#71200 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 4/27/07 2:01:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > > Hi Howard, > I remember, and also what you explained: it does not matter if we > begin to practise with an idea of self. Akusala can lead to kusala. > But here, I think, the matter is different. If one starts with the > wrong view of self one accumulates more of it and how could that be > right? > Nina. > ===================== And how could it be right that we start not at all! ;-) With metta, Howard #71201 From: Sobhana Date: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:31 pm Subject: Are we responsible for our actions? shennieca Hello dhamma friends, Are we responsible for our actions? How do we explain “sense of responsibility” in Buddhism? Is citta and cetasika responsible for every action that we do in our daily life? In extreme cases, for e.g. suicide bombers who have been fed with the wrong-view that killing infidels would promise them heavenly bliss and when they carry out the suicide bombing, can we say they are Not responsible for their actions because it wasn’t their fault for Not coming into contact with wise-people? Therefore, they are Not responsible for their actions or are they still responsible for their actions? In this case scenario, what would be the right Buddhist point-of-view? How should Buddhist perceive people with such wrong-view? Looking forward to your replies. Thank you. Metta Sobhana #71202 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness kenhowardau Hi Howard, ------------------ H: > When and if any process, and any dhamma, is considered a "thing in itself" - an "entity", then, yes, that would be a species of atta- view. ------------------- This opinion is not found anywhere in the texts. Dhammas exist. Therefore, they are things in themselves. Anything that is not a thing in itself is a concept (pannatti). Dhammas are not pannatti. -------------------------------- H: > All reification is a form of atta-view, IMO. -------------------------------- "Reify: treat concept as object: to think of or treat something abstract as if it existed as a real and tangible object " (Encarta) In effect, you are saying that to treat a paramattha dhamma as an absolute reality is atta-view. ----------------------------------------- H: > But, before closing, let me mention that I do think that the atta-view that countenances a *personal* self (i.e., a core of self- existence in the conventional person) is the most serious and most insidious form of atta-view. However, when processes, events, and phenomena are not considered self-existent, but as contingent and empty of own being, there need be no serious atta-view being expressed in referencing them. Of course, until ignorance has been entirely uprooted, at least some *sense* of self in "the person" and in other processes and in dhammas remains, even if diminished. Reification is a chronic illness. It is tenacious. ------------------------------------------- To know a paramattha dhamma as an absolute (self existent) reality (entity) is to understand the Buddha's teaching. Why are you (Howard) along with TG and others so adamant that dhammas are not self-existent (lacking in what you call "own being")? I have an answer, but am reluctant to spell it out as I have done many times already. It only triggers aversion in you. But I can at least ask. :-) Ken H #71203 From: Sobhana Date: Fri Apr 27, 2007 4:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? shennieca Hello Nina, all, Nina: I remember, and also what you explained: it does not matter if we begin to practise with an idea of self. Akusala can lead to kusala. Sobhana: Can you provide an example of a real-life situation where akusala can lead to kusala? Thank you. Warm regards, Sobhana #71204 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Fri Apr 27, 2007 4:37 pm Subject: Re: Are we responsible for our actions? kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sobhana wrote: > > Hello dhamma friends, > > Are we responsible for our actions? How do we explain "sense of responsibility" in Buddhism? Is citta and cetasika responsible for every action that we do in our daily life? > Hi Sobhana, Thanks for the good questions. I look forward to reading everyone's reply. On this occasion I will resist giving a long reply. Instead, I would just like to suggest that some questions (Are we responsible for our actions? Are we not responsible? Are we both responsible and not responsible? Are we neither responsible nor not responsible?) concern us most when there is a sense of self. At other times - for example when we are contentedly learning about dhammas that arise and fall independently of a self - there are no such concerns. Even so, they are always good for discussion. :-) Ken H #71205 From: "colette" Date: Fri Apr 27, 2007 12:08 pm Subject: revisit my response ksheri3 Herman, Okay, I suggested that the world I currently live in is almost perfecty explained by SUNAYATA/SHUNYATA, which just proves that almost perfectly explains SUNYATA/SHUNYATA: they are both equal, the reflexetive property of equality. The fascination you find may be the result of the intense study and meditational technique I have/possess and am possessed by. Isn't it great how it all hooks everything together. Which also makes it nearly impossible for me to break a meditative session. I can relax from it and "breathe" but I can't severe the connection since it's everywhere reminding me of our conversation. We can look at maybe the Cosmos, or Ether, or Logos, or Logoidal Consciousness, et al, but it's still all the same to me. Ya just have to observe it, get a feel for it, build a connection, etc. I love it. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Thanks, Colette, > > On 26/04/07, colette wrote: > > > > > > Herman, > > I must say, TOUCHE. You've obviously caught this one off guard. Who > > knows where those IDOL hands may've been. ;-) > > > > No slice involved at all, you made that ball a ROCKET, a straight > > shot. Wonderful positioning. > > > > You've made me feel a whole lot better about my golf game :-) > > BTW, I find you an amazing person. There doesn't seem to be a topic > with which you are not conversant. You always make for fascinating > reading. > > Thanx > > > Herman > #71206 From: "colette" Date: Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] He drove that one right onto the Green ksheri3 Good Day Herman, > You've made me feel a whole lot better about my golf game :-) colette: the trouble in a competition like golf is usually found in the most basic aspect of the game: how the aspirant grips the club. If ya have the wrong grip, well, then, the ball will go "Who Knows Where", no? We can suggest, then, that if ya get this egotistical view of Buddhism, well, it's self-explanatory, you will only find that which makes you happy AND drives ya nuts, at the same time, see Citta Rise/Fall. -------------------- > > BTW, I find you an amazing person. There doesn't seem to be a topic > with which you are not conversant. colette: that's because it's all the same thing! I happen to be having a good time, at the moment playing around with this thing, that does have human characteristics, called SUNYATA or SHUNYATA. Oddly enough it really does have almost the exact same qualities that my world has, the world I currently exist in and am comdemned to by the Republican National Committee, SBC (Mayor Daley's brother as President, and fund raiser for the Democratic National Committee, ah Irish, welcome to HELL'S KITCHEN) SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION. I've been a practicing magi for the past 27-28 yrs. now I've studied it practiced it, I've denounced materialism how many times, hey, it takes a lot of knowledge to be a juggler, magician, see the 1st card of the Major Arcana in the tarot deck. You always make for fascinating > reading. > colette: so do you! A lot of people make for fascinating reads. see ya in a few. colette #71207 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Apr 27, 2007 5:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? egberdina Hi Scott, On 27/04/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > > > Regarding: > > N: "I think we have to differentiate between a situation and between > the cittas arising at each moment..." > > Scott: I think that this is the very heart of the matter. > As a piece of intellectual analysis, I do not think it is very valuable. As a reminder to be mindful to guard the sense doors, I agree it is the heart of the matter. Herman #71208 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Apr 27, 2007 5:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Are we responsible for our actions? egberdina Hi Sobhana, On 28/04/07, Sobhana wrote: > > > Hello dhamma friends, > > Are we responsible for our actions? How do we explain "sense of responsibility" in Buddhism? Is citta and cetasika responsible for every action that we do in our daily life? > > In extreme cases, for e.g. suicide bombers who have been fed with the wrong-view that killing infidels would promise them heavenly bliss and when they carry out the suicide bombing, can we say they are Not responsible for their actions because it wasn't their fault for Not coming into contact with wise-people? Therefore, they are Not responsible for their actions or are they still responsible for their actions? In this case scenario, what would be the right Buddhist point-of-view? > > How should Buddhist perceive people with such wrong-view? > > Looking forward to your replies. Thank you. > It is said that beings are heirs to their actions. That is the law of kamma. On the other hand it is said that anatta is a statement of ultimate reality. According to that, in truth, there are no beings who act. Anatta supercedes the law of kamma. Anatta implies that no matter how much I believe I do something, I do not do it, because there is no I that acts. And no matter how much I believe I am reaping the consequences of previous acts, it is never the case, because I have never done anything, never having been an I. Perhaps the law of kamma, by which people are made responsible for their actions, is a law about how a deluded mind proliferates further delusion? Personally, I find the kamma / anatta paradox not some lofty profundity that can be penetrated, one simply excludes the other. A really serious anattist must deny kamma, and a kammist must deny anatta. Thanks for a very good question. Herman #71209 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Apr 27, 2007 6:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate egberdina Hi Scott, On 27/04/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > > > H: "No, it's not the bhavanga citta that reveals things, the bhavanga > citta can be revealed. Like our innermost beliefs, that drive us > without us knowing that we are driven by them, can be revealed." > > Scott: Here, I think, you might be referring to bhavanga-sota I don't recall bhavanga-sota, but on loking it up I think you are right (Bhavanga-citta, which is vipaaka, is the > reality). And here, given that I'm reading you correctly, you refer > to the concept of unconscious process. If so, then you are saying > that it is possible to become aware of unconscious motivations. While > this is true, I think we are dealing here with a) concepts, b) > concepts about self, and, c) thinking. And, I think, you are using > all this as an analogy. I don't believe we can be aware of anything but concepts. > > H: "Panna, or self-analysis, or both." > > Scott: Two very different things. I don't think you're equating > them. Again ultimate (pa~n~na) versus conventional ('self-analysis'). I see mindfulness and self-analysis as being synonymous. I didn't mean self-analysis as an exercise in discursive thinking, but as consciousness being present to itself. > > Scott: Actually, I got it; it wasn't so bad. Reading about coming and > coming are two very different things. > Cool. > Me: "I'm saying that there is Dhamma." > > H: "Yes, if Dhamma is the way things can be." > > Scott: Just a point here. I'd say Dhamma is the way things are as well. Yes, well pointed out. And just as a matter of interest, would there also be a way things are that is not covered by Dhamma? Is the Dhamma at all relevant to a being blissfully or otherwise unaware of dukkha? > Scott: I'd say orgasm exists with or without books. I'd say things > are the way things are with or without a Buddha. But, and I think > this is important, I'd say a Buddha and the teachings of a Buddha are > essential. I'm not sure you're saying they are not, but you might be > saying that they correspond less to reality than I think they do. I > think the Teachings of a Buddha are central and not to be minimized. > I would ask, what are the teachings of a Buddha essential to? You are right, I don't minimise the teachings of the Buddha. But if the teachings are not used as a bridge to end suffering in the here and now, to the way things can be, then they minimise themselves. > H: "There is no verbal description of an orgasm that any amount of > panna can constitute into the experience." > > Scott: I know this is an analogy, but pa~n~na wouldn't have 'orgasm' > as object would it? Maybe 'orgasm' is, at its momentary level, merely > kusala-vipaaka-citta. I don't know. > Me neither. > H: "I take the texts as recipe books, as instructions for baking > cakes, descriptions of difficulties encountered while trying to follow > the instructions, how to overcome those difficulties, and descriptions > of the cakes that arise should you succeed in following those recipes. > Just like a book on orgasm that doesn't describe what is necessary in > order to arrive at the experience would be as useless as an ashtray on > a motorbike, so a book about the way things can be that doesn't > prescribe the methods for getting there would be useless. What I am > saying is that the tipitaka as a set of beautiful texts to study, is > useless, and a self-serving exercise. Because, in effect, one is > remaining ignorant that one is studying their own bhavanga citta, > which is the basis for finding the text so beautiful to start of with." > > Scott: That would be bhavanga-sota. I'm likely missing your point > here but I don't equate studying the texts with studying my self. > Although I'm aware of the conceptual notion of distortion of > perception via projection - which seems to me to be what you are > discussing - I think you are taking this too far. Can you say more > about this part of it - the 'reading' of the self taken for a > 'reading' of texts? > Yes, you are right, it is bhavanga-sota. When reading Suttas or the like, for different people different certain things will jump out, and other things won't even be noticed. A dsg explanation for that phenomenon is accumulations. (Now I reject the notion of accumulations because it is used to bolster views that acquired characteristics in one life time are transmitted to future lifetimes, which is basically Lamarckian evolution of consciousness. And I reject that notion because all babies I have ever seen have always lacked any evolved consciousness). But certainly in this life, as in reading a Sutta, we select from day one, out of a myriad possibilities, those possibilities that are in line with our own, unremembered definition of ourselves. > H: "Amen to that. We agree. (If you see the teaching as a method to > achieve a goal)" > > Scott: I think 'method' could be qualified but I think I know what you > mean here. > Cool. Herman #71210 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Apr 27, 2007 6:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness egberdina Hi Howard, On 28/04/07, upasaka@... wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > When and if any process, and any dhamma, is considered a "thing in > itself" - an "entity", then, yes, that would be a species of atta-view. All > reification is a form of atta-view, IMO. But, before closing, let me mention that I > do think that the atta-view that countenances a *personal* self (i.e., a core > of self-existence in the conventional person) is the most serious and most > insidious form of atta-view. > However, when processes, events, and phenomena are not considered > self-existent, but as contingent and empty of own being, there need be no serious > atta-view being expressed in referencing them. Of course, until ignorance has > been entirely uprooted, at least some *sense* of self in "the person" and in > other processes and in dhammas remains, even if diminished. Reification is a > chronic illness. It is tenacious. > ---------------------------------------------------- Thanks for your comments. I appreciate them. In continuing the discussion, I am not arguing for the sake of arguing, but I want to draw out more of the implications of what is being said. There are at least two types of processes, as I see. There are cyclic processes, and there are one-off processes. A cyclic process is one that is sustained, either from within or without, and is repeated. As an example, the Sun shines on the ocean, the water evaporates, clouds form, and it rains on the ocean, and this loops ad infinitum, until the sun were to stop shining. The concept of identity is based on sameness. In a cyclic process, the same things are happening again and again. I guess the question then becomes "Is it atta-view to attribute sameness to anything?". I well understand the radical position that in fact nothing is ever the same, but is it the Buddhist position? Certainly, in Ken's post to you, he insists on sameness of paramattha dhammas, they are identifiable as being the same, each in turn, again and again. But if we grant him this, then I see no reason to grant sameness to grosser objects of perception. My view is that anatta does not rule out repetition of experience, by which I mean that the same experiences can be had time and time and again. But it can be understood that the conditions for the same experience are never the same. So even though my foot gets wet each time I step in the river, it is never the same river I am stepping into. Herman #71211 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Apr 27, 2007 6:41 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Pithy, as usual. Regarding: N: "I think we have to differentiate between a situation and between the cittas arising at each moment..." Me: "I think that this is the very heart of the matter." H: "As a piece of intellectual analysis, I do not think it is very valuable..." Scott: What do you find lacking in the statement in terms of 'intellectual analysis? Let me try this argument out (and beg once again for the long awaited critique): I would suggest that, when discussing the nature of one's reaction to defilements, the differentiation of situation from moment is crucial. If one simply considers 'situation', one misses the deeper analysis of the momentary 'structure' or constituents of that 'situation' and the 'process' out of which the concept 'situation' is conceived. (I'm aware that 'structure' and 'process' are also concepts - I'm speaking conventionally here.) Situations are conceptual; they are constructs. They are the product of thinking in terms of wholes. Such thinking produces ideas such as 'My defilements' and 'I abhor my defilements' and 'I will work to get rid of my defilements' and 'It is proper for me to adopt this attitude toward my defilements'. Remaining at the situational level of discourse, and mistaking it for reality is, I'd say, an example of 'invaluable intellectual analysis'. For example, with regards: H: "...As a reminder to be mindful to guard the sense doors, I agree it is the heart of the matter." Scott: This statement, I'd suggest, is completely about a situation and demonstrates the failure to differentiate situation from momentary cittaa rather well. The situation described is: There is someone who, in being reminded to be mindful to guard the sense doors, can then do this thanks to the reminder. The moment-to-moment analysis, on the other hand, has certain key elements which are missing in the above situational analysis: 1)'Be mindful to guard the sense doors' is actually sati, a cetasika. 2)All conditioned dhammaa have the characteristics of anicca, anatta, and dukkha. 3)Once having arisen with citta, sati falls away. 4)Sati cannot be willed into arising. 5)Sati is unsatisfactory since it falls away and doesn't arise except by conditions, which are not controllable. 6)When it is present it certainly performs the function of 'guarding the sense doors', but this is of the moment and many conditions are involved in its arising once, let alone in succession. That being said, the situation of someone being reminded to be mindful and guard the sense doors becomes absurd. And as far as adopting attitudes toward defilements, one can think of there being 'someone who must do this' - a situation - or, one can consider the momentary realities, the function of which it is to oppose defilements by nature, as it were. What do you think? Sincerely, Scott. #71212 From: "gazita2002" Date: Fri Apr 27, 2007 6:41 pm Subject: Perfections- Nina gazita2002 Hello Nina, the box of books 'Perfections' arrived last week so will start sending them off to the various people. Anumodana, Patience, courage and good cheer, azita #71213 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Apr 27, 2007 3:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 4/27/07 5:51:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowa@... writes: > Why are you (Howard) along with TG and others so adamant that dhammas > are not self-existent (lacking in what you call "own being")? I have > an answer, but am reluctant to spell it out as I have done many times > already. It only triggers aversion in you. But I can at least > ask. :-) > ======================== I have already explained that to say that hardness and sights and sounds are not souls and do not have souls in the spiritualist or Christian or Jewish or Brahman sense is trivially obvious. It is clearly not what the Buddha could possibly mean when he speaks of all dhammas as being not-self. Oh, but gee, Ken, thanks so much for not wanting to trigger aversion in me. Uh, oh! Too late. Your condescension has already succeeded in that. With metta, Howard P.S. Coversation concluded. #71214 From: "sukinder" Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 2:45 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Virtue sukinderpal Dear Robert A. (and * Dieter at ps), Thanks for the prompt reply. ========================= Sukin: Obviously K had no idea about the Parami and how generosity, loving kindness, sincerity, renunciation, patience, wisdom and so on was intimately connected. This is because he was not enlightened. And because he was not enlightened and not a Savaka either, he did not know the 4NT. This means that whatever he concluded about reality and the path (choice less awareness), it was rooted in "self View" and therefore wrong. Robert A: With all respect, statements like this make me a little uncomfortable. I think it is a good idea not to judge others rightness or wrongness. It is better to let their writings speak for themselves and let others draw their own conclusions. S> Sorry about that. I had read your statement as a judgement, but of course knowing the truth would not have stopped me anyway. I know that I often sound like an arrogant fool and that is because I am one, ask my wife, she'll attest to this. ;-) In fact in these matters, I consider myself 'right' until proven wrong, this is the minimum of doubt that I allow myself to have. But I do have my reasons for coming to the above stated conclusion, so please hear me some more: Robert K, was the person who introduced me to DSG, I remember writing to him at the time, expressing an unwillingness to accept that the Tibetan, Zen and other teachings were wrong, and that I would continue studying them. In fact, even though I had already by then decided on Theravada Buddhism, I was still to some extent entertaining the thought that all religions were more or less capable of delivering the goods. But after I heard the Abhidhamma perspective, it didn't take me long to change my mind about this. I began to realize the significance of the Noble Eightfold Path and how this was the *only* path leading to enlightenment. That only in Dhamma is taught the practice of satipatthana, put in perspective how incapable other teachings were, of leading to any real "knowing". The differentiation between concept and reality impressed upon me the fact that all other teachings were lost in the world of concepts only, and that their only alternative was to come up with 'satisfactory' explanations. The teaching on Right View as against Wrong View, made it clearer as to the infinitely greater chance of falling upon the latter if one has not accepted the Dhamma as refuge. Only Buddhas enlighten to the same 4NT, and only a Sammasambuddha can and *will* teach this. In a span lasting many thousands (?) of years, only one Sammasambuddha can arise and no Paccekabuddha will do at the same time. The teachings on the Parami, this being about the development of qualities specific to Bodhisattas and Savakas, all requiring the development of satipatthana, can therefore be developed only if one accepts the Dhamma at some point. This of course does not mean that as 'wholesome' qualities some of these can't be developed by other religions, of course they can. But as "parami", definitely not. More importantly, my point was that the "insight" into the significance of the Parami and its development was the sphere only of a Buddha. The rest of us understand more or less only after 'hearing" about it. Besides, I think the Buddha himself said that the Buddhas of the past and those in the future all teach the same Dhamma. So of course, there are no teachings similar to Dhamma, don't you agree? It has to be Dhamma or something else altogether. ============================== <..> Robert A. I didn't pursue the teachings of Krishnamurti because I did not understand them. That does not say anything about their 'truth' or wisdom, only that I could not find a way to work with them that was helpful for me in my life. What I mean by theory is the view of reality that is described by the teachings of the Buddha. What I mean by practice is everything I do in response to hearing those teachings - how those teachings have changed the way I live my life. The difference between the teachings of the Buddha for me, is, unlike the teachings of Krishnamurti, they gave me all kinds of tools that were so very helpful for me in finding what I think was a better way to live. S> And there are peoples of other religions who will say more or less the same thing about their religion of choice. Which is why I keep coming back to asking; "What and how much does one understand the present moment?" Having expectations of results is placing oneself to take up some form of practice other than 'development of wisdom', namely pariyatti->patipatti->pativedha, which is necessarily slow and gradual. Character and behavioral changes if appear significant would most likely involve some form of suppression, sublimation or other form of talking oneself into acting differently. It seems also that if held on to as a measure of success, then study and the need to correct one's views diminishes in preference to need for 'action'. This and the fact that dhammas are conditioned and beyond control, is reason that Dhamma should not be seen as a 'theory' to then 'apply'. 