or own distinctive nature. We may wonder about all these words, but more important: what do these words represent? As Sarah said above: hardness that appears while touching, or heat. I would like to go into this more so as to emphasize that sabhava is not used in a theoretical sense. I would like to refer to Sariputta's explanation of the four great Elements in the Elephant's Footprint Sutta (transl by Sister Upalavanna): This sutta helps us to keep in mind the goal of the teachings: detachment. We may talk about terms such as characteristic or sabhava, but we can only understand what they are if we learn to be aware of whatever appears at this moment. It may be heat in the body, after eating a meal, and when we come to understand that this is an impermanent rupa and that we cannot make it occur since it is anatta, it will help us to know what sabhava really is. It is not an abstract notion. Joop, these are only some thoughts about sabhava, I did not go into what you wrote and quoted. I just added a few points. Nina. #64421 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:28 am Subject: re:How to explain kamma ro a newcomer nilovg Dear Sebastien, S:The Buddha said in Sivaka Sutta, SN 36 that all things experimented are not always the result of past actions, and saying that is a wrong view. I would like to know if my comprehension is correct : kamma is "only" one of the laws (niyamas). So we can experience things that are not caused directly by kamma, but by other niyamas, like utu, dhamnia etc. These experiences are not the result of past actions. But in a certain sense, though, the experience is conditionned by kamma, as if there was no kamma, there would be no "being" to experience it -------- N: I translated and posted before the Co and subco to this sutta. Now I shall only quote part, otherwise it would be too long. In short: kamma produces in our life the sense-cognitions of seeing etc. which experience desirable or undesirable objects. But there are other conditions operating in our life as well. In this sutta conventional language is used. From Co: , meaning, solely arisen because it is the result of kamma. Also with reference to these feelings that have arisen, someone, as in the aforesaid manner, performs kusala, another person commits akusala and another person again lies down enduring it patiently. N: Here, with reference to the feelings arisen from the seven causes mentioned before, the feelings connected with the body can be warded off, but as to the feelings that are the results of kamma, all medicines and all ways of protection are not suitable for warding them off. In this sutta conventional language has been used. -------- From subco: N: , meaning, caused by bile. After having said , it was said and so on, in order to show their origination. N: Conditioned by bile arises wholesome feeling. As to the words , this means, having prepared the ingredients of the medicine, having prepared the ingredients of the material of pollen for that purpose, , is the exegesis. With equanimity he is indifferent with regard to the production of medicine. N:, meaning, in as far as (feelings) caused by bile and so on, are evident to oneself and the world, the recluses and brahmans who go beyond this are therefore wrong. N: Also with regard to the three factors including bile and so on, arisen from the combination of bodily humours, (it is said,) arisen from bodily humours. N: Not similar to the former climate, with the words (the Buddha) said:< arisen from uncommon climate>. N: A wasteland, unfavourable land that is without water, harsh and rough earth, (whereas) the countryside should be understood as contrary to the aforesaid. With dust and very cold, or else a great deal of heat. N: Because of inattentive care of the body by unnatural behaviour, arisen because of traveling at the wrong place and time and so on, that are difficult to endure, and should thus be known; therefore, he said:< carrying a heavy load> and so on. N: Originated because of an attack by someone else, with the expression, , he used the words and so on. , meaning, not having expected a condition from outside, therefore, he used the word solely (arisen because of kamma). N: Therefore he said, . They (arisen because of the other conditions) can be warded off because of being master of them. N: This sutta is spoken from the standpoint of worldly convention; (the feelings) arisen from bile, and so on, are designated in the manner of worldly convention. The feelings connected with the sensuous body are actually produced by kamma, but by way of the present condition there is thus this worldly convention; accepting what is thus said, it should be understood that the opponents doctrine is refuted. ***** N: Bile is a more obvious cause of disease to the world, and kamma is not so obvious to the world. Kamma is the real cause of bodily feeling which is painful, unpleasant. Nina. #64422 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:33 am Subject: re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu. nilovg Hallo Joop, I take note of your words: This text is really a solace to me ------ N: D.O. is actuality now. Would you elaborate how this text is helping you? As for me, I think that the present is connected with the past and the future, but let us pay attention to the present. Nina. #64423 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:48 am Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 552- Compassion/karu.naa and Sympathetic Joy/muditaa(i) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) =============================================== Compassion(karu.naa)and Sympathetic Joy(muditaa) As regards rúpåvacara cittas, compassion can accompany the rúpåvacara cittas of the first, second and third stage of jhåna of the fourfold system (and the fourth stage of the fivefold system), but not those of the highest stage of jhåna(1). Compassion does not accompany arúpåvacara cittas nor does it accompany lokuttara cittas, since the object of lokuttara cittas is nibbåna. *** 1) Thus, compassion can accompany twelve types of rúpåvacara cittas (Vis. XIV,157, 181). See Appendix 8. ***** Compassion(karu.naa) and Sympathetic Joy(muditaato) be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #64424 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Retreat inspiration was Name change in Canberra nilovg Dear Michael Kaliyano, Thank you for sharing via Sarah your experiences. You wrote about them in a very sincere way and I appreciate this. I will aso be in Bgk around Jan. 13, maybe we can meet. Nina. Op 17-okt-2006, om 12:13 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > I don't mind if you want to post this to DSG or share it with > > others. It is rather long and maybe not interesting to DSG scholars. #64425 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu jonoabb Hi Scott and Joop and Nina Scott Duncan wrote: > Dear Jon, Nina, and Joop, > > Apologies if this is forward of me; Not at all! You're most welcome as always, and have come up with exactly the reference needed (once again). Many thanks. > Visuddhimagga XVII, 273 > > (Section C. The Wheel of Becoming) > > [(i)The Wheel] > > "Now here at the end sorrow, etc., are stated. Consequently, the > ignorance stated at the beginning of the Wheel of Becoming thus, 'With > ignorance as condition there are formations', is established by the > sorrow and so on. So it should be accordingly understood that: > > *Becoming's Wheel reveals no known beginning; > No maker, no experiencer there; > Void with a twelvefold voidness, and nowhere > It ever halts; forever it is spinning." > > (*Sokaadiihi aviija, siddhaa bhavacakkamaviditaadimicada.m > Kaarakavedakarahita.m, dvaadasavidhasu~n~nataasu~n~na.m. > Satata.m samita.m pavattatiiti veditabha.m.) > > The paali "bhavacakkakathaa" appears to have been translated as "Wheel > of Becoming" in this instance, at least. > Here DO is referred to as the 'Wheel of Becoming'. The text goes on to consider how it is that when there is sorrow, etc (the last link of the chain) there is also ignorance (the first link). Joop, we will come to this in due course with the Nina/Larry Vism corner thread, so I think it's better to leave further detailed discussion until then. In brief, though, since sorrow is indicative of the presence of kilesas ignorance must also present. On the general question of DO and multiple lifetimes, please consider the implication of the fact that under the reverse order of DO sorrow and suffering come to an end only with the cessation of ignorance, that is to say, sorrow and suffering must continue until ignorance has been completely eradicated (no matter how long that may take). Thanks again, Scott. Any further thoughts? Jon #64426 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] How to explain kamma to a newcomer to Buddhism? The starkids. sarahprocter... Dear Nina (James & all), --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Sarah, James, > Sarah I am glad you quoted. It is touching the way the kid writes > after the shock of the Bali bomb and the kind, sensitive way James > answers, so well adapted to the child's world. > I sure appreciate it and like rereading it. .... S: Yes, his letters are very sensitive and appropriate for children. Let me post his next one to the same child, Jan as you'd like to re-read them and many others won't have seen them. (Under 'Children' in U.P). Sarah. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/16950 Re: hi James! --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Star Kid wrote: > > Dear James, > > Thx for replying my e-mail, i was really surprised > about how many e-mails i got from my old letter. > > I also agree with you about buddhism. It is a happy > way to live and view of life. > > I wanted to ask you this, are you a Buddhist or a > Christian? Im very curious because i thought most > Americans were Christians but now i realized i was > wrong. > > And thx again ... i hope you will reply soon! > Jo > > De Liver > > De Letter > > De Sooner > > De Better > > De Later > > De Letter > > De Madder > > I Getter > > Thx Hi Star Kid! (AKA Jan): It is good to hear from you again! Thank you for your letter. You sound more happy and that makes me more happy. Buddhism will make you happy because it helps you to see things as they really are. Then there is no need for fear, or sadness, or being mean to other people. You are a very smart girl to know this. To answer your question, I am a Buddhist; I am not a Christian. I am a Buddhist because I believe, with all my heart, in the Buddha, his teachings, and the need to have and support Buddhist friends and monks. These three things are called `The Triple Gem', and to me they are worth more than any gems like diamonds, rubies, or emeralds. They are worth more than all the money in the world! However, being a Buddhist or being a Christian doesn't really matter- people are still people. Christians believe in `GOD'; Buddhists believe in `GOOD'. One little letter doesn't make that much difference- does it? :-) Take care of yourself Jan. Study hard and listen to your teachers. You have a good start in life and a great future ahead of you! Love, James "And will you succeed? Yes! You will, indeed! (98 and ¾ percent guaranteed.) KID, YOU'LL MOVE MOUNTIANS! Today is your day! Your mountain is waiting So...get on your way!" -Dr. Seuss #64427 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:04 am Subject: Re: ADL 96 scottduncan2 Dear Nina, Thanks for your reply. I find the word "a~n~nathaabhaavi" to be quite a beautiful one. Becoming other. N: "It is another word for changing, susceptible to change. Becoming different. This is a figurative, conventional way of explaining that the eyesense does not last, that it falls away. We can notice changes in the eyesense and in the whole body after a long time and this is a reminder that in reality each rupa of the body falls away immediately and is replaced by a new rupa so long as there are conditions for it. At each moment, there is nothing left of the body but there are conditions for new rupas. When the Buddha said: the body is becoming other, it was a gentle way of pointing to the impermanence of all conditioned dhammas. So the term refers to change over long periods of time, or is it also meant in the sense of rapid momentary change? I see that that is what was being taught. I like to know that it is in the nature of eyesense etc., to be constantly "a~n~nathaabhaavi". Sincerely, Scott. #64428 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu sarahprocter... Hi Swee Boon (Plamen, Joop, Larry & all), Thanks for your comments and apt sutta quote. --- nidive wrote: > I think you have summarized D.O. pretty well. Because of Ignorance and > Craving, a person fabricates three kinds of kamma here and now in this > very life: (1) bright kamma, (2) dark kamma and (3) bright & dark > kamma. Because of the fabrication of these three kinds of kamma, there > is the corresponding result of a future birth, a future aging, a > future death, and a whole mass of future stress & suffering. > > From the cessation of Ignorance and Craving, there comes the cessation > of fabrication of these three kinds of kamma here and now in this very > life. For one who touches the release that comes from the cessation of > kamma, there is then no possibility of a future birth, a future aging, > a future death, and a whole mass of future stress & suffering. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html <....> S: This also reminds me of Plamen's comment: P:"A Manual of Abhidhamma (p. 294) says, permanent scepticism (P. niyata micchaditthi, Skt. niyata mithyadrsti) is a very grave karma along with the five garuka-kammas - causing a Sangha schism, wounding a Buddha, killing an arhat, one's mother or father." ... S: Certain or fixed wrong view (niyata micchaditthi)perhaps? And of the wrong views, the most serious is said to be the belief that there is no kamma, no results of deeds performed in this life and future lives.... (Larry, can you or someone give me the ref for the above in CMA out of interest?). .... S:> > Again, to repeat what I said last time, 'I think it's very difficult > > to read the suttas and to come away with any impression that there > > is no round of births and deaths and no samsara...the truth is that > > birth will always follow death while there is a cause for such and > > this is the Buddha's teaching.' > SB:> Completely agree. .... S: Good to find so much agreement these days, Swee Boon. Plamen, I'm still coming back on 'Space'. I've had computer problems - long delays. Just found out I needed some extra memory added. (In the meantime, see 'Space' in U.P.) Joop, I'll also be coming back to your posts - just doing short easy ones for now. Thanks for your well-considered comments. I note one of our threads has taken off into a new direction completely:-). Metta, Sarah ======== #64429 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu scottduncan2 Dear Jon, Thanks, I was a bit worried I'd jumped in like a bull in a china shop, sending all that ridiculously precious crockery a-flying and a-breaking. J: "On the general question of DO and multiple lifetimes, please consider the implication of the fact that under the reverse order of DO sorrow and suffering come to an end only with the cessation of ignorance, that is to say, sorrow and suffering must continue until ignorance has been completely eradicated (no matter how long that may take). "...Any further thoughts?" I have no doubt regarding multiple lifetimes, for one. Secondly I see DO as it is described or set out for didactic purposes to only appear to be linear, this being an illusion caused by words, the rules of grammar and by discursive thought. Is it correct to see DO, rather, as showing that each moment is a complex arising borne upon a beautiful weave of conditions? (Including the brief period being discussed elsewhere at death and birth in the next existence). With loving kindness, Scott. #64430 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:30 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Mind - What is it? sarahprocter... Hi Charles D, --- Charles DaCosta wrote: > Who Knows how the Theravadan School define the Mind and its functions? .... S: The closest I can think of is citta (consciousness). It is the (impermanent) cognizing or experiencing of an object. Seeing is consciousness (citta) Hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and thinking are all very briefly arising kinds of consciousness. Sometimes mano is used which has the same meaning. This may be translated as 'mind', but it's not the Mind we are used to thinking of in a scientific or philosophical sense. Remember, there are only 3 kinds of conditioned dhammas which arise and fall away - cittas, cetasikas and rupas. How are we doing? Metta, Sarah p.s On the questions others have been asking about teaching beginners on kamma and so on, do you have ideas? I think the sections in Useful Posts under 'Abhidhamma - beginners' and 'Kamma- beginners' may be helpful. What do you think about them? ========= #64431 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 12:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Books on Dhamma upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/17/06 1:36:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > In every post on this thread I have tried to make one particular > point, namely, that the tilakkhana are not concepts. You obviously > disagree, which is fine, but I just want to make it clear: as I > understand it, anicca, dukkha and anatta are not concepts. ------------------------------------ Howard: That nothing lasts is true and is a concept. That nothing satisfies is true and is a concept. That nothing is/has self is true and is a concept. ----------------------------------- > > I'll admit that they are not paramattha dhammas. > ------------------------------------ Howard: Ah, so you agree. :-) -------------------------------------- Normally, we say> > something has to be either a paramattha dhamma or a concept, and so > there is bound to be confusion over 'characteristics of paramattha > dhammas.' Characteristics are not classified as paramattha dhammas > because they do not have their own sabhava. They are sabhava. --------------------------------------- Howard: Keep it simple, Ken. IMO, you are proliferating concepts and getting over-involved with conceptual categorization. Neither you nor I need a perfect system of conceptual thought and categorization. What we need, as I see it, is to ease up and let go. We need to drop the conceptual and emotional papan~nca. ----------------------------------------- > > -------------- > H: > Cessation is just as much (or as little) concept as change, > for change is no more than cessation and arising. Hey, Ken, do > Abhidhamma and the commentaries speak of processes, and sequences of > states? They are concept. Shall the tilakkhana be dismissed due to > being concept? > -------------- > > Processes of cittas are not, in themselves, dhammas. They do not arise > and fall, they do not possess sabhava, and therefore, they do not > really exist. The tilakkhana, on the other hand, do exist. ------------------------------------ Howard: They are three statements of fact. ------------------------------------- > > ------------------------------- > H: >Actually, all three of the > tilakkhana are denials which is about as close as speech can get to > reality. > ------------------------------- > > That is your understanding of the texts, and you might be right, but I > believe otherwise. ---------------------------------- Howard: Sounds like a fair attitude. :-) ---------------------------------- > > --------------------------------------------- > H: >They deny that anything conditioned remains, that anything > conditioned satisfies, and that anything has/is self. > ---------------------------------------------- > > I agree, except I would not classify such denials as speech. I would > classify them as manifestations of panna, which directly knows the > characteristics of dhammas. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: They are three facts. ------------------------------------------------ > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > H: >As for "change", dhammas cease, do they not? New dhammas arise, > do they not? Does that all happen at the same time? At differing > times? Statements such as "There is just 'now'." are merely > conceptualizing, and when the content is relentlessly pursued, it > doesn't hold up. > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > The statement "There is only the present moment" is, of course, a > concept. It refers to a specific set of dhammas that forms the entire > universe (of the present moment). Confusingly, the present moment can > be divided into three sub-moments in which dhammas arise, persist, and > fall away respectively. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: That arising, leveling off, and subsiding wave picture appeals to me as well, Ken. And the people who came up with it may well be right. But you don't know it, and neither do I. (What would it do to you to discover it were not so?) And the terminology of moment and sub-moments is *bound* to not match the reality. Why do you care about that scheme anyway? --------------------------------------------------------- But they are the same dhammas (no dhammas are> > added or removed), and so the concept of one present moment is a valid > concept. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Don't cling to the concept Ken. Of all the attachments we [you andI] need to loosen, it is our attachment to ideas that is foremost. For example, I need to allow myself to at least consider the possibility that my phenomenalism is wrong, and that Jon and some others are right. -------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------------------- > H: >Concepts are just pointers. ALL > concepts are just pointers. That includes all the concepts of the > Buddhadhamma. Dhamma is not about concepts. It is about training to > directly see what is what and to awaken. > --------------------------------------------- > > Yes, but it is a training in which there is no trainee. That is the > crucial point that so many Buddhists overlook. They put anatta in the > 'too hard' basket. Or maybe they put it in the 'don't want to know' > basket. That would be because they desire - more than anything else - > to be the trainee. > > ------------------------------------- > H: > My point is not one of clinging to particular concepts, Ken. In > fact, it is exactly the opposite - namely to point out that all > conceptualization is fundamentally flawed, and that what is needed is > to see *through* all that. > -------------------------------------- > > Self is a mere concept. Dhammas are realities. Words such as "citta" > and "cetasika" are concepts, but the dhammas they refer to are > realities. I think some people (e.g., Geoff as quoted by Joop) take > the petulant attitude: 'If the self can't be real then dhammas can't > be real either!' > > ----------------------------- > KH: >>Anicca, on the other hand, is not a concept. It is a > characteristic of every conditioned dhamma, and it can be directly > observed. > > H: > Cessation can be directly observed. So can arising. Stop > thinking about it and start looking. > ----------------------------- > > Insight is a matter of understanding, not of looking. ----------------------------------------- Howard: We can come to understand what we "see", not what we merely think about. The word 'pa~n~na' is paired with the word 'sati', not 'pa~n~natti'. You are wrong about this. Thinking plays a very important role, bu without "looking", it will never lead to awakening. ------------------------------------------- > > -------------------- > H: >Until and unless we see reality directly, all this > talk is nothing but concept. Some is useful pointing, and some is > harmful pointing, but all of it is merely a pointing. > --------------------- > > We occasionally see a reference to "merely pointing" "fingers pointing > to the moon" and that sort of thing, but I must admit I don't get it. > Is it another way of saying, "Stop thinking - just do it?" > > Pointing seems to be synonymous with teaching, which is what the > Buddha did. Did he ever say, "Don't listen to me! Just do it!" > > ------------ > <. . .> > KH: >>I think you are saying we should not take the Abhidhamma too > >literally. Other people (e.g., Bhikkhu Thanissaro) have told us not > to take anatta too literally. They say anatta is just a device for > >getting meditators in the right frame of mind. The same people tell > us that paramattha dhammas should not be taken literally. > > > H: > I'm saying to not confuse maps for terrain, to not confuse > stories with reality. I'm saying to stop thinking and start looking. > ------------ > > Dhamma stories are about ultimate reality, and they must be > understood. When there is right understanding the other right factors > arise with it. There is no place in Dhamma-practice for looking. > > ------------------- > H: > And please don't throw the "not-self-strategy" nonsense at me as > an accusation. I have never accepted that, and if you've paid > attention to what I've written before you would know that. > ------------------- > > I do know that, and I wasn't making an accusation. In an effort to be > concise, I might have left a few i's undotted and t's uncrossed. > > Reading it again, I see that I wrote, "Other people have told us." > That would normally mean "not you" would it not? You are very exacting > in your demands for clarity! But I can understand that. I wouldn't > want to be associated with the anatta-as-strategy crowd either. :-) ----------------------------------- Howard: ;-) ----------------------------------- > > ---------------------------- > KH: >>It is not in the Tipitaka, it is not Dhamma, and it is a wrong path. >> H: > LOL! I am quite confident that the Buddha would heartily disagree with you! ---------------------------- Phew! I got off lightly with that one! :-) Ken H ====================== This is a pleasant conversation, Ken. (We're getting along more easily these days, which s wondeful :-) With metta, Howard #64432 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Nina, Lodewijk and Howard at the Petrossian restaurant sarahprocter... Hi James, Nina, Howard, Chris & all, OK, just got the names fixed. I think I wasn't successful yesterday because of the computer problems I've been having. Jon's now taken the computer to a shop and helped me get some extra memory and it's like having a new computer. Even the screen image is clearer - just like getting a new pair of glasses and wondering why one had been straining the eyes for so long.... No longer time to make a cup of tea in between waiting for screen changes however!! --- Christine Forsyth wrote: > Dear Howard, > > We all go through it when someone else puts our photos on dsg. I > can remember years ago when Sukin (I think) posted one of me on my > first visit to Bangkok, and I obsessed for weeks about my 'flat > hair'. :-) After that, there were various ones in Sri Lanka, Burma > or India when I thought 'Can that really be me? Surely I'm really > thinner/younger/shorter/taller/more devastatingly attractive :-) > (select adjective) ...' > But dear dhamma friends simply pointed out the definition > of 'mana'. :-) .... S: Good to see one of your witty posts, Chris. Ah yes, I remember the flat hair which no one had noticed til you pointed it out a few times :-). And yes, those with cameras definitely hold the upper-hand when it comes to DSG get-togethers.... I could have said that if anyone needs help with up-loading their pic, besides James, Chris also has all the know-how. Where was it you found Larry's pic? In the Non-duality Salon or somewhere? Metta, Sarah ========== #64433 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: some points on art nilovg Hi Phil, what about January? I will be disappointed (conditioned by lobha) if you do not come to Bgk around January 9, when we go to K.K. also. You said you would, didn't you? Do you want me to frwd some mails meanwhile? Nina Op 17-okt-2006, om 6:07 heeft Phil het volgende geschreven: > p.s to nina, sarah, scott, and azita and others whom I owe replies > to. Talk to you again in February. #64434 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ADL 96 nilovg Dear Scott, The Buddha used synonyms , for the beauty of the teachings and to suit those who were to be led to awakening. He actually taught all the time about momentary change. Eyesense: never the same for a moment. Earsense, feeling, thinking, never the same for a moment, and moment is unthinkably short. Nina. Op 17-okt-2006, om 13:04 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: > So the term refers to change over long periods of time, or is it also > meant in the sense of rapid momentary change? I see that that is what > was being taught. I like to know that it is in the nature of eyesense > etc., to be constantly "a~n~nathaabhaavi". #64435 From: "nidive" Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 7:06 am Subject: Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu nidive Hi Joop, > This doctrine of DO refers to present birth. It implies a temporal > sequence. It is not future birth. Hence it is not really an > explanation of rebirth." If D.O. refers only to the present birth, how is the arahant's victory cry to be understood? ------------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bullitt/theravada.html "Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done! There is nothing further for the sake of this world." ------------------------------------------------------------------ It is said whoever comprehends D.O. comprehends the Dhamma. If D.O. refers only to the present birth, for an arahant to shout a victory cry of "BIRTH IS ENDED" sounds like a moron to me. For a fact, the present birth has already ended for you and me and everyone else on DSG. Regards, Swee Boon #64436 From: "nidive" Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 7:18 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu nidive Hi Sarah, > P:"A Manual of Abhidhamma (p. 294) says, permanent scepticism (P. > niyata micchaditthi, Skt. niyata mithyadrsti) is a very grave > karma along with the five garuka-kammas - causing a Sangha schism, > wounding a Buddha, killing an arhat, one's mother or father." > ... > S: Certain or fixed wrong view (niyata micchaditthi)perhaps? And of > the wrong views, the most serious is said to be the belief that > there is no kamma, no results of deeds performed in this life and > future lives.... I am not very sure if it is the most serious, but the Buddha did say that that is Wrong View. -------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Regards, Swee Boon #64437 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Patisambhidamagga and emptiness, accumulations. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 10/17/06 5:12:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > It is your expression it is nothing that could be modified, as Swee > Boon suggested. There is no annihilation, just like the dying- > consciousness that falls away and conditions the rebirth- > consciousness of a new life. As you yourself once quoted: it is > neither the same nor another. But we have to talk more on accumulations. > -------- > H: Akusala citta has ceased, but > > >akusala qualities are accumulated and added to the latent tendencies > >which lie dormant and can at any time condition the arising of > >akusala citta at present. > > ----------------------------------- > Howard: > Well, you take accumulations more literally (more substantially) than > I. > -------- > N: I agree that it is difficult to imagine how accumulations operate. > But think of sa~n~naa: how come you can remember what is past and > gone, say, a mental image of the Petrossian restaurant? You yourself > said: nothing arises from a vacuum. ---------------------------------- Howard: The primary condition for recollection was the sa~n~na - the marking/noting that occurred at the time. -------------------------------- > Sa~n~naa arises and falls away completely with the citta, but since > each citta is succeeded by a next one there is a connection between > past and present. This is possible since our life is an uninterrupted > chain of cittas. Also when fast asleep and there are no objects > impinging on the doorways, there are still cittas arising and falling > away: the bhavangacittas. > You did not see the sense of knowing about bhavangacittas since their > object cannot be known. Right, but, it is important to know about > them, otherwise we cannot understand how good and bad inclinations, > how kamma (actually kusala and akusala volition or intention) can be > accumulated from one moment to the next moment. > What is accumulated in the citta arises and falls away, so there is > nothing lasting. Moreover, accumulations change: time and again > kusala citta or akusala citta arises and falls away and then the > kusala and akusala qualities are accumulated. Otherwise we could > never retain what we once learnt, or wisdom could not grow and develop. > ****** > Nina. > ====================== With metta, Howard #64438 From: "Joop" Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu jwromeijn Hallo Jon, Nina, Scott, all Jon: " Joop, we will come to this in due course with the Nina/Larry Vism corner thread, so I think it's better to leave further detailed discussion until then." Joop: Perhaps you remember my second DSG-rule: in a exchange of messages it must be clear if this discussion is withìn the frame of reference of Buddhaghosa cs OR that it is abòùt that frame of reference. When Nina only writes "within" and I only write "about" then the discussions gets a failure. So that at this moment my position is: I will not discuss Buddhaghosa at all. But, as I said to Nina some days ago: I wait and see. Already, while waiting, one remark on your statement; Jon: "On the general question of DO and multiple lifetimes, please consider the implication of the fact that under the reverse order of DO sorrow and suffering come to an end only with the cessation of ignorance, that is to say, sorrow and suffering must continue until ignorance has been completely eradicated" Joop: It's not a question but an interpretation of D.O. I'm tolerant enough to give the three-lifetimers room for their interpretation, but I still want to know if they also want to accept AND discuss any other interpretation. Nina, thanks for your message #64420 And special thanks for your message #64422, N: "D.O. is actuality now. Would you elaborate how this text is helping you? As for me, I think that the present is connected with the past and the future, but let us pay attention to the present. " Three remarks for this moments: (1) I get a little tired of this topic, repeating and repeating. Some months ago I started many posts about the timescale of D.O, especially #60551 and #60568 can be called U.P. The discussion about this has hardly been fruitful in my eyes. That's why my 'solace' remark is a bit desperate: what am i doing here? And DO can very good be applied in the present, as (2) No reason to be original, so I refer again (for the ex-th time) to: Dependent Origination; The Buddhist Law of Conditionality by P. A. Payutto ( www.buddhismtoday.com/english/philosophy/thera/002-dependent5.htm ) (3) Who's past? Who's future? In saying this you are mixing the concrete present with the abstract past and abstract future, my intuition says that's not good reasoning. Metta Joop --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Scott and Joop and Nina > Joop, we will come to this in due course with the Nina/Larry Vism corner > thread, so I think it's better to leave further detailed discussion > until then. In brief, though, since sorrow is indicative of the > presence of kilesas ignorance must also present. > > On the general question of DO and multiple lifetimes, please consider > the implication of the fact that under the reverse order of DO sorrow > and suffering come to an end only with the cessation of ignorance, that > is to say, sorrow and suffering must continue until ignorance has been > completely eradicated (no matter how long that may take). #64439 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:08 am Subject: Plamen's Quote Has Been Edited- Re: Bhavanga : Attention, Robert K, Scott D abhidhammika Dear Plamen, Robert K, Scott D, Nina and all How are you? Scott, I am well. Hope you are, too. Plamen wrote: "I would appreciate your stand on Satipatthana Sutta Commentary saying that bhavanga is performing the functions of patisandhi- citta." No, Plamen, Satipa.t.thaana Sutta Commentary did not say that bhavanga is performing the functions of pa.tisandhicitta. In fact, the quote you copied is not even from Satipa.t.thaana Sutta Commentary. It is part of subcommentary on Saamaññaphala Sutta from Diighanikaayo. And, the context of the quoted passage is merely description of a cakkhuviññaviithi (the process path of visual consciousness arising). It wasn't explaining the process of rebirth at all, as you seemed to be suggesting. Dear, Robert K, I have edited the Pali passage Plamem seemed to copy from your website. I also provided the correct references which are absent in the quoted pali passage. You are very welcome to replace the old Pali passage with my edited Pali passages from Satipa.t.thaana Sutta commentary, Saamaññaphala Sutta Commentary, Saamaññaphala Sutta Subcommentary, and Special New Saamaññaphala Sutta Subcommentary with their full references. By the way, Special New Saamaññaphala Sutta Subcommentary (Saamaññaphala Sutta Abhinava.tiikaa) is written by a Myanmar Sayadaw in ancient Myanmar Kingdom. The following is Pali passages in full in their proper context starting from the one from A.t.thakathaa. You will see that it was descibing the seven vitthicittas in their order of appearance. Also, please observe the opening statement in the Pali passage from the Special New Saamaññaphala Sutta Subcommentary where it explicitly defines the term 'tattha' as 'among those seven consciousnesses shown in the verse (Tatthaati tesu gaathaaya dassitesu sattasu cittesu).' By the way, that opening statement (Tatthaati tesu ...) is missing in the quoted Pali passage, thereby allowing Plamen to misunderstand the context and accusing the Satipa.t.thaana Commentary of saying what it did not. Now, the Pali passages: " `Bhavangaavajjanañceva, dassanam sampa.ticchanam; santiira.nam vo.t.thabbanam, javanam bhavati sattamam.' Tattha bhavangam upapattibhavassa angakiccam saadhayamaanam pavattati,.." Section 109, Muulapa.n.naasava.n.nanaa , Majjhimanikaaya A.t.thakathaa, and Section 214, Saamaññaphala Sutta A.t.thakathaa, Siilakkhandhavaggava.n.nanaa, Diighanikaayo. "Angakiccam saadhayamaananti padhaanabhuuta-angakiccam nipphaadentam hutvaati attho." Section 214, Saamaññaphala Sutta .tiikaa, Siilakkhandhavaggava.n.nanaa, Diighanikaaya.tiikaa. Tatthaati tesu gaathaaya dassitesu sattasu cittesu. Angakiccam saadhayamaananti padhaanabhuuta-angakiccam nipphaadentam, sariiram hutvaati vuttam hoti. Bhavangañhi pa.tisandhisadisattaa padhaanamangam, padhaanañca "sariiran"ti vuccati, avicchedappavattihetubhaavena vaa kaara.nakiccam saadhayamaananti attho. Section 214, Saamaññaphala Sutta Abhinava.tiikaa, Siilakkhandhavaggava.n.nanaa , Diighanikaaya Abhinava.tiikaa. With best wishes, Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Plamen Gradinarov" wrote: Re: cuticitta and bhavanga > Thus, the correct sequence of vipaakamanoviñña is cuticitta, > pa.tisandhicitta, and bhavangacitta for the phenomenon of linking > between the immediately previous life and the present life. Dear Suan, Thank you for your intervention. I would appreciate your stand on Satipatthana Sutta Commentary saying that bhavanga is performing the functions of patisandhi-citta. "Fulfilling the function of a (main) factor of the rebirth-process means: accomplishing the principal work of a link; what is stated by that is this: having become substance. The life-continum is, indeed, the principal factor and the principal basis because of similarity to the relinking mind. Therefore, it is called the principal factor and basis or it is called so owing to its fulfilling of the function of a ground or reason by way of the causal condition of unbroken procedure [patthana bhutam anga kiccam nipphadentam asariram hutvati vuttam hoti, bhavangam hi patisandhi sadisatta patthanam angam patthanañca sariranti vuccati, avicchedappavatti hetu bhavena va karana kiccam sadhayamananti attho]." http://www.abhidhamma.org/CommentaryBody.htm Kindest regards, Plamen #64440 From: "Joop" Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:25 am Subject: Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > > Hi Joop, > > > This doctrine of DO refers to present birth. It implies a temporal > > sequence. It is not future birth. Hence it is not really an > > explanation of rebirth." > > If D.O. refers only to the present birth, how is the arahant's victory > cry to be understood? > Hallo Swee Boon, I'm sure that when Buddhadasa said "present birth" he meaned "present life", so partly your remark is based on a misunderstanding. I have read about "cry", the "lion's roar" of a arahant. Why this example? Theravadins talk too much about how it is to be arahant; there is time enough start thinking about that when I got stream- enterer. Thinking about arahants does not help us. For the rest it is simple: this "cry" is not explained by D.O.; this cry is about samsara. Metta Joop #64441 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:00 am Subject: Re: Fwd: Retreat inspiration was Name change in Canberra buddhatrue Hi Michael, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > off-list reply from Michael K which he says I'm welcome to f/w to DSG. This is a beautiful gem of a post: revealing, honest, and inspiring. Best wishes for your continued practice. Metta, James #64442 From: "nidive" Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:14 am Subject: Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu nidive Hi Joop, > I'm sure that when Buddhadasa said "present birth" he meaned > "present life", so partly your remark is based on a > misunderstanding. The birth associated with the present life has ended for you and me and all others on DSG. This is a fact. > I have read about "cry", the "lion's roar" of a arahant. Why this > example? Theravadins talk too much about how it is to be arahant; > there is time enough start thinking about that when I got stream- > enterer. Thinking about arahants does not help us. You are evading my question. > For the rest it is simple: this "cry" is not explained by D.O.; > this cry is about samsara. This is the victory cry of one who has fully penetrated D.O. in both forward and reverse orders. It is the Buddha's very victory cry. Regards, Swee Boon #64443 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:50 am Subject: Jewish Mystical Nothingness and Bhavanga Cittas upasaka_howard Hi, all - Some thing I have noted that might be of interest to some: The founder of Chassidism, Israel Ben Eliezer, also known as the Baal Shem Tov ("Master of the Good Name") had a chief disciple by the name of Dov Baer, the "Maggid (preacher) of Meseritch". This Dov Baer has impressed me. One of the things he emphasized was "nothingness", or, better, "no-thing-ness". Among the things he said about it is that all change requires a passing through nothingness. A cannot change to B without there being a passing through nothingness, an ineffable no-thing-ness that is neither A nor B nor both nor neither. The Dhamma has a similar but different notion: In order for change to be possible, nothing can have unconditional, solidified, self-existence, but, instead, has a middle-way, relative, contingent mode of existence, a mode that is not passed through but is always in force. But I also have another thought of how the Dhamma may have a notion even more similar to Dov Baer's notion of passing through no-thing-ness. This may be where bhavanga states come in. Perhaps they are not true cittas in the full-blown sense, but, instead, "no-thing-ness transitions" between consecutive active mindstates. Perhaps the regular cittas are waves that rise, crest, and subside, and the basis for the notion of bhavanga cittas is the zero-point-level of the troughs between consecutive mindstate-waves. (Just a bit of musing on my part.) With metta, Howard P.S I read this to my wife who commented "I don't find that musing particularly amusing!" LOL! Of course, she's right. It's just so much additional playing with concepts - fun, but not worth all that much! ;-) #64444 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:02 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily Life, 97. nilovg Dear friends, In the process of citta, the pa~nca-vi~n~naa.na is succeeded by sampaìicchana-citta. This citta which performs the function of sampaìicchana, receiving the object, receives the object after the pa~nca-vi~n~naa.na has fallen away. Sampaìicchana-citta is ahetuka vipåka. Two kinds of citta can perform this function: one is akusala vipåka and one is kusala vipåka. Kamma does not only produce the dvi-pa~nca-vi~n~naa.nas (the five pairs) and sampaìicchana-citta, it also produces santiira.na-citta (investigating-consciousness) which succeeds sampaìicchana-citta. santiira.na-citta performs in the sense-door process the function of investigating the object, santiira.na; it is ahetuka vipåkacitta. The function of investigating the object is another function of citta, different from seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, experiencing tangible object through the bodysense and sampa.ticchana, receiving. As we have seen (in chapter 9), there are three kinds of santiira.na- citta which can perform the function of investigating: 1. santiira.na-citta which is akusala vipåka, accompanied by upekkhå 2. santiira.na-citta which is kusala vipåka, accompanied by upekkhå 3. santiira.na-citta which is kusala vipåka, accompanied by somanassa (when the object is extraordinarily pleasant) santiira.na-citta is succeeded by votthapana-citta, determining- consciousness. Votthapana is another function of citta; the votthapana-citta determines the object in the sense-door process. After it has determined the object it is succeeded by kusala cittas or by akusala cittas. Votthapana-citta is not vipåka, it is not kusala or akusala but it is an ahetuka kiriyacitta. The conditions for its arising are different from the conditions for santiira.na- citta which is produced by kamma. As we have seen (in Chapter 9), the citta which performs the function of votthapana is the ahetuka kiriyacitta which is classified as mano-dvåråvajjana-citta. The mano- dvåråvajjana-citta performs two functions: in the mind-door process it performs the function of adverting to the object through the mind- door, and in the sense-door process it performs the function of votthapana and then it can be called, after its function, votthapana- citta. ***** Nina. #64445 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:05 am Subject: Letters from Nina, 78 nilovg Dear friends, I would like to include in this letter also Dhamma questions I received from others. Question: In order to lead a wholesome life is it sufficient to keep the five precepts? I feel that so long as one does not harm others there are no defilements. Is that right? Answer: We may keep the precepts, but that does not mean that we have eradicated defilements. Only arahats are without defilements. We should develop understanding of our different cittas and then we shall discover that there are many more akusala cittas than kusala cittas. There are different degrees of defilements, they can be coarse, medium or subtle. Evil deeds through body, speech or mind are coarse defilements. But even when we do not commit evil deeds there are countless akusala cittas and these are medium defilements. For example, attachment or aversion may not motivate an unwholesome deed, but they are still akusala and thus dangerous. Akusala citta which arises falls away but the unwholesome tendency is accumulated and it can condition the arising of akusala again. The unwholesome tendencies which are accumulated are subtle defilements. Even though they are called subtle, they are dangerous. They are like microbes infesting the body, they can show effects at any time. So long as these tendencies have not been eradicated they can condition the arising of akusala citta and akusala kamma, and we have to continue in the cycle of birth and death. ***** Nina #64446 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Patisambhidamagga and emptiness, accumulations. nilovg Hi Howard, yes, sa~n~naa marks and/or/remembers at each and every moment of citta. And when an object is experienced through the mind-door we dwell on it with kusala citta or akusala citta. Thinking is never done with a citta that is neither kusala nor akusala. This thinking together with sa~n~naa is accumulated and bears on the present life. Lodewijk added: Sa~n~naa is the most striking example that we cannot rule over cittas, it is beyond control. We cannot tell ourselves: 'I do not wish to remember this', we cannot help remembering certain things we dislike. It keeps on coming back. To come back to connecting with the past: you cannot even finish a sentence, draw conclusions, without sa~n~naa, as Ven. Nyanaponika remarks. I read your post about Dov Baer and Chassidism (I always wanted to know more about it) with interest. As to what he says about nothingness I do not see much resemblance though with the bhavangacitta. This is a vipaakacitta, and it experiences an object, it is a 'fullblown citta' as I see it. Only, the bhavangacitta does not experience an object of what we call this world. When fast asleep you do not know who you are, where you are, what your name is, but still there is citta. This perhaps makes you think of nothingness. Nina. Op 17-okt-2006, om 16:16 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > The primary condition for recollection was the sa~n~na - the > marking/noting that occurred at the time. #64447 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Plamen's Quote Has Been Edited- Re: Bhavanga : Attention, Robert K, Scott D nilovg Dear Suan, Thank you, but I have some trouble with angakiccam (anga being factor) and saadhayamaana: effecting? Please would you translate part of this in English? Thank you. Nina. Op 17-okt-2006, om 17:08 heeft abhidhammika het volgende geschreven: > Tattha bhavangam upapattibhavassa angakiccam > saadhayamaanam pavattati,.." #64448 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Patisambhidamagga and emptiness, accumulations. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 10/17/06 2:39:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > yes, sa~n~naa marks and/or/remembers at each and every moment of > citta. And when an object is experienced through the mind-door we > dwell on it with kusala citta or akusala citta. Thinking is never > done with a citta that is neither kusala nor akusala. > ----------------------------------------- Howard: You're saying that thinking never involves any morally neutral mindstates? Even for a worldling that strikes me as implausible. For an arahant, it strikes me as outright false. ---------------------------------------- This thinking > > together with sa~n~naa is accumulated and bears on the present life. > Lodewijk added: Sa~n~naa is the most striking example that we cannot > rule over cittas, it is beyond control. We cannot tell ourselves: 'I > do not wish to remember this', we cannot help remembering certain > things we dislike. It keeps on coming back. > To come back to connecting with the past: you cannot even finish a > sentence, draw conclusions, without sa~n~naa, as Ven. Nyanaponika > remarks. > I read your post about Dov Baer and Chassidism (I always wanted to > know more about it) with interest. As to what he says about > nothingness I do not see much resemblance though with the > bhavangacitta. This is a vipaakacitta, and it experiences an object, > it is a 'fullblown citta' as I see it. Only, the bhavangacitta does > not experience an object of what we call this world. When fast asleep > you do not know who you are, where you are, what your name is, but > still there is citta. This perhaps makes you think of nothingness. -------------------------------------- Howard: Well, maybe there isn't a match with the notion of bhavanga citta. But the passing through "nothingness transitions" between mindstates does ring true to me. ------------------------------------ > Nina. > Op 17-okt-2006, om 16:16 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > > >The primary condition for recollection was the sa~n~na - the > >marking/noting that occurred at the time. > > ===================== With metta, Howard #64449 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Patisambhidamagga and emptiness, accumulations. upasaka_howard Hi again, Nina - In a message dated 10/17/06 3:27:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: > Howard: > Well, maybe there isn't a match with the notion of bhavanga citta. But > the passing through "nothingness transitions" between mindstates does ring > true > to me. > ======================== What I mean by this second sentence is the following: It is said there is never even a moment without consciousness, though perhaps it might be low-level consciousness. Now, think of a process-boundary at which the old state had an ear-door object and the next-state had an eye-door object. At no time were both objects present, and at no time was no object present. So, there had to be a transition-state where there was neither the first object, nor the second object, nor both objects, nort no object. That transition point has to be an ineffable, indescribable something-or-other event that is quite mysterious - what might be called passing through no-thing-ness. With metta, Howard #64450 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:12 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: some points on art ken_aitch Hi Sarah (Phil and all), Reading Phil's post to Jon reminded me of this one of mine to you (which has been lingering in my drafts folder for so long that I have forgotten which thread it belongs to). ---------------- <. . .> S: > K.Sujin was stressing the importance of understanding elements rather than studying 'people' or 'Me': ------------------ The two are mutually exclusive, aren't they? We might like to think that Dhamma study gives us the ability to analyse other people and ourselves, but it probably doesn't. I watch the TV show, "The Sopranos," religiously. (It is the best drama to come out of America.) These truly sick, insatiable, homicidal mafia-monsters display generosity love and courage in ways that are indistinguishable from the way ordinary people display them. And yet it can't be the real thing can it? Or maybe it can, sometimes. They were all born human with varying degrees of health, beauty and intelligence, and so they must have some good kamma behind them. They must have some good accumulations too. -------------------------------- S: > KS: "We are learning to understand the elements - studying the element of citta, the element of cetasika, the element of rupa. So there's no question about 'how' and 'I' and 'me' at all. -------------------------------- Delete, delete, . . .! I had written a great screed wondering what might be meant by the word "how" in this context. Looking ahead to the next sentence would have saved me the trouble: ------------------------------------------- S: > KS: > "We do not have any authority to do anything at all - just developing the understanding (of them) as they are, not as 'I' want it to be, not 'why can't it be like this'." ------------------------------------------- In other words - not "how" I want it to be. ------------------------------------------------------ S: > "It's like any subject, but this is the subject of elements. Because they are elements, they are not self - that's the way to study dhamma and see dhamma is dhamma. ------------------------------------------------------ Got it! ----------------- <. . .> S: > KS: "it depends what they'd like to hear - the Self or the elements." ----------------- This reminds me of an opinion I held, years ago, until you put the kybosh on it. I had the impression that the Buddha taught that *all* thoughts of self were akusala (arose in akusala cittas). You pointed to examples such as, "I will rescue this drowning person," or, "I will read a Dhamma book (etc), " in which thoughts of self might be perfectly proper. I am still not totally convinced. Maybe we can get back to it later if you still have the patience. :-) As I was saying, it was Phil's latest post that reminded me of this one. Phil couldn't agree with Jon that accumulations stayed the same (or not measurably different) throughout the course of a lifetime. But they do, of course; adze handles are not made of butter! :-) I think the present lifetime can be seen as a simile for a paramattha dhamma. It can be understood (in the light of the Dhamma), but it can't be controlled or made into something it isn't. We have to sympathise with Phil for wanting to add saccharin to the Dhamma - to make it more palatable to newcomers. But that is not the way. Whether we see it properly or not, the Dhamma is perfectly sweet as it is. Ken H #64451 From: LBIDD@... Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 7:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu lbidd2 HI Sarah and Plamen, P: " "A Manual of Abhidhamma (p. 294) says, permanent scepticism (P. niyata micchaditthi, Skt. niyata mithyadrsti) is a very grave karma along with the five garuka-kammas - causing a Sangha schism, wounding a Buddha, killing an arhat, one's mother or father." ... S: "Certain or fixed wrong view (niyata micchaditthi)perhaps? And of the wrong views, the most serious is said to be the belief that there is no kamma, no results of deeds performed in this life and future lives.... (Larry, can you or someone give me the ref for the above in CMA out of interest?)." L: In "A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" (CMA) see p. 207: "Wrong view (micchaadi.t.thi) becomes a full course of action when it assumes the form of one of the morally nihilistic views which deny the validity of ethics and the retributive consequences of action. Three such views are mentioned often in the Sutta Pi.taka: "(i) nihilism (natthika-di.t.thi), which denies the survival of the personality in any form after death, thus negating the moral significance of deeds; "(ii) the inefficacy of action view (akiriya-di.t.thi), which claims that deeds have no efficacy in producing results and thus invalidates moral distinctions; and "(iii) the acausality view (ahetukadi.t.thi), which states that there is no cause or condition for the defilement and purification of beings, that beings are defiled and purified by chance, fate, or necessity." L: Here also are some clarifying snippets from the "Buddhist Dictionary" and "Majjhima Nikaaya": BD: "The so-called 'evil views with fixed destiny' (niyata-miccháditthi) constituting the last of the 10 unwholesome courses of action (kammapatha, q.v.), are the following three: (1) the fatalistic 'view of the uncausedness' of existence (ahetukaditthi), (2) the view of the inefficacy of action' (akiriyaditthi), (3) nihilism (natthikaditthi)." MN60, note 621: "The three views discussed in pars. 5, 13 and 21 are called wrong views with fixed evil result (niyataa micchaa di.t.thi). To adhere to them with firm conviction closes off the prospect of a heavenly rebirth and the attainment of liberation. For a fuller discussion see Bodhi, "Discourse on the Fruits of Recluseship", pp. 79-83." BD: "kamma-patha: 'course of action', is a name for the group of 10 kinds of either unwholesome or wholesome actions, viz. I. The tenfold unwholesome courses of action (akusala-kamma-patha): "3 bodily actions: killing, stealing, unlawful sexual intercourse; "4 verbal actions: lying, slandering, rude speech, foolish babble; "3 mental actions: covetousness, ill-will, evil views. "Unwholesome mental courses of action comprise only extreme forms of defiled thought: the greedy wish to appropriate others' property, the hateful thought of harming others, and pernicious views. Milder forms of mental defilement are also unwholesome, but do not constitute 'courses of action'." BD: "ánantarika-kamma: the 5 heinous 'actions with immediate destiny' are: parricide, matricide, killing an Arahat (Saint), wounding a Buddha, creating schism in the monks' Order. In A.V., 129 it is said: "There are 5 irascible and incurable men destined to the lower world and to hell, namely: the parricide," etc. About the 5th see A. X., 35, 38. With regard to the first crime, it is said in D. 2 that if King Ajátasattu had not deprived his father of life, he would have reached entrance into the path of Stream-entry (App.)." under "Karma" ..... "The weighty (garuka) and the habitual (bahula) wholesome or unwholesome karma are ripening earlier than the light and rarely performed karma." L: It appears that wrong views with fixed destiny are not included in the anantarika garuka kamma but their consequence is serious. The views with fixed destiny are actually rather subtle. For example, how is 'no control' not fatalism? Larry http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/dictionary/bdindex.html #64452 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:40 pm Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 553- Compassion/karu.naa and Sympathetic Joy/muditaa(j) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) =============================================== Compassion(karu.naa)and Sympathetic Joy(muditaa) Sympathetic joy, muditå, is the appreciation of someone else’s good fortune. We may think that sympathetic joy is pleasant feeling, but muditå is not feeling. In order to understand its nature we should study what the Visuddhimagga (IX, 95) states about muditå which is here translated as gladness: * "Gladness is characterized as gladdening (produced by others’ success). Its function resides in being unenvious. It is manifested as the elimination of aversion (boredom). Its proximate cause is seeing beings’ success. It succeeds when it makes aversion (boredom) subside, and it fails when it produces merriment." * The Atthasåliní (I, Book I, Part V, Chapter XIII, 193) gives a similar definition. The function of sympathetic joy is being unenvious. When others receive gifts or when they are praised envy may arise. The proximate cause of both envy and sympathetic joy is the same: someone else’s good fortune. Jealousy arises with the akusala citta which is rooted in aversion, dosa-múla-citta. ***** Compassion(karu.naa) and Sympathetic Joy(muditaato) be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #64453 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Patisambhidamagga and emptiness, accumulations. nilovg Hi Howard, The arahat has kiriyacittas, he thinks with kiriyacittas. I was not speaking about the arahat. Yes, it is striking, isn't it, that we cannot think with 'neutral' cittas. Especially when the citta is accompanied by indifferent feeling, we do not notice that it is akusala. But mostly we are thinking with cittas rooted in attachment, aversion, or ignorance. Knowing this can induce a sense of urgency to develop understanding even now. There is seeing and then shortly afterwards defining what is seen, and this is often done with attachment, even slight attachment. We like the thing we perceive. Unknowingly we are in the grip of lobha, dosa and moha, but we do not notice it. There is ignorance. We are thinking and thinking countless times. More and more we can realize that there are many, many more akusala cittas than we ever thought. It is beneficial, thanks to the Buddha that we know this. It is not discouraging, understanding is not discouraging. Without the Buddha's teaching we would never know that this endless thinking and continuing stories is done with akusala cittas. When I say lobha, I do not mean only greed, like, etc. but even a very, very slight holding on to something. Nina. Op 17-okt-2006, om 21:13 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > You're saying that thinking never involves any morally neutral > mindstates? Even for a worldling that strikes me as implausible. > For an arahant, it > strikes me as outright false. #64454 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Books on Dhamma sarahprocter... Hi Ken H (& Howard), Super and most entertaining discussion between you guys as usual:-) --- ken_aitch wrote: > as I > understand it, anicca, dukkha and anatta are not concepts. .... S: Right! .... > > I'll admit that they are not paramattha dhammas. Normally, we say > something has to be either a paramattha dhamma or a concept, and so > there is bound to be confusion over 'characteristics of paramattha > dhammas.' Characteristics are not classified as paramattha dhammas > because they do not have their own sabhava. They are sabhava. .... S: Yes, you're right when you say they are 'characteristics of paramattha dhammas'. Of course, there are several asabhava dhammas which are paramattha dhammas - the non-concretely produced (appa.nihita). CMA V1, #4 (p240 in my copy): - pariccheda aakaasa (space) - kaaya and vaciivi~n~natti (bodily and vocal intimation) - ruupassa lahutaa and mudutaa (mutable rupas) - material production, continuity, decay and impermanence In my older copy, BB has a note that these are not included among the paramattha dhammas, but this is incorrect. As #5 shows, even the last four are included among the 28 rupas. **** Classic Ken H's to add to the list: K:> Insight is a matter of understanding, not of looking. .... K:> Pointing seems to be synonymous with teaching, which is what the > Buddha did. Did he ever say, "Don't listen to me! Just do it!" .... > KH: > > It is not in the Tipitaka, it is not Dhamma, and it is a wrong > path. > > > > > H: > LOL! I am quite confident that the Buddha would heartily > disagree with > you! > ---------------------------- > > Phew! I got off lightly with that one! > :-) ***** S: :-) :-)LOL Metta, Sarah ========= #64455 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Oct 18, 2006 12:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: some points on art sarahprocter... Hi Phil, Thank you for sharing all your reflections on sila and panna. It's always good to read what you are considering and of course it always has to be one's own understanding, not just what others tell us. We have to consider all kinds of viewpoints. --- Phil wrote: > p.s to nina, sarah, scott, and azita and others whom I owe replies > to. Talk to you again in February. Now that the baseball season is > over for me and I'm not obliged to get on and check my fantasy > teams, I will enjoy a break from the internet. Time goes so fast > that you know we'll be talking again soon. .... S: Pls don't ever consider that you 'owe replies'. When you feel inclined to write or share your reflections or musings, that's great. When you need a break, we'll just patiently look forward to hearing from you again when the baseball season resumes if not before:-)). Pls thank Naomi for her kind 'hi'. I hope we meet her someday too. Best wishes for your writing until we next speak. Metta, Sarah ========= #64456 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Oct 18, 2006 12:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Retreat inspiration was Name change in Canberra sarahprocter... Hi Michael(& Sukin), I was delighted to read your detailed and sincere account of your dhamma and retreat reflections. You write beautifully and with good humour. I'm not sure who the 'DSG scholars' are, but as James and Nina have indicated as well, your letter will have been of interest to many people here. > --- Michael Kalyaano wrote: > > > > S: Dhamma is truly the only refuge, just as when life is running > > more smoothly, don't you find? > > > > M: You are right. Though when life is not running smoothly, I don't > > seem to have time or inclination to look for refuge in the Dhammma - > > busy minimizing pain. When life is relatively smooth, kusala cittas > > appear more frequently. Knowing that this will eventually change for > > the worse, get sick and die etc., motivates one - samvega. I guess > > previous Dhamma study comes to mind so now no matter how good life > > appears to be, we know it won't last. Best make hay while the sun > > shines. .... S: Perhaps it depends on individual tendencies - some reflect much more on the Dhamma when the going is tough and others when it's running relatively smoothly as for you. Good reflections on samvega. .... > > > > I'm in good health, I have spare time for Dhamma study and practice, I > > live comfortably with a good job in a safe city with excellent weather > > and beautiful environment. The Buddha said that even to be born a > > human at all is so rare. How much rarer to be in my very fortunate > > circumstances and also to have an interest in the Dhamma? Odds are > > very high indeed. I shouldn't squander this opportunity. How many > > lifetimes before it comes again? .... S: It's good that you appreciate this. (Btw, Suan, a Burmese Australian who sometimes writes here, also lives in Canberra. Perhaps you remember him from before?) ... > > > > I am aware that I could easily take another distracting path of > > interesting obstacles and diversions. This is only latent for now. > > Even so, such a path would not be satisfying for long. The Dhamma > > always comes back to mind eventually. .... S: I think that the firmer the foundation in terms of understanding and consideration, the sooner it 'comes back to mind'. I find that DSG is very helpful in this regard. .... >>I > > have a Burmese Australian friend, Dr Thin, who listens patiently to me > > raving on. When I stop talking she smiles me and reminds me to keep > > practicing. .... S: Sounds like a good, patient friend! .... > > > > > S: I remember your keen study and knowledge of the texts and your > > faith in Buddhadhamma. Btw, part of an edited recording of a > > discussion you had with K.Sujin is in the 'files' section of DSG. .... > > Wow, this is what really made me write again this evening. That > > coversation and other DSG conversations in 2000 made a deep > > impression. I didn't realise this recording was in the files section. <...>>However, the recording of > > the conversation I participated in was different for me because of the > > topics I was interested in then and now. Editing is good. I blushed > > so much during the first 25% of listening to it again this evening. .... S: I hesitated as to whether to mention it, but I'm glad I did. I haven't listened to it for a while, but I remember you sounded very articulate and raised excellent points. Your early posts here also made a deep impression....perhaps sometime I'll find them and give people who weren't around then a link. .... > > > > That promise near the end to do research and find the support for > > meditation is still pending. I haven't forgotten. A few times, I've > > thought, why not just refer DSG to commentaries/discourses by Mahasi > > Sayadaw and other vipassana meditation teachers. I might do it myself > > eventually. ... S: When I first went to India, I studied and 'practiced' with a Mahasi Sayadaw teacher, Munindra. So what you write about and the Mahasi discourses etc were/are very familiar to me. Thx for all the reminders. ... >>I want to try the meditation option a while longer. I > > know others have meditated and found that hasn't worked so they went > > back to books, tapes, conversations and thinking. That might happen > > to me but somehow, I have faith that it won't. I have faith that > > insights will arise through intense mindfulness. .... S: Well, of course it all comes back to the present moment, the present dhammas, regardless. Keep in touch with your reflections, Michael. ... > > > > Until DSG in 2000, I hadn't found anyone focussed on vipassana but > > against meditation. I still disagree. This is not my opinion so much > > as a point of faith arising from practice experiences. Some people > > meditate and faith arises while for others it doesn't. Its not a > > matter of control or willing it to happen. It just happened, like by > > the way... > > > > Why meditate if the intention is not to 'make' faith, energy, > > mindfulness, concentration and wisdom arise? It is because meditation > > is the base, it is the seed bed, the nurturing environment for all > > those things to grow. .... S: You'll find there are many friends here (like James who wrote to you) who agree with what you say. Thanks so much for all the honest detail from your retreat. I particularly enjoyed the marquee incident and your reflection about the deva having pity on the meditatiors:-):-). I'm sure others were glad that you jumped to the rescue of the marquee too! I also enjoyed (if that's the word) the Sayadaw's not being impressed by your fascination and wonder.....Yes, whatever object appears, it disappears and is quite worthless - not worthy of being clung on to at all, no matter how special it may seem. Don't we cling all the time to particularly pleasant or unpleasant feelings, dwelling on them and so on? But they've all gone. I'd forgotten that you were a monk years ago in Thailand. The 'feeling unworthy' is interesting....isn't it a kind of clinging to oneself and one's importance again, a kind of mana (conceit)? I suppose it all depends... ... > > From here, I'm curious about what might happen on a longer retreat. > > In a worldly way, I also wonder whether I can get this meditation > > thing out of my system. It is something I've procrastinated on for > > over 20 years. Now many obstacles are gone and the opportunity appears > > to be arising. Curious, curious... > > > > Now it is past 1:00 AM and I must rest before work tomorrow. Sarah, > > thank you once again for your goodwill and kindness. .... S: Thank you for sharing all your reflections with us. Now you've 'broken the ice' again, I hope you'll chip in or write when you feel inclined before you next go away. Sukin, thanks also for your encouragement and keeping contact with Michael. Do you have any comments to add? Metta, Sarah ======= #64457 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 18, 2006 12:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu nilovg Hi Larry, No control can be seen as an excuse to commit evil deeds. That is a dangerous view. However, it can also be understood with pa~n~naa: there is no self who is master of the dhammas that arise because of their proper conditions. Pa~n~naa can be developed so that it is known: whatever arises is dhamma, not a person or self. Pa~n~naa is also beyond control, but the right conditions can be cultivated: listening, considering, applying what one heard. Nina. Op 18-okt-2006, om 4:41 heeft LBIDD@... het volgende geschreven: > The views > with fixed destiny are actually rather subtle. For example, how is 'no > control' not fatalism? #64458 From: "Joop" Date: Wed Oct 18, 2006 12:58 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > > HI Sarah and Plamen, > Hallo Larry, Sarah, Plamen Larry, thanks for your quote of the CMA: "Wrong view (micchaadi.t.thi) becomes a full course of action when it assumes the form of one of the morally nihilistic views which deny the validity of ethics and the retributive consequences of action. Three such views are mentioned often in the Sutta Pi.taka: "(i) nihilism (natthika-di.t.thi), which denies the survival of the personality in any form after death, thus negating the moral significance of deeds; …" This part of the discussion has to do with the topic of this thread (when i started it): the work of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, in relation of that of Stephen Batchelor (especially the idea that one can be a buddhist without believing in rebirth) So back to this topic. Three questions: (1) If the wrong view is "which denies the survival of the personality in any form after death, thus negating the moral significance of deeds", what about the view which denies the survival of the personality in any form after death, BUT NOT negates the moral significance of deeds? Because the "THUS" of the quote surprises me, and I do not agree with this "thus" Nyatiloka defines "natthika" as: "natthika-ditthi: 'nihilistic view' (a doctrine that all values are baseless, that nothing is knowable or can be communicated, and that life itself is meaningless)" That is something else as in the CMA quote! And that is something I can agree with. (2) Bhikkhu Bodhi refers to three Suttas which describe this (wrong) view: DN 2, MN 60 and MN 76; what do they exactly state? In DN 2 I could not find it, MN 60 and 76 I do not have access to now. Another Sutta, the Kaccanagotta Sutta, explains Atthikavada versus Natthikavada as: "To say 'all things exist' is one extreme. To say 'all things do not exist' is another. The Tathagata proclaims a teaching that is balanced, avoiding these extremes, thus, 'With ignorance as condition there are volitional impulses; with volitional impulses as condition, consciousness ... with the complete abandoning of ignorance, volitional impulses cease; with the cessation of volitional impulses, consciousness ceases ...'" (3) What is the position of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu regarding this view? In #64366 to Swee Boon, who asked for it, I quoted a part of a talk of Buddhadasa about 'Kamma'. I think Buddhadasa does not agree with this CMA-quote But I know he has said much more about this topic and most of it is not (yet) translated from Thai to English, so is there anybody who has more information about his view? If anybody considers to answer, please don't forget the topic is Buddhadasa Metta Joop #64459 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Oct 18, 2006 4:33 am Subject: [dsg] Re: some points on art philofillet Hi Sarah Came by to edit my membership so I can receive e-mails, stay in touch with what Nina and others have to write. I think it's so neat, was thinking about it today. Last year around this time I listened to the Bhikkhu Bodhi talks, and nothing clicked, but this time conditions were different and something clicked. Oh, and as if by magic, the DSG CDs appeared out of my closet! So they will be listened to again, that's great. One neat thing about the BB talks is that for whatever technical reason when I download them into my ipod shuffle, I can put tons of them, like 30 hours worth or something, whereas with the DSG talks, they fill up the Shuffle almost immediately and I have to keep reloading which makes me get on the internet, wasting time with this and that. (Mostly Youtube, how addictive that is.) Something to do with the files being condensed or something? (If you have any idea about how I could put more DSG talks into my Shuffle by condensing them or something, please contact me off-list.) Yes, I felt some pressure about responding to posts when I am trying to stay off the net, so best to take a break. Still reading though! :) Thanks for the wellwish re the writing. It's coming along nicely, though very, very slowly. And thanks for the greeting to Naomi. I'm sure you'll meet her someday. Catch ya later, everyone. Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Phil, > > Thank you for sharing all your reflections on sila and panna. It's always > good to read what you are considering and of course it always has to be > one's own understanding, not just what others tell us. We have to consider > all kinds of viewpoints. > > --- Phil wrote: > > p.s to nina, sarah, scott, and azita and others whom I owe replies > > to. Talk to you again in February. Now that the baseball season is > > over for me and I'm not obliged to get on and check my fantasy > > teams, I will enjoy a break from the internet. Time goes so fast > > that you know we'll be talking again soon. > .... > S: Pls don't ever consider that you 'owe replies'. When you feel inclined > to write or share your reflections or musings, that's great. When you need > a break, we'll just patiently look forward to hearing from you again when > the baseball season resumes if not before:-)). > > Pls thank Naomi for her kind 'hi'. I hope we meet her someday too. > > Best wishes for your writing until we next speak. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ========= > #64460 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:09 am Subject: Commentary Passages Translation For Nina - Re: Bhavanga abhidhammika Dear Nina, Robert K, Scott D, Mike N, Plamen aand all How are you? Nina wrote: "but I have some trouble with angakiccam (anga being factor) and saadhayamaana: effecting? Please would you translate part of this in English?" Here is the translation. "Tattha bhavangam upapattibhavassa angakiccam saadhayamaanam pavattati,.." "There (among those seven consciousnesses shown in the verse), bhavanga arises fulfilling the function of being the perpetuating cause of the present life." Section 109, Muulapa.n.naasava.n.nanaa , Majjhimanikaaya A.t.thakathaa, and Section 214, Saamaññaphala Sutta A.t.thakathaa, Siilakkhandhavaggava.n.nanaa, Diighanikaayo. Nina, I also provided the definition of upapattibhavo as the present life from Visuddhimaggo. "Upapattibhavo pana sankhepato kammaabhinibbattaa khandhaa," "The present life, on the other hand, is the (five) aggregates produced by one's previous actions in brief." Section 647 Visuddhimaggo Vol.2. The term 'anga', as you know, has many meanings. The most relevant meaning, in line with the subcommentaries, is the perpetuating cause for the present life. Another meaning is, of course, componenent as in 'a.t.thangiko maggo, eight-component part'. I hope the above translations and explanations help. With regards and respect Suan www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: Re: [dsg] Plamen's Quote Has Been Edited- Re: Bhavanga : Attention, Robert K, Scott D Dear Suan, Thank you, but I have some trouble with angakiccam (anga being factor) and saadhayamaana: effecting? Please would you translate part of this in English? Thank you. Nina. Op 17-okt-2006, om 17:08 heeft abhidhammika het volgende geschreven: > Tattha bhavangam upapattibhavassa angakiccam > saadhayamaanam pavattati,.." #64461 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:15 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily lIfe, 98 nilovg Dear friends, Cittas experience pleasant or unpleasant objects through the senses and through the mind-door. If someone has accumulated a great deal of lobha and dosa, lobha-múla-cittas are likely to arise when the object is pleasant and dosa-múla-cittas are likely to arise when the object is unpleasant. At such moments there is ``unwise attention'' to the object. These cittas arise because of conditions, they are not self, and beyond control. We are inclined to think that in the process of cittas, akusala vipåkacittas which experience an unpleasant object should necessarily be followed by akusala cittas, since we let ourselves be ruled by the objects we experience. However, if there is ``wise attention'' there is no aversion towards unpleasant objects. Kusala cittas and akusala cittas arise because of conditions which are entirely different from the conditions for vipåkacittas. Akusala vipåka and kusala vipåka are the result of kamma. We wish to control our vipåka, but this is impossible. When it is time for akusala vipåka, we cannot prevent it from arising. We should understand that our life is nåma and rúpa, which arise because of conditions and fall away immediately. If we would truly understand vipåka as it is: as only a moment of citta which falls away as soon as it has arisen, we would be less likely to have aversion towards unpleasant objects we experience. One may wonder whether it is necessary to know in detail about cittas and their functions. Is it not enough to know only about kusala cittas and akusala cittas? Apart from kusala cittas and akusala cittas we should know also about other kinds of cittas which perform different functions in the processes of cittas and which arise because of different conditions. Then there will be more understanding of the fact that there is no self who can direct the arising of particular cittas at particular moments. There is no self who can choose to have kusala cittas. People have different accumulations and thus, when an object presents itself, there will be, in the process of cittas which experience it, the arising of kusala cittas or akusala cittas, according to one's accumulations. When, for example, different people smell delicious food, some people may have akusala cittas whereas others may have kusala cittas. Those who are attached to food are likely to have lobha-múla-cittas. In the case of someone who has accumulations for dåna (generosity), kusala cittas may arise when he has smelled the food; he may wish to offer food to the monks. In the case of others again, there may be kusala cittas with paññå which realizes odour, for example, as only a kind of rúpa, which is not some ``thing'', which is impermanent and devoid of a ``self''. Through the study of the Dhamma and above all through the development of ``insight'', right understanding of realities, there can be conditions for kusala cittas and then there is ``wise attention'' to the object. No matter whether the object is pleasant or unpleasant, in the sense-door process the votthapana-citta can be succeeded by kusala cittas and in the mind-door process the mano-dvåråvajjana- citta can, after it has adverted to the object, be succeeded by kusala cittas. If there can be ``wise attention'' at this moment, there will be more conditions for ``wise attention'' in the future. ******* Nina. #64462 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:24 am Subject: Letters from Nina, 79. nilovg Dear friends, Objects are experienced through the five senses and through the mind- door. In the sense-door processes and in the mind-door processes there are 'javana-cittas', cittas which are, if one is not an arahat, either kusala cittas or akusala cittas. For example, when there has been seeing which experiences only visible object and does not know anything else, there can be akusala cittas arising in the eye-door process on account of what has been seen. These are beyond control and arise because of their own conditions. When we do not apply ourselves to dana, sila or bhavana, the javana-cittas are akusala cittas and most of the time we do not notice it. Clinging is likely to arise very often after seeing and after the other sense-impressions. After there has been seeing there may be thinking of concepts and also the thinking is akusala when we do not apply ourselves to kusala. It is often accompanied by clinging. Attachment can be accompanied by pleasant feeling or by indifferent feeling. We may not notice attachment when it is accompanied by indifferent feeling. We like to perceive all the familiar things around us, such as furniture or other possessions. We would not like to miss noticing them and this shows our clinging. When we are sitting, do we like softness? When we sit on a hard floor, there is bound to be aversion. Aversion is conditioned by clinging. When there is awareness of different realities we shall know that there are many more akusala cittas than we ever thought. It is better to know the truth than to deceive ourselves. Even when we can keep the precepts and do not transgress them for a long time, it does not mean that we shall never neglect them. So long as we have not become a sotapanna, someone who has attained the first stage of enlightenment, there are still conditions for akusala kamma which may produce an unhappy rebirth. When there is, for example, danger for our life, we may neglect sila. Only right understanding of nama and rupa can eventually, when one has attained to the stage of the sotapanna, condition purify of sila to the degree that one never neglects again the five precepts. ******* Nina. #64463 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Patisambhidamagga and emptiness, accumulations. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 10/18/06 2:42:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > > Hi Howard, > The arahat has kiriyacittas, he thinks with kiriyacittas. I was not > speaking about the arahat. > Yes, it is striking, isn't it, that we cannot think with 'neutral' > cittas. Especially when the citta is accompanied by indifferent > feeling, we do not notice that it is akusala. But mostly we are > thinking with cittas rooted in attachment, aversion, or ignorance. > Knowing this can induce a sense of urgency to develop understanding > even now. > There is seeing and then shortly afterwards defining what is seen, > and this is often done with attachment, even slight attachment. We > like the thing we perceive. Unknowingly we are in the grip of lobha, > dosa and moha, but we do not notice it. There is ignorance. > We are thinking and thinking countless times. More and more we can > realize that there are many, many more akusala cittas than we ever > thought. It is beneficial, thanks to the Buddha that we know this. It > is not discouraging, understanding is not discouraging. Without the > Buddha's teaching we would never know that this endless thinking and > continuing stories is done with akusala cittas. When I say lobha, I > do not mean only greed, like, etc. but even a very, very slight > holding on to something. > Nina. > Op 17-okt-2006, om 21:13 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > > >You're saying that thinking never involves any morally neutral > >mindstates? Even for a worldling that strikes me as implausible. > >For an arahant, it > >strikes me as outright false. > ======================= What strikes me as implausible, Nina, about ALL thoinking of non-arahants as either kusala or akusala - as never morally neutral, is twofold: 1) In general, that only the extremes, the opposites, of kusala & akusala, and never neutrality, should be involved strikes me as odd. Is there no explanation for that assertion? For example, when there is a moment taken to total some figures, or when one is planning the order in which one does their food shopping, why would none of the states involved be neither kusala nor akusala? I have nom problem in understanding why there would be states that are wholesome and those that would be unwholesome, but it would certainly seem that many, involving for example the direction to walk at any given time, would be quite neutral. 2) From the personal experience of engaging in scientific research and theorizing, and even more from engaging in the "doing" of theoretical mathematics (in logic, theory of computation, topology, calculus, abstract algebra, real & complex analysis, measure theory, and other areas), there are long periods of scientific thought during which flavor of one's mind seems to be onr of pure neutrality. Of course, ALL our states possibly carry an *anusaya* of reification (underlying inclination to self-making in both "person" and dhammas), but that would make all states akusala, would it not? With metta, Howard #64464 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Books on Dhamma upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 10/18/06 3:02:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > >as I > >understand it, anicca, dukkha and anatta are not concepts. > .... > S: Right! > .... > > > >I'll admit that they are not paramattha dhammas. Normally, we say > >something has to be either a paramattha dhamma or a concept, and so > >there is bound to be confusion over 'characteristics of paramattha > >dhammas.' Characteristics are not classified as paramattha dhammas > >because they do not have their own sabhava. They are sabhava. > .... > S: Yes, you're right when you say they are 'characteristics of paramattha > dhammas'. > ======================= Sarah, it seems to me that you want to eat your cake and have it too. Conditioned dhammas do not last. That is a fact. Likewise, that all conditioned dhammas are dukkha and that all dhammas are anatta are facts. But according to Khun Sujin, Nina, Sarah, and Jon, LTD., there are no categories but paramattha dhammas and pa~n~natti. I accept that. Anicca, dukkha, and anatta are not paramattha dhammas. You are inventing a new reality category of 'characteristics of paramattha dhammas'. Next we will need 'characteristics of characteristics of paramattha dhammas'', and so on, without end. The tilakhhana are three facts/truths about dhammas. They are not phenomena themselves, and reifying them is even worse that reifying paramattha dhammas. Nagarjuna (uh,oh - scary name! LOL!) once said something along the lines that people who cannot see the emptiness of phenomena are far from the truth, but those who reify emptiness itself are "hopeless"! While I take his "hopeless" as intentional hyperbole on his part, I agree with the thrust of his comment. With metta, Howard #64465 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:28 am Subject: Patisambhidamagga and emptiness, thinking. nilovg Hi Howard, I try to answer, because I find this such a crucial point. I like your questions with daily life examples. A pity this did not come up in the Petrossian restaurant! Time was too short, but we have now on dsg more opportunities. It is a subject worth talking about. Citta can be: kusala, akusala, vipaaka (result) or kiriya (inoperative). When citta is actively engaged, thus, not vipaakacitta like seeing or hearing, when it is not kiriyacitta, it is either kusala citta or akusala citta. When seeing arises, it arises in a process or series of cittas: seeing is vipaakacitta, result, and then very closely javanacittas arise, which are kusala or akusala cittas. When an object is defined, when one thinks about it, there are mind- door processes. The mind-door adverting-consciousness is followed by javanacittas, which are either kusala cittas or akusala cittas. When thinking, there is an activity through the mind, not through body or speech. Thinking is an active citta. ----------- H:What strikes me as implausible, Nina, about ALL thinking of non-arahants as either kusala or akusala - as never morally neutral, is twofold: 1) In general, that only the extremes, the opposites, of kusala & akusala, and never neutrality, should be involved strikes me as odd. Is there no explanation for that assertion? For example, when there is a moment taken to total some figures, or when one is planning the order in which one does their food shopping, why would none of the states involved be neither kusala nor akusala? ------- N: If the objective is not dana, sila or bhavana, you think of the shopping with akusala cittas, mostly with lobha. You do not harm anybody, it is not the heavy lobha. It is the usual holding on, wanting to do something, with lobha, ever so slightly. The Co. explains that sama-lobha is the harmful lobha, and visama-lobha is what we, living as laypeople in the world usually have. Thus, if you plan to shop for some gifts, there are kusala cittas with generosity in between. But if you like the thing you give, there is bound to be clinging also. In such situations there are many different cittas that alternate. You may want to help Rita while planning the shopping for guests, then there are kusala cittas with sila, helping is sila. Monks do not shop, now we can understand the benefit of the Vinaya: the Monks lead a life of fewness of wishes, their life is like the arahat's lifestyle. Being laypeople, we do not have to give up visama lobha, we have to keep the things of the world running. Do not give up your life style, but understand. It is valuable to understand the cittas. When we contemplate about the Vinaya, things will be clearer about the many lobha-mulacittas that arise in our life. The monk also has to eat. But he should have moderation in eating, seeing food as a medicine for the body. In that way he can observe the monk's sila when eating, he has more opportunities for kusala cittas. Narrow is the lay life, it is a path of dust. The monk's life is in the open. -------- H: I have no problem in understanding why there would be states that are wholesome and those that would be unwholesome, but it would certainly seem that many, involving for example the direction to walk at any given time, would be quite neutral. ------ N: Nothing is neutral. Is the objective dana, sila (helping and respect included) or bhavana? When I get up and take a glass of water there is bound to be lobha already that makes me move. I want to do this or that even if there is no strong desire. The whole day is like that and it is so beneficial to know. ---------- H: 2) From the personal experience of engaging in scientific research and theorizing, and even more from engaging in the "doing" of theoretical mathematics (in logic, theory of computation, topology, calculus, abstract algebra, real & complex analysis, measure theory, and other areas), there are long periods of scientific thought during which flavor of one's mind seems to be of pure neutrality. ------ N: Again, it depends on your motives. It may be helping others, or doing the duties you undertook, only you yourself can tell. But mostly there is some holding on to 'my thoughts'. One likes to think. It only seems neutral, because the accompanying feeling may be neutral. We are misled by feelings so often, all the time. ---------- H: Of course, ALL our states possibly carry an *anusaya* of reification (underlying inclination to self-making in both "person" and dhammas), but that would make all states akusala, would it not? ----- N: The anusayas also lay dormant in kusala cittas, but they are not active. Kusala citta is kusala citta, it is pure. -------- Learning about the processes helps a great deal in understanding our cittas. This is not only in the Co. Since we are with the Patisambhidamagga, look at pages 77-81, here we find the processes of cittas. It is about behaviour, caariya: 1: of consciousness, and this is about the cittas that are vipaaka and kiriya in the processes. 2: of unknowing, and this is about the mind-door adverting consciousness which is followed by akusala javana cittas. Meaningful that it is called unknowing, ignorance, the root cause, the cause of other causes of kamma-formations. 