'Who' after all thinks the theory and decides to apply 'what'? All the while there are dhammas arising and falling, conditioning every thought and action, but instead our attention is on the stories of 'self' and 'situations' taking those for real, including ideas about what constitute 'practice'. In reality *no* practice has arisen if an ultimate reality is not known. Would you really prefer such a path? I read in your other posts about how this idea of a 'more suitable time/place for meditation' appeals to you as being "right". You say that nama and rupa arise during those times as much as they do at other times. The problem as I see it is this: [The reason I bring this up is because I started composing this mail last night but felt too sleepy to continue, and now I have lost the thread and don't recall much of what I wanted to say. :-/] The fact is that there is just one citta arising to know one object at a time, and these are all equally anicca, dukkha and anatta. To cling to an idea of a better time, place and posture is in effect, to move away from this understanding. We may think for example, that 'here' it is too distracting and that 'there' it may be better to observe nama and rupa. And is there an aversion to 'here' and attachment to 'there'? Can aversion not be known and is there even any realization of any attachment to 'there'? One problem is that we think in terms of 'situations' and another is that there is 'something to be done'. This latter, we usually think in terms of 'experiencing' as in being able to 'observe' nama and rupa arise and fall. But I think it is better to think not in terms of 'experience', but rather 'development of understanding'. Rise and fall is not seen as in looking down a microscope, but rather 'understood' by wisdom. So while the focus is on 'experiencing' and not on 'developing understanding', we *will* end up projecting 'theories' on to experiences. It is quite common that people truly think that they have experienced rise and fall during mediation, but then ask them about any understanding of the present moment, they glaze over. :-/ Pariyatti -> Patipatti -> Pativedha, all three must agree with the other. If intellectual understanding says that dhammas are conditioned with the characteristics of impermanence, insubstantiality and not-self, then this is what the understanding at the level of practice must agree with and that at realization confirm. Why would someone who has 'practiced' so much for many years not understand this moment? The answer is, *wrong practice*!! ========================= Sukin: Dhamma/Abhidhamma is deep and so very hard to see, but because it is about experience-able realities, I think the way its proper study brings about results (often not discernable), requires much patience; certainly expectations about 'applying theory' will only hinder and mislead. Ignorance hides the Truth and wisdom reveals it. Both of these are conditioned realities beyond control of 'self' to make arise or not. Panna when arisen "knows" amongst other things, this truth, ignorance on the other hand, can only "want" panna to arise, but will never succeed. So we do land up in a bind and *not know* it! Robert A: Perhaps I am in that bind and *not know* it. Perhaps not. I don't see how that discussion can ever end. S> The above was a bit garbled, but I wasn't alluding to you anyway, but more generally. In fact if it were something I didn't notice in myself, I would probably not be mentioning it. I sometimes think of changing my name to Mr. Moha, but then I may forget about anicca and anatta, especially since in my case Mr. Lobha and Mr. Dosa would also be quite appropriate. But hopefully in this life there is some distancing from being referred to as Mr. Ditthi. ;-) Oh I forget Mr. Mister (Mana)!! ========================= Sukin: But of course, this pov arises only after there has been some understanding, but this I believe is what must be the position at one time or the other. Robert A. Perhaps I am not quite there yet. S> But what if you never get there and the reason being that you are looking in the wrong direction? ============================== Robert A: I hope I am considering causes, but I also like to pay attention to results. If some of my practices help me cause less harm, that is a result I think worth considering. S> But what if it is with ignorance that this latter is seen? =============================== Robert A: Yes, discussions are of great value, but I have so little free time I often need to chose between several worthwhile activities. When I am retired I will spend more time in these discussions, but regret that I haven't figured out how to be retired just yet. Yes, I am still posting, but only because it seems this topic I opened up has not yet run its course. S> Everything that we do is conditioned, and there is no need to try to force things according to an ideal. If you do see the value of discussions enough, I think as you are already doing, you will find time to do it. Other day to day matters of living, is also conditioned and not to be overlooked. So please feel free not to answer this if it takes too much time off the latter. =============================== Robert: Thank you for the detailed and thoughtful response. I appreciate your efforts to explain your point of view as clearly as you can. I hope my responses haven't led you to believe it was completely for a lost cause. S> I very much appreciate your response and please don't worry about my side, I find it worthwhile just to put my thoughts in writing. :-) Best wishes, Sukinder *PS: Dieter, I know that I should be responding to one of your posts first, but that will take more time now, I hope you understand...? #71215 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Apr 27, 2007 3:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 4/27/07 9:40:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > Thanks for your comments. I appreciate them. In continuing the > discussion, I am not arguing for the sake of arguing, but I want to > draw out more of the implications of what is being said. > > There are at least two types of processes, as I see. There are cyclic > processes, and there are one-off processes. A cyclic process is one > that is sustained, either from within or without, and is repeated. As > an example, the Sun shines on the ocean, the water evaporates, clouds > form, and it rains on the ocean, and this loops ad infinitum, until > the sun were to stop shining. The concept of identity is based on > sameness. In a cyclic process, the same things are happening again and > again. ----------------------------------------- Howard: The "sameness" you are talking about here is really just similarity of form - a kind of equivalence. Itis not literally the same things happening again and again. There IS something new under the sun - what arises is always fresh. But the point of identity is the point of self-existence. Identity is tantaount to self-existence. ----------------------------------------- > > I guess the question then becomes "Is it atta-view to attribute > sameness to anything?". -------------------------------------- Howard: When we speak literally of "itself" with regard to any phenomenon, that speech presupposes a core of self-existence. It is exactly such "self" that is missing in all phenomena, for their very existence is contingent and borrowed. This sense of "self" applies to all dhammas and all complexes, including the conventional person. The religionists call the alleged self of a person "the soul". ------------------------------------------- I well understand the radical position that in> > fact nothing is ever the same, but is it the Buddhist position? > Certainly, in Ken's post to you, he insists on sameness of paramattha > dhammas, they are identifiable as being the same, each in turn, again > and again. But if we grant him this, then I see no reason to grant > sameness to grosser objects of perception. -------------------------------------------- Howard: I have granted nothing. Every dhamma is fresh and moreover is empty of own-being empty of "self". ------------------------------------------------ > > My view is that anatta does not rule out repetition of experience, by > which I mean that the same experiences can be had time and time and > again. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Similar and corresponding experiences certainly can be had again and again, but, as Heraclitus said, one cannot stpein the same stream twice. ------------------------------------------------- But it can be understood that the conditions for the same> > experience are never the same. So even though my foot gets wet each > time I step in the river, it is never the same river I am stepping > into. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: LOLOL! When I wrote my last sentence I had not yet read what you wrote here! ======================== With metta, Howard #71216 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:21 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? buddhatrue Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi Howard, > I think we have to differentiate between a situation and between the > cittas arising at each moment. Kusala cittas and akusala cittas > alternate and this is very intricate. Hiri arises with kusala citta > and then the danger of akusala is seen. In between there are bound to > be akusala cittas with dosa, with disappointment in oneself and then > there is also unhappy feeling. One may reason with kusala citta: next > time I should not do this evil. This sounds fine to me; I can accept this explanation. However, the important thing to keep in mind is that even though the unpleasant feeling arises with the akusala citta, the akusala citta serves an important function. If it wasn't for the akusala citta, one wouldn't be ashamed and fearful of committing evil acts- at first. Later, wisdom alone could be enough to stop the evil acts. As Phil often points out, you cannot rush wisdom and expect it to do everything when it hasn't been developed yet. Metta, James #71217 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:22 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? buddhatrue Hi Nina and Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear James, > see my post to Howard. i hope this can clarify. > Nina. I replied to that post. I hope I was able to clarify my position as well. Metta, James #71218 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:28 pm Subject: Re: what must we slay to live happily? To James. buddhatrue Hi Howard and Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Herman (and Rob K) - > > In a message dated 4/27/07 2:51:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > hhofmeister@... writes: > > > > > > > I hope I didnt give the impression that all pleasant feeling is > > > kusala. This is of course not so, as all craving, clinging and lust > > > comes with pleasant or neutral feeling. > > > > > > > I am quite surprised to read this. I experience craving / lust as > > unpleasant. It is the satisfaction of the craving which I experience > > as pleasant. Perhaps craving / lust is used differently to how I use > > it? > > > > > ===================== > Yes, I also experience craving as unpleasant. I don't experience craving as unpleasant. Craving is a very sweet sensation. The only unpleasantness occurs when I don't get what I crave. :-) (I think that this is also what the Buddha taught). Metta, James #71219 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:31 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? buddhatrue Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear James and Howard, > what Rob says here is very helpful to understand all those different > cittas and their condiitons. According to the Patthana, akusala can > condition kusala later on by way of natural decisive support- > condition (pakatupanissaya paccaya). You may be afraid of hell and > therefore abstain from akusala. Being afraid is a form of dosa. > Abstaining is kusala. > Nina. Great! I'm glad you see this. So, why is it that KS speaks against this very helpful form of akusala? Metta, James #71220 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:37 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: best wishes to all buddhatrue Hi Nidhi and Robert (and Howard and Phil), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "wisdomcompassion" wrote: > > hi robert, > > i m not sure which verses u are talking about.but if something deeply > touches u then u can extend it into a meditation.i call recall some > stories of monks who did that. There is a member of this group, Phil, who very much believed in the KS approach to the Dhamma (non-meditation, listening, believing inherent panna to purify the mind without effort). He began to practice a meditation just as you describe, simply reflecting on a sutta each morning and throughout the day. It was this meditation/reflection practice which put him back on the right track and caused him to abandon the KS teaching. I think there is much value in this approach. Thank you for bringing it up Nidhi. I hope you stick around. Metta, James #71221 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:42 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? buddhatrue Hi Nina (and Howard), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi Howard, > I remember, and also what you explained: it does not matter if we > begin to practise with an idea of self. Akusala can lead to kusala. > But here, I think, the matter is different. If one starts with the > wrong view of self one accumulates more of it and how could that be > right? > Nina. It amazes me about how you stress so often that the arising of cittas is complicated and mixed, kusala and akusala. But when it comes to this matter of the view of self, you see the situation as either black or white! You have obviously been brainwashed by KS. I hope that before you die, you abandon this pernicious view....I really do. Metta, James #71222 From: "wisdomcompassion" Date: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:42 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: best wishes to all wisdomcompas... dear sarah, howard and robert and (all friends here), thanks for ur messages. i m thankful to sarah for forwarding my messages and encouraging me to reconsider, to howard for thinking clearly from my perspective, and to robert for taking interest in my message. i really admire dsg for its intellectual understanding of dhamma. surely there is a great deal of opportunity for me to learn here. if any message of mine contributes to dhamma i would love to do that. with metta nidhi > ========================= > Sarah, thank you for your forwardings of Nidhi's posts. The remainder > of what I write here is addressed to him. #71223 From: LBIDD@... Date: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness lbidd2 Hi Ken and Howard, I think sabbe dhamma anatta means no dhamma is me (literally all dhammas are not me). However, I think the madhyamaka view is also effective in extinguishing self clinging. The difference is this: Theravada: this breath is not me; Madhyamaka: this breath _is_ me but it is relative. Larry #71224 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Apr 27, 2007 5:08 pm Subject: Lack of Own Being/Ken upasaka_howard Hi, all - Hi again, Ken. Sorry for letting myself get upset by you, and even sorrier for having expressed it. I apologize. I will respond here to why I speak so much of absence of own being or self-existence. It is what I take to be the root sense of 'anatta'. When it is applied to the conventional person, it rules out the existence of any lasting, self-existent core, the person being dependent on its constituent dhammas, and dependent on mental imputation as a unity. But anatta goes beyond the conventional person. It applies to all conglomerations, not just the person (composed of parts like the proverbial chariot of Nagasena and the bhikkhuni Vajira), and also to all dhammas. Why all conditioned dhammas are empty of own being (i.e., empty of self and empty of identity) is precisely that their very existence is contingent and borrowed. Conditioned dhammas are neither entities nor nullities, but have a middle-way mode of existence as spelled out by the Buddha in the Kaccayanagota Sutta. He offered in that teaching the following: __________________________________ By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. ------------------------------------------------------------- and also the following: __________________________________ 'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering. ------------------------------------------------------ It is exactly the dependent origination of all conditioned dhammas that is the reason for their lack of essential existence and also of nihilistic non-existence. With metta, Howard #71225 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:15 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Nina, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom > wrote: > > > > Dear James and Howard, > > what Rob says here is very helpful to understand all those different > > cittas and their condiitons. According to the Patthana, akusala can > > condition kusala later on by way of natural decisive support- > > condition (pakatupanissaya paccaya). You may be afraid of hell and > > therefore abstain from akusala. Being afraid is a form of dosa. > > Abstaining is kusala. > > Nina. > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ James: Great! I'm glad you see this. So, why is it that KS speaks against > this very helpful form of akusala? > +++++++++ Dear James In this message you wrote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/71177 James: Sophocles' Oedipus has Oedipus so filled with unpleasant feeling when > > he finds out that he has killed his father and has had four children > > with his mother, that he gouges his eyes out. This is believable > > because moral shame is an unpleasant feeling"" +++++++ Some people get so upset by regret about the defilements that they gouge their eyes out. Others feel terribly guilty and mentally torture themselves again and again, even to the point of depression or madness. So while akusala can condition kusala, it is also a condition for more akusala. I like to study defilements, but I don't expect them to suddenly decrease, I just study to try to see their nature as they arise. Even a little success in learning about the nature of defilements makes a big difference in life and increases confidence in Dhamma. Robert #71226 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Apr 27, 2007 5:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: best wishes to all upasaka_howard Hi, Nidhi - In a message dated 4/27/07 11:47:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, wisdomcompassion@... writes: > dear sarah, howard and robert and (all friends here), > > thanks for ur messages. i m thankful to sarah for forwarding my > messages and encouraging me to reconsider, to howard for thinking > clearly from my perspective, and to robert for taking interest in my > message. i really admire dsg for its intellectual understanding of > dhamma. surely there is a great deal of opportunity for me to learn > here. if any message of mine contributes to dhamma i would love to > do that. > > with metta > nidhi > ======================= I was *very* happy to read this!! :-) With metta, Howard #71227 From: "Robert" Date: Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Virtue avalo1968 Hello Sukinder, Thank you for your response. I appreciate your efforts to help me understand your point of view. I did note one exchange that perhaps encapsulates how we will disagree: >>Robert A> I hope I am considering causes, but I also like to pay >>attention to results. If some of my practices help me cause less >>harm, that is a result I think worth considering. >> >S> But what if it is with ignorance that this latter is seen? Robert A: Isn't it the case that we will never be sure? How can anyone have certainty of anything? We do the best we can. Actually, in the past when I have caused harm, it has not been that subtle. You know it when you see it, if you are honest with yourself. I try to take the Buddha's advice in these matters: "When you, Kalamas, know for yourselves: 'these things are unskilful, these things are reprehensible, these things are censured by the wise and when performed and undertaken lead to misfortune and sorrow,' then, indeed, you may renounce them." I believe he was telling us we have to make the best judgement in these things we can and to act on those judgements. In the writings of Ayya Khema, a teacher I respect very much, she says the moral code of the precepts is the basis of the spiritual path. Even if we are not spiritually advanced beings, I believe we can do pretty good in making these judgements if we are sincere in our confidence in the Dhamma. ------------------ Here is another exchange from our last dicussion: >>Sukin> >>But of course, this pov arises only after there has been some >>understanding, but this I believe is what must be the position at >>one time or the other. >> >>Robert A.> Perhaps I am not quite there yet. >> >S> But what if you never get there and the reason being that you are >looking in the wrong direction? Robert A: The Dhammapada says: "Watchful in speech and well-restrained in mind, Do nothing unskilled with your body. Purify these three courses of action; Fulfill the path taught by the sages." I believe if anyone reads the teachings of the Buddha with a simple and sincere heart, that person will know how to follow those teachings. I don't believe it is as complicated as people make it out to be. You also had some question about the value of my practice of seeking a quiet place for meditation, but again, I am trying to follow the advice of the Buddha. How many times in the suttas is there reference to a monk "having gone to a forest, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty place". ...or in the Dhammapada: "The bhikkhu who has retired to a lonely abode, who has calmed his mind, who perceives the doctrine clearly, experiences a joy transcending that of men." "Whenever he reflects on the rise and fall of the Aggregates, he experiences joy and happiness. To those who know that reflection is deathless" "And this becomes the beginning here for a wise bhikkhu: sense control, contentment, restraint with regard to the fundamental code, association with beneficent and energetic friends whose livelihood is pure." ...so, we all agree that reflection on the rise and fall of mental and physical phenomona is what the Buddha teaches, but I think the Buddha was also just fine with the fact that there was "something to be done". At least that is the way I read the Buddhist texts. I have enjoyed our discussion and thank you for sharing your point of view with me. I have heard it and will consider what you have said. I wish you well with your practice, however you chose to pursue it. May you find happiness and peace. Robert A. #71228 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? egberdina Hi Scott, On 28/04/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > > > Pithy, as usual. > Pithy is a good word. I like it. > Regarding: > > N: "I think we have to differentiate between a situation and between > the cittas arising at each moment..." > > Me: "I think that this is the very heart of the matter." > > H: "As a piece of intellectual analysis, I do not think it is very > valuable..." > > Scott: What do you find lacking in the statement in terms of > 'intellectual analysis? Mainly that intellectual analysis itself is not very valuable in practice. > > Let me try this argument out (and beg once again for the long awaited > critique): > > I would suggest that, when discussing the nature of one's reaction to > defilements, the differentiation of situation from moment is crucial. I would argue that discussing the nature of one's reactions to defilements, is an entirely speculative activity. And indeed, as much a situation as any other unguarded moment. > If one simply considers 'situation', one misses the deeper analysis > of the momentary 'structure' or constituents of that 'situation' and > the 'process' out of which the concept 'situation' is conceived. (I'm > aware that 'structure' and 'process' are also concepts - I'm speaking > conventionally here.) Sure. And that is why there is either a guarding of the doors, or a finding of oneself in a situation. > > Situations are conceptual; they are constructs. They are the product > of thinking in terms of wholes. Such thinking produces ideas such as > 'My defilements' and 'I abhor my defilements' and 'I will work to get > rid of my defilements' and 'It is proper for me to adopt this attitude > toward my defilements'. Remaining at the situational level of > discourse, and mistaking it for reality is, I'd say, an example of > 'invaluable intellectual analysis'. I think the last line runs counter to your argument? > For example, with regards: > > H: "...As a reminder to be mindful to guard the sense doors, I agree > it is the heart of the matter." > > Scott: This statement, I'd suggest, is completely about a situation > and demonstrates the failure to differentiate situation from momentary > cittaa rather well. > > The situation described is: > > There is someone who, in being reminded to be mindful to guard the > sense doors, can then do this thanks to the reminder. Yes, if the reminder is given to one who understands it. It is the nature of language and communication that one person can influence an other. But of course, the Abhidhamma cannot account for an other. Nonetheless, a reminder to do something that the hearer has never learned how to do is unproductive. But yes, someone who knows how to guard their sense doors can usefully be reminded of that. As some can be usefully reminded to not neglect the jhanas. > > The moment-to-moment analysis, on the other hand, has certain key > elements which are missing in the above situational analysis: > The moment by moment analysis is a situation where discursive thinking is allowed to run riot. Which is completely absent in the situation where one has been usefully reminded to guard the sense doors. > 1)'Be mindful to guard the sense doors' is actually sati, a cetasika. > > 2)All conditioned dhammaa have the characteristics of anicca, anatta, > and dukkha. > > 3)Once having arisen with citta, sati falls away. > > 4)Sati cannot be willed