3: Behaviour of knowledge: this is about all kusala, and all the different stages of insight, contemplating the characteristics of anicca, dukkha anatta. ------ For the development of insight, it is basic to understand what seeing is, quite different from defining objects which is usually done with lobha-mulacittas. It helps us not to confuse different dhammas that have different characteristics. Nina. #64466 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Commentary Passages Translation For Nina - Re: Bhavanga nilovg Dear Suan, Thank you very much for your clear translation, Nina Op 18-okt-2006, om 16:09 heeft abhidhammika het volgende geschreven: > "Tattha bhavangam upapattibhavassa angakiccam saadhayamaanam > pavattati,.." > > "There (among those seven consciousnesses shown in the verse), > bhavanga arises fulfilling the function of being the perpetuating > cause of the present life." #64467 From: "Joop" Date: Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Books on Dhamma jwromeijn Hallo Howard, Sarah The idea that dukkha, anicca and anatta are concepts is against my buddhist intuition. So there are two possibilities: - The tilakhhana belong to a third category, a third truth, an idea you riculize and with reasons. I proposed this too (semi-serious) to Nina and later this year to Sarah in a discussion about the famous "accumulations", lying dormant in each citta as a kind of microbe as Nina once said. "Accumulations" are, according the ideas of Nina and Sarah, ultimate realities; although they do not fall away immediately after arising. Howard, you are calling the tilakhhana "three facts", but what does that mean other then : there are concepts, there are ultimate realities and there are facts? - The whole system of two truths is not correct; or better said: is only true within certain parameters, for certain purposes: soteriologic purposes. This possibility can be formulated more elegantly, I think the solution must be found in this direction Metta Joop --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Sarah - > .... > Sarah, it seems to me that you want to eat your cake and have it too. > Conditioned dhammas do not last. That is a fact. Likewise, that all > conditioned dhammas are dukkha and that all dhammas are anatta are facts. But according > to Khun Sujin, Nina, Sarah, and Jon, LTD., there are no categories but > paramattha dhammas and pa~n~natti. I accept that. Anicca, dukkha, and anatta are not > paramattha dhammas. You are inventing a new reality category of > 'characteristics of paramattha dhammas'. Next we will need 'characteristics of > characteristics of paramattha dhammas'', and so on, without end. > The tilakhhana are three facts/truths about dhammas. They are not > phenomena themselves, and reifying them is even worse that reifying paramattha > dhammas. Nagarjuna (uh,oh - scary name! LOL!) once said something along the lines > that people who cannot see the emptiness of phenomena are far from the truth, > but those who reify emptiness itself are "hopeless"! While I take his > "hopeless" as intentional hyperbole on his part, I agree with the thrust of his > comment. > > With metta, > Howard #64468 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Patisambhidamagga and emptiness, thinking. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 10/18/06 2:32:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > I try to answer, because I find this such a crucial point. I like > your questions with daily life examples. A pity this did not come up > in the Petrossian restaurant! Time was too short, but we have now on > dsg more opportunities. It is a subject worth talking about. > > Citta can be: kusala, akusala, vipaaka (result) or kiriya > (inoperative). When citta is actively engaged, thus, not vipaakacitta > like seeing or hearing, when it is not kiriyacitta, it is either > kusala citta or akusala citta. ------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay, I get that. I have a couple questions/comments. There is then no "moral" content to vipaakacittas? Are there no kiriyacittas in worldlings, mand, in particular, while thinking? But my main question is the implausibility of no neutral states during thinking. Is the point that all thinking is an instance of kamma? ---------------------------------------- > > When seeing arises, it arises in a process or series of cittas: > seeing is vipaakacitta, result, and then very closely javanacittas > arise, which are kusala or akusala cittas. > When an object is defined, when one thinks about it, there are mind- > door processes. The mind-door adverting-consciousness is followed by > javanacittas, which are either kusala cittas or akusala cittas. > When thinking, there is an activity through the mind, not through > body or speech. Thinking is an active citta. ---------------------------------- Howard: And active cittas are never morally neutral? Perhaps not. Perhaps weakly kussala or weakly akusala states are mistaken for neutral. I could accept that. -------------------------------- > ----------- > H:What strikes me as implausible, Nina, about ALL thinking of > non-arahants as either kusala or akusala - as never morally neutral, > is twofold: > 1) In general, that only the extremes, the opposites, of kusala & > akusala, and never neutrality, should be involved strikes me as odd. > Is there no > explanation for that assertion? For example, when there is a moment > taken to > total some figures, or when one is planning the order in which one > does their > food shopping, why would none of the states involved be neither > kusala nor > akusala? > ------- > N: If the objective is not dana, sila or bhavana, you think of the > shopping with akusala cittas, mostly with lobha. You do not harm > anybody, it is not the heavy lobha. It is the usual holding on, > wanting to do something, with lobha, ever so slightly. The Co. > explains that sama-lobha is the harmful lobha, and visama-lobha is > what we, living as laypeople in the world usually have. > Thus, if you plan to shop for some gifts, there are kusala cittas > with generosity in between. But if you like the thing you give, there > is bound to be clinging also. In such situations there are many > different cittas that alternate. You may want to help Rita while > planning the shopping for guests, then there are kusala cittas with > sila, helping is sila. > Monks do not shop, now we can understand the benefit of the Vinaya: > the Monks lead a life of fewness of wishes, their life is like the > arahat's lifestyle. Being laypeople, we do not have to give up visama > lobha, we have to keep the things of the world running. Do not give > up your life style, but understand. It is valuable to understand the > cittas. > When we contemplate about the Vinaya, things will be clearer about > the many lobha-mulacittas that arise in our life. The monk also has > to eat. But he should have moderation in eating, seeing food as a > medicine for the body. In that way he can observe the monk's sila > when eating, he has more opportunities for kusala cittas. Narrow is > the lay life, it is a path of dust. The monk's life is in the open. > -------- > > H: I have no problem in understanding why there would be states that are > wholesome and those that would be unwholesome, but it would certainly > seem that > many, involving for example the direction to walk at any given time, > would be > quite neutral. > ------ > N: Nothing is neutral. Is the objective dana, sila (helping and > respect included) or bhavana? When I get up and take a glass of water > there is bound to be lobha already that makes me move. I want to do > this or that even if there is no strong desire. The whole day is like > that and it is so beneficial to know. > ---------- > H: 2) From the personal experience of engaging in scientific research > and > theorizing, and even more from engaging in the "doing" of theoretical > mathematics (in logic, theory of computation, topology, calculus, > abstract algebra, > real &complex analysis, measure theory, and other areas), there are > long > periods of scientific thought during which flavor of one's mind seems > to be of > pure neutrality. > ------ > N: Again, it depends on your motives. It may be helping others, or > doing the duties you undertook, only you yourself can tell. But > mostly there is some holding on to 'my thoughts'. One likes to think. > It only seems neutral, because the accompanying feeling may be > neutral. We are misled by feelings so often, all the time. > ---------- > H: Of course, ALL our states possibly carry an *anusaya* of > reification (underlying inclination to self-making in both "person" > and dhammas), > but that would make all states akusala, would it not? > ----- > N: The anusayas also lay dormant in kusala cittas, but they are not > active. Kusala citta is kusala citta, it is pure. > -------- > Learning about the processes helps a great deal in understanding our > cittas. This is not only in the Co. > Since we are with the Patisambhidamagga, look at pages 77-81, here we > find the processes of cittas. It is about behaviour, caariya: 1: of > consciousness, and this is about the cittas that are vipaaka and > kiriya in the processes. > 2: of unknowing, and this is about the mind-door adverting > consciousness which is followed by akusala javana cittas. Meaningful > that it is called unknowing, ignorance, the root cause, the cause of > other causes of kamma-formations. > 3: Behaviour of knowledge: this is about all kusala, and all the > different stages of insight, contemplating the characteristics of > anicca, dukkha anatta. > ------ > For the development of insight, it is basic to understand what seeing > is, quite different from defining objects which is usually done with > lobha-mulacittas. It helps us not to confuse different dhammas that > have different characteristics. > Nina. > ========================= Thanks for the detailed reply, Nina. I'm running out at the moment. When I have more time I'll look this over carefully. I can see that it is in fact a sensible matter. With metta, Howard #64469 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 18, 2006 12:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Books on Dhamma nilovg Hallo Joop, no, the latent tendencies are like microbes, lying dormant, and these, the anusayas, are also mentioned in the suttas as a group of defilements. Accumulations is wider, also including good inclinations. Op 18-okt-2006, om 20:47 heeft Joop het volgende geschreven: > Nina and later this year to Sarah in a discussion about the > famous "accumulations", lying dormant in each citta as a kind of > microbe as Nina once said. #64470 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:44 am Subject: Typo Re: [dsg] Patisambhidamagga and emptiness, thinking. upasaka_howard Hi again, Nina - In a message dated 10/18/06 3:05:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@... asks: > Are there no kiriyacittas in worldlings, > mand, in particular, while thinking? ================= Sorry - please drop the 'm' from 'mand'. With metta, Howard #64471 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Books on Dhamma upasaka_howard Hi, Joop - In a message dated 10/18/06 2:51:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jwromeijn@... writes: > > Hallo Howard, Sarah > > The idea that dukkha, anicca and anatta are concepts is against my > buddhist intuition. > So there are two possibilities: > > - The tilakhhana belong to a third category, a third truth, an idea > you riculize and with reasons. I proposed this too (semi-serious) to > Nina and later this year to Sarah in a discussion about the > famous "accumulations", lying dormant in each citta as a kind of > microbe as Nina once said. "Accumulations" are, according the ideas > of Nina and Sarah, ultimate realities; although they do not fall away > immediately after arising. > Howard, you are calling the tilakhhana "three facts", but what does > that mean other then : there are concepts, there are ultimate > realities and there are facts? ------------------------------------- Howard: Nah! ;-)) You're just proliferating entities - a philosopehr's illness! LOL! To say that something is a fact is just to say that a certain sentence is true. When we make too much of that we're just getting caught up in reification. Phenomena arise due to conditions, and they do not remain. They arise and cease. That's true. We need to see that first hand. All the philosophing about it in terms of categories of existents is just useless (but often enjoyable and even enticing) blather. I get caught up in it all the time, but it's really just nonsense. As far as the Dhamma is concerned, thinking is good for one thing only: to help us see through nonsense, to deconstruct concepts, to help us let go! ---------------------------------------- > > - The whole system of two truths is not correct; or better said: is > only true within certain parameters, for certain purposes: > soteriologic purposes. > This possibility can be formulated more elegantly, I think the > solution must be found in this direction -------------------------------------- Howard: Not only do we need to jetison "the two truth", but so long as "truths" means ideas, we need to jetison ALL truths to the extent that are treated as anything more than useful means-to-an-end, as helpful pointing fingers. --------------------------------------- > > Metta > > Joop > ==================== With metta, Howard #64472 From: "Joop" Date: Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:54 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Books on Dhamma jwromeijn Hallo Nina, Howard Nina: " no, the latent tendencies are like microbes, lying dormant, and these, the anusayas, are also mentioned in the suttas as a group of defilements. Accumulations is wider, also including good inclinations." Joop: Okay, no problem, you must be right. But I don't understand your terminology: I think it is: accumulations = good inclinations + bad inclinations, whereby latent tendencies = bad inclinations Why should good inclinations not be latent tendencies, lying dormant like microbes? But more important is of course that "lying dormant" does not fit in the distinguisment of the two truths whereby the main property of ulmitate realities (dhammas) is that they arise and fall away in a very short time. Lying dormant is not falling away. That was my point. I think every sentient being has accumulations, inclinations, (latent) tendencies; that evident to me, the problem is how to describe them in the abhidhamma language? My hypothesis is: that's not possible. Howard: "To say that something is a fact is just to say that a certain sentence is true. When we make too much of that we're just getting caught up in reification." Joop: Not to much, but something else. When I read your using the term "a fact" I get an empirical association: something that is recorded, measured. So better not use the term "fact", there are no facts. Howard: " Not only do we need to jetison "the two truth", but so long as "truths" means ideas, we need to jetison ALL truths to the extent that are treated as anything more than useful means-to-an-end, as helpful pointing fingers" Joop: funny word, 'jetison', I had to look it up in my english-dutch dictionary (spelled jettison, between jesus and jew). To me there is no reason to jetison "ideas", to me the "two truths" are two languages, two systems of symbols; mathematics plus a natural language are the two truths to describe natural scientific phenomena. Yes, we can call that pointing fingers. But in this way of reasoning there no problem at all to use a three truths model, don't you think so? Metta Joop #64473 From: LBIDD@... Date: Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:15 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,108 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII 108. Consequently, although other causes of formations such as physical basis and object, conascent states, etc., are actually existent, still ignorance may be understood as the representative cause of formations [firstly] because it is the basic factor as the cause of other causes of formations such as craving, etc., as it is said: 'Craving increases in one who dwells seeing enjoyment' (S.ii,84), and 'With the arising of ignorance there is the arising of cankers' (M.i,55); and again because it is the most obvious, 'Not knowing, bhikkhus, in ignorance, he forms the formation of merit' (cf. S.ii,82); and lastly because it is not common to all. So the use of one representative cause and fruit should in each instance be understood according to this explanation of it.18 -------------------------- Note 18. Parihaara-vacana--'explanation': not in P.T.S. Dict. in this sense. ********************** 108. tasmaa ayamidha avijjaa vijjamaanesupi a~n~nesu vatthaaramma.nasahajaatadhammaadiisu sa"nkhaarakaara.nesu ``assaadaanupassino ta.nhaa pava.d.dhatii´´ti (sa.m0 ni01.2.52) ca ``avijjaasamudayaa aasavasamudayo´´ti (ma0 ni0 1.104) ca vacanato a~n~nesampi ta.nhaadiina.m sa"nkhaarahetuuna.m hetuuti padhaanattaa, ``avidvaa bhikkhave avijjaagato pu~n~naabhisa"nkhaarampi abhisa"nkharotii''ti paaka.tattaa, asaadhaara.nattaa ca sa"nkhaaraana.m hetubhaavena diipitaati veditabbaa. eteneva ca ekekahetuphaladiipanaparihaaravacanena sabbattha ekekahetuphaladiipane payojana.m veditabbanti. #64474 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 18, 2006 1:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Books on Dhamma upasaka_howard Hi, Joop (and Nina) - In a message dated 10/18/06 6:56:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jwromeijn@... writes: > Howard: "To say that something is a fact is just to say that a > certain sentence is true. When we make too much of that we're just > getting caught up in reification." > > Joop: Not to much, but something else. When I read your using the > term "a fact" I get an empirical association: something that is > recorded, measured. So better not use the term "fact", there are no > facts. ---------------------------------------- Howard: By "fact" I only mean true assertion. --------------------------------------- > > Howard: " Not only do we need to jetison "the two truth", but so long > as "truths" means ideas, we need to jetison ALL truths to the extent > that are treated as anything more than useful means-to-an-end, as > helpful pointing fingers" > > Joop: funny word, 'jetison', I had to look it up in my english-dutch > dictionary (spelled jettison, between jesus and jew). -------------------------------------- Howard: LOL! Interesting positioning! (Yes, you are correct about the spelling. :-) -------------------------------------- > To me there is no reason to jetison "ideas", to me the "two truths" > are two languages, two systems of symbols; mathematics plus a natural > language are the two truths to describe natural scientific phenomena. > Yes, we can call that pointing fingers. > But in this way of reasoning there no problem at all to use a three > truths model, don't you think so? ---------------------------------------- Howard: Actually, I tend not to speak of "two truths". While I do think there are degrees and shades of truth, due to the complexity of language, I do not think there are two kinds of truth. I do not see 'literal' (usually rendered as 'ultimate') and 'figurative' (usually rendered as 'conventional') as applying to truth, but to *speech*. What is true (to whatever degree) is true. It is the speech, not truth, that is literal or figurative (in intention). Of course, some speech - in fact much speech - may be intended either way, as literal or as figurative, and it may be true in one of those senses and false in the other. Most speech is intendedly figurative. A prime example would be the sentence "The sun rises in the East". These days, in the West, that is an intendedly figurative sentence, and a true one. As I literal proposition, of course, it is false, for the sun doesn't actually rise and set - the earth simply spins on its axis. Another example: When I say "I don't believe in own-being in any dhamma," the statement really corresponds to two quite different propositions. As figurative speech, it is a shorthand for an extraordinarily complex corpus of sentences, none of which assume or imply the existence of an actual thing called "I". And it is 100 % true as figurative speech. But as literal speech, it is either 100% false, or, more properly, neither true nor false, because if asserts somethiing to be the case about an assumed existent thing, "I", that is actually nonexistent, and hence lacks a truth value. The sentence taken literally is a quite different proposition from that sentence taken figuratively. What we have are two different propositions, the literal one being false and the figurative one being true. It is speech that can be conventional or ultimate, not truth. Truth is just truth. ----------------------------------------------- > > Metta > > Joop > > ======================= With metta, Howard #64475 From: LBIDD@... Date: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu lbidd2 Hi Joop, Here are some links to DN2, and MN60 & 76: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/ I couldn't find anywhere in the books I have where Bhikkhu Buddhadasa answered your particular question: whether one can be a Buddhist without believing in rebirth. In my opinion, 'a reward in the next life' isn't really a good reason to engage in ethical behavior, and not believing in a next life in no way hinders letting go of 'me and mine'. On the other hand there can be a wholesome value in traditional beliefs, but that value can be undermined by dogmatic grasping. Larry #64476 From: LBIDD@... Date: Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu lbidd2 Hi Nina, Well said: N: "Hi Larry, No control can be seen as an excuse to commit evil deeds. That is a dangerous view. However, it can also be understood with pa~n~naa: there is no self who is master of the dhammas that arise because of their proper conditions. Pa~n~naa can be developed so that it is known: whatever arises is dhamma, not a person or self. Pa~n~naa is also beyond control, but the right conditions can be cultivated: listening, considering, applying what one heard. Nina. Op 18-okt-2006, om 4:41 heeft LBIDD@... het volgende geschreven: The views with fixed destiny are actually rather subtle. For example, how is 'no control' not fatalism?" L: There's not only the danger of evil deeds, there's also the danger of missing a chance to do a good deed. Larry #64477 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 18, 2006 4:34 pm Subject: Another Typo Re: [dsg] Books on Dhamma upasaka_howard Hi again, Joop - In a message dated 10/18/06 8:41:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: > As I literal > proposition, of course, it is false, for the sun doesn't actually rise and > set - the > earth simply spins on its axis. ============== "As I literal proposition" was intended to be "As a literal proposition". Sorry. With metta, Howard #64478 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:36 pm Subject: The Causes of Emergence ... !!! bhikkhu5 Friends: Origination & Cessation of the 4 Reference Objects : The Blessed Buddha once said: I will teach you the origination and passing away of the objects of the Four Foundations of Awareness. Listen to that: Appearance of Nutriment produces emergence of Body. Disappearance of Nutriment produces passing away of Body. Appearance of Contact produces emergence of Feeling. Disappearance of Contact produces passing away of Feeling. Appearance of Name-&-form produces emergence of Mind. Disappearance of Name-&-form produces passing away of Mind. Appearance of Attention produces emergence of Phenomena. Disappearance of Attention produces passing away of Phenomena. _________________________________________________________ Therefore: Considering, contemplating, analyzing, and always recollecting: Body merely as transient forms grown on & out of Food; Feeling only as passing emotions arised from Contact; Mind just as changing moods emerged from Naming-&-Forming; & Phenomena as momentary mental states created by Attention... Repeatedly, thoroughly, and completely, is called initiating & developing the Four Foundations of Awareness, which - in itself - is the mental treasure par excellence, leading steadily and straight to the Deathless Element... Deep, deep, subtle and somewhat enigmatic is this profound classification! Source of reference (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V: 184-5] 47 The Foundations of Awareness: 42 Origination.. Details On Foundations of Awareness (Sati): http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/What_is_Right_Awareness.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Awareness_Sati.htm -------- Bhikkhu Samahita, Ceylon. #64479 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:35 am Subject: More evidence against Abhidhamma as Buddha Word buddhatrue Hi All, The Vism. Reads (sorry, I don't know the proper citation for the Vism.): 118. 7. As to plane: here the twelve, namely, the ten kinds of foulness, mindfulness occupied with the body, and perception of repulsiveness in nutriment, do not occur among deities. These twelve and mindfulness of breathing do not occur in the Brahma world. But none except the four immaterial states occur in the immaterial becoming. All occur among human beings. This is `as to plane'. [114] It is said that the Buddha taught the Abhidhamma to the deva realm; specifically to his mother who was reborn there. This doesn't make sense because devas wouldn't have understood anything having to do with rupa. Devas don't have bodies like ours and are not able to practice mindfulness occupied with the body, as detailed in the Vism. The Abhidhamma would have made no sense to devas so it is highly unlikely the Buddha would choose to teach it to them. Metta, James #64480 From: "Plamen Gradinarov" Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:24 am Subject: How do we know the namas? pgradinarov Dear All, Knowledge of rupas is described in all possible detail. Is it paradigmatic for the way we come to know the namas, or there is a special cognitive order as regards all nama objects of knowledge? TiA, Plamen #64481 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Patisambhidamagga and emptiness, thinking. sarahprocter... Hi Nina, (& Howard), A good discussion and I liked Nina's reply about kusala and akusala. One point: --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: If the objective is not dana, sila or bhavana, you think of the > shopping with akusala cittas, mostly with lobha. You do not harm > anybody, it is not the heavy lobha. It is the usual holding on, > wanting to do something, with lobha, ever so slightly. The Co. > explains that sama-lobha is the harmful lobha, and visama-lobha is > what we, living as laypeople in the world usually have. .... S: This got my attention because I was referring to sama and visama lobha the other day in a post to Han. Surely sama- refers to equal, even, ordinary and visama- to unequal, uneven, extraordinary? ... <...> > Monks do not shop, now we can understand the benefit of the Vinaya: > the Monks lead a life of fewness of wishes, their life is like the > arahat's lifestyle. Being laypeople, we do not have to give up visama > lobha, we have to keep the things of the world running. ... S: Shouldn't this be sama-lobha? .... <...> > H: 2) From the personal experience of engaging in scientific research > and > theorizing, and even more from engaging in the "doing" of theoretical > mathematics (in logic, theory of computation, topology, calculus, > abstract algebra, > real & complex analysis, measure theory, and other areas), there are > long > periods of scientific thought during which flavor of one's mind seems > to be of > pure neutrality. > ------ .... S: OK, I have a mathematical analogy for you....(it may not work...:-/) Take a graph of any moving average over the years (income/life expectancy/members on DSG/whatever you like)and determine at any time how many people earn that average/life the average years or whatever. Actually, isn't the answer always nil because even when it seems that say someone lived the average number of years, in fact, it was always a bit longer or a bit shorter, even if by a few seconds. So too, even when it seems there are 'neutral states' such as when we're looking at the computer, studying maths or whatever, in fact, such states are either kusala or akusala, no matter how subtle the kusala or akusala may be. As Nina has pointed out, nearly all these seeimingly neutral states are in fact akusala. Whenever there's no dana, sila or bhavana involved at all, the javana cittas are akusala:-) Scary? Realistic, I think. Lots and lots of common, ordinary lobha during the day that we have no idea about. Metta, Sarah ======= #64482 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Books on Dhamma ken_aitch Hi Howard, ------------- H: > That nothing lasts is true and is a concept. That nothing satisfies is true and is a concept. That nothing is/has self is true and is a concept. ------------- The tilakkhana are not concepts, but those statements you have made are. They are opinions. Anyone can hold them. The tilakkhana, however, are realities and they are known (directly) only by the most highly developed insight. --------------------- KH: >> I'll admit that they are not paramattha dhammas. >> H: > Ah, so you agree. :-) --------------------- :-) Not quite! As I went on to say, characteristics of paramattha dhammas are real. They are integral to, and inseparable from, the dhammas to which they belong, but they are not called by the same name (which is logical). ----------------------------- <. . .> H: > Keep it simple, Ken. IMO, you are proliferating concepts and getting over-involved with conceptual categorization. Neither you nor I need a perfect system of conceptual thought and categorization. What we need, as I see it, is to ease up and let go. We need to drop the conceptual and emotional papan~nca. ------------------------------ Studying and discussing paramattha dhammas does not necessarily entail clinging. It does if it is undertaken as a way of getting something for oneself. However, it does not if it is a part of one's normal daily life. --------------------------------------- <. . .> H: > That arising, leveling off, and subsiding wave picture appeals to me as well, Ken. And the people who came up with it may well be right. But you don't know it, and neither do I. (What would it do to you to discover it were not so?) And the terminology of moment and sub-moments is *bound* to not match the reality. Why do you care about that scheme anyway? ---------------------------------------- The scheme is important because enlightenment is a gradual process. Theoretical understanding gradually becomes more and more detailed and confidence gradully becomes stronger and stronger. No one suddenly knows and exclaims, "Gosh, there are three sub-moments! Who would have thought it?" :-) ------------------------- <. . .> H: >Don't cling to the concept Ken. Of all the attachments we [you and I] need to loosen, it is our attachment to ideas that is foremost. For example, I need to allow myself to at least consider the possibility that my phenomenalism is wrong, and that Jon and some others are right. ------------------------- We are not the controllers of attachment and detachment, or even of considering and non-considering. They happen by conditions. IMO, when you understood that your phenomenalism might possibly be wrong (and you understood the dangers of wrong understanding), you automatically allowed yourself to consider that possibility. ----------------------------------------- <. . .> H: > We can come to understand what we "see", not what we merely think about. The word 'pa~n~na' is paired with the word 'sati', not 'pa~n~natti'. You are wrong about this. Thinking plays a very important role, but without "looking", it will never lead to awakening. ------------------------------------------- From previous conversations, I know that you don't have a specific meaning for "looking." I gather it encompasses many forms of trying [to make insight happen]. It is a nebulous concept, and is in stark contrast to the Dhamma. I suggest you ditch it! :-) --------------------- H: > This is a pleasant conversation, Ken. (We're getting along more easily these days, which is wonderful :-) --------------------- Sure is! :-) Ken H #64483 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu sarahprocter... Hi Larry,(Plamen, Kel & all), Thank you for all the detail you quoted. I couldn't have asked for better! --- LBIDD@... wrote: > HI Sarah and Plamen, > > P: " "A Manual of Abhidhamma (p. 294) says, permanent scepticism (P. > niyata micchaditthi, Skt. niyata mithyadrsti) is a very grave karma > along with the five garuka-kammas - causing a Sangha schism, wounding a > Buddha, killing an arhat, one's mother or father." > ... > S: "Certain or fixed wrong view (niyata micchaditthi)perhaps? And of the > > wrong views, the most serious is said to be the belief that there is no > kamma, no results of deeds performed in this life and future lives.... .... > L: In "A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" (CMA) see p. 207: > > "Wrong view (micchaadi.t.thi) becomes a full course of action when it > assumes the form of one of the morally nihilistic views which deny the > validity of ethics and the retributive consequences of action. Three > such views are mentioned often in the Sutta Pi.taka: > > "(i) nihilism (natthika-di.t.thi), which denies the survival of the > personality in any form after death, thus negating the moral > significance of deeds; > > "(ii) the inefficacy of action view (akiriya-di.t.thi), which claims > that deeds have no efficacy in producing results and thus invalidates > moral distinctions; and > > "(iii) the acausality view (ahetukadi.t.thi), which states that there is > no cause or condition for the defilement and purification of beings, > that beings are defiled and purified by chance, fate, or necessity." .... S: This is exactly what I had in mind - no result, no deed, no cause, i.e no kamma which will bring results. They all refer to the same. As you go on to indicate, they constitute the last 3 kamma-patha leading to fixed results with no chance of rebirth in heavenly planes or attainment. When someone doesn't believe in deeds bringing results, there is no limit to what akusala may be performed. This is why it's considered the worst kind of wrong view, I believe. (Kel, I remembered the word 'niyata' for 'fixed destiny' from our discussions on the cula-sotapanna. In that case he was said to be one of assured destiny (niyatagatika), with the meaning of no more rebirth in the woeful planes). Thanks again, Larry. Great research:-)). You might consider getting a copy of the commentary to the Abhidammattha Sangaha for Xmas from PTS (Summary of the Topics of Abhidhamma......). It's about the size of CMA and I think you'd also find it helpful for these kinds of topics. Metta, Sarah ======= ' > > L: Here also are some clarifying snippets from the "Buddhist Dictionary" > and "Majjhima Nikaaya": > > BD: "The so-called 'evil views with fixed destiny' > (niyata-miccháditthi) constituting the last of the 10 unwholesome > courses of action (kammapatha, q.v.), are the following three: (1) the > fatalistic 'view of the uncausedness' of existence (ahetukaditthi), (2) > the view of the inefficacy of action' (akiriyaditthi), (3) nihilism > (natthikaditthi)." > > MN60, note 621: "The three views discussed in pars. 5, 13 and 21 are > called wrong views with fixed evil result (niyataa micchaa di.t.thi). To > adhere to them with firm conviction closes off the prospect of a > heavenly rebirth and the attainment of liberation. For a fuller > discussion see Bodhi, "Discourse on the Fruits of Recluseship", pp. > 79-83." > > BD: "kamma-patha: 'course of action', is a name for the group of 10 > kinds of either unwholesome or wholesome actions, viz. > > I. The tenfold unwholesome courses of action (akusala-kamma-patha): > > "3 bodily actions: killing, stealing, unlawful sexual intercourse; > > "4 verbal actions: lying, slandering, rude speech, foolish babble; > > "3 mental actions: covetousness, ill-will, evil views. > > "Unwholesome mental courses of action comprise only extreme forms of > defiled thought: the greedy wish to appropriate others' property, the > hateful thought of harming others, and pernicious views. Milder forms of > mental defilement are also unwholesome, but do not constitute 'courses > of action'." > > BD: "ánantarika-kamma: the 5 heinous 'actions with immediate destiny' > are: parricide, matricide, killing an Arahat (Saint), wounding a Buddha, > creating schism in the monks' Order. In A.V., 129 it is said: > > "There are 5 irascible and incurable men destined to the lower world and > to hell, namely: the parricide," etc. About the 5th see A. X., 35, 38. > With regard to the first crime, it is said in D. 2 that if King > Ajátasattu had not deprived his father of life, he would have reached > entrance into the path of Stream-entry (App.)." > > under "Karma" ..... "The weighty (garuka) and the habitual (bahula) > wholesome or unwholesome karma are ripening earlier than the light and > rarely performed karma." > > L: It appears that wrong views with fixed destiny are not included in > the anantarika garuka kamma but their consequence is serious. The views > with fixed destiny are actually rather subtle. For example, how is 'no > control' not fatalism? > > Larry > http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/dictionary/bdindex.html > > #64484 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:58 am Subject: Patisambhidamagga and emptiness, thinking nilovg Hi Howard, You are not the only person to find this subject difficult, Lodewijk also has trouble understanding it. ------------ H: There is then no"moral" content to vipaakacittas? ------ N: Take seeing, it is passive, just the receiving of the result of kamma. Seeing has no moral activity. ------- H: Are there no kiriyacittas in worldlings, and, in particular, while thinking? ------- N: What we call thinking are many processes of cittas which have as object concepts of people, things, events. In a mind-door process of cittas there is just one moment of kiriyacitta, the mind-door adverting citta that adverts to the object, and then it is followed by javanacittas (seven) that are either kusala cittas or akusala cittas, and in the case of arahats only kiriyacittas. Thus, in the processes of citta there are a few kiriyacittas in between, such as adverting to an object, merely one extremely brief moment. But for non-arahats the moments of javanacittas are not kiriya. In the Path of Discrimination, p. 78, moments of kiriyacittas in a process are mentioned, for example: as 'functional indeterminate adverting for the purpose of cognizing ideas.> Lodewijk was wondering why he should learn about receiving- consciousness and investigating-consciousness which are vipaakacittas following upon the sense-cognitions (seeing etc.), and about the kiriyacitta that is determining-consciousness. He thinks, these cannot be experienced. However, learning about them can help us to have more understanding of the way cittas operate and succeed one another so rapidly in a process. We also learn that the rootless kiriyacittas (thus, no beautiful rootes and other beautiful cetasikas accompanying) within a process for those who are non-arahats are quite different from the kiriyacittas of the arahat that are accompanied by beautiful cetasikas, such as confidence, sati, detachment, non-aversion, calm, evenmindedness. ----------- H: But my main question is the implausibility of no neutral states during thinking. Is the point that all thinking is an instance of kamma? ------ N: When you perceive a person or a thing the citta is not seeing, it is not vipaakacitta. It is mostly akusala citta, and it can be that type which is rooted in ignorance and associated with restlessness, accompanied by indifferent feeling. We do not notice it, we do not notice indifferent feeling. When there is ignorance we do not know that there is ignorance. Or it may be rooted in lobha that is weak, visama lobha. Not the lobha that is harmful. You do not have the intention to harm anybody such as in the case of killing or stealing. It is not of the intensity of akusala kamma. As the co. states, the above mentioned akusala citta can by itself not produce an unhappy rebirth. ------- H: And active cittas are never morally neutral? Perhaps not. Perhaps weakly kussala or weakly akusala states are mistaken for neutral. I could accept that. ------ N: Yes, that is the point. Cittas arise and fall away so rapidly, it is hard to know what thinking is like, it has fallen away already. While walking in the parc we saw a dead bird. Seeing colour is vipaaka. Defining what it is is likely to be akusala citta most of the time. But then there can be another thought: realizing that as that dead bird is, so will we be soon. Thinking of Dhamma. Thinking of Dhamma is a way of bhavana, but it is interspersed with many akusala cittas. My thinking, I am thinking. Thinking with concern for others is with kusala cittas, like you thought of the Thai friends when there was the coup. Or when you try to save an insect. When there is the development of vipassana there are kusala cittas with sati and pa~n~naa after seeing, hearing etc. That is why the Buddha spoke all the time in the suttas of seeing, hearing, etc. When there is no mindfulness there is opportunity for all those akusala cittas with ignorance. The Buddha wanted to exhort us, speaking of unwise attention and wise attention after seeing an object, hearing sound. Nina. #64485 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 3:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Patisambhidamagga and emptiness, sama/visama nilovg Dear Sarah (and Howard), Yes, I think I got is all mixed up. Thanks for pointing it out. I looked in PED visama: unequal, morally lawless, wrong, misconduct. It seems that visama must be very bad. Sama is even. I saw both in my Thai co but have to try to find it again. Nina. Op 19-okt-2006, om 11:07 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > Surely sama- refers to equal, even, ordinary and visama- to unequal, > uneven, extraordinary? #64486 From: "Joop" Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:17 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu jwromeijn Hallo Larry, all Thanks for the link I had seen http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/ before, now I downloaded it Perhaps you don't perceive yourself as an expert but isn't it strange that (1) Bhikkhu Bodhi explains in CMA "(i) nihilism (natthika-di.t.thi), which denies the survival of the personality in any form after death, thus negating the moral significance of deeds;…" and Nyatiloka defines "natthika" in his dictionary as (to me) totally different as : (2) "natthika-ditthi: 'nihilistic view' (a doctrine that all values are baseless, that nothing is knowable or can be communicated, and that life itself is meaningless)" And thanks for the - more personal directed - rest of your answer Metta Joop --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > > Hi Joop, > > Here are some links to DN2, and MN60 & 76: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html > > http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/ > > I couldn't find anywhere in the books I have where Bhikkhu Buddhadasa > answered your particular question: whether one can be a Buddhist without > believing in rebirth. In my opinion, 'a reward in the next life' isn't > really a good reason to engage in ethical behavior, and not believing in > a next life in no way hinders letting go of 'me and mine'. On the other > hand there can be a wholesome value in traditional beliefs, but that > value can be undermined by dogmatic grasping. > > Larry > #64487 From: "Joop" Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Books on Dhamma jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Joop (and Nina) - > > > But in this way of reasoning there no problem at all to use a three > > truths model, don't you think so? > > ---------------------------------------- > Howard: > Actually, I tend not to speak of "two truths". While I do think there > are degrees and shades of truth, due to the complexity of language, I do not > think there are two kinds of truth. I do not see 'literal' (usually rendered as > 'ultimate') and 'figurative' (usually rendered as 'conventional') as applying > to truth, but to *speech*. What is true (to whatever degree) is true. It is > the speech, not truth, that is literal or figurative (in intention). > Of course, some speech - in fact much speech - may be intended either > way, as literal or as figurative, and it may be true in one of those senses > and false in the other. Most speech is intendedly figurative. A prime example > would be the sentence "The sun rises in the East". These days, in the West, that > is an intendedly figurative sentence, and a true one. As I literal > proposition, of course, it is false, for the sun doesn't actually rise and set - the > earth simply spins on its axis. Another example: When I say "I don't believe in > own-being in any dhamma," the statement really corresponds to two quite > different propositions. As figurative speech, it is a shorthand for an > extraordinarily complex corpus of sentences, none of which assume or imply the existence of > an actual thing called "I". And it is 100 % true as figurative speech. But as > literal speech, it is either 100% false, or, more properly, neither true nor > false, because if asserts somethiing to be the case about an assumed existent > thing, "I", that is actually nonexistent, and hence lacks a truth value. The > sentence taken literally is a quite different proposition from that sentence > taken figuratively. What we have are two different propositions, the literal one > being false and the figurative one being true. > It is speech that can be conventional or ultimate, not truth. Truth is > just truth. > ----------------------------------------------- > Hallo Howard I agree or have no problem with which you said Except one detail Howard: "It is speech that can be conventional or ultimate, not truth. Truth is just truth." J: No, "truth" does not exist, or better said: truth as such (better the german 'An Sich') in unknowable All we can do, an do, is make a model of a part of the truth, a theory that makes it more or less understandable (of course an illusion) and predictable. First an example from physics: Rutherford and later Niels Bohr made a model of an atom. Was that model the truth? No, it was an useful approximation. 