into arising. > > 5)Sati is unsatisfactory since it falls away and doesn't arise except > by conditions, which are not controllable. > > 6)When it is present it certainly performs the function of 'guarding > the sense doors', but this is of the moment and many conditions are > involved in its arising once, let alone in succession. > As I said, discursive thinking. > That being said, the situation of someone being reminded to be > mindful and guard the sense doors becomes absurd. You seem to be insisting that learning a skill, or unlearning an unskilful habit, is impossible. You also seem to be insisting that being prompted to activate that skilful behaviour is also impossible/absurd. That, to me, is quite absurd. And as far as > adopting attitudes toward defilements, one can think of there being > 'someone who must do this' - a situation - or, one can consider the > momentary realities, the function of which it is to oppose defilements > by nature, as it were. > > What do you think? > The Abhidhamma cannot account for any difference between slicing off a person's head, and slicing an apple in half. Momentary sila is an absurdity, an outcome of dogmatic intellectual analysis. But in jhanas, there's no thoughts of defilements. And they are accessible to those who see the peril in thinking. You asked :-) Herman #71229 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Apr 27, 2007 10:54 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Thanks for the reply. H: "Mainly that intellectual analysis itself is not very valuable in practice." Scott: Oh, I see what you meant. H: "I think the last line runs counter to your argument?" Scott: Yeah. I won't be going into stand-up comedy - or maybe only in the 'too obtuse' part of the show. Failed attempts at humour do not improve one's argument - lesson 1. Me: "...There is someone who, in being reminded to be mindful to guard the sense doors, can then do this thanks to the reminder. H: "Yes, if the reminder is given to one who understands it. It is the nature of language and communication that one person can influence an other. But of course, the Abhidhamma cannot account for an other. Nonetheless, a reminder to do something that the hearer has never learned how to do is unproductive. But yes, someone who knows how to guard their sense doors can usefully be reminded of that. As some can be usefully reminded to not neglect the jhanas." Scott: This reminds me of the other thread, Conventional/Ultimate (or whatever it was called). Do you include written language in the statement regarding influence? Does this statement apply to study of the texts? But to come back to this thread. You didn't address the argument where sati and its characteristic were discussed, except to dismiss it. I'd appreciate hearing more of what you don't agree with, and how you take issue with sati as mental factor conascent with citta in a moment. Knowing how to guard the sense doors is conventional speech indicating the function of sati when it is well-developed. No one actually knows this or does this. Sati arises, performs its function, and falls away, serving as condition for a new moment with sati. Why do you need 'other' to be accounted for, by the way? What can a puppet do? H: "The moment by moment analysis is a situation where discursive thinking is allowed to run riot. Which is completely absent in the situation where one has been usefully reminded to guard the sense doors." Scott: Yes, I see you were discussing 'analysis'. What, though, about the moment-to-moment reality of things? Do you think this can be known? And I mean like for real - orgasm not reading about orgasm. H: "You seem to be insisting that learning a skill, or unlearning an unskilful habit, is impossible. You also seem to be insisting that being prompted to activate that skilful behaviour is also impossible/absurd..." Scott: Since this, learning a skill, is based on a belief in someone who can cause various dhammas to be thus and so according to will. This is impossible. Taking 'mindfulness' as an example. This is not a 'skill', this is sati. A skill, that is something someone can do, does not exist. The whole notion is conceptual. Mental development, however, is something that can occur. Mindfulness is 'sati', as I said, a cetasika. What you call 'learning a skill', say of 'mindfulness', is actually the development of sati. This development occurs over time through the repeated arising and falling away of this particular mental factor. Sati becomes stronger as it is developed but no one develops it. There is no one who gets better at mindfulness. A Buddha teaches about sati and speaks conventionally about its development. This must serve as prompting somehow. Can you say more about this part of your argument? H: "The Abhidhamma cannot account for any difference between slicing off a person's head, and slicing an apple in half. Momentary sila is an absurdity, an outcome of dogmatic intellectual analysis. But in jhanas, there's no thoughts of defilements. And they are accessible to those who see the peril in thinking." Scott: Kusala and akusala is well and clearly set out in the Abhidhamma method. As is that which constitutes pa~n~natti and that which does not. As is kamma and chanda. (Is your argument slipping into a series of runs at Abhidhamma?) Try this, if you feel like it. (I'd appreciate your comments). In terms of the situational/momentary dichotomy: 1)In what way is momentary siila an absurdity? 2)What is situational siila? 3)Do you think that these kusala dhammas are something other than momentary? 4)I'm not clear why you bring up jhaana. How do you define 'jhaanas'? Of what do they consist (or not consist)? 5)What is it about jhaana that suppresses defilements, according to your view? 6)Do you think that jhaana is something other than momentary? 7)What is siila or jhaana if not momentary? H: "You asked :-)" Scott: Thanks! Sincerely, Scott. #71230 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:06 pm Subject: The 4 Feet of Force! bhikkhu5 Friends: What are the Four Feet of Spiritual Force? The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, these four Feet of Force, when developed and cultivated, are Noble and releasing since they lead the one who acts upon them out of this world to and by the complete destruction of Suffering... The lead to disgust, disillusion, to detachment, to ceasing, to peace, to direct knowledge, to Enlightenment, to NibbÄ?na. What four? Here, friends, a Bhikkhu develops and refines: 1: The Feet of Force that is enriched with concentrated desire constructed by effort... 2: The Feet of Force that is enriched with concentrated energy constructed by effort... 3: The Feet of Force that is enriched with concentrated thought constructed by effort... 4: The Feet of Force all enriched with concentrated investigation constructed by effort... These four Feet of Force are Noble and releasing, since they lead anyone who acts upon them out of this world to & by the complete destruction of Suffering... The lead to utter disgust, to disillusion, to detachment, to ceasing, to direct knowledge, to Peace... They lead to Enlightenment, they lead to NibbÄ?na... Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V:255] section 51: The 4 Forces. 3+4: Noble Disgust. Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <....> #71231 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 12:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? egberdina Hi Scott, On 28/04/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > > Me: "...There is someone who, in being reminded to be mindful to guard > the sense doors, can then do this thanks to the reminder. > > H: "Yes, if the reminder is given to one who understands it. It is the > nature of language and communication that one person can influence an > other. But of course, the Abhidhamma cannot account for an other. > Nonetheless, a reminder to do something that the hearer has never > learned how to do is unproductive. But yes, someone who knows how to > guard their sense doors can usefully be reminded of that. As some can > be usefully reminded to not neglect the jhanas." > > Scott: This reminds me of the other thread, Conventional/Ultimate (or > whatever it was called). Do you include written language in the > statement regarding influence? Does this statement apply to study of > the texts? > Sure. But writing lacks the immediacy of the spoken word, and gesticulation. And it is meaningless to the uninitiated. Are you here creating the possibility for Buddha to have instructed to proliferate texts, and to focus on studying them? Which I assure you he didn't. > But to come back to this thread. You didn't address the argument > where sati and its characteristic were discussed, except to dismiss > it. Yes, I dismissed it. Because there is no need for a theory of mind, in order for mind to happen. Neither is it necessary for there to be a theory of learning, before learning can take place. I'd appreciate hearing more of what you don't agree with, and how > you take issue with sati as mental factor conascent with citta in a > moment. Knowing how to guard the sense doors is conventional speech > indicating the function of sati when it is well-developed. No one > actually knows this or does this. Sati arises, performs its function, > and falls away, serving as condition for a new moment with sati. > This is all thinking. Not just spontaneous thinking, or even an attempt to describe the flow of experience, but this is the acquired thinking of a tradition of thinkers. As we agreed with orgasm, sati and the book about it are unrelated, but by thinking. > Why do you need 'other' to be accounted for, by the way? What can a > puppet do? I know what a puppet cannot do. A puppet cannot harm or be harmed. Nor can it communicate instructions to me, whether helpful or otherwise. We were talking about being influenced by others. > > H: "The moment by moment analysis is a situation where discursive > thinking is allowed to run riot. Which is completely absent in the > situation where one has been usefully reminded to guard the sense doors." > > Scott: Yes, I see you were discussing 'analysis'. What, though, > about the moment-to-moment reality of things? Do you think this can > be known? And I mean like for real - orgasm not reading about orgasm. The reality of the flux of experience can be known. You don't have to do anything to know it. It fact, you *must* do nothing. You just have to be present to it. And the ultimate reality that the Buddha taught can be known in this way too. He called it anicca, anatta, and dukkha. You don't even have to know the words. But if you think the words, that is what will be reality at that time. > > H: "You seem to be insisting that learning a skill, or unlearning an > unskilful habit, is impossible. You also seem to be insisting that > being prompted to activate that skilful behaviour is also > impossible/absurd..." > > Scott: Since this, learning a skill, is based on a belief in someone > who can cause various dhammas to be thus and so according to will. > This is impossible. Taking 'mindfulness' as an example. This is not > a 'skill', this is sati. A skill, that is something someone can do, > does not exist. The whole notion is conceptual. Again, a theory of learning is not a prerequisite for learning. Perhaps you will have less resistance to the idea of learning if I called it that natural decisive support thingy, but then in Pali? :-) Learning happens, Scott. It is a possibility for most human beings. I don't know what else to say. > > Mental development, however, is something that can occur. Mindfulness > is 'sati', as I said, a cetasika. What you call 'learning a skill', > say of 'mindfulness', is actually the development of sati. This > development occurs over time through the repeated arising and falling > away of this particular mental factor. Sati becomes stronger as it is > developed but no one develops it. There is no one who gets better at > mindfulness. You seem to be hung up on the notion of a someone who learns. This is a stumbling block to the discussion, I feel. Learning happens. Ask me for my mother's phone number, and I will recite it for you. One does not need a theory to account for the fact, it is enough to observe the fact, not? > > A Buddha teaches about sati and speaks conventionally about its > development. This must serve as prompting somehow. Can you say more > about this part of your argument? If this was not the case, then the teachings of the Buddha, all 45 years of them, would be a tragic joke. There's nothing conventional about teaching. It can only happen conventionally. The discourses, in momentary terms, are absolutely meaningless. We are human Scott, we have the ability to speak, to listen, to remember. "All formations are not-self" takes 3 seconds to say. How many cittas worth is that, would you reckon? In momentary terms, there is no meaning in any microsecond of sound. If it was not for the capacity of the human mind to integrate millions of cittas into 1 meaning, there could never be any understanding. > > H: "The Abhidhamma cannot account for any difference between slicing > off a person's head, and slicing an apple in half. Momentary sila is > an absurdity, an outcome of dogmatic intellectual analysis. > But in jhanas, there's no thoughts of defilements. And they are > accessible to those who see the peril in thinking." > > Scott: Kusala and akusala is well and clearly set out in the > Abhidhamma method. As is that which constitutes pa~n~natti and that > which does not. As is kamma and chanda. (Is your argument slipping > into a series of runs at Abhidhamma?) Not at all. My argument is against the value of the analysis of moments. > > Try this, if you feel like it. (I'd appreciate your comments). In > terms of the situational/momentary dichotomy: > > 1)In what way is momentary siila an absurdity? > In the moment, there are no others. There are objects. Killing an object, generousity to an object, helping an object are meaningless statements. Pride, shame, guilt, fear, in the face of objects is meaningless. In the absence of others, morality is absurd. > 2)What is situational siila? > See above > 3)Do you think that these kusala dhammas are something other than > momentary? Kusala is a category. Categories lack any inherent quality by which they may be known. This means that it requires multiple moments to know if a dhamma is of a category, say kusala. The quality of each passing dhamma may be known, as it passes, but kusala and momentary exclude each other. Calm is calm, hard is hard, sweet is sweet, but kusala is thinking. It takes time. > > 4)I'm not clear why you bring up jhaana. How do you define 'jhaanas'? > Of what do they consist (or not consist)? I threw jhana in because we were juxtaposing intellectual analyses with guarding of the sense doors. Jhanas are a natural progression from guarding of the sense doors, both requiring an absence of discursive thinking. I prefer not to analyse jhanas, but would certainly recommend them. The Buddha did too. > > 5)What is it about jhaana that suppresses defilements, according to > your view? Is it important for me to have a theory about it? No amount of causal explanations (ie speculation) will assist the intrepid meditator to get anywhere, I fear, in fact, quite the opposite. > > 6)Do you think that jhaana is something other than momentary? > This could be something written about in the book about jhanas, but plays no role in the experience. > 7)What is siila or jhaana if not momentary? > The doctrine of momentariness renders most of the teachings meaningless. Nibbana is timeless, and samsara is forever becoming, which is not comprehensible in terms of moments. > H: "You asked :-)" > > Scott: Thanks! > No worries. Herman #71232 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 2:05 am Subject: Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 151, 152 and Tiika. nilovg Intro: In the preceding sections the Visuddhimagga dealt with the many varieties of rebirth that are due to kamma. There are four different ways of rebirth: beings may be eggborn, born by way of the womb, born by way of moisture and by way of spontaneous birth. In the following sections the Visuddhimagga deals with still more varieties of birth. --------- 151. 'The least decads the first has got respectively are three or two': together with the rebirth-linking consciousness that is mixed with materiality and comes first in the pair 'mixed and unmixed', there arise, at the least, the two decads (see Ch. XVIII,5f.) of physical basis and body, or else the three decads of physical basis, body, and sex. There is no reducing materiality below that. --------- N: The Tiika states as to the pair 'mixed and unmixed' ((missam amissan”ti), that this refers to being mixed with vi~n~naa.na, arising together with the rebirth-consciousness. In the cases when naama and ruupa arise together at rebirth, thus, in the planes where there are five khandhas, there is still a great variety of ruupa produced by kamma. As to there being at least two decads or three decads, the Tiika explains that this refers to beings born by way of the womb (gabbhaseyyaka). A decad produced by kamma consists, as we have seen, of the eight inseparable ruupas (the four great elements and colour, odour, flavour and nutritive essence), life faculty, jiivitindriya, and one more ruupa solely produced by kamma. When two decads are produced by kamma at the first moment of life, one of them is the decad with the heartbase (the physical base of the rebirth-consciousness) and one is the decad with bodysense. Bodysense at that moment is extremely tiny and still has to develop. When three decads are produced, there is one more decad with sex. ------------- Text Vis. 152: But when that minimal amount arises in the two kinds of generation termed egg-born and womb-born, it amounts to no more than a drop of cream of ghee on a single fibre of new-born [kid's] wool, and it is known as the 'embryo in the first stage' (S.i,206). --------- N: For the eggborn kamma produces only two decads and for those born by way of the womb there may be two decads or three decads. The Tiika elaborates more on the hair with which a drop of cream of ghee is drawn, in order to show how slight the ruupas are at the first moment of life. It states: (transl by P. M. Tin). As to the 'embryo in the first stage', the kalala, the Vis. text refers to S I, 206: (transl. by Ven. Bodhi) -------- Conclusion: We are reminded of the interrelation between naama and ruupa from the moment of birth. In the planes where there are naama and ruupa the heartbase and the rebirth-consciousness are a support for each other. Both of them are produced by kamma at the same time and one could not arise without the other. We speak of the birth of a person, but in reality there were from the first moment the rebirth-consciousness and ruupa, so tiny as . The embryo of the first stage develops so that it becomes fully grown, all due to the proper conditions. What we call embryo are in fact citta, cetasika and ruupa that arise and fall away. In the ultimate sense there is at the beginning of a lifespan birth of naama and ruupa and at the end of a lifespan there is death of naama and ruupa. Also during life naama and ruupa arise and fall away, thus, there is birth and death at each moment. ******* Nina. #71233 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 2:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dangers of rebirth: anatta, pinnacle of dhamma? rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > > > > Hi Rob K, > > This might tie in with some previous conversations you and I have > been having. You think that I tend to overlook valuable conventional > stories. > > I can't see the value in thinking, "If I perform serious misdeeds I > will go to hell." Where is belief in kamma and vipaka at the time of > such thinking? Wouldn't it more likely be an instance of atta > belief? > Dear Ken 1.It depends on understanding. Someone might have atta belief while thinking that anotehr might understand that I refers to nama and rupa. Certainly teh Buddha talked about beings ect and had no atta belief. Take this sutta: http://www.vipassana.info/130-devaduta-e.htm QUOTE "Then the warders of hell give him the fivefold binding. That is two hot iron spikes are sent through his two palms, and two other hot spikes are sent through his two feet and the fifth hot iron spike is sent through his chest. On account of this he experiences sharp piercing unpleasant feelings. Yet he does not die, until his demerit finishes. Next the warders of hell conduct him and hammer himOn account Then the warders of hell pull him out with a hook and ask him. `Good man, what do you desire?' He says, `Sir, I'm hungry.' The warders of hell open his mouth with hot iron spikes and pour into his mouth burning, flaming iron balls. They burn his lips, mouth, throat, chest, the intestines, the lower intestines and they come out with the insides Bhikkhus, I say this not hearing from another recluse or brahmin, this is what I have myself known and seen and so I say it.'"" end quote. Do you think this sutta is beneficial? 2. Even those beings who have atta belief if they have right view about kamma and rebirth the path of heaven is still open. They benfit to the extent that they understand correctly. Robert #71234 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 1:56 am Subject: what is sati , third post nilovg Dear Lodewijk, Howard and all interested in sati, I continue with the definition in the Visuddhimagga and tiika of sati. ---------- Text Vis.: It should be regarded, however, as like a pillar because it is firmly founded, or as like a door-keeper because it guards the eye-door, and so on. N: Mindfulness guards the doors of the senses and the mind-door. Whenever there is mindfulness of visible object that appears and this is realized as only a ruupa appearing through the eyedoor, we are not infatuated by this object, there are no lobha, dosa or moha on account of it. Mindfulness is an indriya, a " controlling faculty", a "leader' of the citta and accompanying cetasikas in its function of heedfulness, of non-forgetfulness of what is wholesome. We read in the Expositor ((I, Part IV, Ch II< 147): <... It exercises government (over associated states) in the characteristic of presenting or illuminating the object- this is the faculty of mindfulness.> As the Tiika explains, sati does not go elsewhere but confronts the object that presents itself. Sati does not move away from the present object, it is steadfast like a pillar. Mindfulness is non-forgetful of the object, and understanding (paññaa) has the function of knowing it as it is. Right Mindfulness is one of the Path-factors and it is among the factors leading to enlightenment. --------- N: Sati presents and illuminates the object appearing at that moment so that pa~n~naa can know it as it is: a naama or a ruupa that is not self. As I said, the difference should be known between the moments with sati and the moments of thinking of concepts. Sati is aware of the object appearing at the present moment, and this is one naama or ruupa as it presents itself through one of the senses or the mind- door. Usually we think of concepts such as a leg, the whole body or a person. But when there are the right conditions sati can arise and it does so without us doing anything about it, it arises unexpectedly. Then we can learn that sati is anattaa. As I said to Howard: ------------------------------------ Howard: Oh, sure we can, Nina - about dhammas not yet arisen, and we do so all the time; but I'll leave that for a discussion some other time! ;-)) -------- N: In a general sense we know more or less that if we perform certain actions there will be consequences in accordance with our actions. But nobody can know what kinds of cittas arise from moment to moment. Seeing or hearing are vipaakacittas, results of kamma and who could know which kamma produces which result at a particular moment. Who knows whether the next moment will be hearing a deafening sound, or experiencing great pain? Then there are our reactions to the vipaakacittas that arise, the kusala cittas or akusala cittas arising in the same process as the vipaakacittas. Who could predict these? Cittas arise and fall away extremely quickly, all according to their appropriate conditions. Somebody may shout at me, but who knows what type of citta will arise after hearing the unpleasant sound? There may be aversion, but it is also possible that kusala citta with sati arises. It is possible that there is awareness of sound, instead of thinking with aversion about the voice of a person. Or there may be aversion and then understanding of aversion as a conditioned dhamma. These examples show that sati is anatta and that there is no person who can make it arise. As we know, listening to the Dhamma and considering it with wise attention are conditions for the arising of sati of the level of satipatthaana, thus, sati that is mindful of one object at a time as it appears through one of the six doors. Then we shall understand that whatever arises was not there before. It is present just for a moment and then it disappears, it is no longer to be found. For example visible object. Several conditions are necessary so that it can appear at this moment: visible object has to impinge on the eyesense, and eyesense is produced by kamma. Seeing is vipaakacitta that is also prduced by kamma. It is accompanied by the cetasika contact, phassa, which contacts the object so that seeing can see visible object. Both seeing and visible object fall away and then there are conditions for the arising of other dhammas. Listening to the Dhamma and study are essential conditions for the arising of sati. Listening for many hours or for many years is not sufficient, there need to be listening for aeons. But at each moment of listening with wise attention there is a little more understanding of realities and in this way pa~n~naa grows gradually. Nina. #71235 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 2:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:was: what must we slay to live happily? akusala conditions kusala. nilovg Dear Sobhana, good to see you again. --------- Op 28-apr-2007, om 1:29 heeft Sobhana het volgende geschreven: > Nina: I remember, and also what you explained: it does not matter > if we begin to practise with an idea of self. Akusala can lead to > kusala. > > Sobhana: Can you provide an example of a real-life situation where > akusala can lead to kusala? Thank you. ---------- N: I do not think that it is good to begin to practise with an idea of self, since one accumulates more wrong view in that way. According to the Patthana under natural decisive support-condition there are cases that akusala can condition kusala. For example, as I wrote in my 'Conditions': However, one should also take into account that akusala that is accumulated conditions more akusala. The fact that akusala can condition kusala should not be used as an excuse. As I wrote in my Conditions: Nina. #71236 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 3:07 am Subject: Re: Lack of Own Being/Ken kenhowardau Hi Howard, ------------- <. . .> H: > I will respond here to why I speak so much of absence of own being or self-existence. It is what I take to be the root sense of 'anatta'. When it is applied to the conventional person, it rules out the existence of any lasting, self-existent core, the person being dependent on its constituent dhammas, and dependent on mental imputation as a unity. But anatta goes beyond the conventional person. It applies to all conglomerations, not just the person (composed of parts like the proverbial chariot of Nagasena and the bhikkhuni Vajira), and also to all dhammas. ---------------- I understand the simile differently. When the Buddha used the word person" his audience was to understand that he was referring to the five khandhas. He was not referring to any of the concepts that are normally referred to by that word. Therefore, I disagree when you say there were two categories - people and dhammas - to which the doctrine of anatta applied. The Buddha did not teach anything that was not ultimately real or true. He did not teach characteristics of concepts. There is a danger in thinking that he taught both. It will inevitably result in a blurring of the distinction between concepts and realities. ------------------------ H: > Why all conditioned dhammas are empty of own being (i.e., empty of self and empty of identity) is precisely that their very existence is contingent and borrowed. Conditioned dhammas are neither entities nor nullities, but have a middle-way mode of existence as spelled out by the Buddha in the Kaccayanagota Sutta. He offered in that teaching the following: __________________________________ By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. ----------------------- I understand this to be referring to existence and non-existence of the self. (As Sarah explained recently "self" can refer, not only to living beings, but also to other seemingly-lasting entities (such as computers and mountains).) -------------------------- H: > and also the following: __________________________________ 'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. H: It is exactly the dependent origination of all conditioned dhammas that is the reason for their lack of essential existence and also of nihilistic non-existence. ------------------------ Those things - lobha, cetana, rebirth-citta, and namas and rupas in general - do exist whenever there are conditions for them to exist. There is nothing to be gained from denying that they exist at such times 'in their own right.' I have been hoping to go more deeply into why you (along with TG and others) insist on your idiosyncratic views of dhammas. And, at the same time; into why you see great danger in seeing dhammas as self- existent doers (or performers of functions). I have argued that it is all tied up with your attitude to formal meditation. But you insist (very strongly at times) that it isn't. I would still like to convince you that it is. So, what should I do? Should I speak up and risk driving you up the wall? Or should I . . . . . No, I'm sorry, there is no other option. :-) Ken H #71237 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 3:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > > Hi Ken and Howard, > > I think sabbe dhamma anatta means no dhamma is me (literally all dhammas > are not me). Hi Larry, Sarah was saying recently it might be best to keep the word "atta" instead of using a translation. Certainly, "self" is not perfect, but it's streets ahead of "me." :-) ------------ L: >However, I think the madhyamaka view is also effective in > extinguishing self clinging. The difference is this: Theravada: this > breath is not me; Madhyamaka: this breath _is_ me but it is relative. ------------ Rupa is not atta. That's good enough for me. If you want to say that breath is not atta I won't argue. But nor is "flying purple elephant" atta. So what? What does that tell us that we didn't already know (before we heard the Dhamma)? Ken H #71238 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 4:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Agreeable and Disagreeable sarahprocter... Dear Scott, --- Scott Duncan wrote: > Dear Sarah, > > Thanks for the reply; sorry for the delay. .... Sarah: Actually you seemed quick to both reply and get all the main points I was trying to convey. ..... > Scott: So, the only object of experience for kusala-vipaaka-citta is > an intrinsically agreeable one, and the only object of experience for > akusala-vipaaka-citta is an intrinsically disagreeable one. At the > level of pure experience, without thinking and categorising, this is > known. .... Sarah: Yes - or we might say 'experienced' to avoid any misapprehension that panna is involved. ... <...> >Its agreeableness or disagreeableness will be determined > solely by virtue of whether vipaaka-citta is kusala or akusala, and > never by what I am thinking about an experience later. .... Sarah: Yes. To stress, the agreeablenss or disagreeableness is intrinsic to the rupa. Which is experienced at any given moment is determined by whether it is kusala or akusala vipaka citta arising (conditioned of course by past kamma). .... > Scott: I like this, 'hearing only ever hears sound'. What would citta > with wisdom take as object in the case of hearing sound which later is > rendered as 'loud or gruff voice speaking about the Dhamma'? The > 'speaking about Dhamma' must be a function of later mind-door > processes and involving thinking or thoughts as object. .... Sarah: Yes. If it is wisdom of satipatthana, then of course it only experiences a reality - the sound or hearing or thinking, for example. It depends on sanna (pakatupanissaya again) what thinking will think about at any moment. Such thinking may be wise thinking with panna, even though it's a concept experienced. For example, reflection on dhamma... The quality of the voice or sound (loud, soft, gruff-sounding etc) heard is such regardless of how it's conceived. Just the sound which is heard! .... Sarah:> It always comes back to the citta, > the present citta as Ken H was stressing when he said 'the world is a > moment of consciousness...Sila, dana and bhavana, if they exist at > all, exist in one moment of consciousness.' I thought that was rather > deep..." > > Scott: Yeah, it was. Where does yoniso manasikaara come into play in > the process? .... Sarah: It refers to the series of cittas - mind-door adverting and javana cittas. One at a time! .... > Scott: I guess, since vipaaka is the final arbiter, and since vipaaka > is conditioned by past kamma, there is less incentive to think too > much about this. It'll unfold. .... Sarah: Exactly. As such, it doesn't matter - it's conditioned already by past kamma. What is important is whether the vipaka cittas are followed by yoniso or ayoniso manasikara (wise or unwise attention). This is the gurarding of the sense-doors or not, which will determine further kamma and vipaka. And so the rounds go on... Metta, Sarah ======== #71239 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 4:56 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Agreeable and Disagreeable rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott > .... > Sarah: Again, we can only generalise. Hearing only ever hears sound and > this may be agreeable or disagreeable at any given instant. For example, > someone may be speaking about the Dhamma but in a very loud or gruff > voice. ++++++++ Dear Sarah If an arahant is speaking on Dhamma - but has a gruff voice? Robert #71240 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 3:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 4/28/07 12:41:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > The Abhidhamma cannot account for any difference between slicing off a > person's head, and slicing an apple in half. Momentary sila is an > absurdity, an outcome of dogmatic intellectual analysis. > ==================== Actually, I think that Abhidhamma can, in principle, account for differences between slicing off a person's head and slicing an apple in half on the basis that different phenomena underlie what we call an apple and what we call a person's head, and also, it can accomodate complexes of dhammas on the basis of relations. It also does distinguish sila-in-action from akusala states. However, I believe that it is not it's primary aim, nor that of the Dhamma in general, to make such distinctions as we normally make anyway, but to point out certain facts about the nature of the world that are typically unseen, that go against the stream, and whose understanding, especially whose direct "seeing," tends to loosen our clinging to things. The analytic approach of the Dhammasangani and the syncretic approach of the Patthana both aim, I believe, at disabusing us of reification and grasping, just as do "chariot examples", presentations of dependent origination, and pointing towards insubstantiality (the Uraga Sutta and the Phena Sutta, for example) in the suttas. The ultimate means, though, I believe, is what you and I call "practice." Now, you also wrote "Momentary sila is an absurdity, an outcome of dogmatic intellectual analysis," and I agree with that. In the literal moment, a zero-duration instant (or a time segment of no change in function except possibly rise, stasis, and decline in presence or intensity), no event occurs - though various activities are in the *midst* of occurring. I have not been persuaded, however, that the Abhidhamma Pitaka teaches a theory of moments. I suspect that is an interpretive view of commentaries, a view that many Mahayanists have adopted as well, by the way. I think it may be mistaken to fault the Abhidhamma Pitaka for that. With metta, Howard #71241 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 7:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Agreeable and Disagreeable nilovg Dear Robert, His speech is conditioned by mahaa-kiriyacittas with pa~n~naa and other sobhana cetasikas. For the hearer: it was time for his kamma to produce kusala vipaaka which heard this sound. The gruff voice seems to me an example of vasana, some habits accumulated since long which only a Buddha can eradicate. It is possible that there are for the hearer kusala vipaakacittas alternating with akusala vipaakacittas, but we can only guess. Nina. Op 28-apr-2007, om 13:56 heeft rjkjp1 het volgende geschreven: > If an arahant is speaking on Dhamma - but has a gruff voice? #71242 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 7:10 am Subject: Perfections N, no 21 nilovg Dear friends, The Buddha could not have reached the peak of wisdom had he not developed it during four incalculable periods of time and a hundred thousand kappas. He had to begin once. He had to begin again and again to be mindful of nãma and rupa, one at a time, in daily life. He had to be patient to develop understanding for innumerable lives. We have to be "long-sighted" to develop wisdom. There are many conditions needed to attain enlightenment. We need patience to develop all the perfections together with right understanding. The Buddha discovered the truth of all phenomena. All conditioned realities are impermanent (aniccã), unsatisfactory or duhkha and not self (anattã). We may have theoretical understanding of the fact that what is subject to change and impermanent cannot give us security and happiness, but that is only thinking. If we could really penetrate the truth of dukkha after having heard about it we would be a sotåpanna. The wisdom which realizes directly the truth of this moment develops very gradually, in the course of many lives. If there is no direct knowledge of the arising and falling away of a nãma or a rupa which appears now, how could the truth of dukkha be realized? And then, before the arising and falling away of a nãma or a rupa can be realized we have to knowprecisely the nãma which appears as nãma and the rupa which appears as rupa. We know in theory that nãma is the reality which experiences an object and that rupa is the reality which does not experience anything, but are their different characteristics realized when they appear one at a time? Khun Sujin reminded us: Is there any understanding of the characteristic of seeing? If one does not understand it as it is yet, understanding of it should be developed. We cannot expect to have clear understanding of the characteristic of seeing as not self in the beginning. We expect that the characteristic of nãma can be described exactly as it is, and that it can be understood merely by listening to many descriptions of it. However, we should carefully consider what we have heard and we should begin to be mindful of the reality which appears. The characteristic of seeing can be known when seeing appears. If one considers carefully what one hears, one sentence such as, "Nãma is the reality which experiences an object" could be enough. We want to have many Dhamma discussions but we neglect to consider the Dhamma. You want quantity, not quality , Khun Sujin said. We read in the "Dhammapada, vs. 100: Better than a thousand utterances with useless words is one single beneficial word, by hearing which one is pacified. Nãma is the reality which experiences an object. Is there now an experience? Is there seeing? It is the seeing which sees and then falls away. Do we still cling to a notion of self who sees? If that is so, understanding of seeing should be developed when seeing appears, until its characteristic is truly known as "only a reality" which is conditioned and does not stay, which is beyond control. Is there hearing? It is the hearing which hears. Hearing has nothing to do with seeing, it is a completely different reality arising because of its own conditions. The characteristic of hearing can be known when hearing appears. It can be studied with mindfulness, just for a moment, and this is the way to begin to develop pa~n~naa. ******* Nina. #71243 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 7:10 am Subject: Conditions, Preface, no. 4. nilovg Dear friends, The reader will find it complicated to study the duration of rúpa which equals seventeen moments of citta. We could never count such moments, they pass too quickly. However,the knowledge about the duration of rúpa helps us to see that rúpa lasts longer than citta. Rúpa is weak at its arising moment, but after its arising it can condition citta. One rúpa can condition several cittas since it lasts longer than citta. For instance, the rúpa which is sense object (colour,sound,etc.) can condition a series of cittas arising in a sense-door process by way of object- condition, that is to say, by being the object they experience. The rúpas which are the sense-organs (eyesense,earsense,etc.) can condition citta by being its base, the place of origin. Thus, knowing about the duration of rúpa and of citta clarifies their relationship. The Abhidhamma, the Suttanta and the Vinaya all point to the same goal: the eradication of wrong view and all other defilements. Also when we study the Pa.t.thaana we are reminded of this goal. Some people doubt whether the Buddha himself taught the twenty-four classes of conditions. They wonder why these have not been enumerated in the suttas. The nucleus of the teaching on conditions is to be found also in other parts of the teachings. In the suttas we read, for example, about jhåna-factors and Path-factors, and about the factors which are predominance-condition for the realities they accompany,and these are among the twenty-four classes of conditions which are described in the Pa.t.thaana The "Dependant Origination'' (Paticcasamuppåda), the Buddha's teaching on the factors which are the conditions for being in the cycle of birth and death and also those which condition freedom from the cycle, is found in all parts of the scriptures. The teaching of the "Dependant Origination'' is closely connected with the teaching of the "Pa.t.thaana'', and the "Dependant Origination''cannot be understood without knowledge of the different types of conditions as taught in the "Pa.t.thaana''. Doubt will only disappear if we thoroughly consider the different types of conditions, because then we can see for ourselves whether the contents of the "Pa.t.thaana''conform to the truth or not. ******* Nina. #71244 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 3:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] what is sati , third post upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 4/28/07 5:31:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > We read in the Expositor > ((I, Part IV, Ch II< 147): > > <... It exercises government (over associated states) in the > characteristic of presenting or illuminating the object- this is the > faculty of mindfulness.> > > As the Tiika explains, sati does not go elsewhere but confronts the > object that presents itself. > Sati does not move away from the present object, it is steadfast like > a pillar. > Mindfulness is non-forgetful of the object, and understanding > (paññaa) has the function of knowing it as it is. > Right Mindfulness is one of the Path-factors and it is among the > factors leading to enlightenment. > --------- > N: Sati presents and illuminates the object appearing at that moment > so that pa~n~naa can know it as it is: a naama or a ruupa that is not > self. > ====================== The foregoing seems to present sati as an operation of heightening of clarity. (Sort of like using a hi-liter, yellow marking pen on part of text page, or raising the intensity of the lamp on a microscope when examining a specimen. Is that being given as a definition, or just as one feature of mindfulness, or neither - as you see it? With metta, Howard #71245 From: "nidive" Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 7:27 am Subject: Re: Lack of Own Being/Ken nidive Hi Howard, > It is exactly the dependent origination of all conditioned > dhammas that is the reason for their lack of essential existence > and also of nihilistic non-existence. What do you mean by 'nihilistic non-existence'? Whether one understands dhammas as conditioned or not, dhammas still exist for him/her. One still sees, hears, smells, tastes, touches and thinks. Whether one has atta belief or not, dhammas still exist for him/her. One still sees, hears, smells, tastes, touches and thinks. How can one come to believe that dhammas are 'nihilistically non- existent' when one is constantly bombarded via the six senses? Swee Boon #71246 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 3:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] what is sati , third post upasaka_howard Hi again, Nina - In a message dated 4/28/07 5:31:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > As I said to Howard: > what appears the next moment.> > ------------------------------------ > Howard: > Oh, sure we can, Nina - about dhammas not yet arisen, and we do so all > the time; but I'll leave that for a discussion some other time! ;-)) > > -------- > > N: In a general sense we know more or less that if we perform certain > actions there will be consequences in accordance with our actions. > But nobody can know what kinds of cittas arise from moment to moment. > Seeing or hearing are vipaakacittas, results of kamma and who could > know which kamma produces which result at a particular moment. Who > knows whether the next moment will be hearing a deafening sound, or > experiencing great pain? > > Then there are our reactions to the vipaakacittas that arise, the > kusala cittas or akusala cittas arising in the same process as the > vipaakacittas. Who could predict these? Cittas arise and fall away > extremely quickly, all according to their appropriate conditions. > > Somebody may shout at me, but who knows what type of citta will arise > after hearing the unpleasant sound? There may be aversion, but it is > also possible that kusala citta with sati arises. It is possible that > there is awareness of sound, instead of thinking with aversion about > the voice of a person. Or there may be aversion and then > understanding of aversion as a conditioned dhamma. > > =========================== I agree with this. It is usually the case that such predicting is quite unsure. My point only, a point that you addressed as well in writing that "we know more or less that if we perform certain actions there will be consequences in accordance with our actions." That is the basis for intentional action to influence future events forgood or ill, and specifically the basis for intentional cultivation. We cannot know with a certainty what will arise, but we can act in ways that are typically useful with regard to the future. With metta, Howard #71247 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 3:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Lack of Own Being/Ken upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 4/28/07 6:08:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowa@... writes: > I have been hoping to go more deeply into why you (along with TG and > others) insist on your idiosyncratic views of dhammas. And, at the > same time; into why you see great danger in seeing dhammas as self- > existent doers (or performers of functions). I have argued that it is > all tied up with your attitude to formal meditation. But you insist > (very strongly at times) that it isn't. > > I would still like to convince you that it is. So, what should I do? > Should I speak up and risk driving you up the wall? Or should > I . . . . . No, I'm sorry, there is no other option. :-) > > ====================== Ken we're just not connecting on this in any way, and I see no prospect of that changing at any time soon, so Ithink it best to let this go at present. With metta, Howard #71248 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 3:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Larry) - In a message dated 4/28/07 6:51:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowa@... writes: > Sarah was saying recently it might be best to keep the word "atta" > instead of using a translation. =================== For me, leaving the term untranslated serves only to create the illusion of understanding. We are not native speakers of Pali. With metta, Howard #71249 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 3:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Lack of Own Being/Ken upasaka_howard Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 4/28/07 10:29:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nidive@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > >It is exactly the dependent origination of all conditioned > >dhammas that is the reason for their lack of essential existence > >and also of nihilistic non-existence. > > What do you mean by 'nihilistic non-existence'? ------------------------------------ Howard: Being nothing at all; being a fiction. ------------------------------------- > > Whether one understands dhammas as conditioned or not, dhammas still > exist for him/her. One still sees, hears, smells, tastes, touches and > thinks. ----------------------------------- Howard: I don't disagree. The Buddha was pointing to the mode of existence that phenomena actually have, a mode that is different from the run-of-the-mill understanding. There are indeed seeing, hearing, tasting, bodily sensing, and thinking. The point is to see the *nature* of their "being". That is what I see the Kaccayanagota Sutta as addressing. ------------------------------------- > > Whether one has atta belief or not, dhammas still exist for him/her. > One still sees, hears, smells, tastes, touches and thinks. ----------------------------------- Howard: I agree. ----------------------------------- > > How can one come to believe that dhammas are 'nihilistically non- > existent' when one is constantly bombarded via the six senses? ------------------------------------- Howard: It is a crazy view, I agree. Most folks lean to the other extreme. But the Buddha addresses both extremes, and there are "philosophers" and "philosophical folks" who, amazingly, preach nihilism. ------------------------------------ > > Swee Boon > > ==================== With metta, Howard #71250 From: "nidive" Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:29 am Subject: Re: Lack of Own Being/Ken nidive Hi Howard & All, > It is a crazy view, I agree. Most folks lean to the other > extreme. But the Buddha addresses both extremes, and there are > "philosophers" and "philosophical folks" who, amazingly, preach > nihilism. I don't think denying what one senses as having been not sensed, as "nothing at all and fictitious", is taught by the Buddha as a nihilistic view in the Brahmajala Sutta. Anyone care to check it out? Swee Boon #71251 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:00 am Subject: Re: what must we slay to live happily? scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Thanks for taking the time to respond. As you can see below, I'm now competing with Sukin for the longest post ever written, in total defiance of the demands for saving space. Me: "...Do you include written language in the statement regarding influence? Does this statement apply to study of the texts?" H: "Sure. But writing lacks the immediacy of the spoken word, and gesticulation. And it is meaningless to the uninitiated. Are you here creating the possibility for Buddha to have instructed to proliferate texts, and to focus on studying them? Which I assure you he didn't... If this was not the case, then the teachings of the Buddha, all 45 years of them, would be a tragic joke. There's nothing conventional about teaching. It can only happen conventionally. The discourses, in momentary terms, are absolutely meaningless...And the ultimate reality that the Buddha taught can be known in this way too. He called it anicca, anatta, and dukkha. You don't even have to know the words. But if you think the words, that is what will be reality at that time." Scott: I combined these statements regarding the teachings. If this renders them incompatible due to loss of context I'll withdraw these comments: No, I don't think the Buddha instructed those around him to write or proliferate his words; the oral tradition was first and I don't know when it became formalised. I still can't quite figure out what you are saying about the teachings of the Buddha. I'm not talking about the discourses in terms of momentaneity. I'm referring to the content of the discourses, which includes, as you say, anicca. Me: "...You didn't address the argument where sati and its characteristic were discussed, except to dismiss it." H: "Yes, I dismissed it. Because there is no need for a theory of mind, in order for mind to happen. Neither is it necessary for there to be a theory of learning, before learning can take place. Scott: I appreciate this point you make. I don't think we see 'mind' in the same way. I accept that 'mind' in momentary. You don't. But, what are the Buddha's