'Useful' is then: within the frame of reference for the porpose of it. The same with the Abhidhamma and it's system of dhammas and two kind of processes (vittis), a system with a build-in anatta: I understand a little bit better my insight meditation with it. But like all theories: it's only a raft, leave it when at the other shore. This is one of the two reasons I have no problem to speak of "two truths": it's shorthand for "two theories of the truth" (OR is it: "a twofold theory of the truth": I'm not yet sure) The other reason is that there is a long tradition of speaking of and discussing "the two truths", it's better to have a connection with that tradition and not deny everything that is written about the topic before. Metta Joop #64488 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:13 am Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 554- Compassion/karu.naa and Sympathetic Joy/muditaa(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;-) =============================================== Compassion(karu.naa)and Sympathetic Joy(muditaa) According to the Visuddhimagga (IX, 100) the far enemy of sympathetic joy is aversion (boredom). If there is wise attention sympathetic joy can arise instead of jealousy. The near enemy of sympathetic joy is “joy based on the homelife” (Vis. IX, 100). This is joy connected with the “worldly life” of clinging to pleasant sense objects. As we read in the Visuddhimagga, “sympathetic joy fails when it produces merriment”, that is, happiness connected with attachment. If there is no right understanding which knows when the citta is kusala citta and when it is akusala citta we may take for sympathetic joy what is actually joy which is akusala. When we say to someone else: “What a beautiful garden you have”, there may be moments of sympathetic joy, sincere approval of his good fortune, but there may also be moments with attachment to pleasant objects. Akusala cittas and kusala cittas arise at different moments. Since cittas arise and fall away very rapidly it is hard to know their different characteristics but right understanding of their characteristics can be developed. ***** Compassion(karu.naa) and Sympathetic Joy(muditaato) be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #64489 From: "Michael Kalyaano" Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:32 am Subject: Re: More evidence against Abhidhamma as Buddha Word kalyaano Dear James May you be well. Actually, the devas of the Tusita realm do have ruupa. It is only the beings of the four formless realms (Aruuploka) that don't have ruupa. The Tusita realm is one of the sensual realms (kaamasugati bhuumi). The human realm (Manussaloka) is the lowest of these. You can download a short book on the 31 planes of existence at BuddhaNet - http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/allexistence.pdf This book includes a very helpful chart showing the various deva realms. Kind regards Michael You wrote: .... > It is said that the Buddha taught the Abhidhamma to the deva realm; > specifically to his mother who was reborn there. This doesn't make > sense because devas wouldn't have understood anything having to do > with rupa. Devas don't have bodies like ours and are not able to > practice mindfulness occupied with the body, as detailed in the > Vism. The Abhidhamma would have made no sense to devas so it is > highly unlikely the Buddha would choose to teach it to them. > > Metta, > James > #64490 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:24 am Subject: All Spaced Out.... sarahprocter... Dear Plamen & all, Space (aakaasa rupa).is a very difficult topic. As I mentioned, there's plenty in 'Useful Posts' in the files. For me, this is probably a controversial 'work-in-progress' to consider whether in fact there are 3 asankhata dhammas - a) pannatti (concepts), b) akasa (space) and c) nibbana. The main texts I'm using here for reference are: The Visuddhimagga, Nanamoli transl The Atthasalini, PTS transl The Abhidammattha Sangaha, CMA, edited by B.Bodhi The Dhammasangani, Khine transl The comy to Abhidammattha Sangani, PTS transl by Wijeratne & Gethin Milinda Pa~nha, transl by I.B.Horner as 'Milinda's Questions' Survey of Paramattha Dhammas by Sujin Boriharnwanaket ***** > --- Plamen Gradinarov wrote: > > S: If you are referring to an-antaakaasa (endless space) as in the > > object of > > > the first arupa jhana, then this is a concept. > > > >P: Got it. This gap cannot be possibly bridged. In Hinayana and > > Mahayana Abhidharma, there are three (or more) asankhata-dhammas, > > and these are akasa and the two nirodhas, representing the two > > aspects of nibbana - as cessation and as nonproliferation. .... S: Everyone agrees that nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, so let's leave that aside (I assume you are referring to the two aspects of kilesa-parinibbana/sa-upadisesa nibbana (on the attainment of arahatship)and khandha parinibbana/an-upadisesa nibbana (at the death of the arahant)/ Simply put, my understanding is that there is the concept of space which we use all the time as in 'flying through space' or the 'space in our houses' and there is also the concept of boundless or infinite space as jhana object, the first of the four arupa jhanas (aakaasaana~ncaayatana). There is also the reality, akasa rupa. Often the concepts are actually pointing to the reality and used in suttas, for example, like the Rahulavada Sutta, to help explain the reality. In CMA, guide to #30, Ch VIII, Compendium of Conditionality, where the various kinds of concepts are enumerated, we read: "Well, cave, etc, are called aakaasapa~n~natti, spatial concepts, since they correspond to spatial regions void of perceptible matter." They are concepts pointing to the reality of akasa. When we refer to the reality of akasa rupa, there are two kinds or manifestations (as I understand, of course); a) Pariccheda akasa rupa which is the element of space between the kalapas of rupas conditioned by one of the 4 causes of rupas [kamma, citta, utu (temperature) or ahara(nutriment)]. In this connection, space is not the greater space of cavities, holes, the sky or outer space, but the infinitesimal space surrounding kalapas of rupas, pariccheda rupa, where pariccheda means 'limit' or 'boundary'. (See more on this in 'Survey of Paramattha Dhammas by A.Sujin, ch. 4). As we read in the texts, "The space element has the characteristic of delimiting matter. Its function is to display the boundaries of matter.....Its proximate cause is the matter delimited." (CMA, Guide to #4, Ch V1, Compendium of Matter). In the commentary itself to Abhidammattha Sangaha, ch. 6, 'Materiality' (PTS, transl by Wijeratne and Gethin), we read: "That which cannot be ploughed (na kassati) is a-kaasa; the space-element is that which is itself akaasa, namely space (aakaasa), and an element in the sense that it is lifeless. As the materiality that is delimiting by way of assuring that the materialities that constitute individual clusters such as the eye decad, etc., are not mixed with other clusters, or that is delimited by those [clusters], or merely the limit of them, this materiality is the materiality of limitation. Indeed, it is as if it delimited the various clusters. Moreover, in the context of contact between the elements of one cluster with those of another, as the state of separation of various things, space is also bounded by materiality. And the things of which it is the limit, it itself does not come into contact with, otherwise there would be no delimitation, since the condition of materialities would be one of spreading out; for the condition of not spreading out is the condition of not coming into contact. So the Blessed One has said 'it is not in contact with the four great elements'. (Dhs 144, #638)." ***** S:This akasa rupa is 'not directly produced' (appa.nihita) - it depends on the rupas in the kalapas for its arising. It is asabhava for the same reason (i.e. it doesn't have its own arising and falling away like sabhava rupas) and it is therefore 'not easily known'. (See Vism, XVIII, 16 where it indicates that the 10 apa.nihita or asabhava rupas are 'not suitable for comprehension since they are merely the mode-alteration and the limitation-of-interval'). It does however have "the characteristic (lakkhana) of delimiting material objects, the function (rasa) of showing the boundaries, the manifestation of showing their limits, state of being untouched by the four great essentials and of being their holes and openings as manifestation, the separated objects as proximate cause (padatthana)" (Atthasalini, 'Derived Material Qualities). It lasts for the same time as the other rupas it delimits and arises and falls away with them. Like the inseperable rupas, the akasa rupa is said to be produced from the same causes as those rupas (citta, kamma, temperature (utu) and nutriment (ahara). ..... b) The second kind or manifestation of akasa rupa is the bigger space as evident in cavities, the sky, in vacuums, in the mouth or ear and so on. Here the akasa rupa does not delimit kalapas and it doesn't depend on such kalapas. So in this case, the definition and characteristic is different. Perhaps we can say in this context that it is 'limited or bounded by materiality'. Just looking at the Dhammasangani (Dhs) itself (Khine transl), it says for 'Element of Space' (Ruupa Ka.nda): "There is open space, that which has the nature of being open space, the sky, that which has the nature of sky, opening, that which has the nature of an opening, the fact of being untouched by the four Primary Elements. This is the Corporeality which is the Element of Space." The Vism, Ch XIV mentions that space element "is manifested as the confines of matter; OR it is manifested as untouchedness, as the state of gaps and apertures. .....And it is on account of it that one can say of material things delimited that 'this is above, below, around, that'." The Atthasalini (PTS transl, under 'Derived Material Qualities' as referred to above, under the definition of space-element) ,also mentions the manifestation of a)'showing their limits', and b)'state of being untouched by the four great essentials and of being their holes and openings as manifestation,'. It says that by 'untouched by the four great essentials' what is meant is 'the unentangled space-element untouched by these is stated', such as in a vacuum (vivara) or hole or the sky. " 'sky' is that which is not struck (a-gha.m); not strikable is the meaning. Aphagata'm is the same." It defines space as that 'which is not 'scratched,' not scratched off, which is not possible to scratch, cut, or break." ***** Where there are no mahabuta rupas, space has to be there and this is how we can walk in and out of spaces, swallow food and so on. In this case the akasa rupa is not conditioned by kamma, citta, utu or ahara. It is the unconditioned akasa. Even when the kalapas don't arise and fall away, there is still this akasa. So, actually, I understand there are 3 asankhata dhammas - a) pannatti (concepts), b) akasa (space) and c) nibbana. In the Milinda Panha (Dilemmas V11, 'What is in the world that is not Born of Cause), it is said that there are 'two things not born of kamma, hetu (cause) nor of physical change'- akasa and nibbana. I believe it is this 2nd definition being referred to. Also when references are to boundless and infinite or ajatakasa they are to this larger space. Again in Milinda Panha in the same chapter (I.B. Horner transl), but under 'Born of Kamma and so on', we read that Nagasena says: "Whatever beings are cognisant, sire, all these are born of kamma. Fire and everything born of seeds are born of cause. The earth and the mountains and water and wind are all born of physical change. Aakaasa and nibbaana -these two- are not born of kamma, not born of cause, not born of physical change." Another interesting quote is in Dilemmas VIII, "Nibbana is without a Counterpart": "Reverend Naagasena, when you say that eleven special qualities of aakaasa are present in nibbaana, what are the eleven qualities of aakaasa that are present in nibbaana?" "As, sire, aakaasa is not born, does not age, does not die, does not decease (here), does not arise (elsewhere), is hard to master, cannot be carried off by thieves, depends on nothing (anissata), is the sphere of birds (vihagamana - lit. goes through the air), without obstruction, unending, even so, sire, is nibbaana, not born, does not age, does not die, does not decease, does not arise, is hard to master, cannot be carried off by thieves, depends on nothing, is the sphere of ariyans, without obstruction, unending. These, sire, are the eleven special qualities of aakaasa that are present in nibbaana." Other refs in Milinda Panha are to 'air established on space' and the five qualities of space to be adopted ('Questions on Talk of Similes, #26, 'Space'). The fourth one refers to how space is unending, boundless and immeasurable and this is how our moral habits and knowledge should be! ...... Plamen, I don't usually go into so much detail, but I think you will find interest in some of my reflections and musings here. I'll look forward to any feedback on this or other parts or our discussion to date from anyone. Metta, Sarah ======= #64491 From: s.billard@... Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:11 am Subject: Precisions needed about ADL, chapter 2 sbillard2000 In Abhidhamma in daily life, chapt 2, it is written : "When the bodily feeling is painful it is akusala vipåka (the result of an unwholesome deed), and when the bodily feeling is pleasant it is kusala vipåka (the result of a wholesome deed)" I got problem with this passage, as it seems to imply that all unpleasant feelings are the result of unwholesome deeds. But unpleasant feelings, if they are conditionned by kamma, are conditionned also by other elements. If there is let us say an earthquake and that a wall fall on my head, it will be for sure an unpleasant feeling, but in what measure is it the result of bad or unwholesome deeds ? it lead us again to Sivaka Sutta, but i don't feel I got full compehension... Sebastien http://s.billard.free.fr #64492 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ADL 96 sarahprocter... Dear Scott & Nina, Excuse me joining in, I've also been interested in this phrase. --- Scott Duncan wrote: > Dear Nina, > > Thanks for your reply. I find the word "a~n~nathaabhaavi" to be quite > a beautiful one. Becoming other. ... S: I noticed this is how B.Bodhi translates it in the SN sutta quoted. ... > > N: "It is another word for changing, susceptible to change. Becoming > different. This is a figurative, conventional way of explaining that > the eyesense does not last, that it falls away.<...> ... >Scott: >So the term refers to change over long periods of time, or is it also > meant in the sense of rapid momentary change? I see that that is what > was being taught. I like to know that it is in the nature of eyesense > etc., to be constantly "a~n~nathaabhaavi". ... S: The PTS dict gives two definitions for the term: a) a different existence b) a state of difference, i.e change, alteration, unstableness. In your context,of course the second definition is applicable, but perhaps it can also refer to the 'rebirth' of each citta. I notice that it is often used with vipari.naama (as in vipari.naama dukkha, the dukkha of change). For example, in SN21:2: Sariputta: " 'Is there anything in the world through the change and alteration (vipari.naama~n~nathaabhaavaa)of which sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair might arise in me?' Then it occurred to me: 'There is nothing in the world through the change and alteration of which sorrow.......despair might arise in me.' " And in the Vibhanga, Fivefold Exposition, p490 "Friend, sense pleasures are indeed impermanent, suffering, subject to change (vipari.naamadhammaa); in them different states of change arise(vipari.naama~n~nathaabhaavaa uppajjanti), (also) sorrow, lamentation, pain (physical), mental pain, despair." Thanks for raising the point and for both your comments. Metta, Sarah ======= #64493 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:30 am Subject: [dsg] Re: ADL 96 scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Good points you give here: S: "The PTS dict gives two definitions for the term: a) a different existence b) a state of difference, i.e change, alteration, unstableness. In your context,of course the second definition is applicable, but perhaps it can also refer to the 'rebirth' of each citta." Such a way of seeing it makes sense. Each complex arising, I think, might be considered to be 'a different existence'. Thus the two senses of the term meld - the second 'state' of dhammas allows for the arising of new 'existence'. Although, as highlighted in the discussion on DO regarding the one-life or three-life interpretation, I think that one needs to take care in understanding the meaning of 'existence'. S: "I notice that it is often used with vipari.naama (as in vipari.naama dukkha, the dukkha of change)..." Thanks, Sarah. Vipari.naama is a good adjunct (synonym?) for a~n~nathaabaavaa. 'Change and alteration' and 'states of change' are used. Perhaps, used together, the one amplifies the meaning of the other. Sincerely, Scott. #64494 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 6:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ADL 96 nilovg Dear Sarah, Scott, this is exactly what also came to my mind. Nina. Op 19-okt-2006, om 13:42 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > I notice that it is often used with vipari.naama (as in vipari.naama > dukkha, the dukkha of change). #64495 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 6:22 am Subject: ADL Ch2 nilovg Dear Sebastien, ------- S:"When the bodily feeling is painful it is akusala vipåka (the result of an unwholesome deed), and when the bodily feeling is pleasant it is kusala vipåka (the result of a wholesome deed)" I got problem with this passage, as it seems to imply that all unpleasant feelings are the result of unwholesome deeds. ------- N: Bodily feeling accompanies body-consciousness which is one of the dvipa~cavi~n`naa.nas, and these are vipaakacittas. The unpleasant or unhappy feeling accompanying dosa-muulacitta is akusala, it is of the jaati that is akusala, not vipaaka. --------- S: But unpleasant feelings, if they are conditioned by kamma, are conditioned also by other elements. If there is let us say an earthquake and that a wall fall on my head, it will be for sure an unpleasant feeling, but in what measure is it the result of bad or unwholesome deeds ? ------ N: Kamma is the cause of that unpleasant feeling. The subject of kamma is intricate because there are other conditions which make it the right time for kamma to produce such a result. It is good to have more understanding of kamma and result , so that you know: other people are not to blame for the unpleasant result I receive now. It was time for me to have this unpleasant experience through one of the senses. It can be the hearing of an unpleasant sound in the case of harsh speech. ----- S:it lead us again to Sivaka Sutta, but i don't feel I got full compehension... -------- N: If you like we can go over the sivakasutta again, or I can quote more. I did not want to make the post too long. Any special point you would like to talk about? Nina. #64496 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 6:51 am Subject: Re: More evidence against Abhidhamma as Buddha Word buddhatrue Hi Michael, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Kalyaano" wrote: > > Dear James > > May you be well. > > Actually, the devas of the Tusita realm do have ruupa. It is only the > beings of the four formless realms (Aruuploka) that don't have ruupa. I am aware of that. However, as the Vism. states, the deities of these realms don't practice mindfulness of the body. Therefore, the teaching on rupa would be meaningless to them. Perhaps you should re-read my original post and the quote I provided from the Vism. Metta, James #64497 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 3:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] More evidence against Abhidhamma as Buddha Word upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 10/19/06 3:37:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > > Hi All, > > The Vism. Reads (sorry, I don't know the proper citation for the > Vism.): > > 118. 7. As to plane: here the twelve, namely, the ten kinds of > foulness, mindfulness occupied with the body, and perception of > repulsiveness in nutriment, do not occur among deities. These > twelve and mindfulness of breathing do not occur in the Brahma > world. But none except the four immaterial states occur in the > immaterial becoming. All occur among human beings. This is `as to > plane'. [114] > > It is said that the Buddha taught the Abhidhamma to the deva realm; > specifically to his mother who was reborn there. This doesn't make > sense because devas wouldn't have understood anything having to do > with rupa. Devas don't have bodies like ours and are not able to > practice mindfulness occupied with the body, as detailed in the > Vism. The Abhidhamma would have made no sense to devas so it is > highly unlikely the Buddha would choose to teach it to them. > > Metta, > James > > ============================ I don't know, James, about what the Vism says there. Maybe the Tavatimsa heaven, where the Buddha purportedly taught his mother isn't being referred to, or maybe what you quoted doesn't imply no embodiment, or at least maybe it doesn't rule out *memory* of material form, but, in any case, the following material, quite physical in description, certainly seems to be at odds with the idea that the Buddha could not have taught about rupas there: __________________________ From the Nanda Sutta (Ud. 3.2) Then, taking Ven. Nanda by the arm — as a strong man might flex his extended arm or extend his flexed arm — the Blessed One disappeared from Jeta's Grove and reappeared among the devas of the Tavatimsa Heaven. Now at that time about 500 dove-footed nymphs had come to wait upon Sakka, the ruler of the devas. And the Blessed One said to Ven. Nanda, "Nanda, do you see those 500 dove-footed nymphs?""Yes, lord.""What do you think, Nanda: Which is lovelier, better looking, more charming — the Sakyan girl, the envy of the countryside, or these 500 dove-footed nymphs?" With metta, Howard #64498 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 3:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Patisambhidamagga and emptiness, thinking upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 10/19/06 6:04:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > H: And active cittas are never morally neutral? Perhaps not. Perhaps > weakly kussala or weakly akusala states are mistaken for neutral. I > could accept > that. > ------ > N: Yes, that is the point. Cittas arise and fall away so rapidly, it > is hard to know what thinking is like, it has fallen away already. > While walking in the parc we saw a dead bird. Seeing colour is > vipaaka. Defining what it is is likely to be akusala citta most of > the time. But then there can be another thought: realizing that as > that dead bird is, so will we be soon. Thinking of Dhamma. Thinking > of Dhamma is a way of bhavana, but it is interspersed with many > akusala cittas. My thinking, I am thinking. > Thinking with concern for others is with kusala cittas, like you > thought of the Thai friends when there was the coup. Or when you try > to save an insect. > > When there is the development of vipassana there are kusala cittas > with sati and pa~n~naa after seeing, hearing etc. That is why the > Buddha spoke all the time in the suttas of seeing, hearing, etc. When > there is no mindfulness there is opportunity for all those akusala > cittas with ignorance. The Buddha wanted to exhort us, speaking of > unwise attention and wise attention after seeing an object, hearing > sound. > Nina. > =========================== Thank you, Nina. I find it reasonable, and eminently believable, that mildly kusala and mildly akusala states are readily mistaken for neutral states, and I now find it likely that the active states in worldlings are, with occasional exceptions such as mind-door adverting conciousness, either kusala or akusala. With metta, Howard #64499 From: "Sukinder" Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 8:38 am Subject: Re: Fwd: Retreat inspiration was Name change in Canberra sukinderpal Hi Sarah, Michael, > Sukin, thanks also for your encouragement and keeping contact with > Michael. Do you have any comments to add? I did in fact begin to write a response, but half way I decided not to continue and wait till we met in Jan 2007 for any questions and clarification. But I am itching to say a bit about "thinking" and "mindfulness", as Michael also mentioned this; Michael: > > I know others have meditated and found that hasn't worked so they went > > back to books, tapes, conversations and thinking. That might happen > > to me but somehow, I have faith that it won't. I have faith that > > insights will arise through intense mindfulness. I think that `thinking' is part of the nature of cittas, i.e. it happens all the time, and one should not have any idea about its undesirability. Such thinking that then often proliferates to ideas about the need to attain calm and/or jhana as a precursor for insight misses the point and hence makes it ever harder to then get on the "Right Path". The problem is *not* thinking or even the thoughts, but the mode, akusala citta and the accompanying roots and other cetasikas, particularly lobha and avijja. Therefore if we point wrongly to `thinking' as being at fault (and controllable), then the real enemies, lobha, avijja and miccha ditthi may inadvertently influence the very ideas that subsequently follow as being the way out / practice, i.e. formal practice. Moreover it seems that because there is no appreciation of the nature of `thinking', having all this while only reacted to certain unwanted forms, there is no recognition of those other forms (arising during meditation)which are then taken for `sati'/'mindfulness'. More importantly, it is for this same reason that `dhamma study' and `discussions' are downplayed. These latter activities are in fact the necessary source of knowledge that brings us to the understanding that `thinking' necessarily happens all the time, and that the three papanca are the real problem. The Stream Enterer has got rid of the first type of papanca, namely ditthi, the other two, tanha and mana is eradicated at arahatta magga. I dare say that in daily life, except when in Jhana, all Ariyans think more or less as much as we do. And I would go further to state that, for the first three ariyans, even they grow in understanding from `listening'. Besides, it is here that one learns about what in fact are the objects of satipatthana and the difference between concept and reality is more and more appreciated. The sad thing is that this requires a level of `understanding' and can not be arrived at by reasoning alone. So it is understandable that people will object and believe any rationalizing that comes up in support of their own position. Yet it is with this understanding that we can come to see that any moment is "Right". And so while there are some who believe in formal practice with ideas of another time, place and posture and who tend to downplay or even reject study and discussions, others who have a correct understanding of these activities and prefer to spend much time on them, may in fact have moments of `real' satipatthana even while engaging in these same activities!! I think I've said too much already, so I better end here. Michael I hope you don't mind. Maybe I should wait for after your retreat to see what you have gained from your experience. I think I will bring Knowing (a new friend at our Saturday discussions) along to meet you. He has done several retreats, including one or two 3 month Mahasi style ones. Metta, Sukin #64500 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] More evidence against Abhidhamma as Buddha Word buddhatrue Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, James - > > In a message dated 10/19/06 3:37:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > buddhatrue@... writes: > > > > > Hi All, > > > > The Vism. Reads (sorry, I don't know the proper citation for the > > Vism.): > > > > 118. 7. As to plane: here the twelve, namely, the ten kinds of > > foulness, mindfulness occupied with the body, and perception of > > repulsiveness in nutriment, do not occur among deities. These > > twelve and mindfulness of breathing do not occur in the Brahma > > world. But none except the four immaterial states occur in the > > immaterial becoming. All occur among human beings. This is `as to > > plane'. [114] > > > > It is said that the Buddha taught the Abhidhamma to the deva realm; > > specifically to his mother who was reborn there. This doesn't make > > sense because devas wouldn't have understood anything having to do > > > with rupa. Devas don't have bodies like ours and are not able to > > practice mindfulness occupied with the body, as detailed in the > > Vism. The Abhidhamma would have made no sense to devas so it is > > highly unlikely the Buddha would choose to teach it to them. > > > > Metta, > > James > > > > > ============================ > I don't know, James, about what the Vism says there. Well, you can be unsure about it. No problem with that. I am just throwing out the observation. Maybe the > Tavatimsa heaven, where the Buddha purportedly taught his mother isn't being referred > to This is doubt. The devas of Tavatimsa heaven would be considered deities. , or maybe what you quoted doesn't imply no embodiment I didn't say that. Devas have bodies- bodies of light. However, they don't (or can't) practice mindfulness of the body. Therefore, the Abhidhamma teaching on rupa would go right over their heads. , or at least maybe > it doesn't rule out *memory* of material form Well, that's a possibility, but very remote. , but, in any case, the following > material, quite physical in description, certainly seems to be at odds with > the idea that the Buddha could not have taught about rupas there: He could have taught about rupas, but if the devas couldn't practice mindfulness of the body the teaching wouldn't make much sense or have much use for them. Metta, James ps. As to your off-list question, I have had a very bad flu. Still sick actually. #64501 From: "Plamen Gradinarov" Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:37 am Subject: The Unreal Eternal Element pgradinarov Dear Sarah, Thank you very much for your detailed post. I will add some more quotes for the upcoming discussion, from The Manual of Light by Mahathera Ledi Sayadaw http://www.ubakhin.com/ledi/MANUAL08.html Analysis of Space (Akasa dhatu) The above-mentioned Four Great Elements, Pathavi, Apo, Tejo and Vayo, popularly known as Earth, Water, Fire and Wind respectively, arise either due to (kamma), or mind (citta), or temperature (utu), or nutriment (ahdra). On these four accounts the Four Elements arise together as groups or units of matter. Each group consists of the four elements. The element that separates these groups is called space (akasa), 'that by which an object is delimited' (parichedarupam). Although the Four Great Elements come up together and perish together, only the elements constituting the same unit do so. The neighbouring units being separated by akasa are not affected. To the ordinary eye, mass or form is seen as preconceived shapes of living things or external physical objects. The fact of space in between (ultra-microscopic) material units, that take the form of such living things or objects, is not perceived. In all physical phenomena beginning with Mount Meru, Mount Cakkavala and the Great Earth, being constituted by the Four Great Elements, there are the element of space interstices between every unit of matter. Thus in between all masses of materiality there are voids or space, comparable in principle to the open sky above the Earth. It is very important to gain a clear comprehension of this Element of Space because it is essential for the understanding of material units, which again is essential for the understanding of the (three) characteristics of all phenomena. To gain insight into the three characteristics of all phenomena, you need to contemplate space in all physical objects, animate or inanimate, and perceive its presence. The Element of Space (unlike the Four Great Elements) does not actually arise from some origin. (It has no objective reality.) It is only a delimiting element that makes its appearance whenever material units come into being due to the four causes stated above. Since it does not arise and vanish, one does not need to contemplate it for gaining insight into its impermanence, ill or not-self. Knowledge of the three characteristics of phenomena does not come from contemplating akasa as an object in itself. Rather it needs to be properly perceived as a necessary condition for the understanding of the three characteristics of the Four Great Elements of Earth, Water, Wind and Fire. (End of analysis of Akasa dhatu.) ... As for Space (akasa dhatu) since it is not caused, i.e., 'not born' (jati) it does not have any arising (uppada). It merely happens to exist to delimit those conditioned material units (rupa kalapa). Hence one should not look for the origin or cause of space. (In other words), we exclude space from our study of the Law of Causality.* ________ * Akasa (space) is a permanent concept (nicca pannatti), a subjective element which has no objective reality. ... When one understands the three characteristics* inherent in the six basic elements (dhatu) described above, namely: pathavidhatu, apo dhatu, tejo dhatu, vayo dhatu, akasa dhatu and vinnana dhatu, one is said to have gained the Knowledge of the Three Characteristics. _________ * The first characteristic being anicca (impermanent) End of quotations We have here two logical predicaments to overcome: 1. Ajata akasa taken as nicca pannati is still said to possess the first lakkhana (impermanence). 2. The predicament of avijjamana nicca pannati. Kindest regards, Plamen #64502 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 6:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] More evidence against Abhidhamma as Buddha Word upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 10/19/06 12:40:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > >Hi, James - > > > >In a message dated 10/19/06 3:37:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > >buddhatrue@... writes: > > > >> > >>Hi All, > >> > >>The Vism. Reads (sorry, I don't know the proper citation for the > >>Vism.): > >> > >>118. 7. As to plane: here the twelve, namely, the ten kinds of > >>foulness, mindfulness occupied with the body, and perception of > >>repulsiveness in nutriment, do not occur among deities. These > >>twelve and mindfulness of breathing do not occur in the Brahma > >>world. But none except the four immaterial states occur in the > >>immaterial becoming. All occur among human beings. This is `as > to > >>plane'. [114] > >> > >>It is said that the Buddha taught the Abhidhamma to the deva > realm; > > >>specifically to his mother who was reborn there. This doesn't > make > >>sense because devas wouldn't have understood anything having to > do > > > >>with rupa. Devas don't have bodies like ours and are not able > to > >>practice mindfulness occupied with the body, as detailed in the > >>Vism. The Abhidhamma would have made no sense to devas so it is > >>highly unlikely the Buddha would choose to teach it to them. > >> > >>Metta, > >>James > >> > >> > >============================ > > I don't know, James, about what the Vism says there. > > Well, you can be unsure about it. No problem with that. I am just > throwing out the observation. > > Maybe the > >Tavatimsa heaven, where the Buddha purportedly taught his mother > isn't being referred > >to > > This is doubt. The devas of Tavatimsa heaven would be considered > deities. > > > , or maybe what you quoted doesn't imply no embodiment > > I didn't say that. Devas have bodies- bodies of light. However, > they don't (or can't) practice mindfulness of the body. Therefore, > the Abhidhamma teaching on rupa would go right over their heads. > > , or at least maybe > >it doesn't rule out *memory* of material form > > Well, that's a possibility, but very remote. > > , but, in any case, the following > >material, quite physical in description, certainly seems to be at > odds with > >the idea that the Buddha could not have taught about rupas there: > > He could have taught about rupas, but if the devas couldn't practice > mindfulness of the body the teaching wouldn't make much sense or > have much use for them. > > Metta, > James > ps. As to your off-list question, I have had a very bad flu. Still > sick actually. > > ==================== Sorry about the flu - hope you're over it soon. My point with the sutta quote was that there are reported visible, dove-footed nymphs that are very attractive. That sure makes that sound like a rupic realm. You do have a point with regard to the inability to engage in mindful examination of rupas. That would then make any Dhamma teaching purely an intellectual matter. Still, it doesn't make it impossible. With metta Howard P.S. The next paragraph is from ATI: The Sensuous World (kama-loka). Consists of eleven realms in which experience — both pleasurable and not — is dominated by the five senses. Seven of these realms are favorable destinations, and include our own human realm as well as several realms occupied by devas. The lowest realms are the four "bad" destinations, which include the animal and hell realms. Howard's Note: The Tavatimsa heaven is one of the heavens of the kama-loka. It is NOT one of the heavens of the Fine Material World where they have bodies of light. Are you *certain* about the lack of mindfulness in the Tavatimsa realm? #64503 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:49 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily Life, 99 nilovg Dear friends, Kusala cittas and akusala cittas are bound to arise because we have accumulated both kusala and akusala. People are inclined to blame the world for the arising of their defilements because they do not know that defilements are accumulated in the citta; defilements are not in the objects around ourselves. One might wish to be without the six doors in order to have no defilements. However, the only way to eradicate defilements is: knowing the realities which appear through the six doors. We read in the Kindred Sayings (IV, Salåyatana-vagga, Kindred Sayings on Sense, Fourth Fifty, chapter III, §194, On fire) that the Buddha said to the monks: I will teach you, monks, a discourse (illustrated) by fire, a Dhamma- discourse. Do you listen to it. And what, monks, is that discourse? It were a good thing, monks, if the organ of sight were seared with a red-hot iron pin, on fire, all ablaze, a glowing mass of flame. Then would there be no grasping of the marks or details of objects cognizable by the eye. The consciousness might stand fast, being firmly bound by the satisfaction either of the marks or details (of the objects). Should one die at such a time, there is the possibility of his winning one of two destinies, either hell or rebirth in the womb of an animal. Seeing this danger, monks, do I so declare. It were a good thing, monks, if the organ of hearing were pierced with an iron spike, on fire... if the organ of smell were pierced with a sharp claw, on fire... if the organ of taste were seared with a sharp razor, on fire... if the organ of touch were seared with a sword, on fire... It were a good thing, monks, to be asleep. For sleep, I declare, is barren for living things. It is fruitless for living things, I declare. It is dull for living things, I declare. For (if asleep) one would not be applying his mind to such imaginations as would enslave him, so that (for instance) he would break up the Order. Seeing this danger (of being awake), monks, do I so declare. As to that, monks, the well-taught ariyan disciple thus reflects: ``Let alone searing the organ of sight with an iron pin, on fire, all ablaze, a glowing mass of flame; what if I thus ponder: Impermanent is the eye, impermanent are objects, impermanent is eye- consciousness, eye-contact, the pleasant or unpleasant or neutral feeling which arises owing to eye-contact,--that also is impermanent...'' So seeing, the well-taught ariyan disciple is repelled by the eye, by objects, by eye-consciousness, by eye-contact. He is repelled by that pleasant or unpleasant or neutral feeling that arises owing to eye- contact... Being repelled he is dispassionate. Dispassionate, he is set free. By freedom comes the knowledge, ``I am freed'', so that he realizes: ``Destroyed is rebirth. Lived is the righteous life. Done is the task. For life in these conditions there is no hereafter.'' Such, monks, is the Dhamma-discourse (illustrated) by fire. This sutta reminds us to be mindful at this moment, when we are seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, experiencing objects through the bodysense or through the mind-door. All these moments are functions, performed by different cittas which do not last. **** Nina. #64504 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:52 am Subject: Letters from Nina, 80 nilovg Dear friends, Question: Although I know that gain, honour and praise do not last and can only arise when there are conditions for their arising, I cannot help being distressed when I do not get the rank or position I believe I deserve. What can I do in order to have less ambitions? Answer: We are ambitious because we find ourselves important. Our clinging makes us unhappy. While we strive to get something there is clinging. Also when we obtain what we want we keep on holding tight. Clinging is the cause of endless frustrations. We want the 'self' to become more important but then it will be all the harder to eradicate it. If we think more of others the self will become less important. We may have thought about the impermanence of conditioned realities, about the impermanence of all pleasant objects, but if we do not develop direct understanding of the realities which appear, panna is not strong enough to lessen clinging. We should not only develop understanding when we are disappointed and unhappy, but we should begin right now. If we do not begin now, how can there ever be less clinging to the self? We cling so much to our body, but in reality there are only different elements, such as solidity, cohesion, temperature and motion. Hardness may appear and if there is awareness of it there can be understanding that it is only hardness, not a body which belongs to us. Hardness is only hardness, no matter it is hardness of what we call the body or hardness outside. If there is awareness of it when it appears we will begin to see it as an element, not self. When understanding of nama and rupa is being developed we shall also see that realities such as honour or praise are only elements and that they do not belong to a self. Thus there will be more confidence in the Dhamma and we will consider the Dhamma more precious than honour or praise. ****** Nina. #64505 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:17 am Subject: how do we know namas. nilovg Dear Plamen, For the development of vipassana/satipatthana, there is no special order of nama and rupa of which understanding is being developed. There could not be, because whatever nama or rupa appears through one of the six doors, that is the object of sati and pa~n~naa. There is no selection, if that were the case dhammas could be manipulated according to one's liking. But they are anatta, beyond control, and their nature of anatta should be seen as it truly is. One should not worry if there is very weak awareness, of only a few dhammas, that is the beginning. Sati is accumulated little by little so that understanding can grow. We have to listen more, discuss more, ask questions, and sure, this is the condition for more understanding. Understanding that whatever appears is a conditioned dhamma can guide us to stay on the right Path. Not going off the Path in doing specific things or trying to select dhammas one thinks one should be aware of. Nina. #64506 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:24 am Subject: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu nilovg Hi Larry, ------ L:The views with fixed destiny are actually rather subtle. For example, how is 'no control' not fatalism?" L: There's not only the danger of evil deeds, there's also the danger of missing a chance to do a good deed. ------- N: Well said! With such a view one thinks that it makes no sense to perform kusala. It is sati which does not miss a chance. It does not waste the opportunity. Nina. #64507 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:38 am Subject: Precisions needed about ADL, chapter 2, kamma and result. nilovg Dear Sebastien, you gave this example, and a friend told us today of something similar. Such a coincidence, and I want to tell you. you said: ----- N: He told us that he and his wife were in New York two days before Sept. 11, and he wanted so badly to be on the roof of the Twin Towers. She was very much against it, but they went on the roof. Two days later the Twin Towers were demolished. It depends on kamma how long you will live. It was not yet their time to die. Not long ago she died at home of cancer. We think of situations, of being at the wrong time at the wrong place. But we forget the real, ultimate, fundamental cause of pain, bodily suffering or the ending of a lifespan. The Co. to the Sivaka sutta said that this sutta deals with conventional events. There are also other causes in conventional sense. But let us understand the cause in the ultimate sense: kamma. We could say, if my friend had taken better medicines she could have delayed her passing away. But it can console one to think of kamma. Nobody can prevent kamma from producing result when it is the right time. ****** Nina. #64508 From: "Sebastien Billard" Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL Ch2 sbillard2000 Hi Nina, N : "The unpleasant or unhappy feeling accompanying dosa-muulacitta is akusala, it is of the jaati that is akusala, not vipaaka." Can you explain " it is of the jaati that is akusala, not vipaaka" ? N : "Kamma is the cause of that unpleasant feeling. The subject of kamma is intricate because there are other conditions which make it the right time for kamma to produce such a result (...)It is good to have more understanding of kamma and result , so that you know: other people are not to blame for the unpleasant result I receive now. It was time for me to have this unpleasant experience through one of the senses. It can be the hearing of an unpleasant sound in the case of harsh speech." I do understand kamma as a condition of all feelings, especially concerning interactions between beings : wholesome and unwholesome deeds "come back" to us when conditions allow it, like the waves we produce while swimming. My difficulty is about interactions between us "beings" and what is not "being", like natural phenomenas : earthquake for example are not conditionned by our deeds, it is just rupa conditioned by other niyamas (as I understand it am I correct). But earthquakes can cause us unpleasant feelings. So in this example I don't understand why we say that unpleasant feeling is akusala vipaka, as I see it conditionned by "natural mechanics" and kamma that make us "beings". I don't see the akusala part of this feeling... (Hope I am clear enough) That is why I talked about Sivaka Sutta that say that it is false to say that all feelings are conditioned by the previous deeds. Sébastien Billard :: http://s.billard.free.fr/referencement :: http://s.billard.free.fr/dotclear #64509 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:47 am Subject: Books on Dhamma nilovg Hallo Joop, ------- J: Why should good inclinations not be latent tendencies, lying dormant like microbes? ------ N: This suggests sickness, and only akusala is sickness, whereas kusala is health. ------ J:But more important is of course that "lying dormant" does not fit in the distinguisment of the two truths whereby the main property of ulmitate realities (dhammas) is that they arise and fall away in a very short time. Lying dormant is not falling away. That was my point. ------- N: I get your point, it is not easy to explain. They arise and fall away with each citta, and they do not stay the same: there is constant change of accumulations. More akusala and more kusala is accumulated all the time and in the case of enlightenment there is eradication of latent tendencies in phases. This answer is short, but I am short of time. Nina. #64510 From: Daniel Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:01 pm Subject: Re: Mind (nama and rupa also) sbhtkk Hi Nina and all, >As to the relationship of nama and rupa: nama conditions rupa, for >instance when you are angry or excited (this is nama: consciousness >with anger) it conditions heat in the body. >Rupa conditions nama: eyesense is a rupa in the body and it is one of >the conditions for seeing. Seeing knows an object, eyesense does not >know anything. Can you give some more specific examples how nama conditions rupa? Examples from everyday life? Also, neuroscientists can claim that it is not true that nama conditions rupa. It is actually the certain physical state of the brain that is a condition for the heat of the body - not the anger. Anger cannot be seen with the eye, or touched, or smelled, or tasted. The brain can be seen, touched, smelled, tasted. They would say that the brain is a condition for the heat of the body, but the anger is not. What do you think of that? > Can you print out in the internet cafes? I prefer not to print out in the internet cafes. Yours, Daniel #64511 From: Daniel Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:49 pm Subject: Re: Self sbhtkk Hi Charles, I am not sure what you meant by which truths I am stuck on... I was influenced by judaism. And by new age. And now I am interested in buddhism, and in secular humanism also, very much. Daniel #64512 From: "Sebastien Billard" Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Mind (nama and rupa also) sbillard2000 But what conditions this physical state eh ? At one moment there is nama that condition rupa... S?bastien Billard :: http://s.billard.free.fr/referencement :: http://s.billard.free.fr/dotclear > It is actually the certain physical state of the brain that is a condition > for > the heat of the body - not the anger. #64513 From: "Plamen Gradinarov" Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:28 pm Subject: Re: how do we know namas. pgradinarov Dear Nina & All, I am more interested to know how many mental moments does it take to know a nama. The first option is zero moments (in no time); because every mental phenomenon, every citta and cetasika are immediately known to the mind (mano-dhatu). This is possible due to their svasamvedanatva (selfawareness). Or, to put it in the words of Dharmakirti, sarvam citta-caittAnAm AtmasaMvedanam | NyAya-bindu p. 19 | To this Dharmottara comments in his Tika: "Consciousness is what apprehends the pure object (cittam arthamAtra grAhi, cf. Alambanam cetati cittam). Mental phenomena apprehend special states of consciousness, such as pleasure, etc. It is emphasized that every flash of consciousness and every special state of it are self-knowing. Indeed pleasure, etc., are being clearly experienced and therefore are present to the mind. Self-knowing is not itself a special citta different from all others. In order to avoid this hypothesis, the word sarvam has been added to the definition." The second option is to consider the role of manodvaravajjana-citta as a necessary moment in the process of knowing the namas. Here is that I need your help. Kindest regards, Plamen #64514 From: "kelvin_lwin" Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] More evidence against Abhidhamma as Buddha Word kelvin_lwin Hi James and Howard, I think you need to go back to definition of the meditation subjects. All the 12 objects don't exist readily in heavenly realms, so they can't identify with it. The ten kinds of foulness is easy to see why, they don't leave a dead body behind. Perception of repulsiveness in nutriment is hard since all their food is highly refined and hard to find fault with it. For mindfulness occupied with the body, you need to look closer at what it means in samatha context. Here's one: "Reflection on the 32 impure parts of the body such as head-hair, body-hair, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, diaphragm, spleen, lungs, bowels, mesentery, stomach, faeces, brain, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, lymph, tears, grease, saliva, nasal mucus, articular fluid and urine." They don't have these things to meditate on in heavenly realms since they don't have "impure" parts. So all 12 have common characteristic of finding repulsive and impure nature which the deities can't really identify with. James, to your original point about rupa, you forgot about Four Elements based meditation. This is practiced in all non-arupa realms and is the basis of kalapas/rupa. - Kel #64515 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] More evidence against Abhidhamma as Buddha Word upasaka_howard Hi, Kel (and James) - In a message dated 10/19/06 5:41:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kelvin_lwin@... writes: > Hi James and Howard, > > I think you need to go back to definition of the meditation > subjects. All the 12 objects don't exist readily in heavenly > realms, so they can't identify with it. The ten kinds of foulness > is easy to see why, they don't leave a dead body behind. Perception > of repulsiveness in nutriment is hard since all their food is highly > refined and hard to find fault with it. For mindfulness occupied > with the body, you need to look closer at what it means in samatha > context. Here's one: > > "Reflection on the 32 impure parts of the body such as head-hair, > body-hair, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, marrow, kidneys, > heart, liver, diaphragm, spleen, lungs, bowels, mesentery, > stomach, faeces, brain, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, lymph, > tears, grease, saliva, nasal mucus, articular fluid and urine." > > They don't have these things to meditate on in heavenly realms > since they don't have "impure" parts. So all 12 have common > characteristic of finding repulsive and impure nature which the > deities can't really identify with. > > James, to your original point about rupa, you forgot about Four > Elements based meditation. This is practiced in all non-arupa > realms and is the basis of kalapas/rupa. > > - Kel > > ======================== What you say makes a lot of sense, Kel. However, from what I have read, the Tavatimsa realm is quite physical. In fact, after an enormous time when a deva there is heading towards death s/he will start to have physical changes including sweating. I found, for example, the following material from the following web site: http://www.mahindarama.com/e-library/31planes2.htm _______________________ It is explained that all gods and goddesses in this heaven are always in their youthful stage of life. No old age, sickness and disfigured parts of the body appear among them. Their foods are so subtle that no excretions are produced from their bodies. Their birth in heaven is one of spontaneous uprising (opapatika), i.e.., the being born in heaven spontaneously appears as a young man or woman. And when his death occurs, because of the exhaustion of his kamma that leads him to take rebirth in heaven, he just disappears from the celestial world leaving no trace of his corporeal body. In the Khuddaka-Nikayaâ€? it is said that when the end of his term of life in heaven is drawing near, the five signs appears to the god who is to pass away to take rebirth in another realm of existence. The five signs are:  i.  His decorating flowers wither away, ii. His clothes become faded, iii. Sweat comes out of his armpits, iv. His complexion becomes depressed, and v. He becomes displeased with his heavenly seat.  When these five signs appear to any god, he himself, as well as others, realizes that the end of his life in that realm is close at hand and he is consequently overcome with grief. Having seen the five signs his friends try to console him with their wishes: they wish him attainment to the realm of happiness, attainment to that which is beneficial for him and to be well-established in what has been attained. To attain to the realm of happiness for a god in heaven is explained as obtaining rebirth ____________________________ With metta, Howard #64516 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:14 pm Subject: Withdrawn (Re: [dsg] More evidence against Abhidhamma as Buddha Word) buddhatrue Hi All, Since we can't reach agreement on the term "deities" or "mindfulness of the body", I withdraw my original post. It isn't much evidence if there isn't agreement of the terms. Metta, James #64517 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu lbidd2 Hi Joop, I couldn't find your quote from "Buddhist Dictionary". Where exactly did you find it? Here is what I found: "[natthika-ditthi] ... (3) was taught by Ajita-Kesakambali, a third contemporary of the Buddha who asserted that any belief in good action and its reward is a mere delusion, that after death no further life would follow, that man at death would become dissolved into the elements, etc. You might want to read MN60. The argument there is basically, even if you don't believe in rebirth and inevitable reward or punishment for good or evil deeds you should conduct yourself in body speech and mind as though you did. That is the safest path. Anticipating that you disagree, I might ask you, why do good and reject evil? Larry -------------------------- Joop: "Perhaps you don't perceive yourself as an expert but isn't it strange that (1) Bhikkhu Bodhi explains in CMA "(i) nihilism (natthika-di.t.thi), which denies the survival of the personality in any form after death, thus negating the moral significance of deeds;…" and Nyatiloka defines "natthika" in his dictionary as (to me) totally different as : (2) "natthika-ditthi: 'nihilistic view' (a doctrine that all values are baseless, that nothing is knowable or can be communicated, and that life itself is meaningless)" " #64518 From: "nidive" Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:29 pm Subject: The Emptiness Awareness-Release nidive Hi All, I found an interesting passage regarding the emptiness awareness- release. ------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html "And what is the emptiness awareness-release? There is the case where a monk, having gone into the wilderness, to the root of a tree, or into an empty dwelling, considers this: 'This is empty of self or of anything pertaining to self.'5 This is called the emptiness awareness- release. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Some on DSG have proposed that dhammas are not only empty of self, but also empty of themselves. I think the above passage is proof that the Buddha teaches only that dhammas are empty of self. The idea that dhammas are empty of themselves is mere thought proliferation not accorded as a teaching of the Buddha. Regards, Swee Boon #64519 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Emptiness Awareness-Release upasaka_howard Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 10/19/06 8:42:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nidive@... writes: > Hi All, > > I found an interesting passage regarding the emptiness awareness- > release. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html > > "And what is the emptiness awareness-release? There is the case where > a monk, having gone into the wilderness, to the root of a tree, or > into an empty dwelling, considers this: 'This is empty of self or of > anything pertaining to self.'5 This is called the emptiness awareness- > release. > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Some on DSG have proposed that dhammas are not only empty of self, but > also empty of themselves. > > I think the above passage is proof that the Buddha teaches only that > dhammas are empty of self. > > The idea that dhammas are empty of themselves is mere thought > proliferation not accorded as a teaching of the Buddha. > > Regards, > Swee Boon > ============================= I address your post in two ways. A) This sutta also says the following: __________________ "'Consciousness, consciousness': Thus is it said. To what extent, friend, is it said to be 'consciousness'?""'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus, friend, it is said to be 'consciousness.' And what does it cognize? It cognizes 'pleasant.' It cognizes 'painful.' It cognizes 'neither painful nor pleasant.' 'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus it is said to be 'consciousness.'" -------------------------------- Using your mode of inference, one should think the above passage is proof that the Buddha teaches that consciousness is cognizing only of pleasant, painful, or neither pleasant nor painfulonly cognizing of feelings. Similarly, the sutta includes the following: ___________________ "'It perceives, it perceives': Thus, friend, it is said to be 'perception.' And what does it perceive? It perceives blue. It perceives yellow. It perceives red. It perceives white. 'It perceives, it perceives': Thus it is said to be 'perception.'" ---------------------------------- Again, following your mode of reasoning, one should think that perception is perception only of visible object. When the Buddha points out something, there are lots of other things not pointed out that are not thereby excluded. Look for example at the dependencies if the 12-link chai/cycle of dependent arising. There are specific requisite conditionalities presented there, but they are not exclusive. Many conditions are requisite for the arising of a result, and mentioning but one does not rule out the others. B) One can take a second look at the original statement to the effect that emptiness awareness-release is the realizing that 'This is empty of self or of anything pertaining to self.' It may well be pointed out that this "self" need not be interpreted only as personal self. Whatever lacks own-being/identity lacks self and anything pertaining to self, being utterly dependent for its contingent existence on phenoemna that are totally other. So, even this matter fails to unequivocally reference personal self. The "self" of anything, be it a dhamma or a person is the alleged (but in-truth merely imagined) essence/core/identity/own-being/own-nature/"soul" of that thing. ===================== With metta, Howard #64520 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Emptiness Awareness-Release lbidd2 Hi Swee Boon and Howard, I agree with Howard that this sutta isn't a proof that the Buddha never said a dhamma is empty of itself. But, on the other hand, I don't know of a single instance where the Buddha said a being is empty of a being or a rupa is empty of a rupa or empty of rupaness. What else could 'empty of itself' mean? Actually, I think 'empty of itself' is an ill conceived way of referring to a concept and ought to instead be phrased as 'empty of own nature' (asabhava). The Buddha doesn't talk about this but it is discussed in a very limited way in the commentaries. The practice of emptiness awareness is meant to introduce you to experiencing things as empty like experiencing an empty room. Larry #64521 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:22 pm Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 555- Compassion/karu.naa and Sympathetic Joy/muditaa(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;-) =============================================== Compassion(karu.naa)and Sympathetic Joy(muditaa) At the moment of sympathetic joy there is also calm with the kusala citta. Those who have accumulations to develop calm can develop calm with sympathetic joy as meditation subject. The Visuddhimagga (IX, 84-124) describes how the divine abiding of sympathetic joy can be developed as a meditation subject of samatha leading to the attainment of jhåna(1). It is developed for the purpose of freedom from aversion. When jhåna is attained sympathetic joy can be extended to an unlimited number of beings. We read about the development of the four divine abidings in the Dígha Nikåya (Dialogues of the Buddha III, no. 33, The Recital, 223, 224): * "Four “infinitudes” (appamaññas), to wit:— herein, monks, a monk lets his mind pervade one quarter of the world with thoughts of love… pity… sympathetic joy… equanimity, and so the second quarter, and so the third, and so the fourth. And thus the whole wide world, above, below, around and everywhere does he continue to pervade with heart… far-reaching, grown great and beyond measure, free from anger and ill-will." * *** (1) With this subject different stages of rúpa-jhåna can be attained, but not the highest stage. Sympathetic joy can be accompanied by pleasant feeling or by indifferent feeling. It is not the subject of the jhånacittas of the highest stage which are accompanied by indifferent feeling. ***** Compassion(karu.naa) and Sympathetic Joy(muditaato) be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #64522 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Jewish Mystical Nothingness and Bhavanga Cittas sarahprocter... Hi Howard (& Rita), --- upasaka@... wrote: <...> > P.S I read this to my wife who commented "I don't find that musing > particularly amusing!" LOL! Of course, she's right. It's just so much > additional playing > with concepts - fun, but not worth all that much! ;-) .... S: LOL! Nice that you can read some of your unamusing Musings to your wife anyway:-). Let us know when she finds one more amusing or of some interest:-). In any case, I think such reflecting and musing helps one to consider further - even if it's to see that some of our ideas have a limited shelf-life.... Metta, Sarah ======= #64523 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Unreal Eternal Element sarahprocter... Hi Plamen, So you didn't like my 'spaced out' subject heading:-). As for yourse, 'the unreal eternal element' is an oxymoron as I understand the terms.... --- Plamen Gradinarov wrote: > Dear Sarah, > > Thank you very much for your detailed post. I will add some more > quotes for the upcoming discussion, from The Manual of Light by > Mahathera Ledi Sayadaw > http://www.ubakhin.com/ledi/MANUAL08.html .... S: Thank you for adding the quote. My first reaction is to just thank you and skip to your predicaments at the end, but I'm curious to spend a little more time on Ledi Sayadaw's comments. My inserted comments will seem disrespectful to some, but are merely my reflections based on what I read in the ancient commentaries and Tipitaka to date: > > Analysis of Space (Akasa dhatu) > > The above-mentioned Four Great Elements, Pathavi, Apo, Tejo and > Vayo, popularly known as Earth, Water, Fire and Wind respectively, > arise either due to (kamma), or mind (citta), or temperature (utu), > or nutriment (ahdra). On these four accounts the Four Elements arise > together as groups or units of matter. Each group consists of the > four elements. The element that separates these groups is called > space (akasa), 'that by which an object is delimited' > (parichedarupam). .... S: Yes ... >Although the Four Great Elements come up together > and perish together, only the elements constituting the same unit do > so. The neighbouring units being separated by akasa are not > affected. .... S: This doesn't make sense to me (am I being dense?). All the kalapas and the space (pariccheda akasa) dependent on these kalapas arise and fall together. Oh, perhaps he means that the different kalapas arise and fall according to their own conditions. OK.... .... >To the ordinary eye, mass or form is seen as preconceived > shapes of living things or external physical objects. The fact of > space in between (ultra-microscopic) material units, that take the > form of such living things or objects, is not perceived. .... S: Ooh...whether or not there is any awareness, all that is seen is visible object. Ideas of seeing living beings etc come way down the track. But OK, yes, the space between the 'ultra-microscipic material units'... ... >In all > physical phenomena beginning with Mount Meru, Mount Cakkavala and > the Great Earth, being constituted by the Four Great Elements, there > are the element of space interstices between every unit of matter. ... S: Yes ... > Thus in between all masses of materiality there are voids or space, > comparable in principle to the open sky above the Earth. .... S: This is the 2nd kind of akasa I referred to in open spaces. Not the pariccheda rupa dependent on the arising of the kalapas. .... >It is very > important to gain a clear comprehension of this Element of Space > because it is essential for the understanding of material units, > which again is essential for the understanding of the (three) > characteristics of all phenomena. .... S: Yes, this element of pariccheda akasa dhatu which is also anicca, dukkha and anatta. .... >To gain insight into the three > characteristics of all phenomena, you need to contemplate space in > all physical objects, animate or inanimate, and perceive its > presence. The Element of Space (unlike the Four Great Elements) does > not actually arise from some origin. (It has no objective reality.) .... S: It is said in the texts I quoted to arise from the same origin as the kalapas it separates and yes, it is a paramattha dhamma, a reality. So we disagree here. See quotes in my post or ask me for them again if needed. ... > It is only a delimiting element that makes its appearance whenever > material units come into being due to the four causes stated above. ... S: Yes. Still, it is a dhatu, an element and all elements are realities, subject to rise and fall along with 'the material units'. .... > Since it does not arise and vanish, one does not need to contemplate > it for gaining insight into its impermanence, ill or not-self. ..... S: Commentary to Ab.Sangaha, ch 6, Materiality gives details of the rupas conditioned by kamma, citta, utu and ahara. Akasa rupa is included under each - 'born of kamma...etc'. It arises and vanishes. As for what is contemplated and understood in the development of insight, that will depend on what appears right now (as Nina is discussing with you). It's not a question of selection and self. However, I agree that it's true that akasa dhatu is an asabhava dhatu, 'not easily understood'. If anyone thinks there has to be direct understanding of such dhatus, it's wrong. .... > Knowledge of the three characteristics of phenomena does not come > from contemplating akasa as an object in itself. Rather it needs to > be properly perceived as a necessary condition for the understanding > of the three characteristics of the Four Great Elements of Earth, > Water, Wind and Fire. > (End of analysis of Akasa dhatu.) .... S: OK, I think he means that at least understanding theoretically that rupas arise in kalapas separated by pariccheda akasa rupa is important. .... > As for Space (akasa dhatu) since it is not caused, i.e., 'not born' > (jati) it does not have any arising (uppada). .... S: This doesn't apply to pariccheda akasa rupa which he has been discussing above. ... >It merely happens to > exist to delimit those conditioned material units (rupa kalapa). ... S: It exists, therefore it is a dhatu (element). As the texts show, it delmits the material units and is 'born'. It has an arising. Here, he is contradicting the ancient commentaries. .... > Hence one should not look for the origin or cause of space. (In > other words), we exclude space from our study of the Law of > Causality.* > ________ > * Akasa (space) is a permanent concept (nicca pannatti), a > subjective element which has no objective reality. .... S: Disagree. I have no reason to disregard what the ancient texts clearly indicate in this regard. I don't know what a 'subjective element' is either, unless it's another word for 'pannatti'. As I mentioned yesterday, it is a very controversial area. Karunadasa also refers to akasa as a concept only if I recall. [When it comes to the larger space and the quotes I gave from Milinda Pa~nha, even I.B.Horner (whose translation I was using) added a footnote to suggest she didn't agree with the quote. She also refers to the Sarvastivadins who recognise akasa and 2 kinds of nibbana (as you were mentioning) and refers to Lamotte's 'Hist. du Bouddhisme Indien, vol 1, p675 for your interest). Also, see Kathavatthu, VI,6 'Of Space'. (The full quote is in U.P.).] .... > When one understands the three characteristics* inherent in the six > basic elements (dhatu) described above, namely: pathavidhatu, apo > dhatu, tejo dhatu, vayo dhatu, akasa dhatu and vinnana dhatu, one is > said to have gained the Knowledge of the Three Characteristics. ... S: Exactly, the 3 characteristics inherent in any of the elements (not just selected elements). If the 3 characteristics are inherent in it and it's an element, then it's most certainly a reality, not a concept. Another oxymoron! ... > _________ > * The first characteristic being anicca (impermanent) > > End of quotations > > We have here two logical predicaments to overcome: > > 1. Ajata akasa taken as nicca pannati is still said to possess the > first lakkhana (impermanence). ... S: This is only a predicament if you believe what you quoted. It is not a predicament if one doesn't suggest any pannatti have lakkhana! .... > > 2. The predicament of avijjamana nicca pannati. ... S: Again, this makes no sense to me....Pannatti are pannatti, no question of ignorance, permanence or impermanence or any other charactistics being involved. They don't exist! How are we doing? I wonder if Kel, Han or anyone else has anything futher to add on Ledi Sayadaw's comments (or mine from yesterday)? Metta, Sarah ======= #64524 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:27 am Subject: Mind (nama and rupa also) nilovg Dear Daniel and Sebastien, Daniel: Also, neuroscientists can claim that it is not true that nama conditions rupa. It is actually the certain physical state of the brain that is a condition for the heat of the body - not the anger. Anger cannot be seen with the eye, or touched, or smelled, or tasted. The brain can be seen, touched, smelled, tasted. They would say that the brain is a condition for the heat of the body, but the anger is not. What do you think of that? ------- N: You are right that anger cannot be seen. It is pure nama. As to your example, I cannot experience the brain at this moment. Rupas that appear through the bodysense can be experienced at any time: hardness, softness, heat, cold, motion and pressure. These are ultimate realities.The Buddha did not teach notions of medical science or neuroscience. He taught the ultimate realities of nama and rupa so that we can become detached from the idea of self. Detachment is the goal. Emotions such as anger, excitement, fear, which are nama, can condition certain rupas that appear through the bodysense. Each person can verify this for himself. For instance is there no difference between the moment when one is angry and the moment when anger is allayed and there is metta? When the citta is gentle and peaceful, it also influences bodily phenomena. There is no need to name those rupas, they are experienced through the bodysense which is all over the body. There are many other ways rupa conditions nama. The eyesense which is rupa and visible object which is rupa are conditions for the nama that sees. Remember Abhidhamma in Daily life, Ch 1: Furthermore (XVIII, 36) we read: ***** NIna. #64525 From: "matt roke" Date: Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:26 am Subject: [dsg] More evidence against Abhidhamma as Buddha Word mattroke Hi James & all, J: It is said that the Buddha taught the Abhidhamma to the deva realm; specifically to his mother who was reborn there. This doesn't make sense because devas wouldn't have understood anything having to do with rupa. Devas don't have bodies like ours and are not able to practice mindfulness occupied with the body, as detailed in the Vism. The Abhidhamma would have made no sense to devas so it is highly unlikely the Buddha would choose to teach it to them. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------\ ------------------- M: Devas are only a concept, which we are unable to prove exist or have the qualities the scriptures say they have. Maybe the description of devas is correct, maybe it is not. Maybe the story about the Buddha teaching Abhidhamma to devas is right, or maybe it is wrong. We cannot know if both are right or both are wrong, so why choose to believe one over the other? It really does not matter whether the Buddha taught Abhidhamma to devas or not. What does matter is the study and contemplation of the dhamma found in the entire Tipitaka and to discuss it with teachers and dhamma friends, while keeping in mind the Buddha’s instruction given in the Kalama Sutta: “Do not believe what has been acquired by repeated hearing, nor because of traditions, nor because it has been spoken and rumoured by many, nor because it is found written in a scripture, nor because of logical conjecture, nor because of inference or analogies, nor because of bias towards a notion that has been pondered over, nor because of another's seeming ability, nor because of the thought, 'The person is our teacher’. When you know for yourselves that these qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted and carried out, lead to benefit and to happiness then you should enter and abide in them.” Matt #64526 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:18 am Subject: ADL, Ch 2 nilovg Dear Sebastien, N : "The unpleasant or unhappy feeling accompanying dosa-muulacitta is akusala, it is of the jaati that is akusala, not vipaaka." Can you explain " it is of the jaati that is akusala, not vipaaka" ? ------- N: Cittas can be classified by way of four jaatis (jaati is birth, or nature): akusala, kusala, vipaaka and kiriya. These are four classes, according to the nature of citta. Akusala citta and kusala citta are cittas which are cause, they are capable of motivating evil deeds or good deeds. Vipaaka is of a more passive nature, it is merely the receiving of the result of kamma. Akusala vipaaka is the result of akusala kamma, and kusala vipaaka is the result of kusala kamma. Both akusala vipaaka and kusala vipaaka are one jaati, the jaati of vipaaka. They are merely results and they do not motivate any deeds. Seeing is vipaaka, but it is of no use to find out whether it is the reuslt of kusala kamma or akusala kamma. It is enough to know that it is vipaaka. Kiriya is inoperative: neither cause nor result. It is important to have understanding of the jaatis of cittas, this prevents confusion as to cause and result in life. --------- S: I do understand kamma as a condition of all feelings, especially concerning interactions between beings : wholesome and unwholesome deeds "come back" to us when conditions allow it, like the waves we produce while swimming. ------- N: Kamma is not a condition for all feelings. Kamma produces vipaakacittas and their accompanying feelings. As said, painful bodily feeling that accompanies the vipaakacitta which is body-consciousness, is the result of kamma. Here we need to distinguish between the jaati of vipaaka and the jaati of kusala and akusala. Unhappy feeling accompanying citta rooted in aversion is not the result of kamma, it is of the jaati that is akusala. Kamma which produces vipaaka does not concern interactions between beings. Each person is the heir of his own kamma. ------- S: My difficulty is about interactions between us "beings" and what is not "being", like natural phenomenas : earthquake for example are not conditionned by our deeds, it is just rupa conditioned by other niyamas (as I understand it am I correct). ------ N: The pain caused by the earthquake is vipaaka. We have to differentiate between cause and effect, and this in terms of paramattha dhammas. If we think of this or that person, this or that natural phenomenon, we are bound to be confused as to the cause of the different types of cittas that arise. ------- S: But earthquakes can cause us unpleasant feelings. So in this example I don't understand why we say that unpleasant feeling is akusala vipaka, as I see it conditionned by "natural mechanics" and kamma that make us "beings". I don't see the akusala part of this feeling... (Hope I am clear enough) ------ N: See above for feelings that is vipaaka. After the vipaaka there are our reactions to it: kusala or akusala. Think of the different jatis. When aversion arises with unhappy feeling, as said that feeling is akusala, it accompanies citta that is cause, not citta that is result. ------ S:That is why I talked about Sivaka Sutta that say that it is false to say that all feelings are conditioned by the previous deeds. N: Perhaps this is clearer now? Nina. #64527 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:27 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily Life 100 nilovg Dear friends, Chapter 14 The Function of Javana When we see, hear, smell, taste, experience an object through the bodysense or through the mind-door, there is not only one citta experiencing the object through the appropriate doorway, but a series or process of cittas. A rúpa which impinges on one of the senses is experienced by a process of cittas. When that sense-door process is over, the object is experienced by cittas arising in a mind-door process. Cittas in sense-door processes and in mind-door processes arise and fall away continuously. We may not know that both in a sense-door process and in a mind-door process there are akusala cittas or kusala cittas arising. Because of our accumulated ignorance we do not clearly know our different cittas and we do not recognize our more subtle defilements. In a sense-door process the object is experienced first by cittas which are not kusala cittas or akusala cittas; it is experienced by kiriyacittas and by vipåkacittas. The five-door-adverting- consciousness (pañca-dvåråvajjana-citta) is an ahetuka kiriyacitta (without beautiful roots or unwholesome roots). It is succeeded by one of the dvi-pañca-viññåùas (the five pairs of seeing- consciousness, hearing-consciousness, etc.) and this citta is ahetuka vipåka. Then there are two more ahetuka vipåkacittas: the sampaìicchana-citta which receives the object and the santíraùa-citta which investigates the object. The santíraùa-citta is succeeded by the votthapana-citta (determining-consciousness) which is an ahetuka kiriyacitta. The votthapana-citta determines the object and is then succeeded by kusala cittas or by akusala cittas. In the case of those who are arahats there are no kusala cittas or akusala cittas succeeding the votthapana-citta but kiriyacittas. When the cittas of the sense-door process have fallen away, cittas of the mind-door process experience the object. First there are bhavanga-cittas and then the mano-dvåråvajjana-citta arises which has the function of adverting to the object through the mind-door. The mano-dvåråvajjana- citta is succeeded by kusala cittas or by akusala cittas in the case of those who are not arahats. The mano-dvåråvajjana-citta is not kusala or akusala, it is ahetuka kiriyacitta. --------- Nina. #64528 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:29 am Subject: Letters from Nina, 81 nilovg Dear friends, We can easily be infatuated by gains, favours, or flattery. They are treacherous, because they seem desirable, but they lead to misery. In the 'Kindred Sayings' (II, Nidana Vagga, Ch XVII, Kindred Sayings on Gain and Favours) there are forty-three suttas which point out to us the danger of gains, favour and flatteries. They are as dangerous as a fisherman's hook to the fish, as a thunderbolt, as a poisoned dart which wounds a man, as a hurricane which hurls a bird apart. People who do not easily lie tell deliberately lies when they are overcome by desire for gains, favours and flatteries. We read in par. 10: 'Dire, monks, are gains, favours, and flattery, a bitter, harsh obstacle in the way of arriving at uttermost safety. Concerning this matter, I see one person overcome, and whose mind is possessed by favours, another who is overcome and possessed by lack of favours, yet another who is overcome and possessed by both favours and the lack of them--- I see one and all, at the separation of the body after death reborn in the Waste, the Woeful Way, the Downfall, Hell. So dire, monks, are gains... Verily thus must you train yourselves: "When gains, favours, and flattery come to us, we will put them aside, nor when they come shall they take lasting hold on our hearts." In whom, when favours fall upon him, or When none are shown, the mind steadfast, intent, Sways not at all, for earnest is his life, Him of rapt thought, (of will) unfaltering, Of fine perception, of the vision seer, Rejoicing that to grasp is his no more: Him let the people call in truth Good man.' With Metta, Nina #64529 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:40 am Subject: Re: The Emptiness Awareness-Release scottduncan2 Dear Swee Boon and All, I'm not sure of the following: SB: "I found an interesting passage regarding the emptiness awareness-release. "And what is the emptiness awareness-release? There is the case where a monk, having gone into the wilderness, to the root of a tree, or into an empty dwelling, considers this: 'This is empty of self or of anything pertaining to self.'5 This is called the emptiness awareness- release." The pali: Katamaa caavuso su~n~nataa cetovimutti? Idhaavuso bhikkhu ara~n~nagato va rakkhamuulagato vaa su~n~naagaaragato vaa iti pa.tisa~ncikkhati: su~n~namida.m attena vaa attaniyena vaati. Aya.m vuccataavuso su~n~nataa cetovimutti. SB: "I think the above passage is proof that the Buddha teaches only that dhammas are empty of self." I think the above passage is about "cetovimutti" of a certain form; I don't really know much about this. I think it might be about the fruition of the arahat or about one of the immaterial spheres of jhaana, if one goes by Nyanatiloka. I don't know. With loving kindness, Scott. #64530 From: "nidive" Date: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:33 am Subject: Re: The Emptiness Awareness-Release nidive Hi Howard, > A) > This sutta also says the following: > __________________ > "'Consciousness, consciousness': Thus is it said. To what extent, > friend, is it said to be 'consciousness'?""'It cognizes, it > cognizes': Thus, friend, it is said to be 'consciousness.' And what > does it cognize? It cognizes 'pleasant.' It cognizes 'painful.' It > cognizes 'neither painful nor pleasant.' 'It cognizes, it cognizes': > Thus it is said to be 'consciousness.'" > -------------------------------- > Using your mode of inference, one should think the above passage is > proof that the Buddha teaches that consciousness is cognizing only > of pleasant, painful, or neither pleasant nor painfulonly cognizing > of feelings. It seems that you have missed an (insignificant to you perhaps ?) sentence in the above passage: 'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus it is said to be 'consciousness.' This is the essence of the passage: It cognizes, it cognizes, thus it is said to be 'consciousness'. The Buddha gave 3 examples, but the real essence is explained in this last sentence. > Similarly, the sutta includes the following: > ___________________ > "'It perceives, it perceives': Thus, friend, it is said to be > 'perception.' And what does it perceive? It perceives blue. It > perceives yellow. It perceives red. It perceives white. 'It > perceives, it perceives': Thus it is said to be 'perception.'" > ---------------------------------- > Again, following your mode of reasoning, one should think that > perception is perception only of visible object. Again, the real essence is here: 'It perceives, it perceives': thus it is said to be 'perception.' Examples are given, but the real essence is not unexplained. > When the Buddha points out something, there are lots of other things > not pointed out that are not thereby excluded. Look for example at > the dependencies if the 12-link chai/cycle of dependent arising. > There are specific requisite conditionalities presented there, but > they are not exclusive. Many conditions are requisite for the > arising of a result, and mentioning but one does not rule out the > others. As Larry said: "I don't know of a single instance where the Buddha said a being is empty of a being or a rupa is empty of a rupa or empty of rupaness.", I think I would be nice of you to provide a sutta that expresses this. I know there is one sutta using just the phrase "empty" (which doesn't prove beyond doubt about your point), but I do not know of a sutta using the phrase "empty of itself". > B) > > One can take a second look at the original statement to the effect > that emptiness awareness-release is the realizing that 'This is > empty of self or of anything pertaining to self.' It may well be > pointed out that this "self" need not be interpreted only as > personal self. Whatever lacks own-being/identity lacks self and > anything pertaining to self, being utterly dependent for its > contingent existence on phenoemna that are totally other. So, even > this matter fails to unequivocally reference personal self. The > "self" of anything, be it a dhamma or a person is the alleged (but > in-truth merely imagined) essence/core/identity/own-being/own- > nature/"soul" of that thing. Let me clarify with you: When you speak of "empty of itself", you mean that it is empty of "essence/core/identity/own-being/own-nature/ "soul". If that is what you mean, then I don't see any difference between "empty of self" and "empty of itself". Both are synonymous. Regards, Swee Boon #64531 From: s.billard@... Date: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL, Ch 2 sbillard2000 Well I read your email several times for 30 minutes, and it still sound like a koan for me :D I need to read and think and re-think Sebastien > S:That is why I talked about Sivaka Sutta that say that it is false > to say > that all feelings are conditioned by the previous deeds. > N: Perhaps this is clearer now? #64532 From: "Joop" Date: Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:13 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu jwromeijn Hallo Larry, Sarah, all My quote was at the letter N of Nyatilokas Dictionary: "natthika-ditthi: 'nihilistic view' (a doctrine that all values are baseless, that nothing is knowable or can be communicated, and that life itself is meaningless)" And my statement was that this is some different then the definition BB gave in MCA: "(i) nihilism (natthika-di.t.thi), which denies the survival of the personality in any form after death, thus negating the moral significance of deeds;…" A definition of which the THUS is wrong logic If I understand you wel, you - summarizing MN 60 - say the same as I do: L: "The argument there is basically, EVEN if you don't believe in rebirth and inevitable reward or punishment for good or evil deeds you SHOULD conduct yourself in body speech and mind AS THOUGH you did." Perhaps this surprises you but I agree totally with this. You continu with: "That is the safest path." That sounds strange to me. I do not behave in an ethical way because of merit or because I want to avoid punishment but for intrinsic reasons. And why take the safest path? Do you really think all orthodox Theravadins only behave in an ethical way (with sila) because of the later effect they hope to get (merit) or avoid (bad rebirth)? Are they so calculating? The term 'kamma' does not occur in MN 60, not occur literal but of it (or better: the later effect of kamma) does indirect. Perhaps I can surprise you for the second time: I believe in the later effect of kamma, only "later" is for me: in this life That brings me to the way Buddhadasa Bhikku - the real topic of this thread, not Joop - states about kamma. I will not quote him again, see my message #64366 If I understand him well (I'm not sure) he says: only the present moment counts, kamma - and even rebirth - is about this moment, "When a good deed is done, goodness spontaneously arises; when an evil deed is done, evilness spontaneously arises". I have not yet finished my study of MN 60. Till now I have not found the view which denies the survival of the personality in any form after death, BUT NOT negates the moral significance of deeds, which is my view. I agree: nearly nihilistic but not totally nihilistic. Sarah, I hope your computer is doing well again, and you find the time to answer. Metta Joop --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > > Hi Joop, > > I couldn't find your quote from "Buddhist Dictionary". Where exactly did > you find it? Here is what I found: > > "[natthika-ditthi] ... (3) was taught by Ajita-Kesakambali, a third > contemporary of the Buddha who asserted that any belief in good action > and its reward is a mere delusion, that after death no further life > would follow, that man at death would become dissolved into the > elements, etc. > > You might want to read MN60. The argument there is basically, even if > you don't believe in rebirth and inevitable reward or punishment for > good or evil deeds you should conduct yourself in body speech and mind > as though you did. That is the safest path. > > Anticipating that you disagree, I might ask you, why do good and reject > evil? > > Larry > -------------------------- > Joop: "Perhaps you don't perceive yourself as an expert but isn't it > strange that > (1) Bhikkhu Bodhi explains in CMA > "(i) nihilism (natthika-di.t.thi), which denies the survival of the > personality > in any form after death, thus > negating the moral significance of deeds;…" > and Nyatiloka defines "natthika" in his dictionary as (to me) totally > different as : > (2) "natthika-ditthi: 'nihilistic view' (a doctrine that all values are > baseless, > that nothing is knowable or can be > communicated, and that life itself is meaningless)" " > #64533 From: "Joop" Date: Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:39 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu jwromeijn Hallo Larry Perhaps you think I have not answerd your question " I might ask you, why do good and reject evil? " A small problem is: I hardly ever use the terms 'good' or 'evil', especially 'evil' is not my word. I try to behave in an ethical way (in short: five preceps, the 3 sila aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path) And I try to live with metta, karuna and mudita for other sentient beings (perhaps that is not ethics in a formal definition) Why? I don't know. I have an inner conviction that I had to do so, I call that 'intrinsic' Perhaps because I think the other aspects of the NEP are impossible to realize without sila. Metta Joop #64534 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Oct 20, 2006 6:32 am Subject: Re: Withdrawn (Re: [dsg] More evidence against Abhidhamma as Buddha Word) jonoabb Hi James and All buddhatrue wrote: > Hi All, > > Since we can't reach agreement on the term "deities" or "mindfulness > of the body", I withdraw my original post. It isn't much evidence if > there isn't agreement of the terms. > I have a brief comment to make on the term 'mindfulness of the body' that I hope will help here. Mindfulness of the body (kayagatasati) is used in the suttas with 2 quite different meanings: (1) the development of samatha with the body as object, and (2) as a synonym for the first of the 4 foundations of mindfulness (kayanupassana) in the Satipatthana Sutta, thus, the development of insight. I believe that in the passage you have quoted from Ch III of Vism it carries the first of these meanings, namely the development of samatha with the body as object. This is explained later in Vism as meaning the contemplation of the repulsiveness of the body as evidenced by its 32 parts. As Kel has said, it is the repulsive aspect that is generally lacking in the deva realms (although not totally lacking, as Howard has pointed out), and not any understanding of rupas. There is no obstacle to the development of mindfulness/insight in the deva realms, including with rupa as object. So while your observation was a sharp one, I don't think the passage really supports your argument in this instance. Jon Vism Ch III 118. 7. As to plane: here the twelve, namely, the ten kinds of foulness, mindfulness occupied with the body, and perception of repulsiveness in nutriment, do not occur among deities. These twelve and mindfulness of breathing do not occur in the Brahma world. But none except the four immaterial states occur in the immaterial becoming. All occur among human beings. This is `as to plane'. [114] #64535 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 20, 2006 6:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL, Ch 2 nilovg Dear Sebastien, O dear, o dear! A Koan. Perhaps it is new to you to view events by way of paramattha dhammas. Understandable. I would say, let us proceed little by little. You are only at ch 2, and as you go on matters may become clearer. Nina. Op 20-okt-2006, om 13:26 heeft s.billard@... het volgende geschreven: > Well I read your email several times for 30 minutes, and it still > sound like a > koan for me :D I need to read and think and re-think #64536 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 20, 2006 6:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: how do we know namas. nilovg Dear Plamen, Each citta knows an object but citta does not know itself. After a particualr citta has fallen away another citta arising in a following process can know or be aware of the citta that fell away. Take citta rooted in dosa that has aversion towards a harsh sound. Sound is the object at that moment, and it could not have any other object. After it has fallen away, there can be another process of cittas with pa~n~naa that realizes the charactreistic of dosa or of the citta rooted in dosa. Nina. Op 19-okt-2006, om 22:28 heeft Plamen Gradinarov het volgende geschreven: > I am more interested to know how many mental moments does it take to > know a nama. > > The first option is zero moments (in no time); because every mental > phenomenon, every citta and cetasika are immediately known to the > mind (mano-dhatu). This is possible due to their svasamvedanatva > (selfawareness). #64537 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Emptiness Awareness-Release upasaka_howard Hi, Larry (and Swee Boon and all) - In a message dated 10/20/06 12:54:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@... writes: > Hi Swee Boon and Howard, > > I agree with Howard that this sutta isn't a proof that the Buddha never > said a dhamma is empty of itself. But, on the other hand, I don't know > of a single instance where the Buddha said a being is empty of a being > or a rupa is empty of a rupa or empty of rupaness. What else could > 'empty of itself' mean? ---------------------------------------- Howard: He may well have never used that exact language. The point is that emptiness of self in the sense of not being self-existent, of lacking own being and self-identity is implied by the chariot example for all pa~n~natti (dependence on parts and factors), by dependent origination for all pa~n~natti & all paramattha dhammas (involving temporal dependence and "logical" dependence on other dhammas), and all the insubstantiality references found in such teachings as the Uraga Sutta, the Kalaka Sutta, the Kaccayanagotta and Channa Suttas, the Bahiya Sutta, and the Sheaves of Reeds Sutta. I would particularly like to draw attention to something occurring early in the Sheaves of Reeds Sutta that seems to be rarely discussed. The Buddha examines the various factors of the 12-link dependent origination scheme one by one, and for each points out that it is neither self-made, nor other-made, nor both, nor spontaneously arising. That is exactly the 4-fold denial so emphasized by Nagarjuna in pointing out the middle-way mode of existence of dhammas - their empty but not nihilistic nature. All dhammas are not self, not other, not both, and not neither self not other. ------------------------------------------------- > > Actually, I think 'empty of itself' is an ill conceived way of referring > to a concept and ought to instead be phrased as 'empty of own nature' > (asabhava). The Buddha doesn't talk about this but it is discussed in a > very limited way in the commentaries. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm not bound to the "empty of itself" formulation, but I think it is valid. ------------------------------------------------- > > The practice of emptiness awareness is meant to introduce you to > experiencing things as empty like experiencing an empty room. > > Larry > > ======================= With metta, Howard #64538 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Emptiness Awareness-Release upasaka_howard Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 10/20/06 7:40:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nidive@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > >A) > >This sutta also says the following: > >__________________ > >"'Consciousness, consciousness': Thus is it said. To what extent, > >friend, is it said to be 'consciousness'?""'It cognizes, it > >cognizes': Thus, friend, it is said to be 'consciousness.' And what > >does it cognize? It cognizes 'pleasant.' It cognizes 'painful.' It > >cognizes 'neither painful nor pleasant.' 'It cognizes, it cognizes': > >Thus it is said to be 'consciousness.'" > >-------------------------------- > >Using your mode of inference, one should think the above passage is > >proof that the Buddha teaches that consciousness is cognizing only > >of pleasant, painful, or neither pleasant nor painfulonly cognizing > >of feelings. > > It seems that you have missed an (insignificant to you perhaps ?) > sentence in the above passage: 'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus it is > said to be 'consciousness.' --------------------------------------- Howard: I didn't miss anything in the passage. It says "it knows" (I'd prefer a translation of "It is knowing") and then goes on to say *what* it knows. And were one to take that "what" as exclusive, one would be making a mistake. ---------------------------------------- > > This is the essence of the passage: It cognizes, it cognizes, thus it > is said to be 'consciousness'. The Buddha gave 3 examples, but the > real essence is explained in this last sentence. > > >Similarly, the sutta includes the following: > >___________________ > >"'It perceives, it perceives': Thus, friend, it is said to be > >'perception.' And what does it perceive? It perceives blue. It > >perceives yellow. It perceives red. It perceives white. 'It > >perceives, it perceives': Thus it is said to be 'perception.'" > >---------------------------------- > >Again, following your mode of reasoning, one should think that > >perception is perception only of visible object. > > Again, the real essence is here: 'It perceives, it perceives': thus it > is said to be 'perception.' Examples are given, but the real essence > is not unexplained. -------------------------------------- Howard: Similar reply as with regard to consciousness. ------------------------------------ > > >When the Buddha points out something, there are lots of other things > >not pointed out that are not thereby excluded. Look for example at > >the dependencies if the 12-link chai/cycle of dependent arising. > >There are specific requisite conditionalities presented there, but > >they are not exclusive. Many conditions are requisite for the > >arising of a result, and mentioning but one does not rule out the > >others. > > As Larry said: "I don't know of a single instance where the Buddha > said a being is empty of a being or a rupa is empty of a rupa or empty > of rupaness.", I think I would be nice of you to provide a sutta that > expresses this. I know there is one sutta using just the phrase > "empty" (which doesn't prove beyond doubt about your point), but I do > not know of a sutta using the phrase "empty of itself". -------------------------------------- Howard: I have replied to that, Swee Boon. My motto is "Don't worry about phrases. Attend, instead, to meaning." Please especially consider my point about the earl material in the Sheaves of Reeds Sutta. --------------------------------------- > > >B) > > > >One can take a second look at the original statement to the effect > >that emptiness awareness-release is the realizing that 'This is > >empty of self or of anything pertaining to self.' It may well be > >pointed out that this "self" need not be interpreted only as > >personal self. Whatever lacks own-being/identity lacks self and > >anything pertaining to self, being utterly dependent for its > >contingent existence on phenoemna that are totally other. So, even > >this matter fails to unequivocally reference personal self. The > >"self" of anything, be it a dhamma or a person is the alleged (but > >in-truth merely imagined) essence/core/identity/own-being/own- > >nature/"soul" of that thing. > > Let me clarify with you: When you speak of "empty of itself", you mean > that it is empty of "essence/core/identity/own-being/own-nature/ > "soul". If that is what you mean, then I don't see any difference > between "empty of self" and "empty of itself". Both are synonymous. ------------------------------------- Howard: Excellent. That is fine with me. :-) I never claim that dhammas are nothing at all or indistinguishable from other dhammas. That would be nihilism. I deny only separate, self-existence, i.e., existence-as-an-entity. And I deny it not only to "the person", but to all sankhata dhammas, as the Buddha emphasized again and again. ------------------------------------- > Regards, > Swee Boon > > ==================== With metta, Howard #64539 From: "nidive" Date: Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:40 am Subject: Re: The Emptiness Awareness-Release nidive Hi Howard, > --------------------------------------- > Howard: > I didn't miss anything in the passage. It says "it knows" (I'd > prefer a translation of "It is knowing") and then goes on to say > *what* it knows. And were one to take that "what" as exclusive, > one would be making a mistake. > ---------------------------------------- Not only would one be making a mistake, he would be a moron as well. I don't see how this applies to the explanation of the emptiness awareness-release. The former is a simple case requiring a moderate level of intelligence and linguistic skills. Do you see any significance in repeating "It perceives, it perceives" twice? Do you think the Buddha would underestimate the intelligence of his audience to say that only blue, yellow, red and white can be perceived? But the latter is totally different. It would be inappropriate of the Buddha to leave out something when explaining such an all important topic of emptiness awareness-release. > When the Buddha points out something, there are lots of other things > not pointed out that are not thereby excluded. Look for example at > the dependencies if the 12-link chai/cycle of dependent arising. > There are specific requisite conditionalities presented there, but > they are not exclusive. Many conditions are requisite for the > arising of a result, and mentioning but one does not rule out the > others. Yes, but those conditions not mentioned are non-crucial for understanding D.O.. They can be left out without altering the meaning of D.O.. Can the same be said with regard to emptiness awareness- release? > > Let me clarify with you: When you speak of "empty of itself", you > > mean that it is empty of "essence/core/identity/own-being/own- > > nature/"soul". If that is what you mean, then I don't see any > > difference between "empty of self" and "empty of itself". Both > > are synonymous. > ------------------------------------- > Howard: > Excellent. That is fine with me. :-) I never claim that dhammas are > nothing at all or indistinguishable from other dhammas. That would > be nihilism. I deny only separate, self-existence, i.e., existence- > as-an-entity. And I deny it not only to "the person", but to all > sankhata dhammas, as the Buddha emphasized again and again. > ------------------------------------- I think I understand what you mean by "empty of itself" now. And I see no disagreement here anymore. :-) Regards, Swee Boon #64540 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Emptiness Awareness-Release upasaka_howard Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 10/20/06 12:44:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nidive@... writes: > >>Let me clarify with you: When you speak of "empty of itself", you > >>mean that it is empty of "essence/core/identity/own-being/own- > >>nature/"soul". If that is what you mean, then I don't see any > >>difference between "empty of self" and "empty of itself". Both > >>are synonymous. > >------------------------------------- > >Howard: > >Excellent. That is fine with me. :-) I never claim that dhammas are > >nothing at all or indistinguishable from other dhammas. That would > >be nihilism. I deny only separate, self-existence, i.e., existence- > >as-an-entity. And I deny it not only to "the person", but to all > >sankhata dhammas, as the Buddha emphasized again and again. > >------------------------------------- > > I think I understand what you mean by "empty of itself" now. And I see > no disagreement here anymore. :-) > > Regards, > Swee Boon > > ===================== That's wonderful, Swee Boon!. I highy value agreement and harmony and their requisite basis of mutual understanding. :-) With metta, Howard #64541 From: "nidive" Date: Fri Oct 20, 2006 10:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Emptiness Awareness-Release nidive Hi Howard (& Larry), > Howard: > I would particularly like to draw attention to something occurring > early in the Sheaves of Reeds Sutta that seems to be rarely > discussed. The Buddha examines the various factors of the > 12-link dependent origination scheme one by one, and for each > points out that it is neither self-made, nor other-made, nor both, > nor spontaneously arising. That is exactly the 4-fold denial so > emphasized by Nagarjuna in pointing out the middle-way mode of > existence of dhammas - their empty but not nihilistic nature. All > dhammas are not self, not other, not both, and not neither self > not other. I note that this is a conversation between Ven. Sariputta and Ven. MahaKotthita. Ven. MahaKotthita appears to have a problem. This problem surfaces yet in another sutta. -------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.174.than.html Then Ven. Maha Kotthita went to Ven. Sariputta and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to Ven. Sariputta, "With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?" [Sariputta:] "Don't say that, my friend." [Maha Kotthita:] "With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media, is it the case that there is not anything else?" [Sariputta:] "Don't say that, my friend." [Maha Kotthita:] "...is it the case that there both is & is not anything else?" [Sariputta:] "Don't say that, my friend." [Maha Kotthita:] "...is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?" [Sariputta:] "Don't say that, my friend." [Maha Kotthita:] "Being asked if, with the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media, there is anything else, you say, 'Don't say that, my friend.' Being asked if ... there is not anything else ... there both is & is not anything else ... there neither is nor is not anything else, you say, 'Don't say that, my friend.' Now, how is the meaning of your words to be understood?" [Sariputta:] "The statement, 'With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?' complicates non-complication.1 The statement, '... is it the case that there is not anything else ... is it the case that there both is & is not anything else ... is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?' complicates non-complication. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far complication goes. However far complication goes, that is how far the six contact media go. With the remainderless fading & stopping of the six contact-media, there comes to be the stopping, the allaying of complication. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, what is Ven. MahaKotthita's problem? His problem is his SELF- IDENTIFICATION VIEWS. His four modes of self-identification views are rejected by Ven. Sariputta. In the Nalakalapiyo Sutta, Ven. MahaKotthita is complicating the forward order of D.O. with his self-identification views. He does not see that when dukkha arises, only dukkha is arising. In the Kotthita Sutta, Ven. MahaKotthita is complicating the reverse order of D.O. with his self-identification views. He does not see that when dukkha ceases, only dukkha is ceasing. This brings us back to the Kaccayanagotta Sutta: -------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html "... nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. ..." -------------------------------------------------------------------- This reminds me of what you said earlier: "What has ceased is nothing at all.", which I disagreed with. When D.O. ceases, only D.O. is ceasing. All thoughts of a nothingness is a complication. However far thinking goes, however far complication goes. With the cessation of thinking (thinking is dukkha and part of D.O.), there is the stopping and allaying of complication. Regards, Swee Boon #64542 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Emptiness Awareness-Release upasaka_howard Hi, Swee Boon (and Larry) - In a message dated 10/20/06 1:22:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nidive@... writes: > Hi Howard (& Larry), > > >Howard: > >I would particularly like to draw attention to something occurring > >early in the Sheaves of Reeds Sutta that seems to be rarely > >discussed. The Buddha examines the various factors of the > >12-link dependent origination scheme one by one, and for each > >points out that it is neither self-made, nor other-made, nor both, > >nor spontaneously arising. That is exactly the 4-fold denial so > >emphasized by Nagarjuna in pointing out the middle-way mode of > >existence of dhammas - their empty but not nihilistic nature. All > >dhammas are not self, not other, not both, and not neither self > >not other. > > I note that this is a conversation between Ven. Sariputta and Ven. > MahaKotthita. Ven. MahaKotthita appears to have a problem. This > problem surfaces yet in another sutta. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.174.than.html > > Then Ven. Maha Kotthita went to Ven. Sariputta and, on arrival, > exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly > greetings &courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, > he said to Ven. Sariputta, "With the remainderless stopping &fading > of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & > intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?" > > [Sariputta:] "Don't say that, my friend." > > [Maha Kotthita:] "With the remainderless stopping &fading of the six > contact-media, is it the case that there is not anything else?" > > [Sariputta:] "Don't say that, my friend." > > [Maha Kotthita:] "...is it the case that there both is &is not > anything else?" > > [Sariputta:] "Don't say that, my friend." > > [Maha Kotthita:] "...is it the case that there neither is nor is not > anything else?" > > [Sariputta:] "Don't say that, my friend." > > [Maha Kotthita:] "Being asked if, with the remainderless stopping & > fading of the six contact-media, there is anything else, you say, > 'Don't say that, my friend.' Being asked if ... there is not anything > else ... there both is &is not anything else ... there neither is nor > is not anything else, you say, 'Don't say that, my friend.' Now, how > is the meaning of your words to be understood?" > > [Sariputta:] "The statement, 'With the remainderless stopping &fading > of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & > intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?' complicates > non-complication.1 The statement, '... is it the case that there is > not anything else ... is it the case that there both is &is not > anything else ... is it the case that there neither is nor is not > anything else?' complicates non-complication. However far the six > contact-media go, that is how far complication goes. However far > complication goes, that is how far the six contact media go. With the > remainderless fading &stopping of the six contact-media, there comes > to be the stopping, the allaying of complication. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Now, what is Ven. MahaKotthita's problem? His problem is his SELF- > IDENTIFICATION VIEWS. -------------------------------------------- Howard: Actually, I see his problem as that of clinging to view - *any* view. His seems to be the problem of desperately wanting to tie things up into a neat conceptual package, all characterized "just so". I see him as being unable to *stand* intellectual uncertainty. In modern terms, he is anal retentive! LOL! Of all the things folks tend to cling to, for many the most "devilish" is the self-imposed requirement of certainty, of having an "anchor". For many that takes the form of the need to "take a stance". Especially for internet-discussion-types of people, that "taking a stance" requirement looms large! ;-) ---------------------------------------- > > His four modes of self-identification views are rejected by Ven. > Sariputta. --------------------------------------- Howard: There's nothing in any of those views that I see *explicitly* as self-identification view. Perhaps you mean the following: Implicit in his 4 questions, perhaps, is a belief on his part that currently there is a self-existent entity, and he worries that with cessation of sensory media, there will be an annihilation of that (merely presumed) true existent. -------------------------------------- > > In the Nalakalapiyo Sutta, Ven. MahaKotthita is complicating the > forward order of D.O. with his self-identification views. He does not > see that when dukkha arises, only dukkha is arising. > > In the Kotthita Sutta, Ven. MahaKotthita is complicating the reverse > order of D.O. with his self-identification views. He does not see that > when dukkha ceases, only dukkha is ceasing. > > This brings us back to the Kaccayanagotta Sutta: > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html > > "... nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt > that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, > is passing away. ..." > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This reminds me of what you said earlier: "What has ceased is nothing > at all.", which I disagreed with. > > When D.O. ceases, only D.O. is ceasing. > ------------------------------------------- Howard: When a dhamma exists, it exists as a contingent phenomenon that lacks self-existence, and when it ceases it is only such an empty phenomenon that has ceased. But it is the case, nonetheless, that having ceased, it no longer exists at all. The Sarvastivadins considered dhammas to continue to exist in some mode even after cessation. Both the Theravadins and the Mahayanists considered that to be a form of eternalism, and they rejected it. It is the primary reason that Mahayana considered the Sarvastivadin school to be "hinayana". --------------------------------------- All thoughts of a nothingness > > is a complication. However far thinking goes, however far complication > goes. With the cessation of thinking (thinking is dukkha and part of > D.O.), there is the stopping and allaying of complication. ----------------------------------------- Howard: I must be missing what you are going after here. When heat arises and then ceases, it is no more. When an itch occurs and then ceases, it is no more. Impermanence is non-remaining. What has ceased does not exist. It is nothing. (By that I mean no more or less than its not existing.) ------------------------------------------ > > Regards, > Swee Boon > > ===================== With metta, Howard #64543 From: LBIDD@... Date: Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu lbidd2 Hi Joop, You are right about the difference in definitions of natthika-ditthi in the on-line version of Buddhist Dictionary. The print version has only what I quoted you. I believe this on-line version is a "corrected" version and in this case the revised definition is misleading. The definition in the on-line version is a definition of "nihilism" that one would find in an English dictionary but it doesn't conform to the meaning of the Pali. B. Bodhi and B. ~Nanamoli translate this word as "annihilationism". In English this is a very peculiar word and, as far as I know, it is found only in this context, but it conforms to the Pali meaning in the sense of "destruction-ism". Ven. Nyanatiloka translated it as "nihilism" (a common English word), but defined it as the belief that the stream of kamma ends at death. Then someone came along and revised Ven.Nyanatiloka's definition to conform to an English dictionary. Obviously this was an error. Perhaps Sarah could mention this to B. Bodhi the next time they correspond. Now, regarding ethics: Joop: "Perhaps you think I have not answered your question " I might ask you, why do good and reject evil? " A small problem is: I hardly ever use the terms 'good' or 'evil', especially 'evil' is not my word. I try to behave in an ethical way (in short: five precepts, the 3 sila aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path) And I try to live with metta, karuna and mudita for other sentient beings (perhaps that is not ethics in a formal definition) Why? I don't know. I have an inner conviction that I had to do so, I call that 'intrinsic' Perhaps because I think the other aspects of the NEP are impossible to realize without sila." L: It doesn't matter what words you use, the question is still "why behave in an ethical way?" Try to answer it philosophically in such a way that it would be useful to others as a general guide. As I see it the main question is, why not do just as I please, even if it harms others, as long as I don't get caught and punished by society? I can't think of a good answer to that, maybe you can. In any case 'ultimate justice' seems to be the solution of most religions. Larry #64544 From: LBIDD@... Date: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Emptiness Awareness-Release lbidd2 Hi Howard and Swee Boon, I should add that there are significant differences between asabhava and anatta. Asabhava (no own nature) refers only to concepts and has the sense that what is being talked about is not really an object of consciousness. In the example of the chariot we could say a chariot has no own nature because only various signs of a chariot are objects of consciousness but the chariot itself is not an object of consciousness. Or, we could say the namas and rupas that make up a chariot are empty of chariot, meaning empty of chariot-self. So a chariot is asabhava and chariot namas and rupas are anatta. However, the real import of this is not the quibble over definitions but the sense of emptiness or a firm understanding and conviction of emptiness. Larry #64545 From: "nidive" Date: Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:31 pm Subject: Re: The Emptiness Awareness-Release nidive Hi Howard, > > His four modes of self-identification views are rejected by Ven. > > Sariputta. > --------------------------------------- > Howard: > There's nothing in any of those views that I see *explicitly* as > self-identification view. Perhaps you mean the following: Implicit > in his 4 questions, perhaps, is a belief on his part that currently > there is a self-existent entity, and he worries that with cessation > of sensory media, there will be an annihilation of that (merely > presumed) true existent. > -------------------------------------- Let's think in another way. Would a sotapanna, having had a glimpse of nibbana, would ask those four questions with regard to the forward order of D.O. and those four questions with regard to the reverse order of D.O.? Would there be perplexity with regard to those 8 questions for a sotapanna? A sotapanna has eradicated self/essence/core/identity/own-being/own- nature/"soul" views, clinging to rites & rituals and uncertainty/doubt about the Dhamma. For me, I think there would be no perplexity with regard to those 8 questions for a sotapanna. He has seen D.O., has penetrated the Dhamma, though not fully as yet. Those 8 questions arise with self-identification views & uncertainty/ doubt about the Dhamma as requisite core conditions. > Howard: > When a dhamma exists, it exists as a contingent phenomenon that > lacks self-existence, and when it ceases it is only such an empty > phenomenon that has ceased. But it is the case, nonetheless, that > having ceased, it no longer exists at all. Agree. I think it is better to say it no longer exists at all than to say it is nothing at all. > > All thoughts of a nothingness is a complication. However far > > thinking goes, however far complication goes. With the cessation > > of thinking (thinking is dukkha and part of D.O.), there is the > > stopping and allaying of complication. > ----------------------------------------- > Howard: > I must be missing what you are going after here. When heat arises > and then ceases, it is no more. When an itch occurs and then ceases, > it is no more. Impermanence is non-remaining. What has ceased does > not exist. It is nothing. (By that I mean no more or less than its > not existing.) > ------------------------------------------ For me, to speak of a nothingness suggests annihilation of self/ essence/core/identity/own-being/own-nature/"soul". And that will be a complication. But I understand this is not what you mean. Regarding thinking and complication, I thought you might be interested in the following passage. -------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.018.than.html When there is no delineation of contact, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When there is no delineation of feeling, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of perception. When there is no delineation of perception, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of thinking. When there is no delineation of thinking, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the perceptions & categories of complication. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Regards, Swee Boon #64546 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Emptiness Awareness-Release upasaka_howard Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 10/20/06 8:35:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nidive@... writes: > >Howard: > >When a dhamma exists, it exists as a contingent phenomenon that > >lacks self-existence, and when it ceases it is only such an empty > >phenomenon that has ceased. But it is the case, nonetheless, that > >having ceased, it no longer exists at all. > > Agree. I think it is better to say it no longer exists at all than to > say it is nothing at all. > > >>All thoughts of a nothingness is a complication. However far > >>thinking goes, however far complication goes. With the cessation > >>of thinking (thinking is dukkha and part of D.O.), there is the > >>stopping and allaying of complication. > >----------------------------------------- > >Howard: > >I must be missing what you are going after here. When heat arises > >and then ceases, it is no more. When an itch occurs and then ceases, > >it is no more. Impermanence is non-remaining. What has ceased does > >not exist. It is nothing. (By that I mean no more or less than its > >not existing.) > >------------------------------------------ > > For me, to speak of a nothingness suggests annihilation of self/ > essence/core/identity/own-being/own-nature/"soul". And that will be a > complication. > > But I understand this is not what you mean. > > ====================== Good. :-) I wan't refying 'nothing', but just using the word. Had I been treating "nothing" as a thing, then, similarly to what Nagarjuna said about one who reifies emptiness, I would be truly hopeless! LOL! With metta, Howard #64547 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Emptiness Awareness-Release upasaka_howard Hi again, Swee Boon - Continuing with your post, in a message dated 10/20/06 8:35:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nidive@... you write: > Regarding thinking and complication, I thought you might be interested > in the following passage. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.018.than.html > > When there is no delineation of contact, it is impossible that one > will delineate a delineation of feeling. When there is no delineation > of feeling, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of > perception. When there is no delineation of perception, it is > impossible that one will delineate a delineation of thinking. When > there is no delineation of thinking, it is impossible that one will > delineate a delineation of being assailed by the perceptions & > categories of complication. > ======================= Yes, thanks. I've seen that before. I never was quite sure what was meant by 'delineation'. I'm guessing it might mean conceptually isolating as a separate, self-existent entity. But, even if that is what is meant, I still can't make head or tail out of it. "Delineate a delineation"? Is that really useful English if the aim is clear communication? Perhaps you could tell me what you think this passage means. It eludes me! ;-) With metta, Howard #64548 From: "Joop" Date: Sat Oct 21, 2006 2:05 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu jwromeijn Hallo Larry, Sarah, all It will not surprise me that factual you are correct about the revision of Nyatiloka's definition in the wrong direction. But your suggestion does not make me enthouisiastic:"Perhaps Sarah could mention this to B. Bodhi the next time they correspond." Better Sarah can explain to BB that the use of the term "THUS" in his definition is wrong: "nihilism (natthika-di.t.thi), which denies the survival of the personality in any form after death, thus negating the moral significance of deeds;…" (MCA, page 207/208) "Wrong" in my eyes of course, my Buddha can never have used this "thus" About your repeated question "why behaving in an ethical way?". I can only repeat my answer; or say it in a little other way: inner conviction. Or to say it in a Mahayana-way: listen to my buddha- nature. And let me repeat something on which you did not react: behaving in an ethical way primarely in the hope to get a good rebirth or preventing a bad rebirth is worthless. I think this was also the opinion of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, whose main concern was to reform popular buddhism in Thailand in which is crept much superstition. Metta Joop --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > > Hi Joop, > > You are right about the difference in definitions of natthika- ditthi in > the on-line version of Buddhist Dictionary. The print version has only > what I quoted you. I believe this on-line version is a "corrected" > version and in this case the revised definition is misleading. The > definition in the on-line version is a definition of "nihilism" that one > would find in an English dictionary but it doesn't conform to the > meaning of the Pali. B. Bodhi and B. ~Nanamoli translate this word as > "annihilationism". In English this is a very peculiar word and, as far > as I know, it is found only in this context, but it conforms to the Pali > meaning in the sense of "destruction-ism". Ven. Nyanatiloka translated > it as "nihilism" (a common English word), but defined it as the belief > that the stream of kamma ends at death. Then someone came along and > revised Ven.Nyanatiloka's definition to conform to an English > dictionary. Obviously this was an error. Perhaps Sarah could mention > this to B. Bodhi the next time they correspond. > > Now, regarding ethics: > > Joop: "Perhaps you think I have not answered your question " I might ask > you, why do good and reject evil? " > A small problem is: I hardly ever use the terms 'good' or 'evil', > especially 'evil' is not my word. > I try to behave in an ethical way (in short: five precepts, the 3 sila > aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path) > And I try to live with metta, karuna and mudita for other sentient > beings (perhaps that is not ethics in a formal definition) Why? I don't > know. I have an inner conviction that I had to do so, I call that > 'intrinsic' > Perhaps because I think the other aspects of the NEP are impossible to > realize without sila." > > L: It doesn't matter what words you use, the question is still "why > behave in an ethical way?" Try to answer it philosophically in such a > way that it would be useful to others as a general guide. > > As I see it the main question is, why not do just as I please, even if > it harms others, as long as I don't get caught and punished by society? > I can't think of a good answer to that, maybe you can. > > In any case 'ultimate justice' seems to be the solution of most > religions. > > Larry > #64549 From: "Joop" Date: Sat Oct 21, 2006 2:06 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu jwromeijn Hallo When I started the thread "Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu", I hoped to start a discussion about the ideas of Buddhadasa. This has hardly happened. That's sad because this was the topic that really interests me. But the discussion has already taken place some months ago at E- sangha: www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=32877&hl= With the title "Ajahn Buddhadassa views on rebirth" At DSG well-known contributors were "robertk2" and "cooran" (guess who) So to me there is no longer a need to continue Metta Joop #64550 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Oct 21, 2006 2:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu sarahprocter... Hi Joop, Yes, added memory to my computer and it's like having a new one....I hadn't realised just how 'sick' it had become, getting slower and slower.... You asked for some responses to your messages addressed to me, so I've put them all at the top of a big pile.... .... --- Joop wrote: > J: Of course you have noticed that this thread is about Buddhadasa > Bhhikku (one can get the impression that all the threads of DSG are > about the same topic but that's not correct:P not all are about > Buddhadasa) > But Buddhadasa Bhikkhu has also written about kamma, so I can make a > connection with what you have written: > > BB: <...> > Kamma and Rebirth: Rebirth occurs every time one does a deed, and > that rebirth occurs spontaneously at the moment of action. We need > not wait for rebirth to come after death, as is generally understand > in the worldly sense. When one thinks and acts, the mind is > spontaneously changed through the power of desire and clinging, which > lead immediately to becoming and birth in accordance with the law of > Dependent Co-origination (paticca-samuppada). .... S: To be honest, as you're asking for discussion on BB's ideas, the above (as a typical example), makes little sense to me. 1. There is rebirth at the beginning of each lifetime (patisandhi citta) and momentary rebirth with each new citta. I've no idea what the 'rebirth every time one does a deed' means. 2. What is meant anyway here by 'one', 'deed' and 'action'. Let's say there is an act of killing involving many cittas and bodily action. What is the rebirth? 3. How is the mind changed through clinging? If the citta now is one accompanied by clinging, that's how it is. It hasn't changed from something else. 4. D.O. doesn't anyway say that kamma (past sankhara) 'leads immediately to birth and becoming'. And what is meant by bhava in D.O.? Not a result as BB suggests. .... Sorry, Joop, that's my best effort on this one. I don't think his interpretations are in accordance with the Tipitaka at all. No one needs to wait for rebirth, but to deny the continuation of life in samsara whilst there are causes is to blatently ignore the Buddha's salient reminders everywhere. When we really understand the cause of dukkha, it'll be more and more apparent that life continues on and on. To deny this is a dangerous view imho. Metta, Sarah ====== #64551 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Oct 21, 2006 3:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Patisambhidamagga and emptiness sarahprocter... Hi Joop, (Howard, Geoff & all) Weren't we discussing D.O.:-/ --- Joop wrote: > But what to think of the reasoning in the Patisambhidamagga? > "[Because it is] produced, form is empty of own-nature; > ceased, form is changed and [therefore] empty." .... S: See the translation of the commentary by Ven Dhammanando which Rob K posted before: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/55086 Also, lots and lots more on sabhava in U.P. As Howard always stresses, no self, no subtance, no atta in any form. .... > And what to think about the conclusion of "empty universe" in the > next part of his essay that I will quote below? I think he 'jumps' to > the conclusion that "Nibbana is the only Ultimate Truth" .... S: This was from Geoff who has also been posting here in the past. Yes, I remeber the ideas. He says in the passage you quoted that 'the resultant fruition of Nibbana is the only Ultimate Truth (Paramattha-sacca). Again, this is not in accordance with the texts. And what does the 'resultant fruition of Nibbana' mean anyway? Abhidhammattha Sangaha starts with the definition of the 4 ultimate realities: citta, cetasika, rupa and nibbana. I wrote a long and detailed response to Geoff's last message here. I can fish it out for you if you'd like. I was hoping to hear more from him and to continue the discussion.....Anytime, if you're reading this, Geoff! ... > There is no need to give 'nibbana' any name, even not the > name 'ultimate truth' > And I prefer the idea that the distinguishment conventional - > ultimate is only a "skillful means" (upaya), that the distinguishemtn > itself is not an ultimate truth. .... S: No, the distinction is a kind of 'skillful means' as you say. However, the words point to a) realities which can be directly known, realities which arise and fall away (apart from nibbana) and b) mere concepts, ideas, conventional usages. Metta, Sarah ======== #64552 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Oct 21, 2006 3:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu sarahprocter... Dear Joop, --- Joop wrote: > I agree that it is utmost important to understand D.O. > So the only question is: is it wrong (of me) that I'm not interested > at all in what happens after my death? Do you think it will be an > important topic at the moment I understand DO? (I don't) .... S: Of course, while we still cling to ideas of 'me' and 'my life', we also think in terms of 'my death', 'my future' and so on. As you say, we really don't understand DO and won't until there is a very clear comprehension of namas and rupas and the conditioned nature of these. When there is a clear understanding of dhammas as dhammas or elements, there won't be any doubt that cittas, cetasikas and rupas will continue to arise according to such conditions. Even in Buddhist countries where most people accept the idea of rebirth easily, it's still mostly an idea of 'Self' being reborn, so it's of no more use that the idea of 'Self' not being reborn. Neither view understands conditioned dhammas. ... > > And I agree that the Patisambhidamagga can be understood as the what > I called "missing link" in DO: 12 -- > 1; by the description: > "In being-as-action[S: kamma-bhava] before [this life]" -- > > "delusion" > So rests the question why the Buddha did not say that in the many > Suttas in which DO was described? .... S: In some suttas the Buddha speaks in brief and lets his main disciples like Sariputta (as in Ps) or MahaKaccayana or Ananda elaborate for those (like us) who need more detail. The Buddha makes it clear that what these disciples say are the 'Buddha Word'. I know some people prefer to disregard texts such as the Ps, but it is part of the Sutta Pitaka, just as other suttas delivered by Sariputta are. ... > > S: "No one is saying that the 'round' or 'wheel' refers to a strict > circle of the conditions with ageing and death linking up to > ignorance in the way you suggest. It is instead a 'round' of birth > and death, on and on and the spokes of the wheel are the conditions > indicated in DO. No need to take it more literally:-) " > > J: "No one"? With that statement you make the whole discussion > superfluous. I have read many times about 'the wheel' and have seen > many drwawings, Thai and Tibetan. > And I don't understand your use of the term "instead" > It's okay not to take some texts literally, I don't take the "round > of birth and death" literal .... S: No one was referring to here on DSG:-) By 'instead', I mean that rather than be fixated on a 'round' with an idea that death is the cause of birth, it's better to reflect on each of the links, one at a time. Birth does follow death and death is a condition for birth, but why? Only because of other conditions, notably the past kamma which brings the result of birth consciousness, due to the fact that ignorance has not been eradicated. The 'wheel' you've read about and the drawings are not wrong. However, as we study and consider the teachings, I think we need to delve and reflect deeper and deeper. How am I doing? Metta, Sarah ======== #64553 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu sarahprocter... Dear Scott, (Just to give Joop a break:-)) --- Scott Duncan wrote: >Is it correct to see DO, rather, > as showing that each moment is a complex arising borne upon a > beautiful weave of conditions? (Including the brief period being > discussed elsewhere at death and birth in the next existence). .... S: Nice turn of phrase:-)) Metta, Sarah ======= #64554 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu sarahprocter... Hi Joop again!!, --- Joop wrote: > Hallo > > Sometimes I think that I'm the only one who understands D.O. is about > the present situation and not an abstract description of three > lifetimes. ... S: It's about both the present moment and also about future and past moments ad finitum. Nothing abstract in it! ... >But I'm not. > From the notes of a student of prof. Karunadasa > (www.geocities.com/lee_mengkai/early_buddhism5.doc): > > "Nanavira challenged the commentator's account and he said these > twelve factors refer to personal existence and not rebirth. ... S: I think that many of Nanavira's ideas (including this one) are dangerous. If we don't have confidence that deeds have brought results in the past, bring results now and will continue to bring results in the future (and future lives), we don't really accept kamma and vipaka. We don't accept that results in this lifetime have causes from way-back-when and that deeds from the past and this lifetime will continue to bring results in future lives. Yes, it's one of the aspects of wrong view we're discussing with Larry. .... >Professor > Karunadasa is agreeable to this view because to be born again or > rebirth implies that one has to be born again as a human. ... S: ??? ... >Please do > not be dogmatic. There is no direct evidence in the Suttas to show > that doctrine of DO is an explanation of rebirth. .... S: ??? (Was the Buddha being 'dogmatic' when he referred to rebirth after rebirth??). .... >Buddha has > identified the doctrine of DO with his Dhamma. His doctrine is > sanditthiko. If you know the doctrine of DO you know who you are, > what you really are. ... S: Really? I think that if there's any understanding at all of DO, it becomes apparent that there's no 'you' who knows anything, no 'you' to be or what. Mere dhammas rolling on.... ... >You are a chain of twelve factors or links of > DO. In each person at any given moment these twelve factors operate. .... S: ???? ... > This doctrine of DO refers to present birth. It implies a temporal > sequence. It is not future birth. Hence it is not really an > explanation of rebirth." > > This text is really a solace to me ... S: I think the question is why Nanavira, this student, Karunadasa, BB, you and many, many others are so reluctant to consider that the dhammas arising now will continue to arise on and on while there are conditions and that D.O. does relate to the round of samsara which the Buddha taught us to urgently see the danger and unsatisfactoriness of? Metta, Sarah ============ #64555 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:43 am Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 556- Compassion/karu.naa and Sympathetic Joy/muditaa(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;-) =============================================== Compassion(karu.naa)and Sympathetic Joy(muditaa) Sympathetic joy can be developed in daily life. There are opportunities for its development when we see someone else’s good fortune. If we see the disadvantages of jealousy there are conditions for being appreciative when we see that someone is in good health, has success in life and receives honour and praise. We read in the Dígha Nikåya (Dialogues of the Buddha III, no. 31, Sigålovåda Sutta) that the Buddha spoke words of advice to Sigåla which were to be applied in daily life. He spoke to him about the characteristics of bad friends and of good friends. As regards the friend who sympathizes, he is to be reckoned as sound at heart on four grounds (187, § 25): * "… He does not rejoice over your misfortunes; he rejoices over your prosperity; he refrains anyone who is speaking ill of you; he commends anyone who is praising you." * The good friend is not jealous but he rejoices in someone else’s good fortune. One can check oneself whether one really is a good friend to someone else. If we are jealous we are not sincere in our friendship. ***** Compassion(karu.naa) and Sympathetic Joy(muditaato) be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #64556 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Oct 21, 2006 5:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] More evidence against Abhidhamma as Buddha Word sarahprocter... Hi Matt (James & all), Good to see you around here again:-) --- matt roke wrote: > M: > It really does not matter whether the Buddha taught Abhidhamma to devas > or > not. What does matter is the study and contemplation of the dhamma found > in > the entire Tipitaka and to discuss it with teachers and dhamma friends, > while keeping in mind the Buddha’s instruction given in the Kalama > Sutta: > > “Do not believe what has been acquired by repeated hearing,<...> ... S: Lots of good comments. Keep them flowing!! James, I know you've withdrawn yours, but I think you started a very good thread and it's led to some interesting and helpful discussions. Pls keep quoting anything else which strikes you in your Vism study. Metta, Sarah > nor because of traditions, > nor because it has been spoken and rumoured by many, > nor because it is found written in a scripture, > nor because of logical conjecture, > nor because of inference or analogies, > nor because of bias towards a notion that has been pondered over, > nor because of another's seeming ability, > nor because of the thought, 'The person is our teacher’. > When you know for yourselves that these qualities are skillful; these > qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these > qualities, when adopted and carried out, lead to benefit and to > happiness > then you should enter and abide in them.” #64557 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Oct 21, 2006 5:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Fwd: Retreat inspiration was Name change in Canberra sarahprocter... Hi Sukin (& Michael), Thx for your good comments too! Always nice to hear from you guys in Bangkok:-). Anything special from the Sat discussions? --- Sukinder wrote: <...> > The problem is *not* thinking or even the thoughts, but the mode, > akusala citta and the accompanying roots and other cetasikas, > particularly lobha and avijja. Therefore if we point wrongly to > `thinking' > as being at fault (and controllable), then the real enemies, lobha, > avijja > and miccha ditthi may inadvertently influence the very ideas that > subsequently follow as being the way out / practice, i.e. formal > practice. > > Moreover it seems that because there is no appreciation of the nature > of `thinking', having all this while only reacted to certain unwanted > forms, there is no recognition of those other forms (arising during > meditation)which are then taken for `sati'/'mindfulness'. .... S: Yes, that's true. It's easy to think that the thinking has been 'stilled' or something at particular times. I meant to mention to Michael that I also do yoga (Iyengar and Astanga kinds) and have done so for a long time. I have various physical 'defects' and a physio told me a few years ago that I'd have been in a wheel-chair years ago if it hadn't been for all the strong yoga I've been doing. However, I don't have (and never have had) any idea about there being more sati or more kusala during my yoga practice. And there's still lots and lots of thinking throughout - just the concepts thought about tend to be different. Of course, the realities appearing are just as real (not more or less) than at any time, so sati can of course arise without any expectation of such. Seeing is still seeing. Visible object is still visible object. Thinking is still thinking... (I expect you have some good Iyengar teachers in Canberra!) Like, Sukin, I'll look forward to more discussion with you either now or later. Metta, Sarah ======== #64558 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Oct 21, 2006 6:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu sarahprocter... Hi Joop (& Larry), --- Joop wrote: > Hallo > > When I started the thread "Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu", > I hoped to start a discussion about the ideas of Buddhadasa. > This has hardly happened. That's sad because this was the topic that > really interests me. .... S: You may wish to review the following with any posts linked at the end of these ones: Buddhadasa Bhikkhu - paticcasamuppada and rebirth, Insight #20495, #20512, #20530, #25185, #34755 .... S: I'm also planning to come back on natthika ditthi etc, but it'll have to be another day... Thx for your interesting discussion. Metta, Sarah ======== #64559 From: "nidive" Date: Sat Oct 21, 2006 6:40 am Subject: Re: The Emptiness Awareness-Release nidive Hi Howard, > Yes, thanks. I've seen that before. I never was quite sure what was > meant by 'delineation'. I'm guessing it might mean conceptually > isolating as a separate, self-existent entity. But, even if that is > what is meant, I still can't make head or tail out of it. "Delineate > a delineation"? Is that really useful English if the aim is clear > communication? Perhaps you could tell me what you think this passage > means. It eludes me! ;-) The passage I quoted is the reverse order. I start with the forward order now. > "Now, when there is the eye, when there are forms, when there is > eye-consciousness, it is possible that one will delineate a > delineation of contact. For a person resolved on and obsessed with his self or conceit, he complicates contact with the notion of "I am the one who sees". > When there is a delineation of contact, it is possible that one will > delineate a delineation of feeling. He further complicates feeling with the notion of "I am the one who feels". > When there is a delineation of feeling, it is possible that one will > delineate a delineation of perception. He further complicates perception with the notion of "I am the one who perceives". > When there is a delineation of perception, it is possible that one > will delineate a delineation of thinking. He further complicates thinking with the notion of "I am the one who thinks". > When there is a delineation of thinking, it is possible that one > will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the perceptions > & categories of complication. Because of his persistent notion of "I am the one", he further assails himself with complications such as: "I am the one who is insulted", "I am the one who is cheated", "I am the one who is lied to", "I am the one who is gossiped about", etc, etc. This is how there is the taking up of rods & bladed weapons, of arguments, quarrels, disputes, accusations, divisive tale-bearing, & false speech. > 'If, with regard to the cause whereby the perceptions & categories > of complication assail a person, there is nothing there to relish, > welcome, or remain fastened to, then that is the end of the > obsessions of passion, the obsessions of resistance, the obsessions > of views, the obsessions of uncertainty, the obsessions of conceit, > the obsessions of passion for becoming, & the obsessions of > ignorance. That is the end of taking up rods & bladed weapons, of > arguments, quarrels, disputes, accusations, divisive tale-bearing, > & false speech. That is where these evil, unskillful things cease > without remainder' — this is how I understand the detailed meaning. For a person not resolved on nor obsessed with his self or conceit, having uprooted ignorance and craving, then for him, there is no assailment by the perceptions & categories of complication. Such a notion of "I am the one" does not occur to him. For him, in the sensed, there is only the sensed. He does not complicate what is sensed with the notion of "I am the one". Now I come to the reverse order. > "Now, when there is no eye, when there are no forms, when there is > no eye-consciousness, it is impossible that one will delineate a > delineation of contact. When there is no delineation of contact, it > is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When > there is no delineation of feeling, it is impossible that one will > delineate a delineation of perception. When there is no delineation > of perception, it is impossible that one will delineate a > delineation of thinking. When there is no delineation of thinking, > it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of being > assailed by the perceptions & categories of complication. This is tricky to explain. Taken literally, one would have to pluck out one's eyes. I think there are two keywords to take note of. In the forward order, the keyword there is "possible". In the reverse order, the keyword here is "impossible". If there is no eye, it is impossible for there to be contact, feeling, perception, thinking and thus it is IMPOSSIBLE that one can complicate them with the notion of "I am the one". But if there is eye, there is contact, feeling, perception, thinking, and it is POSSIBLE that one can complicate them with the notion of "I am the one". These two keywords are important. The Buddha, while still alive, definitely had eyes and definitely saw visible objects. Yet he does not complicate what he saw with the notion of "I am the one". As I see it, the above passage describes "the so-called situation" after the parinibbana of an arahant To understand this passage better, we have to go to D.O. If there is no ignorance, then there are no fabrications siding on the side of merit or demerit (kamma that is dark, bright, dark-&-bright). When there are no fabrications siding on the side of merit or demerit, then there is no further rebirth consciousness. When there is no further rebirth consciousness, then there is no further name-&-form. When there is no further name-&-form, then there is no further six sense media. Now, this is where the above passage comes in. If there is no six sense media, then it is impossible for there to be contact, feeling, perception, thinking and complication with the notion of "I am the one". With the uprooting of ignorance and craving, there is the uprooting of all further six sense media. And it is in reference to this uprooting of all further six sense media that the above passage says "when there is no eye, when there are no forms, when there is no eye-consciousness, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of contact, etc ...". I hope I have explained myself well. Regards, Swee Boon #64560 From: "Plamen Gradinarov" Date: Sat Oct 21, 2006 7:23 am Subject: [dsg] Re: how do we know namas. pgradinarov Dear Nina, Can we say that what you described is an example of manovinnana? Thank you, Plamen #64561 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Oct 21, 2006 7:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: how do we know namas. nilovg Dear Plamen, I would like to define first manovinnana. When cittas are classified as elements, dhaatus, they can be discerned as: pa~cavi~n`naa.nadhaatu: the five pairs such as seeing, hearing, etc. Mano dhaatu : the pañca-dvåråvajjana-citta, five-door-adverting- consciousness, and the two types of sampa.ticchana-citta, receiving- consciousness, which are kusala vipåka and akusala vipåka. Thus, three kinds of citta are mano-dhåtu. Mind-consciousness-element, the mano-viññå.na-dhåtu, including all cittas except the dvi-pañca-viññåùas and the three kinds of cittas classified as mind-element, mano-dhåtu. For example, santíraùa-citta (the investigating-consciousness), mano- dvåråvajjana-citta (the mind-door-advertingconsciousness), and cittas performing the function of javana such as lobha-múla-citta and also bhavanga-citta are included in mind-consciousness-element. Mind-element includes cittas which can experience an object through one of the five sense-doors, whereas mind-consciousness-element includes cittas which can experience an object through six doors as well as cittas which are not dependent on any doorway. See below: Op 21-okt-2006, om 16:23 heeft Plamen Gradinarov het volgende geschreven: > Can we say that what you described is an example of manovinnana? ------- N: I wrote: Take citta rooted in dosa that has aversion towards a harsh sound. Sound is the object at that moment, and it could not have any other object. After it has fallen away, there can be another process of cittas with pa~n~naa that realizes the characteristic of dosa or of the citta rooted in dosa. We can also say: another process of cittas that think about the dosa. Anyway it must be mano-viññå.na-dhåtu. Nina. #64562 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Oct 21, 2006 8:03 am Subject: Denying kamma and its results ......(was: Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu) sarahprocter... Hi Joop, Larry & all, --- LBIDD@... wrote: > L: Here also are some clarifying snippets from the "Buddhist Dictionary" > and "Majjhima Nikaaya": > > BD: "The so-called 'evil views with fixed destiny' > (niyata-miccháditthi) constituting the last of the 10 unwholesome > courses of action (kammapatha, q.v.), are the following three: (1) the > fatalistic 'view of the uncausedness' of existence (ahetukaditthi), (2) > the view of the inefficacy of action' (akiriyaditthi), (3) nihilism > (natthikaditthi)." > > MN60, note 621: "The three views discussed in pars. 5, 13 and 21 are > called wrong views with fixed evil result (niyataa micchaa di.t.thi). To > adhere to them with firm conviction closes off the prospect of a > heavenly rebirth and the attainment of liberation. For a fuller > discussion see Bodhi, "Discourse on the Fruits of Recluseship", pp. > 79-83." .... S: To add to your discussions on the meaning of 'natthika ditthi' in particular, let me quote from some of the excellent detail in this text, translated by B.Bodhi: In fact, these 3 kinds of serious wrong view all amount to the same: a denial of kamma bringing results. (Here, Cy refers to the commentary to the Saama~n~naphala Sutta above, and Sub-Cy to the sub-commentary to it) ***** "An overview of the three doctrines Cy: Among these, Purana, with his statement 'By doing so there is no evil,' denies kamma [because of his doctrine of the inefficiency of action]. Ajita, with his statement 'One is annihilated with the breakup of the body,' denies kammic results [because he completely rejects a future re-arising]. Makkhali, with his statement 'There is no cause,' etc. denies both. ... Sub Cy: (He denies both) because by completely denying the cause, the fruit also is rejected. When he asserts 'Beings are defiled and purified without any cause or condition,' his assertion of the conditionless nature of defilement and purification rejects the result as much as it rejects kamma; thus he denies both kamma and its result. ... Cy: By denying kamma one denies its result [because there is no result when there is no kamma]. By denying the result one denies kamma [because when there is no result, kamma becomes inefficacious]. Thus all these thinkers, by denying both (kamma and its results), in effect espouse acausalism (ahetukavaada), the inefficacy of action (akiriyavaada), and moral nihilism (natthikavaada). ... Sub Cy: Although these three theorists have come down separately in the texts by way of the explanation of their individual views, they all deny both (kamma and its result); and by denying both, they all expound acausalism, etc. For the moral nihilist, espousing annihilationism by his denial of the result, in effect expounds the inefficacy of action by his denial of kamma and acausalism by his denial of both. The same method with the other two." ***** Sarah: As I suggested the other day, in effect all 3 views amount to the same - they are all denying the law of kamma and this is the most dangerous kind of wrong view. ***** The text continues: "Cy: When people accept these theories and then recite and investigate them while sitting in their day-quarters or night-quarters, wrong mindfulness becomes established, taking as object (one of the three views): 'No evil is done,' or 'There is no cause or condition,' or 'The dead are annihilated.' The mind becomes one-pointed. The impulsions [javana cittas] run their course. At the first impulsion these people are curable; and so too at the second, etc. But at the seventh they cannot be cured even by the Buddha; they cannot be turned back. [S: i.e they cannot be 'cured', because it's impossible to prevent the 7th javana following]. Someone might espouse one view among these three, another two, another three. But whether one espouses one, two, or three views, one adopts a wrong view with fixed consequences. One has met an obstruction to the path to heaven and an obstruction to the path to liberation. It is impossible for him to reach heaven immediately following the present existence, much less to reach liberation. This being has become a stump in the round of existence, a watchman of the earth. Generally, one like this does not emerge from existence. Therefore a person with discernment Desirous of his spiritual growth Should keep far away from such harmful people As one would avoid a venomous snake." ***** Sarah: I'd like to type out just a little more, because of the helpful passages on how wrong awareness, wrong concentration and wrong view develop -- and are so very easily taken for 'right' ***** "Sub Cy: 'Wrong mindfulness becomes established' (micchaasati santi.t.thati): wrong mindfulness is the craving associated with the theory, and it is this which becomes established. For through oral tradition one first apprehends the general meaning of the view 'by doing so there is no evil,' etc. One then ponders that meaning with various reasons until it appears as cogent to the mind as if it possessed concrete form. By becoming accustomed to such a view over a long period of time, one arrives as a reflective acquiescence in it, thinking 'It is true.' When, again and again, one habitually indulges in and cultivates the view that has been accepted as true through reflective acquiescence, wrong thought directs craving to that view, with wrong effort reinforcing the craving; thus one apprehends things as having a nature which they do not really have. Thence it is the craving associated with the theory that is called wrong mindfulness. 'The mind becomes one-pointed': by gaining such particular conditions as applied thought, etc., the mind becomes steadied on its object; it abandons diffuseness and becomes one-pointed, as if absorbed. 'Wrong concentration' (micchaasamaadhi) is spoken of under the heading of 'mind'. For that concentration, gaining the power of the development through special conditions, performs the function of pervertedly concentrating the mind on its object, as in the case of sharp-shooting archers, etc." ***** Sarah: Often we point to the obvious danger and harm of performing akusala kamma patha through body and speech. However, we shouldn't underestimate the danger of such wrong views either, such as these, which become more and more entrenched and have serious repercussions. Metta, Sarah ===== #64563 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Oct 21, 2006 8:24 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily lIfe, 101. nilovg Dear friends, Since cittas arise and fall away very rapidly it is hard to know the different cittas which arise. Often we might not even know when we have kusala cittas or akusala cittas. For example, after there has been seeing we may not realize when there is attachment to the object, when there is aversion towards it, or when there is ignorance of realities. If we study the Dhamma we will learn about our cittas in detail and we will also come to know our more subtle defilements. Ignorance of our akusala cittas is dangerous. If we do not know when we have akusala cittas we will continue to accumulate akusala. The kusala cittas and akusala cittas which arise perform a function; they perform the function of javana or ``running through the object'' 1). In the sense-door process the votthapana-citta has determined the object already when the javana-cittas arise. Thus, the kusala cittas or akusala cittas which follow have as their only function to ``run through'' the object. There is not just one moment of citta which performs the function of javana, but usually there are seven cittas in succession which perform this function 2) . As we have seen (in chapter 12) one material unit, a sense-object which is experienced by cittas in a process, equals sixteen or seventeen mental units. Such numbers should be seen as a comparative notion. Within a process of cittas the duration of javana occupies seven moments. Since cittas arise and fall away extremely rapidly we cannot count these seven moments, it all takes place in a flash. The javana-cittas arising in one process are a sequence of seven cittas of the same type. If the first javana-citta is kusala, the succeeding six cittas are also kusala cittas; if the first javana- citta is akusala, the succeeding six cittas are also akusala cittas. Do we know when the javana-cittas are akusala cittas rooted in lobha, dosa or moha, or when they are kusala cittas? We are ignorant most of the time, even of javana-cittas. --------- 1. Javana is sometimes translated as “impulsion” or as “apperception”. 2. In the “Book of Conditional Relations” it has been explained under “repetition condition” that kusala khandhas are followed by kusala khandhas and akusala khandhas by akusala khandhas. The commentaries, the Visuddhimagga ( XIV, 121) and the Atthasåliní ( II, Book I, Part X, chapter II, 270) state that there are six or seven moments of javana. The number of seven is not expressively stated in the scriptures, but when we consider the number of cittas in the mind- door process during which enlightenment is attained, as we will see in chapter 24, we have an indication that the number of javana-cittas as given by the commentaries is based on canonical tradition. In different parts of the scriptures the javana- cittas of this process are denoted by particular names and in this way we can know the number of these cittas. ***** Nina #64564 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Oct 21, 2006 8:30 am Subject: Abhidhamma and Practice. nilovg Dear friends, This is an article writtedn a long time ago which I shall post in a series. ------------ Abhidhamma and Practice. What is the cause of all misery and sorrow in the world? We read in the ‘Kindred Sayings’ (Vol. I, Ch. III, iii, par. 3, The World) that King Pasenadi asked the Buddha: ‘How many kinds of things, lord, that happen in the world, make for trouble, for suffering, for distress?’ The Buddha answered: ‘Three things, sire, happen of that nature. What are the three? Greed, hate, and delusion;- these three make for trouble, for suffering, for distress.’ In the Buddha’s time defilements were the cause of all sorrow and suffering and this is also true for today. It is true for all times. Only those who are perfected have no sorrow and suffering. The Buddha taught the solution to all problem: the eradication of all unwholesomeness through the development of right understanding; right understanding of all phenomena of our life. Is the eradication of our defilements really the solution to all problems in the world? Is it not a selfish attitude to be solely occupied with the eradication of one’s own defilements, and even more, is it possible to eradicate defilements? We cannot eradicate the defilements of others, “we” cannot even eradicate our own defilements. But when right understanding has been developed, it is right understanding which can gradually eradicate defilements. But this may take many lives. At this moment we are full of ignorance as to the phenomena of our live. We usually seek only ourselves and we serve our own interests. How could we then really serve other people? Detachment from ‘self’ is only possible through right understanding of the phenomena of our life. Through right understanding there will be less unwholesomeness in life and more wholesomeness, such as loving- kindness and compassion. Thus, the development of right understanding should be our first aim. ****** Nina. #64565 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Oct 21, 2006 8:48 am Subject: Denying kamma and its results ......(was: Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa B scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Sarah: "Often we point to the obvious danger and harm of performing akusala kamma patha through body and speech. However, we shouldn't underestimate the danger of such wrong views either, such as these, which become more and more entrenched and have serious repercussions." The whole post is excellent. I think this totally had to be spelled out. I think that the evolution of ideas, theoretical innovations and the like have absolutely no place in relation to Dhamma. With loving kindness, Scott. #64566 From: "Plamen Gradinarov" Date: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:00 am Subject: [dsg] Re: how do we know namas. pgradinarov Dear Nina, So we can safely say that the "nama-vinnatti" citta is manovinnana. In order for it to take place, should there be a preceding manodvaravajjana-citta that has to advert the manodhatu to its object, or the "nama-vinnatti" citta does not need an organ (manas) to conceive of its object? If avajjana-citta is needed, probably there is also need of a sense- defining citta, anticipating citta, investigating citta, ordering citta, some javana-cittas, registering cittas, not to mention the triplet-citta of patisandhi, bhavanga and cuti. Do you think the alambana-nama will subsist that long? Or different namas have different life-span? Kindest regards, Plamen #64567 From: "nidive" Date: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:21 am Subject: Denying kamma and its results ......(was: Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu) nidive Hi Sarah, > Therefore a person with discernment > Desirous of his spiritual growth > Should keep far away from such harmful people > As one would avoid a venomous snake." True. It is my opinion that Buddhadasa is very likely suffering the consequences of his wrong views right now in one of the woeful realms, most likely in the hells. Actually, I think to accord him the title of Bhikkhu is an injustice to the Buddha Dhamma. There is another venomous snake active in some lists going by the name of Dhammarato from Wat Greensboro and Wat Buddhadasa. Regards, Swee Boon #64568 From: "Larry" Date: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:56 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu lbidd2 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joop" wrote: > > Hallo > > When I started the thread "Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu", > I hoped to start a discussion about the ideas of Buddhadasa. > This has hardly happened. That's sad because this was the topic that > really interests me. > > But the discussion has already taken place some months ago at E- > sangha: > www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=32877&hl= > With the title "Ajahn Buddhadassa views on rebirth" > At DSG well-known contributors were "robertk2" and "cooran" (guess > who) > > So to me there is no longer a need to continue > > Metta > > Joop > Hi Joop, I don't know anything about Ajahn Buddhadassa but I thought of an alternative to the traditional multi-life kamma view: Doing bad is always dukkha here and now, even if it is pleasurable. Doing good or trying to do good always inclines toward the end of dukkha here and now, even if you fail. This is a non-mystical ethical motivation that anyone can understand and verify for themselves. No need for super powers to see into past and future lives, and no need for blind faith. I am confident that one who holds this view will not incur the fixed destiny of no jhana and no enlightenment. Larry #64569 From: "Joop" Date: Sat Oct 21, 2006 12:56 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu jwromeijn Hallo Larry Thanks for your answer. I agree with it nearly totally 'Nearly' because I don't know if jhana is needed for enlightenment (if I understand you well). And I'm not sure if this is - in the eyes of some other DSG participants - an alternative as it is in mine Metta Joop --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Larry" wrote: > > > Hi Joop, > > I don't know anything about Ajahn Buddhadassa but I thought of an alternative to the > traditional multi-life kamma view: > > Doing bad is always dukkha here and now, even if it is pleasurable. Doing good or trying > to do good always inclines toward the end of dukkha here and now, even if you fail. This is > a non-mystical ethical motivation that anyone can understand and verify for themselves. > No need for super powers to see into past and future lives, and no need for blind faith. I > am confident that one who holds this view will not incur the fixed destiny of no jhana and > no enlightenment. > > Larry > #64570 From: "Joop" Date: Sat Oct 21, 2006 12:57 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu jwromeijn Hallo Sarah, all Many thanks for the mass of answers and reactions. One doesn't get so much attention every days (luckely not) I try to answer in one message. I number in roman numbers I. "Sabhava" What RobK wrote or quoted about it in 55086, is unreadable for me. I stopped studying this scholasticism. Better is the conclusion of both Howard and me about it this week: let's not use any more the term 'sabhava': it only gives misunderstandings and we don't need this concept. II. S: .. the distinction [ultimate-conventional, J.] is a kind of 'skillful means' as you say. However, the words point to a) realities which can be directly known, realities which arise and fall away (apart from nibbana) and b) mere concepts, ideas, conventional usages. N: It's only an intellectual and not a soteriological problem but the combination of these two do not cover everything. Cf the discussion again this week: do "anicca", "anatta", "dukkha" and the "accumulations" belong to a): No, because they don't fall away b): No, because their character (excusez le mot) is ultimate III. That you think Nanavira can be dangerous, I understand. To me he was a psychiatric patient at the end of his life, that's my conclusion of Stephen Batchelor's essay Existence, Enlightenment and Suicide about him. But that you also are putting prof. Karunadasa to the group of heretics, is more difficult to digest for me. I do trust him, also after you negative words in #64554 IV. About D.O.: a chain or a wheel? S: "… it's better to reflect on each of the links, one at a time. Birth does follow death and death is a condition for birth" Reflecting on each of the links, I did some months ago, also in DSG. And I think it's important too to reflect on the principle behind DO: "When there is this, that is. With the arising of this, that arises. …." Etc. "… death is a condition for birth" HERE WE HAVE THE REAL IMPORTANT TOPIC. I prefer to say: 1 death is a condition for something we don't know: Another nama (citta) ? Another rupa? 2 it's not important that we don't know what happens in the future 3 as explained to Larry today: I don't need the rebirth-concept for my ethical behavior V. In #64550 you gave comments on one of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's texts. This comment is clear. It's also clear that I'm more positive about his texts, although I don't understand all of it. Let's take one of your comments: S: "I've no idea what the 'rebirth every time one does a deed' means." J: This has to do with the distinguishments he makes between "everyday language" and "Dhamma language", two distinct and different modes of speaking; the first idea is that a bit like the distinguishment ultimate versus conventional but it's something different. See a quote from www.buddhadasa.com/naturaltruth/twolanguage2.html below That's only for understanding Buddhadasa Bhikkhu a little bit better, not that it will convince you. VI. Of old messages in DSG about Buddhadasa Bhikkhu I already knew that of RobertK, resposted in E-Sangha. Other ones were new to me, but were much about Buddhadasa Bhikkhu versus Ven. Buddhaghosa, a discussion I prefer to avoid. VII. In #64562 (in which you wisely changed the name of the topic) about denial of kamma S: "To add to your discussions on the meaning of 'natthika ditthi' in particular, let me quote from some of the excellent detail in this text, translated by B.Bodhi: In fact, these 3 kinds of serious wrong view all amount to the same: a denial of kamma bringing results." J: I'm sure Buddhadasa does not deny this. And I don't either: I think kamma bringing results either immediately or later in this life (and what happens after this life: we don't know). The Cy's and Sub Cy's were to difficult for me, so I repeat my question: is the 'thus' of Bikkhu Bodhi a logical one in his definition (I could not find it in your quoted texts): " nihilism (natthika-di.t.thi), which denies the survival of the personality in any form after death, THUS negating the moral significance of deeds;…" I think it's this 'thus' that really devides us. Anyway: many thanks for all your answers and the fact that you forced me to express myself as good as possible. I'm still interested in your ideas about "natthika ditthi", especially Bikkhu Bodhi's "THUS" Metta Joop Quote (for the last time !) of Buddhadasa Bhikku: "BIRTH Now, going a little higher, we come to the word "birth" (jati). In everyday language, the word "birth" refers to physically coming into the world from the mother's womb. A person is born physically only once. Having been born, one lives in the world until one dies and enters the coffin. Physical birth happens to each of us only once. This birth from the mother's womb is what is meant by "birth" in everyday language. In Dhamma language, the word "birth" refers to the birth of the idea "I" or "ego" that arises in the mind throughout each day. In this sense, the ordinary person is born very often, time and time again; a more developed person is born less frequently; a person well advanced in practice (ariyan, noble one) is born less frequently still, and ultimately ceases being born altogether. Each arising in the mind of the idea of "I" in one form or another is called a "birth." Thus, birth can take place many times over in a single day. As soon as one starts thinking like an animal, one is born as an animal in that same moment. To think like a human being is to be born a human being. To think like a celestial being is to be born a celestial being. Life, the individual, pleasure and pain, and the rest-all these were identified by the Buddha as simply momentary states of consciousness. So the word "birth" means in Dhamma language the arising of the idea of "I" or "me", and not, as in everyday language, physical birth from the mother's womb. The word "birth" is very common in the Buddha's discourses. When he was speaking of everyday things, he used the word "birth" with its everyday meaning. But when he was expounding Higher Dhamma - for instance, when discussing conditioned arising (paticca-samuppada) - he used the word "birth" (jati) with the meaning it has in Dhamma language. In his description of conditioned arising, he wasn't talking about physical birth. He was talking about the birth of attachment to the ideas of "me" and "mine", "myself" and "my own." DEATH Now let's consider the word "death." Death in everyday language means that event which necessitates putting something in a coffin and cremating or burying it. But in Dhamma language, the word "death" refer to the cessation of the idea mentioned just a moment ago, the idea of "I" or "me". The ceasing of this idea is what is meant by "death" in Dhamma language." #64571 From: "Plamen Gradinarov" Date: Sat Oct 21, 2006 2:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Unreal Eternal Element pgradinarov Dear Sarah, > So you didn't like my 'spaced out' subject heading:-). P: It is not a matter of liking; I don't understand the meaning of "All Spaced Out". > As for yourse, 'the > unreal eternal element' is an oxymoron as I understand the terms.... P: You understood them correctly. The "Unreal Eternal Element" is as much an oxymoron as is the "non-existing eternal concept". The subject of the post reflected the second predicament. > > L.S. Although the Four Great Elements come up together > > and perish together, only the elements constituting the same unit do > > so. The neighbouring units being separated by akasa are not > > affected. > .... > S: This doesn't make sense to me (am I being dense?). All the kalapas and > the space (pariccheda akasa) dependent on these kalapas arise and fall > together. Oh, perhaps he means that the different kalapas arise and fall > according to their own conditions. OK.... P: He evidently meant only this. Rupa-kalapas are separate units. Breaking one pot in the potter's house does not mean that all neighbouring pots should also disappear. > > L.S. Thus in between all masses of materiality there are voids or space, > > comparable in principle to the open sky above the Earth. > .... > S: This is the 2nd kind of akasa I referred to in open spaces. Not the > pariccheda rupa dependent on the arising of the kalapas. P: I got the impression that LS wants to account for akasa only as a dhatu possessing two main functions: (1) to formally delimit (paricchindati) the material objects from each other (pariccheda- rupa) - it may appear that this is the geometrical space, but it is not, and (2) to serve as a particular locus, i.e., as paricchinna akasa-dhatu, i.e., as a space that is delimited, paricchijjati. Karunadasa in his famous article on Space and Time in Abhidhamma thinks that the all-Indian meaning of akasa as all-pervading mahabhuta is not present in Theravada), of akasa as providing room for the rise and development of material aggregates without obstructing them and without being obstructed by anything (what probably is the meaning of "not ploughed"). And although Milinda- pannha describes akasa as agahya, santasaniya, ananta, appamana, appameyya, alagga, asatta, appatittha, and apalibuddha, this concession to the Sarvastivada Abhidharma does not produce the definition of akasa as asankhata dhamma. Kathavatthu also describes akasa as what provides room, but it is not infinite and eternal, neither is it conditioned or unconditioned. Hence, akasa is avijjamana pannati, a "conceptual construct with no objective counterpart." Here is the conclusion of Karunadasa: "It is this latter kind of space that came to be elevated in the Milindapanha almost to the level of an unconditioned dhamma. And it is also this same space that the Kathavatthu describes as neither conditioned nor unconditioned, and this, as the commentary says, means that it is a conceptual construct. In the commentaries it is sometimes introduced as infinite space (anantakasa) and boundless space (ajatakasa).66 Both terms highlight its difference from the space-element in the sense of bounded space. The use of these two terms does not mean that space is regarded as something real and absolute. The use of another term, empty space (tucchakasa) does, in fact, highlight its true nature.67 For as noted earlier, for the Pali commentaries space in the sense of "bare geometric extension" is a mere conceptual construct. (pannatti-matta). The reference to two kinds of space could be considered as looking at the same phenomenon from two different angles. The first, which is always introduced by the compound word, akasa-dhatu (space- element) means space as void region or as that which delimits material phenomena. The second which is introduced by the simple term, akasa (space) means space as providing room for the existence and movement of matter. It may then be asked why the former is described as conditioned (sankhata) and the latter as neither conditioned nor unconditioned (= pannatti or conceptual construct). The reason for this is that although the former is presented as one of the secondary material phenomena (upada-rupa), it is not considered as an entity distinct from the other material phenomena. It is the method followed in the Dhammasangani that in recognizing certain characteristics and modalities connected with real rupa- dhammas (elements of matter), those characteristics and modalities themselves are presented as separate and co-ordinate rupa-dhammas. It is only a pedagogic device adopted to avoid the distinction between substance and quality entering into the list of rupa- dhammas. The Pali commentators were fully aware of this situation. This should explain why in the commentaries the space-element of the Dhammasangani came to be included in a category called anipphanna- rupa. What is included in this category is, strictly speaking, not a dhamma, because it has no own-nature (sabhava). Nor is it of the nature of rupa in the sense of matter, because it does not answer to its definition.68 If the items included in the category of anipphanna-rupa continue to be presented as rupa-dhammas, this, as the commentators say, is done only as a matter of convention (rulhiya).69 What all this amounts to is that in the ultimate sense (nippariyayena), the space-element (akasa-dhatu) is not different from space akasa). Both are conceptual constructs with no corresponding objective reality." http://www.orientalia.org/article594.html Kindest regards, Plamen #64572 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 21, 2006 10:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Emptiness Awareness-Release upasaka_howard Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 10/21/06 9:41:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nidive@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > >Yes, thanks. I've seen that before. I never was quite sure what was > >meant by 'delineation'. I'm guessing it might mean conceptually > >isolating as a separate, self-existent entity. But, even if that is > >what is meant, I still can't make head or tail out of it. "Delineate > >a delineation"? Is that really useful English if the aim is clear > >communication? Perhaps you could tell me what you think this passage > >means. It eludes me! ;-) > > The passage I quoted is the reverse order. I start with the forward > order now. > > >"Now, when there is the eye, when there are forms, when there is > >eye-consciousness, it is possible that one will delineate a > >delineation of contact. > > For a person resolved on and obsessed with his self or conceit, he > complicates contact with the notion of "I am the one who sees". > > >When there is a delineation of contact, it is possible that one will > >delineate a delineation of feeling. > > He further complicates feeling with the notion of "I am the one who > feels". > > >When there is a delineation of feeling, it is possible that one will > >delineate a delineation of perception. > > He further complicates perception with the notion of "I am the one who > perceives". > > >When there is a delineation of perception, it is possible that one > >will delineate a delineation of thinking. > > He further complicates thinking with the notion of "I am the one who > thinks". > > >When there is a delineation of thinking, it is possible that one > >will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the perceptions > >&categories of complication. > > Because of his persistent notion of "I am the one", he further assails > himself with complications such as: "I am the one who is insulted", "I > am the one who is cheated", "I am the one who is lied to", "I am the > one who is gossiped about", etc, etc. > > This is how there is the taking up of rods &bladed weapons, of > arguments, quarrels, disputes, accusations, divisive tale-bearing, & > false speech. > > >'If, with regard to the cause whereby the perceptions &categories > >of complication assail a person, there is nothing there to relish, > >welcome, or remain fastened to, then that is the end of the > >obsessions of passion, the obsessions of resistance, the obsessions > >of views, the obsessions of uncertainty, the obsessions of conceit, > >the obsessions of passion for becoming, &the obsessions of > >ignorance. That is the end of taking up rods &bladed weapons, of > >arguments, quarrels, disputes, accusations, divisive tale-bearing, > >&false speech. That is where these evil, unskillful things cease > >without remainder' — this is how I understand the detailed meaning. > > For a person not resolved on nor obsessed with his self or conceit, > having uprooted ignorance and craving, then for him, there is no > assailment by the perceptions &categories of complication. Such a > notion of "I am the one" does not occur to him. For him, in the > sensed, there is only the sensed. He does not complicate what is > sensed with the notion of "I am the one". ------------------------------------------- Howard: All that you say is certainly worth saying, Swee Boon. But I am still perplexed as to the meaning of "delineation of contact (etc)" and "delineation of delineation". Perhaps it is actually just a complex way of saying something simpler. Maybe 'delineation' only has the meaning of "taking (conceptual) note of". So, in that reading "Now, when there is the eye, when there are forms, when there is eye-consciousness, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of contact" might mean nothing more than "Now, when there is the eye, when there are forms, when there is eye-consciousness, it is possible that one will take note of their being contact." Likewise, "delineation of delineation" would just mean "taking not of taking note (of something)". But the foregoing is only one possibility, and I'm not so persuaded of its correctness. Another possibility is that delineation of something is a 'conceptual hardening" of that phenomenon, a reifiying of it. Actually, this may have a better chance of being correct! Substituting that, the material you quoted could be rendered as follows: "Now, when there is the eye, when there are forms, when there is eye-consciousness, it is possible that one will form a hardened concept of contact. When there is reification of contact, it is possible that one will form a hardened concept of feeling. When there is reification of feeling, it is possible that one will reify perception. When there is reification of perception, it is possible that one will reify thinking. When there is reification of thinking, it is possible that one will reify being assailed by the perceptions & categories of complication." ------------------------------------------------ > > Now I come to the reverse order. "Now, when there is no eye, when there are no forms, when there is> > >no eye-consciousness, it is impossible that one will delineate a > >delineation of contact. When there is no delineation of contact, it > >is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When > >there is no delineation of feeling, it is impossible that one will > >delineate a delineation of perception. When there is no delineation > >of perception, it is impossible that one will delineate a > >delineation of thinking. When there is no delineation of thinking, > >it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of being > >assailed by the perceptions &categories of complication. > > This is tricky to explain. > > Taken literally, one would have to pluck out one's eyes. ------------------------------------- Howard: One may think of "no eye" as meaning merely that the eye door is not the active sense door. When there is ear door, sound, and ear consciousness, there is no eye-door etc, and certainly no eye contact to be taken note of or to be reified (or whatever 'delineation' might mean.) --------------------------------------- > > I think there are two keywords to take note of. In the forward order, > the keyword there is "possible". In the reverse order, the keyword > here is "impossible". > > If there is no eye, it is impossible for there to be contact, feeling, > perception, thinking and thus it is IMPOSSIBLE that one can complicate > them with the notion of "I am the one". > > But if there is eye, there is contact, feeling, perception, thinking, > and it is POSSIBLE that one can complicate them with the notion of "I > am the one". > > These two keywords are important. The Buddha, while still alive, > definitely had eyes and definitely saw visible objects. Yet he does > not complicate what he saw with the notion of "I am the one". > > As I see it, the above passage describes "the so-called situation" > after the parinibbana of an arahant ----------------------------------- Howard: Could be, but I think not. ---------------------------------- > > To understand this passage better, we have to go to D.O. > > If there is no ignorance, then there are no fabrications siding on the > side of merit or demerit (kamma that is dark, bright, dark-&-bright). > > When there are no fabrications siding on the side of merit or demerit, > then there is no further rebirth consciousness. > > When there is no further rebirth consciousness, then there is no > further name-&-form. > > When there is no further name-&-form, then there is no further six > sense media. > > Now, this is where the above passage comes in. If there is no six > sense media, then it is impossible for there to be contact, feeling, > perception, thinking and complication with the notion of "I am the > one". > > With the uprooting of ignorance and craving, there is the uprooting of > all further six sense media. > > And it is in reference to this uprooting of all further six sense > media that the above passage says "when there is no eye, when there > are no forms, when there is no eye-consciousness, it is impossible > that one will delineate a delineation of contact, etc ...". > > I hope I have explained myself well. > > Regards, > Swee Boon > ====================== With metta, Howard #64573 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 21, 2006 10:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Denying kamma and its results ......(was: Re: Stephen Batchelor and... upasaka_howard Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 10/21/06 12:24:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nidive@... writes: > Hi Sarah, > > >Therefore a person with discernment > >Desirous of his spiritual growth > >Should keep far away from such harmful people > >As one would avoid a venomous snake." > > True. > > It is my opinion that Buddhadasa is very likely suffering the > consequences of his wrong views right now in one of the woeful realms, > most likely in the hells. ----------------------------------- Howard: Wow! Pretty harsh, Swee Boon. ---------------------------------- > > Actually, I think to accord him the title of Bhikkhu is an injustice > to the Buddha Dhamma. > > There is another venomous snake active in some lists going by the name > of Dhammarato from Wat Greensboro and Wat Buddhadasa. ---------------------------------- Howard: Man, you sure are passing out the free tickets to hell today! ---------------------------------- > > Regards, > Swee Boon > > ================= With metta, Howard #64574 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Sat Oct 21, 2006 1:43 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Self dacostacharles Daniel, You said, "Well, I do not think I understand the 4 noble truths well enough. I am still contemplating and thinking... As we all are, aren't we?" I already have a good understanding of the 4 noble truths that gets me by so I don't. I think the same goes for a lot of other older Buddhists. This is why I ask which of the 4 noble truths are you still trying to understand? Charles DaCosta -----Original Message----- From: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Daniel Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 20:37 To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: [dsg] Re: Self Hello Charles, Well, I do not think I understand the 4 noble truths well enough. I am still contemplating and thinking... As we all are, aren't we? <....> #64575 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Sat Oct 21, 2006 1:29 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Mind. The Pentad of sense impression. dacostacharles Nina, I like the subject title, but I wonder if there is a way to word it so the reactions to the impressions could be included? I am moving slowly (too many other things going) and I expect to pick up the pace in about a month. Normally I could agree and appreciate statements like the following: "As Ven. Nyanaponika says, these lists are not rigid classifications, and they are not exhaustive. We find different enumerations in different contexts. To help those who need to be guided to enlightenment (veneyya). " However, this will make it tougher to model. Charles DaCosta _____ From: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Nina van Gorkom Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 20:56 To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: [dsg] Mind. The Pentad of sense impression. H:In the list given in MN 9, there are vedana and sa~n~na explicity. I suppose that volition is representative of the larger sankharakkhandha, and that phassa is standing in for vi~n~nana. In that list, attention is being given attention, it seems! ;-) I don't know why the Buddha in that teaching broke nama down as he did. Perhaps the commentaries have some light to shed on that. It is exactly the sort of thing I would look to the commentaries for. :-) <...> #64576 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sat Oct 21, 2006 5:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Emptiness Awareness-Release lbidd2 Hi Howard, H: "All that you say is certainly worth saying, Swee Boon. But I am still perplexed as to the meaning of "delineation of contact (etc)" and "delineation of delineation". Perhaps it is actually just a complex way of saying something simpler. Maybe 'delineation' only has the meaning of "taking (conceptual) note of"." L: B. Bodhi has this note on "When there is eye, a form, and eye-consciousness, it is possible to point out the manifestation of ["delineate the delineation of"] contact": "The Pali idiom phassapa~n~natti"m pa~n~naapessati, in which the verb takes an object derived from itself, is difficult. ~Nm. originally rendered "that one will describe a description of contact." "To point out a manifestation" [B. Bodhi's trans.] is less literal, but it should do justice to the meaning without jeopardising intelligibility. MA says that this passage is intended to show the entire round of existence (va.t.ta) by way of the twelve sense bases; par. 18 shows the cessation of the round (viva.t.ta) by the negation of the twelve sense bases." Larry #64577 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sat Oct 21, 2006 5:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu lbidd2 Hi Joop, J: "And let me repeat something on which you did not react: behaving in an ethical way primarely in the hope to get a good rebirth or preventing a bad rebirth is worthless." L: I tried it and it works! I was much more intent on avoiding bad and cultivating good. Larry #64578 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 21, 2006 3:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Emptiness Awareness-Release upasaka_howard Hi, Larry (and Swee Boon) - In a message dated 10/21/06 8:26:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > H: "All that you say is certainly worth saying, Swee Boon. But I am > still perplexed as to the meaning of "delineation of contact (etc)" and > "delineation of delineation". Perhaps it is actually just a complex way > of saying something simpler. Maybe 'delineation' only has the meaning of > "taking (conceptual) note of"." > > L: B. Bodhi has this note on "When there is eye, a form, and > eye-consciousness, it is possible to point out the manifestation of > ["delineate the delineation of"] contact": > > "The Pali idiom phassapa~n~natti"m pa~n~naapessati, in which the verb > takes an object derived from itself, is difficult. ~Nm. originally > rendered "that one will describe a description of contact." "To point > out a manifestation" [B. Bodhi's trans.] is less literal, but it should > do justice to the meaning without jeopardising intelligibility. MA says > that this passage is intended to show the entire round of existence > (va.t.ta) by way of the twelve sense bases; par. 18 shows the cessation > of the round (viva.t.ta) by the negation of the twelve sense bases." > > Larry > > ===================== Thanks, Larry. Well, I guess "to take note of" and "to point out the manifestation of" are somewhat close. But either way, the expression is just odd to me. Why does it not just say "When there is eye, a form, and eye-consciousness, there is contact"? What is the point of instead saying "it is possible to point out the manifestation of (or delineate the delineation of) contact"? Obviously, if there IS contact, it is possible to point it out, or to take note of it? I just don't get the POINT of this business. It seems to me that that idiom literally given by "to delineate the delineation" has got to mean something more. In some languages, biblical Hebrew for example, repetition serves as an emphasis that is a strengthening of the word involved. I found the following about this on the web: ______________________ Term repetition is one of them [techniques for emphasis]. Some examples of this include "slave of slaves" (Gen 9:25) to indicate the lowest of slaves; "ever more of ever mores" (Isa 34:10) meaning forever; "gladness my joy" (Ps 43:4) where two synonyms for "joy" are repeated. Another similar technique there is a repetition of the same word with a change in the form of one of the words. For example, in Gen 2:17 the word "die" is repeated in the form of "dying" and is translated as "surely die." This is a standard Hebrew form used for emphasis and does not mean "a state of dying" as some seem to suggest. This same form is used when Jacob's sons brought back Joseph's bloody coat and Jacob says "cutting to pieces cut to pieces," which is translated to something like "Joseph has certainly been cut to pieces!" ______________________ That's why I think that "form a hardened concept of" (or "to reify") might be a good rendering for the phrase literally translated as "delineate a delineation". It suggests to me the creation of a fixed, solidified description or characterization or definition or idea of. With metta, Howard #64579 From: "nidive" Date: Sat Oct 21, 2006 7:55 pm Subject: Re: The Emptiness Awareness-Release nidive Hi Howard & Larry, > Why does it not just say "When there is eye, a form, and eye- > consciousness, there is contact"? What is the point of instead > saying "it is possible to point out the manifestation of (or > delineate the delineation of) contact"? > Obviously, if there IS contact, it is possible to point it out, or > to take note of it? I just don't get the POINT of this business. > It seems to me that that idiom literally given by "to delineate the > delineation" has got to mean something more. You are right to say that it has got to mean something more. The phrase "it is possible" suggests "may" or "may not". I think a translation of "it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of self with regard to contact, etc." will make things much clearer. Of course, if there is no eye, it is IMPOSSIBLE that one will delineate a delineation of self with regard to contact, since there is no contact to speak of in the first place. In DN 15, there are two passages related to the self delineation business. -------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.15.0.than.html Delineations of a Self "To what extent, Ananda, does one delineate when delineating a self? Either delineating a self possessed of form and finite, one delineates that 'My self is possessed of form and finite.' Or, delineating a self possessed of form and infinite, one delineates that 'My self is possessed of form and infinite.' Or, delineating a self formless and finite, one delineates that 'My self is formless and finite.' Or, delineating a self formless and infinite, one delineates that 'My self is formless and infinite.' "Now, the one who, when delineating a self, delineates it as possessed of form and finite, either delineates it as possessed of form and finite in the present, or of such a nature that it will [naturally] become possessed of form and finite [in the future/after death], or he believes that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.' This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self possessed of form and finite obsesses him. "The one who, when delineating a self, delineates it as possessed of form and infinite, either delineates it as possessed of form and infinite in the present, or of such a nature that it will [naturally] become possessed of form and infinite [in the future/after death], or he believes that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.' This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self possessed of form and infinite obsesses him. "The one who, when delineating a self, delineates it as formless and finite, either delineates it as formless and finite in the present, or of such a nature that it will [naturally] become formless and finite [in the future/after death], or he believes that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.' This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self formless and finite obsesses him. "The one who, when delineating a self, delineates it as formless and infinite, either delineates it as formless and infinite in the present, or of such a nature that it will [naturally] become formless and infinite [in the future/after death], or he believes that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.' This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self formless and infinite obsesses him. Non-Delineations of a Self "To what extent, Ananda, does one not delineate when not delineating a self? Either not delineating a self possessed of form and finite, one does not delineate that 'My self is possessed of form and finite.' Or, not delineating a self possessed of form and infinite, one does not delineate that 'My self is possessed of form and infinite.' Or, not delineating a self formless and finite, one does not delineate that 'My self is formless and finite.' Or, not delineating a self formless and infinite, one does not delineate that 'My self is formless and infinite.' "Now, the one who, when not delineating a self, does not delineate it as possessed of form and finite, does not delineate it as possessed of form and finite in the present, nor does he delineate it as of such a nature that it will [naturally] become possessed of form and finite [in the future/after death], nor does he believe that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.' This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self possessed of form and finite does not obsess him. "The one who, when not delineating a self, does not delineate it as possessed of form and infinite, does not delineate it as possessed of form and infinite in the present, nor does he delineate it as of such a nature that it will [naturally] become possessed of form and infinite [in the future/after death], nor does he believe that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.' This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self possessed of form and infinite does not obsess him. "The one who, when not delineating a self, does not delineate it as formless and finite, does not delineate it as formless and finite in the present, nor does he delineate it as of such a nature that it will [naturally] become formless and finite [in the future/after death], nor does he believe that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.' This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self formless and finite does not obsess him. "The one who, when not delineating a self, does not delineate it as formless and infinite, does not delineate it as formless and infinite in the present, nor does he delineate it as of such a nature that it will [naturally] become formless and infinite [in the future/after death], nor does he believe that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.' This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self formless and infinite does not obsess him. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Regards, Swee Boon #64580 From: "nidive" Date: Sat Oct 21, 2006 8:05 pm Subject: [dsg] Denying kamma and its results ......(was: Re: Stephen Batchelor and... nidive Hi Howard, > ---------------------------------- > Howard: > Man, you sure are passing out the free tickets to hell today! > ---------------------------------- More accurately speaking, they are buying their own tickets to hell. I play no part in sending them there, much less giving out free first- class air tickets flying to hell. If only I were that rich, born into a wealthy family! Regards, Swee Boon #64581 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Emptiness Awareness-Release upasaka_howard Hi, Swee Boon (and Larry) - The following mayerial you present is about delineating a self. The other material was about dilineating various other things, but, in particular it used the phrase 'delineate a delineation'. So, I don't see how what you have below clarifies that matter. My first question is what is meant by 'delineate'. Is it "to define"? My second question is about the repetitive expression of "delineating a delineation". My question is a linguistic one, a semantic one. WHAT those expressions are about is what I'm after. With metta, Howard In a message dated 10/21/06 11:01:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nidive@... writes: > Hi Howard &Larry, > > >Why does it not just say "When there is eye, a form, and eye- > >consciousness, there is contact"? What is the point of instead > >saying "it is possible to point out the manifestation of (or > >delineate the delineation of) contact"? > >Obviously, if there IS contact, it is possible to point it out, or > >to take note of it? I just don't get the POINT of this business. > >It seems to me that that idiom literally given by "to delineate the > >delineation" has got to mean something more. > > You are right to say that it has got to mean something more. > > The phrase "it is possible" suggests "may" or "may not". > > I think a translation of "it is possible that one will delineate a > delineation of self with regard to contact, etc." will make things > much clearer. > > Of course, if there is no eye, it is IMPOSSIBLE that one will > delineate a delineation of self with regard to contact, since there is > no contact to speak of in the first place. > > In DN 15, there are two passages related to the self delineation > business. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.15.0.than.html > > Delineations of a Self > > "To what extent, Ananda, does one delineate when delineating a self? > Either delineating a self possessed of form and finite, one delineates > that 'My self is possessed of form and finite.' Or, delineating a self > possessed of form and infinite, one delineates that 'My self is > possessed of form and infinite.' Or, delineating a self formless and > finite, one delineates that 'My self is formless and finite.' Or, > delineating a self formless and infinite, one delineates that 'My self > is formless and infinite.' > > "Now, the one who, when delineating a self, delineates it as possessed > of form and finite, either delineates it as possessed of form and > finite in the present, or of such a nature that it will [naturally] > become possessed of form and finite [in the future/after death], or he > believes that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into > being that way.' This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed > view of a self possessed of form and finite obsesses him. > > "The one who, when delineating a self, delineates it as possessed of > form and infinite, either delineates it as possessed of form and > infinite in the present, or of such a nature that it will [naturally] > become possessed of form and infinite [in the future/after death], or > he believes that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it > into being that way.' This being the case, it is proper to say that a > fixed view of a self possessed of form and infinite obsesses him. > > "The one who, when delineating a self, delineates it as formless and > finite, either delineates it as formless and finite in the present, or > of such a nature that it will [naturally] become formless and finite > [in the future/after death], or he believes that 'Although it is not > yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.' This being the > case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self formless and > finite obsesses him. > > "The one who, when delineating a self, delineates it as formless and > infinite, either delineates it as formless and infinite in the > present, or of such a nature that it will [naturally] become formless > and infinite [in the future/after death], or he believes that > 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that > way.' This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a > self formless and infinite obsesses him. > > Non-Delineations of a Self > > "To what extent, Ananda, does one not delineate when not delineating a > self? Either not delineating a self possessed of form and finite, one > does not delineate that 'My self is possessed of form and finite.' Or, > not delineating a self possessed of form and infinite, one does not > delineate that 'My self is possessed of form and infinite.' Or, not > delineating a self formless and finite, one does not delineate that > 'My self is formless and finite.' Or, not delineating a self formless > and infinite, one does not delineate that 'My self is formless and > infinite.' > > "Now, the one who, when not delineating a self, does not delineate it > as possessed of form and finite, does not delineate it as possessed of > form and finite in the present, nor does he delineate it as of such a > nature that it will [naturally] become possessed of form and finite > [in the future/after death], nor does he believe that 'Although it is > not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.' This being > the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self possessed of > form and finite does not obsess him. > > "The one who, when not delineating a self, does not delineate it as > possessed of form and infinite, does not delineate it as possessed of > form and infinite in the present, nor does he delineate it as of such > a nature that it will [naturally] become possessed of form and > infinite [in the future/after death], nor does he believe that > 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that > way.' This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a > self possessed of form and infinite does not obsess him. > > "The one who, when not delineating a self, does not delineate it as > formless and finite, does not delineate it as formless and finite in > the present, nor does he delineate it as of such a nature that it will > [naturally] become formless and finite [in the future/after death], > nor does he believe that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will > convert it into being that way.' This being the case, it is proper to > say that a fixed view of a self formless and finite does not obsess > him. > > "The one who, when not delineating a self, does not delineate it as > formless and infinite, does not delineate it as formless and infinite > in the present, nor does he delineate it as of such a nature that it > will [naturally] become formless and infinite [in the future/after > death], nor does he believe that 'Although it is not yet that way, I > will convert it into being that way.' This being the case, it is > proper to say that a fixed view of a self formless and infinite does > not obsess him. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Regards, > Swee Boon #64582 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sat Oct 21, 2006 8:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Emptiness Awareness-Release lbidd2 Hi Howard, H: "It seems to me that that idiom literally given by "to delineate the delineation" has got to mean something more. In some languages, biblical Hebrew for example, repetition serves as an emphasis that is a strengthening of the word involved. I found the following about this on the web: ______________________ Term repetition is one of them [techniques for emphasis]. Some examples of this include "slave of slaves" (Gen 9:25) to indicate the lowest of slaves; "ever more of ever mores" (Isa 34:10) meaning forever; "gladness my joy" (Ps 43:4) where two synonyms for "joy" are repeated. Another similar technique there is a repetition of the same word with a change in the form of one of the words. For example, in Gen 2:17 the word "die" is repeated in the form of "dying" and is translated as "surely die." This is a standard Hebrew form used for emphasis and does not mean "a state of dying" as some seem to suggest. This same form is used when Jacob's sons brought back Joseph's bloody coat and Jacob says "cutting to pieces cut to pieces," which is translated to something like "Joseph has certainly been cut to pieces!" ______________________ That's why I think that "form a hardened concept of" (or "to reify") might be a good rendering for the phrase literally translated as "delineate a delineation". It suggests to me the creation of a fixed, solidified description or characterization or definition or idea of." L: I think something similar to the Hebrew word play is going on. Maybe "delineate the delineation" refers to papa~nca (mental proliferation). The Pali idiom is a kind of proliferation of itself and the sutta seems to be about papa~nca, the delighting in thinking about contact, and feeling, and thinking itself. Here's a bit from the sutta: "If, monk, with regard to the cause whereby the perceptions & categories of complication assail a person, there is nothing there to relish, welcome, or remain fastened to, then that is the end of the obsessions of passion, the obsessions of resistance, the obsessions of views, the obsessions of uncertainty, the obsessions of conceit, the obsessions of passion for becoming, & the obsessions of ignorance. That is the end of taking up rods & bladed weapons, of arguments, quarrels, disputes, accusations, divisive tale-bearing, & false speech. That is where these evil, unskillful things cease without remainder." That is what the Blessed One said. Having said it, the One Well-gone got up from his seat and went into his dwelling." [without elaborating, my comment] L: I think "delineate a delineation of contact" means delighting in mental proliferation regarding contact. This is in contrast to satipatthana which simply notes contact. Larry #64583 From: "nidive" Date: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:01 pm Subject: Re: The Emptiness Awareness-Release nidive Hi Howard, > The following mayerial you present is about delineating a self. The > other material was about dilineating various other things, but, in > particular it used the phrase 'delineate a delineation'. So, I don't > see how what you have below clarifies that matter. > My first question is what is meant by 'delineate'. Is it "to > define"? My second question is about the repetitive expression of > "delineating a delineation". My question is a linguistic one, a > semantic one. WHAT those expressions are about is what I'm after. I am just saying that "to delineate a delineation" means "to delineate a delineation of self/essence/core/identity/own-being/own-nature/ "soul" with regard to things that can be clung on to". That's the meaning of "delineate a delineation". Regards, Swee Boon #64584 From: "nidive" Date: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:07 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Emptiness Awareness-Release nidive Hi Larry & Howard > L: I think "delineate a delineation of contact" means delighting in > mental proliferation regarding contact. This is in contrast to > satipatthana which simply notes contact. Yes, this is just what it means! To delineate a delineation of self/essence/core/identity/own-being/ own-nature/"soul" with regard to contact, one is delighting in mental proliferations with regard to contact. Regards, Swee Boon #64585 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Oct 21, 2006 11:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu nilovg Hallo Joop, you quote from a sutta here, I know the text and Howard also often quotes this. I would like to add something, but not for the sake of debating. We have to go deeper into the manifold conditions which are very intricate. It sounds simple: When there is this, that is. With the arising of this, that arises. But in oder to understand this we have to know by way of which type of conditions (there are twentyfour classes) one link condiitons the next one. It is not as simple as it may seem. Nina. Op 21-okt-2006, om 21:57 heeft Joop het volgende geschreven: > And I think it's important too to reflect on the principle behind > DO: "When there is this, that is. With the arising of this, that > arises. …." Etc. #64586 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Oct 21, 2006 11:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Mind. The Pentad of sense impression. nilovg Dear Charles D, Our reactions are kusala cittas or akusala cittas, and these are accompanied by volition or intention that is kusala or akusala. In the very brief summary of the Pentad, volition is mentioned. It is right to move slowly in all these matters. Do come back on this subject late ron. Nina. Op 21-okt-2006, om 22:29 heeft Charles DaCosta het volgende geschreven: > I like the subject title, but I wonder if there is a way to word it > so the > reactions to the impressions could be included? > > I am moving slowly (too many other things going) and I expect to > pick up the > pace in about a month. #64587 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Oct 22, 2006 12:35 am Subject: How do we know namas. nilovg Dear Plamen, ----------- P: So we can safely say that the "nama-vinnatti" citta is manovinnana. ----- N: Vi~n~natti, intimation, has been classified as rupa. It is not nama. They are rupas that condition the conveyance of a meaning through gestures or speech. -------- P: In order for it to take place, should there be a preceding manodvaravajjana-citta that has to advert the manodhatu to its object, or the "nama-vinnatti" citta does not need an organ (manas) to conceive of its object? ------- N: The manodvaravajjana-citta does not advert manodhatu to its object. Mano-dhaatu includes other cittas arising in a sense-door process. The manodvaravajjana-citta adverts to an object, whatever it may be: nama, rupa or a concept. --------- P: If avajjana-citta is needed, probably there is also need of a sense- defining citta, anticipating citta, investigating citta, ordering citta, some javana-cittas, registering cittas, not to mention the triplet-citta of patisandhi, bhavanga and cuti. ----- N: You mention here a great number of cittas. When there are conditions, the sense-door adverting-citta or the manodvaravajjana- citta arise and advert to an object. We do not think of all the other types of citta. -------- P: Do you think the alambana-nama will subsist that long? Or different namas have different life-span? -------- N: As mentioned in ADL yesterday: All cittas have the same duration: arising moment, subsisting moment and falling away moment. These three submoments are extremely short, we have no idea. You have asked many questions and I tried to answer them, but the subject of citta comes back to this: let us have more understanding of the citta at this moment. Let us consider more: citta experiences an object. Let us verify: is it true that seeing experiences something, that it is different from materiality? We cannot verify this enough, otherwise we may speculate about different types of cittas and think of their names. Then we shall not really understand what citta is, what the object of citta is. The title of our thread is: How do we know namas. Nama is different from rupa that does not know anything. Touch something hard: does it know anything? We have to consider this more and more and when there is enough understanding there are conditions for sati that is directly mindful of nama and rupa. Nina. #64588 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Oct 22, 2006 12:42 am Subject: The Emptiness Awareness-Release nilovg Hi Larry and Howard, I am glad Larry explained delineate with the Pali. I was also puzzled. The comparison with Hebrew is interesting to me. Nina. #64589 From: "nidive" Date: Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:16 am Subject: Re: The Emptiness Awareness-Release nidive Hi Howard again (& Larry), > The following mayerial you present is about delineating a self. The > other material was about dilineating various other things, but, in > particular it used the phrase 'delineate a delineation'. So, I don't > see how what you have below clarifies that matter. > My first question is what is meant by 'delineate'. Is it "to > define"? My second question is about the repetitive expression of > "delineating a delineation". My question is a linguistic one, a > semantic one. WHAT those expressions are about is what I'm after. I found a passage that might explain that expression in a different way. In fact, it's right on top of what I previously quoted. ------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.15.0.than.html "This is the extent to which there is birth, aging, death, passing away, and re-arising. This is the extent to which there are means of designation, expression, and delineation. This is the extent to which the sphere of discernment extends, the extent to which the cycle revolves for the manifesting (discernibility) of this world — i.e., name-and-form together with consciousness. ------------------------------------------------------------------- I thought hard about this and I came to the idea that "delineate a delineation of" might actually mean "discern a manifestation of". Substitutuing that, we have: "Now, when there is the eye, when there are forms, when there is eye- consciousness, it is possible that one will discern a manifestation of contact. When there is a manisfestation of contact, it is possible that one will discern a manifestation of feeling. When there is a manifestation of feeling, it is possible that one will discern a manifestation of perception. When there is a manifestation of perception, it is possible that one will discern a manifestation of thinking. When there is a manifestation of thinking, it is possible that one will discern a manifestation of being assailed by the perceptions & categories of complication. "Now, when there is no eye, when there are no forms, when there is no eye-consciousness, it is impossible that one will discern a manifestation of contact. When there is no manifestation of contact, it is impossible that one will discern a manifestation of feeling. When there is no manifestation of feeling, it is impossible that one will discern a manifestation of perception. When there is no manifestation of perception, it is impossible that one will discern a manifestation of thinking. When there is no manifestation of thinking, it is impossible that one will discern a manifestation of being assailed by the perceptions & categories of complication. I find myself liking this translation. It makes a lot of sense! What do you think? Regards, Swee Boon #64590 From: "Joop" Date: Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:48 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu jwromeijn Hallo Nina Thanks for this reminder. Regularly I think of the wotrds of the Buddha (to Ananda) that DO is not simple but deep and subtle I think that there is more than one way to contemplate DO - The analytical way of the 11 links or the 24 classes of conditions - A synthetical way (I don't have the best word, 'mystical' perhaps) On this moment my intuition leads me (again) to the second one Metta Joop --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hallo Joop, > you quote from a sutta here, I know the text and Howard also often > quotes this. > I would like to add something, but not for the sake of debating. > We have to go deeper into the manifold conditions which are very > intricate. It sounds simple: When there is this, that is. With the > arising of this, that > arises. But in oder to understand this we have to know by way of > which type of conditions (there are twentyfour classes) one link > condiitons the next one. It is not as simple as it may seem. > Nina. #64591 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 22, 2006 4:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu sarahprocter... Hi Joop, (Larry & all), Just briefly this time... --- Joop wrote: > Many thanks for the mass of answers and reactions. One doesn't get so > much attention every days (luckely not) .... :-) ... > But that you also are putting prof. Karunadasa to the group of > heretics, is more difficult to digest for me. I do trust him, also > after you negative words in #64554 .... S: I was merely referring to the comments you quoted from one of his students (which may or may not be accurate). He wrote that "Nanavira challenged the commentator's account and he said these twelve factors refer to personal existence and *not rebirth*. *Professor Karunadasa is agreeable to this view because to be born again or rebirth implies that one has to be born again as a human.* I didn't use the word 'heretics', but questioned the stance of those that consider D.O. doesn't relate to repeated lives in samsara. Actually, I think it's possible that Karunadasa's comments have been misrepresented or taken out of context. ... > The Cy's and Sub Cy's were to difficult for me, so I repeat my > question: is the 'thus' of Bikkhu Bodhi a logical one in his > definition (I could not find it in your quoted texts): > " nihilism (natthika-di.t.thi), which denies the survival of the > personality > in any form after death, THUS negating the moral significance of > deeds;…" > > I think it's this 'thus' that really devides us. .... S: In the text I quoted (the commentary), it made it clear that when one believes it is the end, that there is annihilation, with the 'break-up of the body' at the end of this life, one is denying kammic results by not accepting a future rebirth. In effect there is a negating of the 'moral significance of deeds' in part, if not fully. I wouldn't use the phrase 'survival of the personality' as in the quote above, because this sounds to much like the idea of 'Joop' or 'Sarah' continuing on. In a new life, there will be a completely different personality with no recollection of this one. No self or being at all. However, accumulated tendencies continue on.... ... > Anyway: many thanks for all your answers and the fact that you forced > me to express myself as good as possible. > I'm still interested in your ideas about "natthika ditthi", > especially Bikkhu Bodhi's "THUS" .... S: Thank you also for encouraging me to reflect on this topic/these topics further. My own idea about 'natthika-ditthi' and the other ditthis being discussed is that they all relate to wrong ideas and clinging to an idea of self. For a sotapanna, there's no wrong view at all and no idea of a Self being annihilated or carried on, or of a 'personality' as such either. Mere dhammas or elements arising and falling away from moment to moment, on and on. The end of this lifetime is just one more citta, followed by another one. At any time, many conditions are having their effect. 'The weave of conditions' as Scott put it. Kamma is one of these conditions and a very important one, but it also has to be supported by others such as decisive support condition, in order to bring its result now or later. We never know when. Of course we can behave in an ethical way without any understanding of kamma. People don't need to have any understanding of the dhamma to behave ethically. However, without the development of the right understanding of dhammas and conditions such as kamma, we'll continue to take such ethical practice for 'my good deeds or ethics' and there won't be the development of the wisdom and detachment which leads out of the cycle of samsara. I know you do have confidence in the Buddha's teachings and in kamma and conditions etc, Joop. Also, I know you believe in the importance of ethical behaviour and the development of all kinds of kusala qualities. There is sila with each moment of kusala. I also appreciate the way you question, challenge and honestly say when you don't accept what you read. I think it's good to keep reflecting and investigating as you do. I also agree that the reason for behaving ethically now, should not be in order to get a good rebirth and that there is a lot of superstition in popular Buddhism. As I mentioned before, I don't think that anyone really understands what rebirth or DO mean without a very developed understanding of namas and rupas. As for the 'revision of Nyantiloka's definition' which you and Larry were referring to, I couldn't find it (the revision) on the two on-line versions of the dictionary I looked at. They both seemed correct. So pls give me the link. Any such 'revision' of the text on-line would be a real no-no as Larry or you pointed out. Copyright issues should be respected and any materials shouldn't be uploaded to websites or changed without the permission of the writer/publisher. I once pointed out to BB a couple of errors in the dictionary, but basically he said it could not be changed now as Nyantiloka is no longer alive. Btw, my replies are often slow, (sometimes very slow), but you and anyone else are always welcome to give me a 'prod'. Metta, Sarah ======= #64592 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Oct 22, 2006 4:33 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily life, 102 nilovg Dear friends, There are fifty-five kinds of citta which can perform the function of javana. There are twelve akusala cittas performing the function of javana, namely: eight lobha-múla-cittas, two dosa-múla-cittas and two moha-múla-cittas. There are eight kåmåvara kusala cittas, which are called mahå-kusala cittas, performing the function of javana. There are eight mahå-kiriyacittas of the arahat (kiriyacittas, ``inoperative cittas'', which are not ahetuka, but accompanied by sobhana hetus) performing the function of javana. The arahat has mahå- kiriyacittas instead of mahå-kusala cittas since he does not accumulate any more kamma. Mahå-kiriyacittas are of the sensuous plane of consciousness; they are not jhånacittas or lokuttara cittas. Arahats also have kåmåvacara cittas; they see, hear or think of objects experienced through the senses. However, there are no kusala cittas or akusala cittas arising on account of what is experienced. For the arahat there is also an ahetuka kiriyacitta performing the function of javana, which may arise when he smiles: the hasituppåda- citta or the smile-producing consciousness. Those who attain rúpa-jhåna (fine-material jhåna) can have five types of rúpåvacara kusala cittas performing the function of javana, since there are five stages of rúpa-jhåna. Arahats who attain rúpa-jhåna can have five types of rúpåvacara kiriyacittas which perform the function of javana. For those who attain arúpa-jhåna (immaterial jhåna) there can be four types of arúpåvacara kusala cittas performing the function of javana, since there are four stages of arúpa-jhåna. Arahats who attain arúpa- jhåna can have four types of arúpåvacara kiriyacittas performing the function of javana. Those who directly experience nibbåna have lokuttara cittas. There are four stages of enlightenment and for each of these stages there is lokuttara kusala citta or magga-citta (``path-consciousness; ``magga'' means path) and lokuttara vipåkacitta or phala-citta (``fruit-consciousness''; ``phala'' means fruit). Thus there are for the four stages of enlightenment four pairs of lokuttara cittas: four magga-cittas and four phala-cittas. Lokuttara magga-citta produces result immediately, in the same process of cittas. The magga-citta performs the function of javana, ``running through the object'' which is nibbåna, and the phala-cittas also perform the function of javana. The vipåkacittas other than the lokuttara vipåkacitta do not perform the function of javana. Thus, all eight lokuttara cittas perform the function of javana. ***** Nina. #64593 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Oct 22, 2006 4:39 am Subject: Abhidhamma and Practice, 2. nilovg Dear friends, The Buddha taught that all phenomena which arise, fall away immediately, they are impermanent. What is impermanent cannot be true happiness and thus it is ‘suffering’ (dukkha), Phenomena are not self, and they do not belong to a self, they are ‘not- self’ (anatta). At this moment we have wrong view of reality. We do not see things as they are: impermanent, ‘suffering’ and not self. We believe that we see the impermanence of things, but we have only theoretical understanding of impermanence. In reality we do not experience the arising and falling away of phenomena as it occurs now, and at each moment. Our body is impermanent, but we are so attached to it. We all see a change in the body after some time, when we become older, but in reality our body changes each moment of our life. What we take for ‘our body’ are only different physical phenomena which arise and then fall away immediately. We are so attached to our mind, our ‘soul’, our ambitions, our pleasures. But what we take for our mind, our soul, are in reality many different mental phenomena which change all the time. We are attached to the idea of ‘my mind’, but where is it? Is it thinking? But thinking is never the same, we think now of this, now of that. There is thinking now, but it is always changing. Is feeling something which lasts? Feeling is sometimes pleasant, sometimes unpleasant, and sometimes there is indifferent feeling. Each moment feeling is different. There is no mind, there are only ever-changing mental phenomena which do not belong to a self. The Buddha taught us to develop right understanding of all the changing phenomena in our daily life and this is the essence of his teachings. Thus we can gradually become detached from the self and develop more wholesomeness. We come to know the Buddha’s teachings through the ‘Three Collections’ of The Vinaya (Book of Discipline for the monks), the Suttanta and the Abhidhamma. The Abhidhamma teaches us in detail about all mental phenomena and physical phenomena. The Abhidhamma teaches us in detail about all wholesome moments of consciousness and all unwholesome moments of consciousness, and is this not valuable? If we do not know about the moments of consciousness how could we develop wholesomeness? Often we take for wholesome what is actually not wholesome. For example, we think that there is unselfish love while there is actually attachment to people. The study of the Abhidhamma can help us to develop more understanding of the different moments of consciousness. We may wonder whether a precise knowledge of the phenomena of life is necessary. Does this not make our life unnecessarily complicated? The Abhidhamma teaches about realities. The different moments of consciousness change so rapidly and they are all different. We cannot catch them, but the study of the different moments of consciousness which occur will help us to develop right understanding of our life. ***** Nina. #64594 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Oct 22, 2006 4:40 am Subject: Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 108 and Tiika. nilovg Visuddhimagga, Ch XVII,108. Intro: In the foregoing section the reasons were given why the Buddha taught a single cause and fruit. He has different methods of teaching the Truth. Three methods of teaching were explained: the teaching of the basic cause, of the most obvious cause and of the specific cause that is not general or common. In this section it is explained by way of these three methods of teaching that ignorance is the representitive cause of formations. ----------- Text Vis.108: Consequently, although other causes of formations such as physical basis and object, conascent states, etc., are actually existent, still ignorance may be understood as the representative cause of formations [firstly] because it is the basic factor as the cause of other causes of formations such as craving, etc., as it is said: 'Craving increases in one who dwells seeing enjoyment' (S.ii,84), and 'With the arising of ignorance there is the arising of cankers' (M.i, 55); ---------- N: The Tiika refers to S II, 84: < In him who contemplates enjoyment in the fetters (samyojana) craving (tanhaa) grows; clinging (upadaana) is conditioned by craving, becoming is conditioned by clinging.> The Tiika states that in this sutta craving is mentioned as the cause of kamma- formations. It mentions that ignorance as being the origin should be understood according to the words, 'With the arising of ignorance there is the arising of cankers'. The Tiika explains that craving or the canker of attachment to sensepleasures (kaamaasava) and of clinging to wrong view (di.t.thaasava), leading to more clinging (upadaana), are the cause of kamma-formations, but that ignorance is taught as the basic factor of kamma-formations and as the obvious cause. As to the words, ‘seeing enjoyment’ (in the fetters), assaadaanupassino, the Tiika states that ignorance which conceals the danger of rebirth is taught as the cause of craving. --------- Text Vis.: and again because it is the most obvious, 'Not knowing, bhikkhus, in ignorance, he forms the formation of merit' (cf. S.ii,82); ----------- N: He believes the suffering of being in the cycle to be pleasant, and not knowing that kamma is the cause of rebirth he embarks upon the kamma-formations which are the very cause of rebirth. ---------- Text Vis.: and lastly because it is not common to all. ----------- N:The Tiika mentions that while the physical base (vatthu) and the object are conditions common to all cittas, ignorance which conceals the danger of the nature of meritorious kamma-formations etc. is a specific cause of these kamma-formations. It states that the arahat who has eradicated the intoxicants (khii.naasava) does not engage in kamma-formations. ---------- Text Vis.: So the use of one representative cause and fruit should in each instance be understood according to this explanation of it. -------------------------- N: The Tiika refers to different sutta texts about the Dependent Origination, such as S II, 1: One representative cause and fruit is taught because of its being a basic factor, of its being obvious and of its being a particular cause, not a general cause. The Tiika refers to the text: . It states that this exposition should be understood as given for the sake of those people who should be guided to enlightenment. -------- Conclusion: The text states that craving increases when one is attached to sense objects and to wrong view. As we have seen, also clinging to the wrong view of self can be a condition for kusala kamma or akusala kamma. One may cling to the idea of a self who will have a happy rebirth and this may motivate one to perform good deeds. A person may perform many good deeds, such as deeds of generosity, or keeping the precepts, but if he does not develop insight, clinging to the idea of self and the other defilements cannot be eradicated and thus he will continue in the cycle of birth and death endlessly. Ignorance conceals the danger of rebirth, as is repeatedly stated in the text. One may be reborn in a happy plane, but after one’s lifespan in a happy plane is over akusala kamma of the past can condition an unhappy rebirth. One will suffer from one’s defilements and their consequences so long as these are not eradicated. The development of understanding of whatever dhamma appears through one of the six doors is the only way leading to the eradication of ignorance. ********* Nina. #64595 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:30 am Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 557- Compassion/karu.naa and Sympathetic Joy/muditaa(n) 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;-) =============================================== Compassion(karu.naa)and Sympathetic Joy(muditaa) If we tend to be jealous it is difficult to cultivate sympathetic joy. Since jealousy has been accumulated there are conditions for its arising when we see that someone else receives praise or other pleasant objects. It is useful to realize such moments of jealousy, even when they are not coarse but more subtle. If right understanding is being developed we will see that someone else’s success does not belong to a “person”, that it is only vipåka which is conditioned by kamma. Thus, jealousy is in fact groundless. When right understanding sees that there are no people, no things which exist, only nåma and rúpa which arise and fall away, there will gradually be less conditions for jealousy. Envy is one of the “lower fetters” (saóyojanas) which are eradicated by the sotåpanna. When there is no more jealousy there are more conditions for sympathetic joy. It can gradually become one’s nature. The sotåpanna is the true friend who sympathizes and is “sound at heart on four grounds”. ***** Compassion(karu.naa) and Sympathetic Joy(muditaato) be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #64596 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Emptiness Awareness-Release upasaka_howard Hi, Larry (and Swee Boon) - In a message dated 10/22/06 12:00:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > H: "It seems to me that that idiom literally given by "to delineate the > delineation" has got to mean something more. In some languages, biblical > Hebrew for example, repetition serves as an emphasis that is a > strengthening of the word involved. I found the following about this on > the web: > ______________________ > Term repetition is one of them [techniques for emphasis]. Some examples > of this include "slave of slaves" (Gen 9:25) to indicate the lowest of > slaves; "ever more of > ever mores" (Isa 34:10) meaning forever; "gladness my joy" (Ps 43:4) > where two synonyms for "joy" are repeated. Another similar technique > there is a repetition of the same word with a change in the form of one > of the words. For example, in Gen 2:17 the word "die" is repeated in the > form of "dying" and is translated as "surely die." This is a standard > Hebrew form used for emphasis and does not mean "a state of dying" as > some seem to suggest. This same form is used when Jacob's sons brought > back Joseph's bloody coat and Jacob says "cutting to pieces cut to > pieces," which is translated to something like "Joseph has certainly > been cut to pieces!" > ______________________ > That's why I think that "form > a hardened concept of" (or "to reify") might be a good rendering for the > phrase literally translated as "delineate a delineation". It suggests to > me the creation of a fixed, solidified description or characterization > or definition or idea of." > > L: I think something similar to the Hebrew word play is going on. Maybe > "delineate the delineation" refers to papa~nca (mental proliferation). > The Pali idiom is a kind of proliferation of itself and the sutta seems > to be about papa~nca, the delighting in thinking about contact, and > feeling, and thinking itself. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: Hmm, yes, papa~nca - that's good. That's quite possible - agood thought, IMO. --------------------------------------- Here's a bit from the sutta:> > > "If, monk, with regard to the cause whereby the perceptions &categories > of complication assail a person, there is nothing there to relish, > welcome, or remain fastened to, then that is the end of the obsessions > of passion, the obsessions of resistance, the obsessions of views, the > obsessions of uncertainty, the obsessions of conceit, the obsessions of > passion for becoming, &the obsessions of ignorance. That is the end of > taking up rods &bladed weapons, of arguments, quarrels, disputes, > accusations, divisive tale-bearing, &false speech. That is where these > evil, unskillful things cease without remainder." That is what the > Blessed One said. Having said it, the One Well-gone got up from his seat > and went into his dwelling." [without elaborating, my comment] > > L: I think "delineate a delineation of contact" means delighting in > mental proliferation regarding contact. This is in contrast to > satipatthana which simply notes contact. ------------------------------------------- Howard: A good hypothesis, I think! :-) ------------------------------------------ > > Larry > ====================== With metta, Howard #64597 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Emptiness Awareness-Release upasaka_howard Hi, Swee Boon (and Larry) - In a message dated 10/22/06 12:12:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nidive@... writes: > Hi Larry &Howard > > >L: I think "delineate a delineation of contact" means delighting in > >mental proliferation regarding contact. This is in contrast to > >satipatthana which simply notes contact. > > Yes, this is just what it means! > > To delineate a delineation of self/essence/core/identity/own-being/ > own-nature/"soul" with regard to contact, one is delighting in mental > proliferations with regard to contact. > > Regards, > Swee Boon > ========================= Yes, that may well be it. :-) With metta, Howard #64598 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Emptiness Awareness-Release upasaka_howard H< Swee Boon - In a message dated 10/22/06 12:05:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nidive@... writes: > I am just saying that "to delineate a delineation" means "to delineate > a delineation of self/essence/core/identity/own-being/own-nature/ > "soul" with regard to things that can be clung on to". > > That's the meaning of "delineate a delineation". > > Regards, > Swee Boon > ====================== I really thank you for your effort in this, Swee Boon, but somehow I haven't made clear to you where my questioning is directed. I suspect that you have a clear idea about this matter, but for me I don't find much help in defining a phrase by reusing it. The part that you are not addressing, the very phrase 'delineate a delineation' itself, is exactly what I'm after. With metta, Howard #64599 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Joop) - In a message dated 10/22/06 2:37:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hallo Joop, > you quote from a sutta here, I know the text and Howard also often > quotes this. > I would like to add something, but not for the sake of debating. > We have to go deeper into the manifold conditions which are very > intricate. It sounds simple: When there is this, that is. With the > arising of this, that > arises. But in oder to understand this we have to know by way of > which type of conditions (there are twentyfour classes) one link > condiitons the next one. It is not as simple as it may seem. > Nina. > ========================= I agree that we have to go deeper into this, though cataloging the various modes of conditioning is, IMO, not the most important aspect of that deeper delving. What I see as the more important aspects are to come to see by direct inspection that 1) the conditioning is impersonal, and 2) the conditioning is insubstantial and merely "thus"; i.e., it is a matter merely of regularity and objectivity of occurrence (of the reliable occurrence "that" when there is "this"), and not a matter of substantial, hidden causal forces. I believe it is especially the second of these that distinguishes Buddhist conditionality from other notions of substantive causality. With metta, Howard P.S. The "cataloging" of types of conditioning can help with comng to intellectually see the impersonality of conditioning. That is similar to coming to i ntellectually see the impersonality of "the person" using the analyses by way of khandha or ayatana or dhatu.