teachings if not, among other things, a 'theory of mind'? The teachings are the Ultimate 'theory' of mind because they are the thinking of a Buddha and a description of realities based on the experience of a Buddha, which is unsurpassable. I guess, in this way, the teachings are not theoretical. I am not quite sure yet as to the position you take on the teachings themselves. I might anticipate that you would have difficulty with the accuracy of the words in the form they have come down to us. Me: "...Knowing how to guard the sense doors is conventional speech indicating the function of sati when it is well-developed. No one actually knows this or does this. Sati arises, performs its function, and falls away, serving as condition for a new moment with sati. H: "This is all thinking. Not just spontaneous thinking, or even an attempt to describe the flow of experience, but this is the acquired thinking of a tradition of thinkers. As we agreed with orgasm, sati and the book about it are unrelated, but by thinking." Scott: I do see your point regarding the difference between thinking and experience. In the above you appear to reject the product of thinking while holding to the reality of thinking. Yes, sati and words about sati differ. Sati was taught by the Buddha. Do you agree? Going back to the discourses (and leaving aside the problems related to whether or not they are an accurate record of the teachings) if one applies the above argument to the teachings as they exist within the Theravaadin tradition (let's say the suttas as we have them, for example), then it would appear that these too need to be dismissed as 'just thinking'. The Buddha would have had to think in order to speak, therefore his original teachings are also the product of thinking. As you say above, 'There's nothing conventional about teaching.' And '...the ultimate reality that the Buddha taught can be known in this way too. He called it anicca, anatta, and dukkha.' You seem to accept that, within the teachings themselves - the content of the teachings - there exist descriptions of certain realities which you seem to accept as valid. Having agreed that there is both a difference and a link between theory and practise, having agreed that within the teachings their exist valid descriptions of realities, how can you then be so apparently dismissive of all that you call 'thinking' in reference to texts (suttas) since these too are a product of thinking - the thinking of a Buddha? I'd say that the Buddha, being a Buddha, was able to think about realities and teach about realities 1) because they were known to him, and 2) because they exist in only a certain way and in no other. The teachings are, therefore, records of the Buddha's thinking about realities based on his experience of realities. If one equivocates on thinking and the product of thought in relation to teachings, one is left with nothing but one's own uninstructed experience, whether one thinks about it or not. Am I wrong to sense this sort of equivocation in these ideas? Its like a 'not-having-your-cake-and-not-eating-it-too' kind of vibe. Me: "Why do you need 'other' to be accounted for, by the way? What can a puppet do? H: "I know what a puppet cannot do. A puppet cannot harm or be harmed. Nor can it communicate instructions to me, whether helpful or otherwise. We were talking about being influenced by others." Scott: This is an old bone of contention. So you need 'other' to be accounted for in order to somehow make sense of certain mental factors, for example, dosa, and of certain experiences, for example akusala vipaaka. I don't know how to put into words why I don't have a problem with the 'other'. I'm looking at my 10 year old daughter now. We are making cupcakes. She is singing to herself. She likes when we do things together. I like it when she's happy. She's a motherless girl now. I'm not a mother. She misses her mother. She sees her brother and I and feels jealous and left out. She attacks her brother once in awhile. I speak harshly to her once in awhile. I know she worries she is not loved as much as her brother. I try to show love when I can because I know she needs it. I do my best as a parent and I fail to achieve what I consider to be 'my best' over and over. This is just the way it is. If kindness arises, it does so because of conditions. And a child or a father is an object. If anger arises it does so because of conditions. And a child or father is object. In our cupcake making I spoke kindly and was helpful while mixing ingredients, etc., and I spoke harshly after she stepped on her brothers arm and hurt him (don't ask me how his arm came to be in a position to be stepped on). No matter how this is difficult to accept, child is concept. Actions 'I' do stay with 'me', for good or ill. Experiences Rebecca has, good or ill, are results of 'her' own past actions. This seems to cause ire. If the Buddha truly taught ultimates, as you assert above (and I agree), then making cupcakes with Rebecca is ultimately only 'conceptual relations'. I don't need to be told that the cupcakes are real or that Rebecca really mixed them or that we really put them into a real oven. I know that all these things occured. These things though, are also the result of thinking. H: "The reality of the flux of experience can be known. You don't have to do anything to know it. It fact, you *must* do nothing. You just have to be present to it. And the ultimate reality that the Buddha taught can be known in this way too. He called it anicca, anatta, and dukkha. You don't even have to know the words. But if you think the words, that is what will be reality at that time." Scott: 'Flux of experience' is a concept. There are levels of knowing and this relates to the development of pa~n~na. 'Must' is not the point, in my opinion. 'Can't' is the point. One can't do anything. You seem here to side with the 'there is no practise' school, but I won't hold you to it. H: "Again, a theory of learning is not a prerequisite for learning. Perhaps you will have less resistance to the idea of learning if I called it that natural decisive support thingy, but then in Pali? :-) Learning happens, Scott. It is a possibility for most human beings. I don't know what else to say." Scott: Yes, good call - now that you mention decisive support thingy you suddenly make so much more sense. Again, the Buddha taught that things are a certain way and not another. Yes, learning happens, but according to certain processes and none other. H: "You seem to be hung up on the notion of a someone who learns. This is a stumbling block to the discussion, I feel. Learning happens. Ask me for my mother's phone number, and I will recite it for you. One does not need a theory to account for the fact, it is enough to observe the fact, not? We are human Scott, we have the ability to speak, to listen, to remember. "All formations are not-self" takes 3 seconds to say. How many cittas worth is that, would you reckon? In momentary terms, there is no meaning in any microsecond of sound. If it was not for the capacity of the human mind to integrate millions of cittas into 1 meaning, there could never be any understanding." Scott: I'm hung up on the notion that no one learns. This is still a stumbling block but we inevitably collide at this juncture. We don't see 'learning' in the same way. I'm not discussing conventionally understood learning - memorising phone numbers and the like. Yes, learning happens. I agree we are human. We don't see 'human' in the same way. To me this refers to loka, not concept. This refers to the constituents of reality inherent to this realm, not concept. That there is 'no meaning in any microsecond of sound' is the whole point of anatta in one beautiful little nutshell. Sound is ruupa - a reality. I'm aware, though, that you didn't mean it that way and so am not putting words in your mouth. The meaning is derived cognitively. And this is why I can't seem to pin down the argument you are making. 1)In what way is momentary siila an absurdity? 2)What is situational siila? H: "In the moment, there are no others. There are objects. Killing an object, generousity to an object, helping an object are meaningless statements. Pride, shame, guilt, fear, in the face of objects is meaningless. In the absence of others, morality is absurd." Scott: The Buddha taught siila, although not in isolation. While 'others' is concept - a construct, a product of thinking, a function of ignorance - 'other' remains, in my opinion, object of siila. The mental factors which constitute siila are wholesome, real, and, through development, essential constituents of the 'process' whereby consciousness accumulates the 'wherewithal' to transcend samsaara. It remains that the object of siila is concept. This is such since all conditioned dhammas have, as characteristic, anatta. The Buddha taught ultimate realities and these supercede concepts like 'others'. 3)Do you think that these kusala dhammas are something other than momentary? H: "Kusala is a category. Categories lack any inherent quality by which they may be known. This means that it requires multiple moments to know if a dhamma is of a category, say kusala. The quality of each passing dhamma may be known, as it passes, but kusala and momentary exclude each other. Calm is calm, hard is hard, sweet is sweet, but kusala is thinking. It takes time." Scott: I can't agree with the above. I don't see kusala as you do. Adosa is kusala because of its characteristic. Only one moment is required. The above suggests that kusala lacks reality. Kusala can be known. Why take umbrage with talk of puppets if you're going to say that kusala is merely a categorical designation? Kusala is definitely not thinking. 4)I'm not clear why you bring up jhaana. How do you define 'jhaanas'? Of what do they consist (or not consist)? H: "...I prefer not to analyse jhanas, but would certainly recommend them. The Buddha did too." Scott: Let's skip jhaana. I'll go to your last point. H: "...The doctrine of momentariness renders most of the teachings meaningless. Nibbana is timeless, and samsara is forever becoming, which is not comprehensible in terms of moments." Scott: Nibbaana is unconditioned, therefore momentariness doesn't apply. Samsaara is nothing but moments. We couldn't disagree more. Well, we could... Thanks, Herman. Like orgasm, this is better than instruction in how to put forth arguments - this is putting forth arguments. As usual, please keep me from imprecision. Sincerely, Scott. #71252 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 5:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] virtue, time and place. TGrand458@... Hi Nina In a message dated 4/27/2007 2:37:13 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Dear TG, I am sorry that you find this post so disturbing. Sarah will answer you, but meanwhile allow me to say a few words. The Buddha was extraordinary, he found the truth all by himself and taught the truth to us all. We are so fortunate that we can listen to his teachings. TG: Agreed. But I don't think you are listening to his teachings. I think you are listening to the teachings of unenlightened commentators that have taken much of the "heart" out of the Buddha's teaching out and replaced it with speculative theory. Thus, how could we compare our situation with the Buddha's circumstances. We read about people who listened to him and could develop understanding while they listened even to the degree of lokuttara pa~n~naa. TG: This is true, but far more often we read descriptions of monks who were remote and zealous and attain enlightenment in what appears by description to be solitude. As for those that were enlightened "on the spot," how many years had they been practicing meditation? How many years had they been cultivating solitude? How many years had they diligently followed the Buddha's teachings (in whole), as found in the Suttas and Vinaya, before "attaining enlightenment on the spot"? In most cases I would say plenty of years. Read the Sisters, they could attain enlightenment in daily life, when stumbling, when cooking, when blowing out a candle. We have to listen first and when we really understand the difference between concepts and paramattha dhammas, we know that there are dhammas appearing through the six doors, one at a time. The objects of awareness are everywhere and if we do not select time and place, only then, we can see that also awareness and understanding are dhammas that arise because of their appropriate conditions and not by our will or desire. TG: This isn't the Buddha's teaching, but whatever turns you on. As for the last comment about will or desire, the gist of what I think you mean is banally obvious to almost all the folks in this group. However, "will and desire" are also conditions and also alter phenomena in accordance with the magnitude of those states. Will and desire as such are not self acting agents, but merely "resultant" conditions ... as are all conditions. Nina. TG #71253 From: connie Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:22 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (52) nichiconn dear friends, mahaapa~n~nataaya agga.t.thaane .thapesi; ta.m ekadivasa.m a~n~natarasmi.m rukkhamuule divaavihaara.m nisinna.m maaro paapimaa taru.naruupena upasa"nkamitvaa kaamehi palobhento- 139. "daharaa tva.m ruupavatii, ahampi daharo yuvaa; pa~nca"ngikena turiyena, ehi kheme ramaamase"ti.- Gaathamaaha Then one day when she was seated at the foot of a certain tree that was her daytime resting place, Maara the evil one, seducing her with sensual pleasures, approached her concerning her youth and beauty, saying this verse: 139. You are young and beautiful. I am also young and in my prime. Come, Khemaa, let us delight ourselves with the fivefold music. RD: And as she sat one day in siesta under a tree, Maara the Evil One, in youthful shape, drew near, tempting her with sensuous ideas: Thou art fair, and life is young, beauteous Khemaa! *266 I am young, even I, too - Come, O fairest lady! While in our ear fivefold harmonies murmur melodious, Seek we our pleasure.' (139) Tassattho- kheme, tva.m taru.nappattaa, yobbane .thitaa ruupasampannaa, ahampi taru.no yuvaa, tasmaa maya.m yobba~n~na.m akhepetvaa pa~nca"ngikena turiyena vajjamaanena ehi kaamakhi.d.daaratiyaa ramaama kii.laamaati. 139. The meaning of this is: "O Khemaa, you are young, established in youth, endowed with beauty. I am also young, in my prime; therefore, let us not waste our youth while the fivefold music is being played. Come, let us amuse ourselves and delight in sport and the enjoyment of sensual pleasures. Ta.m sutvaa saa kaamesu sabbadhammesu ca attano virattabhaava.m tassa ca maarabhaava.m attaabhinivesesu sattesu attano thaamagata.m appasaada.m katakiccata~nca pakaasentii- 140. "Iminaa puutikaayena, aaturena pabha"ngunaa; a.t.tiyaami haraayaami, kaamata.nhaa samuuhataa. 141. "Sattisuuluupamaa kaamaa, khandhaasa.m adhiku.t.tanaa; ya.m tva.m kaamarati.m bruusi, aratii daani saa mama. 142. "Sabbattha vihataa nandii, tamokhandho padaalito; eva.m jaanaahi paapima, nihato tvamasi antaka. 143. "Nakkhattaani namassantaa, aggi.m paricara.m vane; yathaabhuccamajaanantaa, baalaa suddhimama~n~natha. 144. "Aha~nca kho namassantii, sambuddha.m purisuttama.m; pamuttaa sabbadukkhehi, satthusaasanakaarikaa"ti.- Imaa gaathaa abhaasi. When she heard this, she revealed the fact that she herself was detached from sensual pleasures and all phenomena, and [she revealed] the fact that he was Maara, and concerning her own steadfastness in the midst of beings who wer devoted to self, [she revealed] the fact that she had done what is to be done, speaking these verses: 140. I am afflicted by and ashamed of this foul body, diseased, perishable. Craving for sensual pleasures has been rooted out. 141. Sensual pleasures are like swords and stakes. The aggregates are a chopping block for them. What you call "delight in sensual pleasures" is now "non-delight" for me. 142. Everywhere, enjoyment of pleasure is defeated. The mass of darkness [of ignorance] is torn asunder. In this way, know, evil one, you are defeated, death. 143. Revering the lunar mansions, tending the fire in the wood, not knowing it as it really is, fools, you thought it was purity. 144. But revering the Fully Awakened One, Best of Men, I am indeed completely released from all pains, doing the Teacher's teaching. RD: 'Through this body vile, foul seat of disease and corruption, Loathing I feel, and oppression. Cravings of lust are uprooted. (140) Lusts of the body and sense-mind *267 cut like daggers and javelins. Speak not to me of delighting in aught of sensuous pleasure! Verily all such vanities now no more may delight me. (141) Slain on all sides is the love of the world, the flesh, and the devil. *268 Rent asunder the gloom of ignorance once that beset me. Know this, O Evil One! Destroyer, know thyself worsted! (142) Lo! ye who blindly worship constellations of heaven, Ye who fostering fire in cool grove, wait upon Agni, Ignorant are ye all, ye foolish and young, of the Real, Deeming ye thus might find purification from evil. *269 (143) Lo! as for me I worship th' Enlightened, the Uttermost Human, *270 Utterly free from all sorrow, doer of Buddha's commandments.' (144) *267 I.e., the Khandhas, or five constituents making up a person under conditions of sense experience. *268 Nandi, sensuous delight, implying more or less love of all three. *269 These two lines, which are somewhat turgidly amplified, run in literal terseness thus: 'Ye foolish young ones, who know not things as they really have come to be, [those rites] ye have fancied to be purification' (suddhi). *270 Purisuttamo, 'supreme among men.' Tattha aggi.m paricara.m vaneti tapovane aggihutta.m paricaranto. Yathaabhuccamajaanantaati pavattiyo yathaabhuuta.m aparijaanantaa. Sesamettha he.t.thaa vuttanayattaa uttaanameva. Khemaatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa ni.t.thitaa. 143. There, tending (paricara.m) the fire (aggai.m) in the wood (vane) means: tending (paricaranto) an oblation to fire (aggi-hutta.m) in the ascetic's wood (tapo-vane). Not knowing (ajaanantaa) it as it really is (yathaa-bhuuta.m) means: not knowing events thoroughly (aparijaanantaa) as they really are. The remainder [of the verses] here is clear in what is said above. Here ends the commentary on the verses by Therii Khemaa. ===== connie #71254 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 5:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Lack of Own Being/Ken upasaka_howard Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 4/28/07 11:31:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nidive@... writes: > Hi Howard &All, > > >It is a crazy view, I agree. Most folks lean to the other > >extreme. But the Buddha addresses both extremes, and there are > >"philosophers" and "philosophical folks" who, amazingly, preach > >nihilism. > > I don't think denying what one senses as having been not sensed, as > "nothing at all and fictitious", is taught by the Buddha as a > nihilistic view in the Brahmajala Sutta. ---------------------------------------- Howard: I'm missing your point, Swee Boon. It is true that there is no view listed there that is entirely nihilistic, but a mixed view is discussed. There is the following with regard to the mixed view of eternalism and non-eternalism: __________________________________ Wrong view number 8: "And what is the fourth way? Here, a certain ascetic or Brahmin is a logician, a reasoner. Hammering it out by reason, following his own line of thought, he argues: ‘Whatever is called eye or ear or nose or tongue or body, that is impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, liable to change. But what is called thought, [42] or mind or consciousness, that is a self that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, the same for ever and ever!’  This is the fourth case." "These are the four ways [views 5 through 8] in which these ascetics and Brahmins are partly Eternalists and partly Non-Eternalists ... Whatever ascetics and Brahmins ... proclaim the partial eternity and the partial non-eternity of the self and the world, they do so on one or other of these four grounds. There is no other way." -------------------------------------------- BTW, note that in the foregoing and throughout the sutta, the Buddha speaks not only of "self" but of "self and the world", which includes all conditioned dhammas. In any case, in the Kaccayanagota Sutta, the Buddha taught "'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme." What is that second extreme? The Buddha was pretty clear on what he meant by 'everything' or 'the all', was he not? If something is mentioned in some suttas but not in certain others, is it to be dismissed? The Kaccayangota Sutta addresses two opposite, extreme views, each of which is to be rejected by the wise. There is also the following from the Dhammapada: 294. Having slain mother (craving), father (self-conceit), two warrior-kings (eternalism and nihilism), and destroyed a country (sense organs and sense objects) together with its treasurer (attachment and lust), ungrieving goes the holy man. 295. Having slain mother, father, two brahman kings (two extreme views), and a tiger as the fifth (the five mental hindrances), ungrieving goes the holy man. ------------------------------------------ > Anyone care to check it out? > > Swee Boon > > > > ========================== With metta, Howard P.S. Speaking of the Brahmajala Sutta, it contains some material that I like very much and which sure seems to be addressed all us "internet Buddhists": "Whereas some ascetics and Brahmins remain addicted to disputation such as: ‘You don't understand this doctrine and discipline - I do!’ "How could you understand this doctrine and discipline?" ‘Your way is all wrong - mine is right!’ "I am consistent - you aren't!" ‘You said last what you should have said first, and you said first what you should have said last!’ "What you took so long to think up has been refuted!" ‘Your argument has been overthrown, you're defeated!’ "Go on, save your doctrine - get out of that if you can!" The ascetic Gotama refrains from such disputation." #71255 From: "Larry" Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness lbidd2 Hi Ken, I think "me" is far superior to "self" as the translation of anatta. For one thing it focuses the investigation on what we identify with. That is where the problem is. What does "self" mean to you? Larry #71256 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 5:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Lack of Own Being/Ken upasaka_howard Hi again, Swee Boon - In a message dated 4/28/07 12:34:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Upasaka writes: > in the Kaccayanagota Sutta, the Buddha taught "'Everything exists': That is > one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme." What is > that second extreme? The Buddha was pretty clear on what he meant by > 'everything' or 'the all', was he not? If something is mentioned in some suttas but > not in certain others, is it to be dismissed? The Kaccayangota Sutta addresses > two opposite, extreme views, each of which is to be rejected by the wise. > ========================== Also, along the same lines there is the following from the Kalaka Sutta (a.k.a. the Kalakamara Sutta): "Whatever is seen or heard or sensed and fastened onto as true by others, One who is Such — among the self-fettered — wouldn't further claim to be true or even false." I see this as again asserting the middle way perspective on existence denying true existence and also denying non-existence. With metta, Howard #71257 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 5:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Virtue TGrand458@... Hi Herman and All In a message dated 4/27/2007 3:43:36 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > What is the peril that lurks in death? > > Herman > > TG: Death itself is considered an affliction/dukkha. Also, rebirth into > states that are worse than where one is now is a possible peril... Hell, hungry > ghost, animal, disfigured, severely poor, etc. According to the suttas, > such a birth is more likely than a "good birth." > > Therefore, good deeds tend to avoid many such perils. The above quote is > apparently setting up a "lack of virtue" vs "virtue" scenario. That's my take. > I know you were only clarifying, so I am not having a go at you here, but I wonder why it is excusable to have a view of a future? Is that not a view of the type "I will be", the dreaded eternalism? Herman TG: Basically yes. But until we are arahats, would not such an "emotional" teaching apply? Once an arahat, the fear of death would not apply. I think much of the Buddha's teaching is designed to motivate at an emotional level. It snaps us out of our "delusional pattern." The Buddha advises to see "conditions" as "a murderer with sword raised ready to cut off your head." Now, there is not really a "murderer with sword raise ready to cut off your head," but it motivates us to detach from conditions and make a strong effort. I would also point out to our Abhidhamma friends that it also shows that the Buddha did not merely "just teach realities." Side note: I don't think the Buddha gave a damn about teaching realities. What he wanted was for him (already achieved) and us to overcome suffering and if teaching "unrealities" would help achieve the task, so be it! However, the Buddha also taught "the mechanics of nature" particularly in terms regarding the issue of suffering ... as this also turns out to inculcate in the mind a great loathing and detachment from the impermanent, afflicting, and no-self nature of conditions. TG #71258 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 5:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness upasaka_howard Hi, Larry (and Ken) - In a message dated 4/28/07 12:43:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@... writes: > Hi Ken, > > I think "me" is far superior to "self" as the translation of anatta. For one > thing it focuses the > investigation on what we identify with. That is where the problem is. What > does "self" mean > to you? > > Larry > ====================== And what does "me" mean?? With metta, Howard #71259 From: "Larry" Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 11:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness lbidd2 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Larry (and Ken) - > > In a message dated 4/28/07 12:43:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@... > writes: > > > Hi Ken, > > > > I think "me" is far superior to "self" as the translation of anatta. For one > > thing it focuses the > > investigation on what we identify with. That is where the problem is. What > > does "self" mean > > to you? > > > > Larry > > > ====================== > And what does "me" mean?? > > With metta, > Howard Hi Howard, That's the main question, isn't it? Right now it means "lunch time!" Larry #71260 From: "Larry" Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 11:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness lbidd2 Hi Howard, So much for lunch. To respond further to your question "what does "me" mean?", "me" means whatever characterizes me: my appearance, my thoughts, my feelings, my likes, my dislikes, my habits, my history, my possessions, whatever is appropriated (grasped) as me or mine. What does "atta" mean to you? Larry #71261 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 11:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? nilovg Hi Howard, Op 27-apr-2007, om 22:11 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > If one starts with the > > wrong view of self one accumulates more of it and how could that be > > right? > > > ===================== > H:And how could it be right that we start not at all! ;-) -------- N: Better just listen first and try to understand what one hears. No person starts. When there are conditions sati may arise. When the moments are very, very few, it is good. No forcing, no hurrying, not doing this or that in order to have result soon. Better a few moments of sati and a beginning pa~n~naa then misleading oneself one's whole life, making oneself believe that one makes progress while one is not. Nina. #71262 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 7:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/28/07 2:05:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > That's the main question, isn't it? Right now it means "lunch time!" > > Larry > ====================== Best answer!!!! ;-)) With metta, Howard #71263 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 11:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? nilovg Hi James, See my post to Sobhana. Nina. Op 28-apr-2007, om 5:31 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > You may be afraid of hell and > > therefore abstain from akusala. Being afraid is a form of dosa. > > Abstaining is kusala. > > Nina. > > Great! I'm glad you see this. So, why is it that KS speaks against > this very helpful form of akusala? #71264 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 7:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/28/07 2:36:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > So much for lunch. To respond further to your question "what does "me" > mean?", "me" means > whatever characterizes me: my appearance, my thoughts, my feelings, my > likes, my dislikes, > my habits, my history, my possessions, whatever is appropriated (grasped) as > me or mine. > What does "atta" mean to you? > > Larry > > ======================== It seems tome that your answer presupposes and answer. (Me is this aspect of me,and that aspect of me,etc) My view of atta is that of an alleged unchanging, self-existent core/essence in anything - it's "self". An atta of persons is often called a "soul" and is informally referred to as "I"and "me". With metta, Howard #71265 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 11:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? nilovg Dear James, you express in these forceful words your concern for me. I try to see cause and result in life, and that pertains also to accumulation again and again of wrong view that leads to more and more of it. I am really concerned about this matter, talking of concern. Whenever you or Phil are thundering against Kh Sujin, it shows that you did not understand what she keeps on explaining. There is something in you that prevents this. But perhaps more discussion can help, who knows? Nina. Op 28-apr-2007, om 5:42 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > It amazes me about how you stress so often that the arising of cittas > is complicated and mixed, kusala and akusala. But when it comes to > this matter of the view of self, you see the situation as either > black or white! > > You have obviously been brainwashed by KS. I hope that before you > die, you abandon this pernicious view....I really do. #71266 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness upasaka_howard Hi again, Larry - In a message dated 4/28/07 2:53:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Upasaka writes: > It seems tome that your answer presupposes and answer. ================ That gobblygook was supposed to be "It seems to me that your answer presupposes the answer." What I mean is that it uses 'me to define 'me'. With metta, Howard P.S. An informal use of 'me', and a generally harmless one, is simply to distinguish "this" namarupic stream from "that". But when pressed to explain the meaning behind the informal use, I think it has to come down to an atta-assumption of identity such as I spoke of before. #71267 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 12:35 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate, Potthapada. scottduncan2 Dear Nina, Thanks for these: N: "I can only give few Pali words." Scott: I'm sorry I've been unable to give more time to this. I'm swamped these days it seems. I'll be able to get to it, since it needs time, early next week. Me: 1) 'acquired self' 2) 'the gross acquired self' 3) 'the mind-made acquired self' 4) 'the formless acquired self' ------------ N: atta-pa.tilaabho: Co states: attabhaava-pa.tilaabho. attabhaava is often translated as personality or as the body. there are three: 1: o.laariko: the coarse one, in the case of those born in sensuous planes. (Also elaborated on in the PTS footnote: eleven planes. 2: mano-maya-attabhaava: mindmade. said of those born in the ruupa- brahma planes. 3. aruupattabhaava: said of those born in the aruupa-brahma planes. -------- Scott: 5) 'perfection of wisdom' ------- N: pa~n~naapaaripuuri.m vepullatan ti magga-pa~n~naa-phala- pa~n~naana.m paaripuuri~n c'eva vipulabhaava~nca. Vipulla: abundant. ------- S: 6) 'super-knowledge' ------- N: abhi~n~na 7) 'a doctrine for getting rid of' N: I leave this. It is about jhaana and vipassanaa. many points. Calm, piiti, etc. Scott: Okay. -------- S:8) 'names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world' ------- N: Sammuttikathaa: satto, brahmaa, etc. Anicca.m dukkha.m anattaa khandhaa dtaatuyo aayatanaani sati- pa.t.thaanaa sammappadhaanaa ti, aadikaa paramattha-kathaa naama.> N: "I wish I had more time, it is a very good text." Scott: Same here, next week... DN9 (Maurice Walshe) "...Po.t.thaapada, there are three kinds of 'acquired self': the gross acquired self, the mind-made acquired self, the formless acquired self. What is the gross acquired self? It has form, is composed of the four great elements, nourished by material food. What is the mind-made self? It has form, complete with all its parts, notdefective in any sense organ. What is the formless acquired self? It is without form, and made up of perception." Sincerely, Scott. #71268 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 4:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness lbidd2 Hi Howard, When we experience satipatthana there is the spontaneous understanding that a particular object of consciousness in the present moment is not me. Otherwise there is attachment to one thing or another. That attachment to an object is what I mean by "me". Attachment is more than desire. It is owning. That is what I meant by " 'me' is whatever is appropriated as me or mine": my email, my idea, my insight: me me me. Howard: "My view of atta is that of an alleged unchanging, self-existent core/essence in anything - it's "self". An atta of persons is often called a "soul" and is informally referred to as "I"and "me"." L: What is the experience of self view? Larry #71269 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 1:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/28/07 7:51:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@... writes: > L: What is the experience of self view? > ==================== I don't understand. The experience of self-view is the experience of an idea and belief. OTOH, the experience of *sense* of self is the erroneous perception of a core/essence in or among "one's" khandhas. It is like seeing a mirage. With metta, Howard #71270 From: Sobhana Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 5:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:was: what must we slay to live happily? akusala conditions kusala. shennieca Hello Nina, Thank you for your clear explanations. :) Whenever akusala thoughts arises in the mind, is it possible to always "keep it in check" so that it doesn't run around and do whatever it likes? I mean, is it possible to always be "aware" of these unwholesome thoughts so that we won't feel or react in an unwholesome way? Can a person train themselves to be mindful all the time? :-) By being mindful, a person is supposed to be able to observe every citta arising and passing away, isn't it? With respect, Sobhana #71271 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 6:03 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Falling in Love? buddhatrue Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > 2nd set: > ========= > > 1. We both agree that the past by definition has gone and the future > hasn't come yet. The present is always now. > > 2. So any greed, hatred or ignorance now is bad or ugly. If it is of a > degree now to inflict harm to others in anyway, it is very bad, very ugly, > however we might try to justify it. > > 3. If there is greed, hatred or ignorance now, however natural and common > it may be, it won't be of any assistance at all in the development of > dana, sila or bhavana. In fact it will just lead to more of the same. > > 4. So feeling angry, annoyed, uneasy or disturbed by any object is not of > value, just as being attached to any object is not of value, even though > such states of mind occur all the time. > > 5. Past transgressions (even those of a few moments ago) have gone. > Feeling disturbed by them now is understandable but not helpful. Having > equanimity, peace of mind, metta or wise reflection now would be of value, > however. > > 6. No one can make the wholesome states arise. However it helps to know > what is of value and what isn't. > ***** I don't agree with 4 and 5. Metta, James #71272 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 6:05 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? buddhatrue Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi James, > See my post to Sobhana. > Nina. Which post number is that? I am not able, or willing, to read all of the posts as they are getting too numerous. Metta, James #71273 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 6:12 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? buddhatrue Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Whenever you or Phil are thundering against Kh Sujin, it shows that > you did not understand what she keeps on explaining. There is > something in you that prevents this. But perhaps more discussion can > help, who knows? You mean you can't even entertain for a second that maybe Phil and I are correct and you and KS are wrong? That's some mighty strong conceit you have going! I check my ideas, your ideas, and KS's ideas against what the Buddha taught to determine what is right and what is wrong. Then I further check those conclusions against my personal experience. I dont'see you following this process at all. I ask and ask, beg and beg, for where the Buddha teaches some of these wild ideas of yours, and you provide nothing but more quotes from KS as support. And you wonder why I thunder against that? It's insane. Metta, James #71274 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 6:39 pm Subject: Re: what must we slay to live happily? buddhatrue Hi Robert, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Some people get so upset by regret about the defilements that they > gouge their eyes out. Others feel terribly guilty and mentally > torture themselves again and again, even to the point of depression > or madness. So while akusala can condition kusala, it is also a > condition for more akusala. James: It is good that you point this out because I don't want to give the wrong impression. Of course I don't encourage people to gouge their eyes out because of their defilements! However, if one follows the Eightfold Path, this isn't going to be a possibility. Right effort means just that- the right amount and the right kind of effort. Gouging your own eyes out is not Right Effort. The mind is very tricky so there isn't just one answer to this problem of the defilements. Let's take anger for example. Anger is a defilement which we all experience and is easy to observe. If I get angry at myself for getting angry, obviously that is going to be a vicious circle which isn't helpful. However, if I get disappointed with myself for getting angry, then that is the beginning of wisdom to eliminate that anger. As the Buddha said: A fool who knows his foolishness Is wise at least to that extent, But a fool who thinks himself wise Is called a fool indeed. Dhammapada 63 Additionally, if my disappointment with my anger causes further mental disturbance, then I must practice equanimity toward the defilements. As the defilements decrease more and more, the mental actions against them also have to decrease more and more. If I am so filled with anger that I want to pick up a knife and stab my mother, it isn't helpful to try and observe that anger with equanimity! More direct actions must be taken depending on the degree of the defilement. This is not a shocking position: the Buddha taught all of this in the Pali Canon. > > I like to study defilements, but I don't expect them to suddenly > decrease, I just study to try to see their nature as they arise. > Even a little success in learning about the nature of defilements > makes a big difference in life and increases confidence in Dhamma. James: How you choose to practice is your business. You may be at a stage in your development where all you should do is study the defilements. I can't say. However, I can say that simply studying the defilements will not do anything toward complete purification of the mind. The defilements come from ignorance and delusion (moha), intellectual knowledge of the defilements is a knowledge that is contaminated by ignorance and delusion so it won't help. One must develop direct understanding to combat delusion. Direct understanding only comes about through sati and samadhi, not book learning. > Robert > Metta, James #71275 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 7:40 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Lack of Own Being/Ken rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > ========================== > Also, along the same lines there is the following from the Kalaka > Sutta (a.k.a. the Kalakamara Sutta): > > "Whatever is seen or heard or sensed > and fastened onto as true by others, > One who is Such â€" among the self-fettered â€" > wouldn't further claim to be true or even false." > > I see this as again asserting the middle way perspective on existence > denying true existence and also denying non-existence. > > _________ Dear Howard and Swee Boon http://www.abhidhamma.org/KaccanagottaSutta.htm The Buddha was clear that the khandas (five aggregates) exist, but that they are anicca, dukkha and anatta. Robert #71276 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 7:41 pm Subject: Re: Lack of Own Being/Ken kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Ken - > > ====================== > Ken we're just not connecting on this in any way, and I see no > prospect of that changing at any time soon, so Ithink it best to let this go at > present. > Hi Howard, You and I will never agree in this lifetime. I suspect we will continue to meet every few aeons - without recognising each other, of course - and have the same differences of opinion that we are having today. Better get used to it! :-) Ken H #71277 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 7:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness scottduncan2 Dear Larry (and Howard), L: What is the experience of self view? Scott: ...and with all the spruce needles on this hill I'd hate to try climbing this in the rain oh a cliff no I've never been here hey a little piece of bone rabbit maybe no too big a femur maybe a bit of a curve on the outside surface deer I bet trees no leaves aw wild for the middle of the city yet late spring that's a deer trail here steep hill down movement wings bigger bird a grouse but flew too slow no wing buzz nice in the sun old growth poplar bush no one has walked here in awhile grass is dry sun deer yard in the winter I bet hey frogs a small pond I remember that salamander old creek bed beaver dam is that called oxbow lake I think so mallard duck green head there nice here peaceful I should come again to relax chickadees are my favourite bird throw the fluff and the seeds look float in the sun ahh little parachutes... Sincerely, Scott. #71278 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 4:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Lack of Own Being/Ken upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 4/28/07 10:40:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rjkjp1@... writes: > Dear Howard and Swee Boon > http://www.abhidhamma.org/KaccanagottaSutta.htm > The Buddha was clear that the khandas (five aggregates) exist, but > that they are anicca, dukkha and anatta. > Robert > ================== I also believe that khandhic elements exist (when arisen but not yet ceased), and I never said otherwise. As for what the Kaccayangota Sutta means, however, I'll take it as face-value. The mode of existence of dhammas is neither that of the usual idea of existence nor that of the usual idea of nonexistence. The Buddha justified his assertion of neither existence nor nonexistence by means of dependent origination, which speaks not just of impermanence but of conditionality. Whatever is unconditioned/self-existent would neither arise nor cease, and what arises and ceases is conditioned. What is conditioned is neither an independent entity nor is it nothing at all; it is a contingent phenomenon. I do *not* accept the commentarial notion of this pertaining to eternalism as the correct interpretation. For me, the sutta is clear, and it is clearly about the mode of existence realities actually have. With metta, Howard #71279 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 4:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness upasaka_howard Hi, Scott (and Larry) - In a message dated 4/28/07 10:50:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: > Dear Larry (and Howard), > > L: What is the experience of self view? > > Scott: ...and with all the spruce needles on this hill I'd hate to try > climbing this in the rain oh a cliff no I've never been here hey a > little piece of bone rabbit maybe no too big a femur maybe a bit of a > curve on the outside surface deer I bet trees no leaves aw wild for > the middle of the city yet late spring that's a deer trail here steep > hill down movement wings bigger bird a grouse but flew too slow no > wing buzz nice in the sun old growth poplar bush no one has walked > here in awhile grass is dry sun deer yard in the winter I bet hey > frogs a small pond I remember that salamander old creek bed beaver dam > is that called oxbow lake I think so mallard duck green head there > nice here peaceful I should come again to relax chickadees are my > favourite bird throw the fluff and the seeds look float in the sun ahh > little parachutes... > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > =================== Yes, I think that's about right. For me, and for most folks, I imagine, it is the flow of thought (or stream of consciousness) that is taken to be self. That is the root of Sati's error, I'd say. With metta, Howard #71280 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 4:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Lack of Own Being/Ken upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 4/28/07 10:42:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowa@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > You and I will never agree in this lifetime. I suspect we will > continue to meet every few aeons - without recognising each other, of > course - and have the same differences of opinion that we are having > today. Better get used to it! :-) > > Ken H > ===================== You might be right. Sort of unawakened opposites of Sariputta & Mogallana, huh? ;-)) With metta, Howard #71281 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness lbidd2 Hi Howard, H: "the experience of *sense* of self is the erroneous perception of a core/essence in or among "one's" khandhas. It is like seeing a mirage." L: You experience or perceive essences in things or groups of experiences? Larry #71282 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness lbidd2 Hi Scott, Are you saying the experience of self is discursive thinking? How so? Larry #71283 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness scottduncan2 Dear Larry and Howard, L: What is the experience of self view? "...and with all the spruce needles on this hill I'd hate to try climbing this in the rain oh a cliff no I've never been here hey a little piece of bone rabbit maybe no too big a femur maybe a bit of a curve on the outside surface deer I bet trees no leaves aw wild for the middle of the city yet late spring that's a deer trail here steep hill down movement wings bigger bird a grouse but flew too slow no wing buzz nice in the sun old growth poplar bush no one has walked here in awhile grass is dry sun deer yard in the winter I bet hey frogs a small pond I remember that salamander old creek bed beaver dam is that called oxbow lake I think so mallard duck green head there nice here peaceful I should come again to relax chickadees are my favourite bird throw the fluff and the seeds look float in the sun ahh little parachutes..." Scott: Spruce needles are real, hills are real, the future is real, rain is real, a cliff is real, never been here is real, pieces of bone are real, rabbits are real, femurs are real, curves are real, outer surfaces are real, deer are real, trees are real, leaves are real, wild is real, cities are real, spring is real, deer trails are real, steep hills are real, moving wings are real, grouse are real, sun is real, old growth poplar bush is real, no one has walked here in awhile is real, dry grass is real, deer yards are real, last winter is real, frogs are real, small ponds are real, remembered salamanders are real, old creek beds are real, beaver dams are real, mallard ducks are real, I should come here to relax is real, chickadees are real, favourite birds are real, throwing fluff is real, floating seeds are real, little parachutes are real. Sincerely, Scott. #71284 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness scottduncan2 Dear Larry and Howard, L: "What is the experience of self view?" Post Script: I am real. Sincerely, Scott. #71285 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 10:20 pm Subject: Egoless Silence! bhikkhu5 Friends: The illusion of an Ego is the Strongest Prison! The Blessed Buddha once said: 'I am' is an illusion. 'This I am' is an illusion. 'I shall be' is an illusion. 'I shall not become this or that' is an illusion. 'I shall be of form' is an illusion. 'I shall become formless' is an illusion. 'I shall become endowed with perception' is an illusion. 'I shall become without any perception' is an illusion. 'I shall become neither with nor without perception' is an illusion. Illusion is torture, illusion is a mind cancer, illusion is a thorn in the future. If, however, all illusion is overcome, one is called a stilled one, a sage. And the stilled one, the sage, is no more reborn, grows no more old, & does not cumulate future death.. Why not? That craving through which he could be reborn again does not exist anymore! If he is not reborn, how can he ever grow old? If he never grows old, how can he ever die? If he never dies again, how can he ever be in panic and urge? If neither in panic nor urge, how can he still experience any craving? Source Text (extract): Majjhima Nikaya 140: Analysis of the Elements: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <....> #71286 From: "nidive" Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 11:15 pm Subject: Re: Lack of Own Being/Ken nidive Hi Howard (& RobertK) > I'm missing your point, Swee Boon. It is true that there is no view > listed there that is entirely nihilistic, but a mixed view is > discussed. If I am not wrong, according to you, "everything exists" is equivalent to "the five aggregates exist independently of their own", and "everything doesn't exist" is equivalent to "the five aggregates do not exist at all". Now, the Buddha had always taught positively that the five aggregates do exist. A denial of the existence of the five aggregates is not taught by him as a nihilistic view. Any rational person cannot ever deny the existence of the five aggregates. If "everything doesn't exist" is equivalent to "the five aggregates do not exist at all", then I am afraid only a small handful of extremely mad people would hold to such a view. And I don't think that is what the Buddha intended to address. Swee Boon #71287 From: "nidive" Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 11:36 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Lack of Own Being/Ken nidive Hi Howard, > "Whatever is seen or heard or sensed > and fastened onto as true by others, > One who is Such among the self-fettered" > wouldn't further claim to be true or even false." > > I see this as again asserting the middle way perspective on > existence denying true existence and also denying non-existence. I see this as the Buddha saying that he himself is among people fettered by a self with regard to what is seen, heard or sensed. Whatever views of a self (eternalistic, partial, nihilistic), that position is fastened onto as true by these people who hold them. But the Buddha is not fettered by a self, so he won't further claim whether one view of a self is true or another view of a self is false, since all views of a self are scattered like disappearing ash when one sees the middle way of dependent origination. I do not see this as supporting the denial of the existence of the five aggregates as a nihilistic view. No, "false" here doesn't mean that. Swee Boon #71288 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 11:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] virtue, time and place. nilovg Dear TG and James, -------- Op 28-apr-2007, om 18:03 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende geschreven: > We are so fortunate that we can listen to > his teachings. > > TG: Agreed. But I don't think you are listening to his teachings. I > think > you are listening to the teachings of unenlightened commentators > that have > taken much of the "heart" out of the Buddha's teaching out and > replaced it > with speculative theory. -------------- We are here on a forum with people who have different views. We can exchange thoughts, and we should respect people with different views. Discussions can be fruitful if we do not forget mutual respect. All of us are listening to the Buddha's teachings, otherwise we would not be here! I quote a post of Sarah with a text: ------------ Anguttara Nikaya 6.46 "Therefore, friends, you should train yourselves thus: `Though we ourselves are Dhamma-experts, we will praise also those monks who are meditators.' And why? Such outstanding men are rare in the world who have personal experience of the deathless element (Nibbaana). "And the other monks, too, should train themselves thus: `Though we ourselves are meditators, we will praise also those monks who are Dhamma-experts.' And why? Such outstanding persons are rare in the world who can by their wisdom clearly understand a difficult subject." ***** Sarah: I think this is a good example of a sutta that can be read and understood at many levels... When we first read it, we may appreciate the reminders for tolerance and respect and wise speech in regard to those who appear to follow different paths. We also note how useless bickering and disparaging others are. How easily these can lead to pride and 'puffing-up'. These are useful reminders at any level, for sure! When we just read a translation like this, it is easy to take 'scholars' for being those who are experts in book-learning without any 'inner' developed wisdom and it is easy to take 'meditators' for being those who do not study and who merely follow a 'practice'. If we really wish to know more about these two groups (of monks) who should be highly respected, we need to look at the Pali and commentary notes, I think. The Pali term for the first group is 'dhammayoga' . B.Bodhi adds 'AA says the term refers to preachers (dhamma-kathika). The second group of 'meditators' refers those who have attained jhanas. Obviously neither group are arahants, otherwise there would not have been any dispute! From the commentary notes, it seems that the second group, the 'meditators' have already realized the jhanas and they 'touch the deathless (amata) element by nama-kaya, (The mental body i.e.cetasikas)' The Dhammayoga bhikkus (the ones dedicated to Dhamma or the Scholars) "penetrate the deep meaning of the khandas (aggregates), the dhatus (elements) the ayatanas (sense fields). They clearly see it by magga- citta (i.e the citta that experiences nibbana) together with vipassana panna. But here it should be panna which penetrates by considering, and also panna on the level of asking questions and learning" Commentary ends. The last part of the sutta about the Dhammayoga Bhikkhus says 'Such outstanding persons are rare in the world who can by their wisdom (panna) clearly understand a difficult subject' (i.e realize nibbana). So both groups are enlightened but presumably only the second group have attained jhanas. Obviously there is no suggestion that for the first group this is merely an intellectual approach. How could Nibbana be realized if it were? Likewise, Those who have jhana experience and have attained at least the first stage of enlightenment should be highly respected. ---------- (end quote). Nina. #71289 From: "sukinder" Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:08 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? sukinderpal Hi Herman (and Scott), -------------------------------------- You wrote: But in jhanas, there's no thoughts of defilements. And they are accessible to those who see the peril in thinking. Sukin: Have you by any chance read the book, "The Spell of the Sensuous" by David Abram? Yesterday a friend Peter Swan mentioned it and we discussed briefly about some of the points in the book. He thought that there was some parallel with Dhamma, and I of course was skeptical ;-) and put forward some arguments. But all along I was reminded of some of your own ideas, so I am curious. As to "peril in thinking" and preference for Jhana, hmm. You might say that the reason the Buddha did all that "thinking" during the forty five years of teaching Dhamma, was out of compassion for all beings. But where did he actually teach that thinking was the problem? He taught about the roots of good and evil and he taught about right and wrong view. It is this latter which is the real problem it seems, one which takes all other dhammas wrongly, including those roots of good and evil. In fact he did point out the danger of certain wrong views issuing from certain meditation experiences including Jhana. And this seems to be the direction that you are taking..? What do you think went on in the minds of those of his disciples who were enlightened upon hearing the Dhamma, right there and then? Did they not 'think' about what they heard no matter how briefly? We happen to be dummies compared and therefore need to hear and think over much more. But what other way is there, Jhana? I don't think so! While I do disagree with your basic approach, I admire and greatly enjoy the way you think Herman. I compare you with a sharp knife, and me a blunt one, which is why unlike you, I need many more strokes to finish the cut (re: my looong posts ;-)). And I had always thought that Scott would be the ideal person to handle ;-), you. (Actually I sometimes wish that there were another six of him on the list :-)) Metta, Sukinder #71290 From: "sukinder" Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:09 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Virtue sukinderpal Dear Robert A, ------------------------------------------- Robert: I have enjoyed our discussion and thank you for sharing your point of view with me. I have heard it and will consider what you have said. I wish you well with your practice, however you chose to pursue it. May you find happiness and peace. Suk: I have appreciated your responses too. I realize that you would rather at this time not continue with these discussions, however I'd like to leave something more for you to consider while in lurk mode. =============================== >S> But what if it is with ignorance that this latter is seen? Robert A: Isn't it the case that we will never be sure? How can anyone have certainty of anything? We do the best we can. Actually, in the past when I have caused harm, it has not been that subtle. You know it when you see it, if you are honest with yourself. Suk: We can't know the consequence of our actions and what the results in terms of vipaka these will bring. But we can know the cittas that motivate those actions and this is the whole idea of studying Dhamma. And as we hear more of Dhamma we begin to realize that indeed we are more often mistaken about what our real motives are. Mistaking unwholesome for wholesomeness happens more if instead of 'understanding', we are keen on 'moral action'. And 'honesty' this is related to 'Sincerity' a parami to be developed. This again supports, and is supported by wisdom. So it seems that we do need to set our priorities right in this regard.. ============================ Robert: I try to take the Buddha's advice in these matters: "When you, Kalamas, know for yourselves: 'these things are unskilful, these things are reprehensible, these things are censured by the wise and when performed and undertaken lead to misfortune and sorrow,' then, indeed, you may renounce them." Suk: I am not saying that one should not be as moral as one can and I'll add metta, karuna and mudita into that, but what if this goes at the expense of Right View? The people of the Kalama, do you think they did not know about morality? What the Buddha was conveying was of greater consequence than this, I think. What if there was a sincere Christian there teaching them to be kind, love thy neighbor etc. would the Buddha be happy with the Kalamas following such a teacher? ============================== Robert: I believe he was telling us we have to make the best judgement in these things we can and to act on those judgements. In the writings of Ayya Khema, a teacher I respect very much, she says the moral code of the precepts is the basis of the spiritual path. Even if we are not spiritually advanced beings, I believe we can do pretty good in making these judgements if we are sincere in our confidence in the Dhamma. Suk: And the Dhamma in its final analysis is about developing Right View and eradicating ignorance. So YES, if we do have confidence in Dhamma, we would know that everything else will take care of itself, including Sila. Recently I remarked off-list to a dhamma friend about another member's attachment to Sila; I said that this seems to be due to lack of confidence about the Buddha's teaching on conditionality.. ========================== >S> But what if you never get there and the reason being that you are >looking in the wrong direction? Robert A: The Dhammapada says: "Watchful in speech and well-restrained in mind, Do nothing unskilled with your body. Purify these three courses of action; Fulfill the path taught by the sages." I believe if anyone reads the teachings of the Buddha with a simple and sincere heart, that person will know how to follow those teachings. I don't believe it is as complicated as people make it out to be. Suk: One thing Robert, I think it might be good to keep in mind when reading the Texts, who spoke and to whom were they spoken. The Bahiya Sutta for example, used to be my favorite. But one day about five years ago, I changed my mind about this when suddenly I realized that it was much more profound than I thought. We'd proliferate about how these words "apply" to us and go away mistakenly thinking that we are close to understanding it at the level. But it may be better to think them as descriptions and not as prescriptions, which we seem more eager to read them as. As descriptions, we can see these teachings in better light, unhindered by any eagerness to apply. We will understand them 'intellectually' if that is all that we are able to, but we will not be mistaken about its applicability to our present level of understanding. The above quoted paragraph I think should too be seen in this way. Who is it that is able to be watchful in speech, mind and body and what does the process involve if not sati at the level of satipatthana? How else can "purification" take place? It is "panna" that is being refereed to and a very developed level at that, perhaps those who have already attained some vipassanannana..? Are you for instance aware of any attachment arising immediately after seeing, hearing, touching and so forth? If not, how sure are you that any subsequent mind-door moments are not to a large extent unwholesome? If on the other hand by conditions, you are in fact able to have many, many moments of restraint and this may be prompted in part by 'will', do you then come to the conclusion that 'intention' is the key? If so, then you are already on the wrong path and this will never be the "fulfillment of the path taught by the sages"! The Dhamma may be simple, but it sure is very, very deep. So while we try to avoid complications, if there is no real understanding, we may end up 'oversimplifying' it. So "simple and sincere heart", let us be more careful about this? ============================= Robert: You also had some question about the value of my practice of seeking a quiet place for meditation, but again, I am trying to follow the advice of the Buddha. How many times in the suttas is there reference to a monk "having gone to a forest, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty place". Suk: You might note for example here, the wording "having gone to..". This is describing something someone, the monk, already did. It is not a recommendation "to go". It was part of a monk's daily life activity that they went "to a forest, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty place" to mediate (jhana). It is no surprise that this was part of the groups of people already very common in India during the time, that they did do these things. Some of these were attracted to the Dhamma and thus became Buddha's disciples. But you will note, that though the Buddha encouraged jhana, what he went on to advice all these Bhikkhus was to understand the mental states involved in jhana with "insight". This latter is the *Teaching of the Buddha*, and not Jhana. ====================== Robert: ...so, we all agree that reflection on the rise and fall of mental and physical phenomona is what the Buddha teaches, but I think the Buddha was also just fine with the fact that there was "something to be done". At least that is the way I read the Buddhist texts. Suk: That "something to be done" is the development of understanding first by hearing and considering carefully and this is a reference to conditioned dhammas and not any 'self'. The 'practice' issues forth as a result of developed understanding at the pariyatti level, therefore not acknowledging this and instead one goes ahead following one's own idea about 'something to be done' /practice, then one goes wrong. As said above, I don't expect any response, just something to consider. Metta, Sukinder #71291 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] virtue, time and place. TGrand458@... Hi Nina In a message dated 4/29/2007 12:49:19 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Dear TG and James, -------- Op 28-apr-2007, om 18:03 heeft _TGrand458@..._ (mailto:TGrand458@...) het volgende geschreven: > We are so fortunate that we can listen to > his teachings. > > TG: Agreed. But I don't think you are listening to his teachings. I > think > you are listening to the teachings of unenlightened commentators > that have > taken much of the "heart" out of the Buddha's teaching out and > replaced it > with speculative theory. -------------- We are here on a forum with people who have different views. We can exchange thoughts, and we should respect people with different views. Discussions can be fruitful if we do not forget mutual respect. All of us are listening to the Buddha's teachings, otherwise we would not be here! TG: Probably a good idea since we're all presumably unelightened. I am, however, reminded of the Buddha calling at least one person "foolish" who misquoted his wording / meaning. But being the Buddha, I guess that was his prerogative. The rest of your post below seems to have nothing to do with your previous discussion with Sarah that triggered my outburst. Since its off topic, responding to it would merely act to cover up the point. However, since what you wrote below is based of suttas, I don't see anything wrong with it. (Since you seemed to be making light of meditation in a previous post -- not 100% sure cause I didn't get a clarification, -- this Suttas would seem to contradict that position.) From the Buddhist scholars and practicing Buddhists I have studied, the overwhelming consensus is that the 4 Great Nikayas and a handful of books in the 5th Nikaya, along with the Vinaya are the only texts with good probability of being the historical Buddha's teaching. I agree with these folks due to both stylistic and message consistency in these works. Very few I've read would consider the Abhidhamma Pitaka the actual teaching of the historical Buddha...much less the commentaries. What I am very distressed about is you and some others who keep on saying the Buddha taught this or that when it is not found in such a form in the Suttas and it is JUST your opinion garnered from commentarial extrapolations of the Suttas. The monks that preserved the Suttas and Vinaya were meticulous to get it exactly word for word as much as possible IMO. Would it be possible, as a scholar, for you to only attribute the quotes and unique abhidhammic phraseology to their source, rather than to the Buddha, so there is no mis-understandings or biased conclusions. (For example, saying -- the Buddha taught us to see dhammas as realities --. If you can quote that from the Suttas, I'd have to agree with you. I don't think you can. I don't doubt that you believe that is what the Buddha taught, but I just as strongly think it is a misleading statement.) If you will agree to this, I will even refrain from calling the Suttas and Vinaya the Buddha's teaching but will just name the source. Repeatedly calling interpretations of the Buddha's teaching, which do not represent the form or content of what's in the Suttas and Vinaya, something that -- "the Buddha taught" -- is false to me. If we take that road, then ANYTHING can be the Buddha's teaching as we see with our Nichiren and Jodo Shinshu friends. I also like to focus on the Insight aspects of Buddhism. We just disagree on the correct approach. Maybe there are 17 cittas that arise and fall away for every rupa that does so. But I don't KNOW that and you've claimed not to be able to see that either, I believe. Yet you teach it as pure fact as if you did know it for sure. Just because a book says so? I don't understand that approach to "truth seeking." I wish you the best of luck. TG I quote a post of Sarah with a text: ------------ Anguttara Nikaya 6.46 "Therefore, friends, you should train yourselves thus: `Though we ourselves are Dhamma-experts, we will praise also those monks who are meditators.' And why? Such outstanding men are rare in the world who have personal experience of the deathless element (Nibbaana). "And the other monks, too, should train themselves thus: `Though we ourselves are meditators, we will praise also those monks who are Dhamma-experts.Dhamma-experts.' And why? Such outstanding pers world who can by their wisdom clearly understand a difficult subject." ***** Sarah: I think this is a good example of a sutta that can be read and understood at many levels... When we first read it, we may appreciate the reminders for tolerance and respect and wise speech in regard to those who appear to follow different paths. We also note how useless bickering and disparaging others are. How easily these can lead to pride and 'puffing-up'others These are useful reminders at any level, for sure! When we just read a translation like this, it is easy to take 'scholars' for being those who are experts in book-learning without any 'inner' developed wisdom and it is easy to take 'meditators' for being those who do not study and who merely follow a 'practice'. If we really wish to know more about these two groups (of monks) who should be highly respected, we need to look at the Pali and commentary notes, I think. The Pali term for the first group is 'dhammayoga' . B.Bodhi adds 'AA says the term refers to preachers (dhamma-kathika)says the term r of 'meditators' refers those who have attained jhanas. Obviously neither group are arahants, otherwise there would not have been any dispute! From the commentary notes, it seems that the second group, the 'meditators' have already realized the jhanas and they 'touch the deathless (amata) element by nama-kaya, (The mental body i.e.cetasikas)d The Dhammayoga bhikkus (the ones dedicated to Dhamma or the Scholars) "penetrate the deep meaning of the khandas (aggregates)"penetrate th (elements) the ayatanas (sense fields). They clearly see it by magga- citta (i.e the citta that experiences nibbana) together with vipassana panna. But here it should be panna which penetrates by considering, and also panna on the level of asking questions and learning" Commentary ends. The last part of the sutta about the Dhammayoga Bhikkhus says 'Such outstanding persons are rare in the world who can by their wisdom (panna) clearly understand a difficult subject' (i.e realize nibbana). So both groups are enlightened but presumably only the second group have attained jhanas. Obviously there is no suggestion that for the first group this is merely an intellectual approach. How could Nibbana be realized if it were? Likewise, Those who have jhana experience and have attained at least the first stage of enlightenment should be highly respected. ---------- (end quote). Nina. #71292 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 10:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Are we responsible for our actions? TGrand458@... Hi Herman Butting in... In a message dated 4/27/2007 6:29:04 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: It is said that beings are heirs to their actions. That is the law of kamma. On the other hand it is said that anatta is a statement of ultimate reality. According to that, in truth, there are no beings who act. Anatta supercedes the law of kamma. Anatta implies that no matter how much I believe I do something, I do not do it, because there is no I that acts. And no matter how much I believe I am reaping the consequences of previous acts, it is never the case, because I have never done anything, never having been an I. TG: I don't see the paradox as you. There is no "I or self" this is true. But there are actions and actions have reactions. These actions are merely conditions moving here and there due to conditions...and the reactions are the same. If I say "bleep you" to somebody, they may get angry and react negatively from MPOV. This is a type of kamma seeable here and now. As for rebirth, I cannot claim to know for sure if its exists or its mechanics, but there seems to be pretty compelling evidence such a musical prodigies, or children knowing towns and people from the past which they have never been to, etc. Perhaps the law of kamma, by which people are made responsible for their actions, is a law about how a deluded mind proliferates further delusion? TG: If I understand you correctly, this seems correct. Personally, I find the kamma / anatta paradox not some lofty profundity that can be penetrated, one simply excludes the other. A really serious anattist must deny kamma, and a kammist must deny anatta. TG: Kamma is a connectivity of energy. Quoting me... kamma is -- (the momentum of deluded cognitive-formations and associated energies) LOL Thanks for a very good question. Herman TG #71293 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 2:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? egberdina Hi Howard, On 29/04/07, upasaka@... wrote: > > ==================== > Actually, I think that Abhidhamma can, in principle, account for > differences between slicing off a person's head and slicing an apple in half on the > basis that different phenomena underlie what we call an apple and what we > call a person's head, and also, it can accomodate complexes of dhammas on the > basis of relations. I accept that the Kathavatthu and Puggalapannati treat of persons. I would be interested to read how the analytical, or synthetic books of the Abhidhamma account for the person. Kind Regards Herman #71294 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 2:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] virtue, time and place. rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > I > > think > > you are listening to the teachings of unenlightened commentators > > that have > > taken much of the "heart" out of the Buddha's teaching out and > > replaced it > > with speculative theory. > -------------- > > From the Buddhist scholars and practicing Buddhists I have studied, the > overwhelming consensus is that the 4 Great Nikayas and a handful of books in the > 5th Nikaya, along with the Vinaya are the only texts with good probability of > being the historical Buddha's teaching. I agree with these folks due to > both stylistic and message consistency in these works. Very few I've read would > consider the Abhidhamma Pitaka the actual teaching of the historical > Buddha...much less the commentaries. > > +++++++++ Dear TG, When you read the guidelines for dhammastudygroup on the hompage ""A discussion forum for anyone interested in understanding the Buddha's teachings as found in all three baskets of the Tipitaka, the original record of the Buddha's word in the Theravada tradition, and as further elucidated in the ancient commentaries of that tradition.:"" Do you still feel so distressed that members refer to the commentaries and Abhidhamma: I would think the clearly defined object of this discussion group makes such references well within bounds. Indeed it would seem your dismisal of those texts to be at odds with the groups purpose. The Commentaries hold great weight in the Theravada. IB Horner (past president of the Pali text Society) writes ""The prime object of every Commentary is to make the meanings of the words andphrases in the canonical passages it is elucidating abundantly clear, definite, definitive even....This is to preserve the Teachings of the Buddha as nearly as possible in the sense intended, and as conveyed by the succession of teachers, acariyaparama. Always there were detractors, always there were and still are "improvers" ready with their own notions. Through friends and enemies alike deleterous change and deterioration in the word of the Buddha might intervene for an indefinite length of time. The Commentaries are the armour and protection against such an eventuality. AS they hold a unique position as preservers and interpreters of true Dhamma, it is essential not only to follow them carefully and adopt the meaning they ascribe to a word or phrase each time they commnet on it. They are as closed now as is the Pali canon. No aditions to their corpus or subtractions from it are to contemplated, and no commentary written in later days could be included in it.""endquote Horner. pxiii Clarifier of the Sweet Meaning" PAli Text Society 1978. Robert #71295 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 2:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? egberdina Hi Scott, On 29/04/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > > Scott: I appreciate this point you make. I don't think we see 'mind' > in the same way. I accept that 'mind' in momentary. You don't. But, > what are the Buddha's teachings if not, among other things, a 'theory > of mind'? The teachings are the Ultimate 'theory' of mind because > they are the thinking of a Buddha and a description of realities based > on the experience of a Buddha, which is unsurpassable. I guess, in > this way, the teachings are not theoretical. I am not quite sure yet > as to the position you take on the teachings themselves. I might > anticipate that you would have difficulty with the accuracy of the > words in the form they have come down to us. > I have difficulty with a non-critical approach as to what is the Buddha's teaching. For me, the Buddha was a man, and in that respect he was just like you and me. But he was quite an extra-ordinary man, and that is where he is not at all like us. But, having been a man, he too had a history. And without recourse to a magical approach to history, the Buddha is not the author of the Suttas, and more to the point, the Abhidhamma is not prefaced with evam me suttam. So, while I am quite happy to accept that much of what is recorded in the Suttas has been handed down as having been heard from the mouth of the Buddha, it is a perversion of history, and reason, to claim that the Abhidhamma has been heard from the Buddha's mouth. This is important to me. Because, to me, a willingness to pervert history and reason, in order to give authority to a body of commentaries, is a despicable act, in that it results in a perpetuation of ignorance. Dinner is on the table, and family is gathered to eat it. It is all quite real. I will reply to the rest of your post later. I'll leave you with a thought or two. "Admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life. When a monk has admirable people as friends, companions, & comrades, he can be expected to develop & pursue the noble eightfold path. "And how does a monk who has admirable people as friends, companions, & comrades, develop & pursue the noble eightfold path? There is the case where a monk develops right view dependent on seclusion, dependent on dispassion, dependent on cessation, resulting in relinquishment. He develops right resolve ... right speech ... right action ... right livelihood ... right effort ... right mindfulness ... right concentration dependent on seclusion, dependent on dispassion, dependent on cessation, resulting in relinquishment. This is how a monk who has admirable people as friends, companions, & colleagues, develops & pursues the noble eightfold path." In the meantime, I thank you for your friendship Herman #71296 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 4:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Falling in Love? sarahprocter... Hi James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > I don't agree with 4 and 5. .... S: You don't agree with: 4. So feeling angry, annoyed, uneasy or disturbed by any object is not of value, just as being attached to any object is not of value, even though such states of mind occur all the time. 5. Past transgressions (even those of a few moments ago) have gone. Feeling disturbed by them now is understandable but not helpful. Having equanimity, peace of mind, metta or wise reflection now would be of value, however. .... S: However you do agree that a) More subtle kinds of greed, hatred and ignorance which may not even be noticed by ourselves or others are also bad, ugly. S: So does this mean you don't see 'feeling angry, annoyed, uneasy or disturbed....being attached....' as being subtle kinds of greed, hatred and ignorance? Or does it mean that you appreciated that they are 'bad, ugly', but that you think they are helpful nonetheless? You also agreed that there is only 'now' and that 'any greed, hatred or ignorance now is bad or ugly'. You also agreed that 'If there is greed, hatred or ignorance now, however natural and common it may be, it won't be of any assistance at all in the development of dana, sila or bhavana. In fact it will just lead to more of the same.' So does this mean that even though you see such states as not leading to the development of dana, sila and bhavana, but as just leading to more anger, annoyance, uneasiness, disturbance and attachment, you still see them as being of value when they arise? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you and Phil were concerned that some of us don't emphasise enough the great harm of akusala (greed, hatred and ignorance). In the above disagreement, isn't there a suggestion of the opposite position, i.e. I'm stressing how any akusala is useless and any kusala is useful, whereas you feel there is value to certain akusala states arising now? Is there any conflict so far between your objection above and the good quotes you gave below? I won't continue with further points or get back to the original VT killer comments you made until these ones have been clarified. (Perhaps my language was misleading above?) Thx James. I think these are points that are worth ironing out... Metta, Sarah >James: Having killed anger you sleep in ease. Having killed anger you do not grieve. ..... Not by rules and observances, not even by much learning, nor by gain of absorption, nor by a life of seclusion, nor by thinking, "I enjoy the bliss of renunciation, which is not experienced by the worldling" should you, O monks, rest content, until the utter destruction of cankers is reached. Dhammapada 271-272 ==================== #71297 From: han tun Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 4:54 am Subject: Daana Corner (47) hantun1 Dear Dhamma Friends, We have come to the last essay compiled by Bhikkhu Bodhi: The Perfection of Giving (Acariya Dhammapala). It is being presented in 7 parts. The following is 5 of 7 parts. Questions, comments and different views welcome:-) ------------------------------ He gives medicines so he might later give the ageless and deathless state of Nibbana. He gives slaves the gift of freedom so he might later emancipate beings from the slavery of the defilements. He gives blameless amusements and enjoyments in order to produce delight in the true Dhamma. He gives his own children as a gift in order that he might adopt all beings as his children by granting them an ariyan birth. He gives his wives as a gift in order that he might become master over the entire world. He gives gifts of gold, gems, pearls, coral, etc., in order to achieve the major marks of physical beauty (characteristic of a Buddha's body), and gifts of the diverse means of beautification in order to achieve the minor features of physical beauty.[10] He gives his treasuries as a gift in order to obtain the treasury of the true Dhamma; the gift of his kingdom in order to become the king of the Dhamma; the gift of monasteries, parks, ponds, and groves in order to achieve the jhanas, etc.; the gift of his feet in order that he might be marked with the auspicious wheels; the gift of his hands in order that he might give to beings the rescuing hand of the true Dhamma to help them across the four floods;[11] the gift of his ears, nose, etc., in order to obtain the spiritual faculties of faith, etc.; the gift of his eyes in order to obtain the universal eye; the gift of his flesh and blood with the thought: "May my body be the means of life for all the world! May it bring welfare and happiness to all beings at all times, even on occasions of merely seeing, hearing, recollecting, or ministering to me!" And he gives the gift of his head in order to become supreme in all the world. Giving thus, the Great Man does not give unwillingly, nor by afflicting others, nor out of fear, moral shame, or the scolding of those in need of gifts. When there is something excellent, he does not give what is mean. He does not give extolling himself and disparaging others. He does not give out of desire for the fruit, nor with loathing for those who ask, nor with lack of consideration. Rather, he gives thoroughly, with his own hand, at the proper time, considerately, without discrimination, filled with joy throughout the three times.[12] Having given, he does not become remorseful afterwards. He does not become either conceited or obsequious in relation to the recipients, but behaves amiably towards them. Bountiful and liberal, he gives things together with a bonus (saparivara). For when he gives food, thinking: "I will give this along with a bonus," he gives garments, etc., as well. And when he gives garments, thinking: "I will give this along with a bonus," he gives food, etc., as well. The same method with gifts of vehicles, etc. And when he gives a gift of one of the sense objects, such as visible forms, he gives the other sense objects also as a bonus. Note 10. The thirty-two major and eighty minor characteristics of a Great Man's body. Note 11. The four floods of sensual desire, desire for existence, wrong views, and ignorance. Note 12. The "three times" are before presenting the gift, while giving it, and after giving it. To be continued. metta, Han #71298 From: "Antony Woods" Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 5:39 am Subject: Re: Computer is not a "thing" antony272b2 Hi Sarah, Thanks for your reply #71037 to my post Atta views: suffering and/or happiness. At the end you wrote: S: For example, when we take the computer for being a 'thing' rather than visible object, hardness and so on that is experienced, there is atta-belief - no understanding of dhammas as anatta - but 'self-view' is mis-leading here, I think. ++++ Antony: Gee, I am an interested beginner in this topic! My computer has a transparent case so I can begin to see how complex it is inside. There is no individual expert in the world who understands all of the computer's components. There are only specialists. Therefore no-one in the world can satisfactorily describe what a computer is! (let alone what the InterNet is!) But that's beyond the scope of this list. Maybe I'll start a new Yahoo Group, not teaching but as a beginner collecting interesting articles. Thanks for listening / Antony. #71299 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 1:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/29/07 12:29:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > H: "the experience of *sense* of self is the erroneous perception of a > core/essence in or among "one's" khandhas. It is like seeing a mirage." > > L: You experience or perceive essences in things or groups of > experiences? > > Larry > ===================== Less and less as time goes on, but, yes, there seems to be an entity that is me, and entities that are my wife and my sons, and an entity that is the huge tree in front of the house, and an entity that is the touch/hardness felt in tapping a key and one that is the tickle in my throat - they also. I know these are all mental constructs, and I do not *believe* in their reality, but since I don't see the reifying construction in progress for the most part, there is the illusion of separate, self-existence. When I speak of an "essence," BTW, in case you were wondering, I mean only separate, self-existent identity and being a thing-in-itself. I don't mean some sort of indwelling "ghost". With metta, Howard #71300 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 2:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness upasaka_howard Hi, Scott (and Larry) - In a message dated 4/29/07 12:43:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: > I should come here to relax is real, chickadees are real, favourite > birds are real, throwing fluff is real, floating seeds are real, > little parachutes are real. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > > ========================= They are elements of (constructed) experience, and "real" in that sense (of being experienced) and also in the sense that they are imputed upon a host of interrelated, *directly* experienced (i.e. unconstructed) phenomena. But the question was what the experience of self-view is. Having seen my posts in response, you know what I think it is, and you know what I thought you were saying. But with this post of yours, I no longer think I understood your answer. Let's say all those things you mention *are* indeed "real" in some sense. How does that explain your answer to the question. I'm confused. With metta, Howard #71301 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 6:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: conditions, to James. repost. nilovg Dear James, my post to Sobhana: However, one should also take into account that akusala that is accumulated conditions more akusala. The fact that akusala can condition kusala should not be used as an excuse. As I wrote in my Conditions: Nina. Op 29-apr-2007, om 3:05 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > See my post to Sobhana. > > Nina. > > Which post number is that? I am not able, or willing, to read all of > the posts as they are getting too numerous. #71302 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 6:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thundering on. nilovg Dear James and TG, Thank you for your posts. James, the original thread was: Should I hate my akusala. We then had to analyse: what is hate, what is 'my akusala' (taking it for mine). Then you ask for a sutta. I can only quote suttas that show the disadvantage of akusala such as hate. You know them too. Also: suttas on the disadvantages of wrong view, being the greatest fault! I cannot quote anything else that has to do with this issue. I have no time to continue this debate since I am leaving on Tuesday for two weeks. I am rounding off posts now. Perhaps both of you can save arguments and you are welcome when I am back. Or others may join in meanwhile. Nina. Op 29-apr-2007, om 3:12 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > And you wonder why I > thunder against that? It's insane. #71303 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 2:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 4/29/07 12:59:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: > Dear Larry and Howard, > > L: "What is the experience of self view?" > > Post Script: > > I am real. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > ===================== Okay - you are saying, I think, that self view is either the belief that what you call "I" is a reality or the "sense" that it is. But what *is* the "I" that is believed or sensed as real, and what constitutes "being real"? What are meant by these? Your answer, a perfectly reasonable one, seems to be of the form << Self view is the belief or sense that "my self" truly exists>>, but what is meant by "my self"? As soon as we say "I" or "my," we are already using what requires understanding. It seems to me that it is important to examine more and more carefully exactly what we *mean* by "self" to understand what it is that seems to exist but actually does not. Without knowing as clearly as possible what it is that is to be rejected, the rejection will never come about. As far as I understand it, at the time of the Buddha, and I believe nowadays also, 'self' pertains to "identity", the primary dictionary sense being "from Latin identidem repeatedly, contraction of idem et idem, literally, same and same 1 a : sameness of essential or generic character in different instances b : sameness in all that constitutes the objective reality of a thing : ONENESS " Thus self is an alleged lasting, immutable core or essence. And self view is the belief that such exists in phenomena, and complexes - especially persons. With metta, Howard #71304 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 6:31 am Subject: Q. re: what is sati, third post nilovg Hi Howard, ------- N: <... It exercises government (over associated states) in the > characteristic of presenting or illuminating the object- this is the > faculty of mindfulness.> my comment: N: Sati presents and illuminates the object appearing at that moment > so that pa~n~naa can know it as it is: a naama or a ruupa that is not > self. > ====================== Howard:The foregoing seems to present sati as an operation of heightening of clarity. (Sort of like using a hi-liter, yellow marking pen on part of text page, or raising the intensity of the lamp on a microscope when examining a specimen. Is that being given as a definition, or just as one feature of mindfulness, or neither - as you see it? --------- N: This deals with sati of satipatthana, thus, the object is a nama or rupa presenting itself now, right now. There are many objects appearing in a day and we notice them, cognize them, such as sound right now, or aversion , but that is not sati. We notice them, but we do not learn anything about their nature of non-self. Sati of the level of satipatthana, when it arises, accompanies kusala citta with pa~n~naa. Sati does not let go of the object presenting itself, it is non-forgetful and at the same time there is understanding that begins to see it as a nama or a rupa, not a thing or a person, not a whole. As we read, sati has the . Sati as it were presents the object and illuminates it, so that it is not in darkness, not in the darkness of ignorance.The object becomes clearer. Nina. #71305 From: "cultry1" Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 6:45 am Subject: Re: Desire cultry1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rahula_80" wrote: > > If Arahant or the Buddha do not have any desire, wouldn't they be just > sitting there doing nothing? This is because they do not have any > desire to eat, move, teach, stand up or to do anything at all. > > I quite in the beginning of my studies of Buddhism, but i may consider this is quite a "question", hem? Claudia #71306 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 6:42 am Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Thank you very much for your reply and, especially: "Admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life. When a monk has admirable people as friends, companions, & comrades, he can be expected to develop & pursue the noble eightfold path. "And how does a monk who has admirable people as friends, companions, & comrades, develop & pursue the noble eightfold path? There is the case where a monk develops right view dependent on seclusion, dependent on dispassion, dependent on cessation, resulting in relinquishment. He develops right resolve ... right speech ... right action ... right livelihood ... right effort ... right mindfulness ... right concentration dependent on seclusion, dependent on dispassion, dependent on cessation, resulting in relinquishment. This is how a monk who has admirable people as friends, companions, & colleagues, develops & pursues the noble eightfold path." In the meantime, I thank you for your friendship" Scott: You're welcome, Herman. I'll wait for the rest of your reply and attend to it all at once. I greatly appreciate the kindness you show me. Sincerely, Scott. #71307 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. re: what is sati, third post upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - So, Nina, are you saying, yes, sati is "an operation of heightening of clarity"? That would sit well with me as a definition. With metta, Howard #71308 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: conditions, to James. repost. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 4/29/07 9:11:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > N: I do not think that it is good to begin to practise with an idea > of self, since one accumulates more wrong view in that way. > ==================== Then we cannot begin. It is a like a prisoner who is told that so long as s/he is imprisoned, s/he should not begin with making appeals, or a sick person who is told that so long as s/he is ill, s/he should not start treatment. With metta, Howard #71309 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:23 am Subject: Conditions, Preface, no 5. nilovg Dear friends, The twenty-four conditions have also been explained by the great commentator Buddhaghosa in the Visuddhimagga (Path of Purification) [[3] Buddhaghosa, who lived in the beginning of the fifth century A.D. in Sri Lanka, edited older commentarial work he found there. I have used Påli terms next to the English translation of these terms for precision. In different English textbooks one and the same Påli term has been translated with different English words, and then there may be confusion as to which reality is represented by such or such English word. Only part of the "Paììhåna''has been translated into English by Ven.U Narada. This work, consisting of two volumes, is, under the title of "Conditional Relations'', available at the Påli Text Society. The "Guide to Conditional Relations'',which the translator also wrote, is a helpful introduction to the reading of the "Paììhåna'' [4]. All the texts from which I quoted are available at the Påli Text Society. Ms.Sujin Boriharnwanaket has, in the Bovoranives Temple in Bangkok, given most inspiring lectures on the conditional relations. She stressed time and again that conditions pertain to this very moment, in daily life. I used many of her lively illustrations and her quotations from the scriptures for this book on conditions. I have added an appendix where I explain some notions of the Abhidhamma in order to facilitate the reading of this study on conditions. It has been said in Commentaries that Buddhism will decline and that the Buddhist scriptures will disappear. The Abhidhamma,and in particular the "Paììhåna'', will be the first to be in oblivion. The "Paììhåna''is deep and difficult to understand. I hope I can contribute with this book to the arousing of interest in the "Paììhåna''. May the Abhidhamma survive for an additional length of time. This will also ensure the survival of the other parts of the scriptures, the Vinaya and the Suttanta. The "Paììhåna'' helps us to have more understanding of the truth of non-self. It thereby encourages us to develop the eightfold Path, to develop direct understanding of all realities which appear through the five sense-doors and through the mind-door. Theoretical knowledge of conditions is not the purpose of the "Paììhåna''. Through mere intellectual understanding conditions cannot be thoroughly grasped. When understanding of nåma, mental phenomena, and rúpa, physical phenomena, has been developed to the degree of the second stage of insight [5], there will be direct understanding of the conditionality of realities. When conditions are understood more clearly, there will be less clinging to a self who could control awareness of nåma and rúpa. Thus,the "Paììhåna''can help us to follow the right practice.It is above all the right practice of the eightfold Path that can promote the survival of the Buddha's teachings. ********* footnotes: 3 I have used the translation by Ven.Ñyåùamoli,Colombo,1964. 4 See also "Guide to the Abhidhamma Piìaka",Ch VII,by Ven.Nyanatiloka,B.P.S.Kandy,and "The Buddhist Philosophy of Relations",by Ven.Ledi Sayadaw,Department of Religious Affairs, Rangoon,Myanmar. 5 Insight, direct understanding of nåma and rúpa, is developed in several stages, until realities are seen as the are at the attainment of enlightenment. The second stage cannot be realised before the first stage:knowing the difference between the characteristic of nåma and of rúpa. ******** Nina. #71310 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:33 am Subject: Perfections N, 22. nilovg Dear friends, Seeing now is conditioned, hearing now is conditioned. If we understand that each moment is a new situation which is conditioned already it will help us to be mindful of the present object which is there already, instead of preferring another situation, another object to the present one. Khun Sujin reminded us that it is lobha which lures us away from the present object to another object. We were wondering when and to what object lobha lures us away. Do we not want to be aware of the present object? When we are in an unpleasant or dangerous situation we have aversion, we are frightened, and while we are wishing for the situation to be changed we forget to be mindful of the present object. We overlook what is right at hand. There are bound to be moments with aversion, even strong aversion, but can there not be in between moments that we begin to study with awareness the characteristic of the present reality? If we truly understand that each moment is conditioned already and beyond control, we will come to see the meaning of anattä, not self. We should find out in all sincerity when lobha lures us away from the present object. We often think of concepts and then the reality of the present moment is thinking. Is there mindfulness of such a moment, or do we believe that we would rather know seeing, hearing or visible object? Is there a very subtle clinging? We may not notice that we try to direct sati to what we think should be the next object of awareness. Also lobha which lures us away from the present reality can be object of awareness. Right understanding can know everything, all the details of our daily life. If there can be awareness of any object in daily life it indicates that there is less clinging to particular objects. We should not worry about what the object of sati will be the next moment. When sati arises it performs its function already. Sarah stressed the fact that the development of satipatthana should not cause us extra worry, it should not make our life heavier but lighter. She spoke about the joy of Dhamma, saying that we should be grateful to have been able to listen to the Dhamma and to be able to at least begin with the development of right understanding. There can be mindfulness of a reality as it appears through one doorway. This is the beginning, but the way of practice of the beginner is not different from the way of practice of the advanced peron. One has to begin to study realities again and again, there is no alternative. Conditioned realities have to be known as they are before nibbana, the unconditioned reality, can be experienced. Panna which is developed can experience realities as impermanent, dukkha and anatta. One of these characteristics is experienced at a time, there cannot be the experience of all three characteristics at the same time. It depends on one's accumulations which of these characteristics is experienced more often. Khun Sujin asked us what comes to our mind when we see a cockroach, a snake or any other animal. Some people may consider the characteristic of dukkha, others the characteristic of impermanence and others again the characteristic of anattã. Bhante Dhammadhara said that he often considers dukkha: "There is always something interfering with permanent happiness, something goes wrong even if it looks so nice, but, it is no good, no good!" ****** Nina #71311 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 6:52 am Subject: what is sati, to sobhana. nilovg Dear sobhana, your questions are much appreciated, food for thought. -------- Sobhana: Whenever akusala thoughts arises in the mind, is it possible to always "keep it in check" so that it doesn't run around and do whatever it likes? I mean, is it possible to always be "aware" of these unwholesome thoughts so that we won't feel or react in an unwholesome way? ------- N: It is not possible. But we can learn that akusala cittas are not us, that they arise because of their own conditions. As soon as we understand this, there is a moment of kusala citta and at such a moment there is no opportunity for akusala citta. But it is good to know that there are many, many more akusala cittas in a day then kusala cittas. When we are thinking right now, and the objective is not dana, sila or mental development the cittas are akusala. For instance, we hear a sound and recognize the sound or know its source: the citta is already akusala when the objective is not dana, sila or mental development. I just heard on the audio: when we make a move just now and there is no awareness, the citta is already akusala. It is better to be realistic in this respect. ---------- S: Can a person train themselves to be mindful all the time? :-) -------- N: The word training may mislead us into thinking that *we* can train ourselves. Whenever sati and pa~n~naa arise it is training, but not by ourselves. We cannot create them or make them arise. As to mindfulness all the time: even the arahat, when he does not preach does not have all the time mahaa-sobhana cittas with pa~n~naa. He can have mahaa-sobhana cittas without pa~n~naa, and these are accompanied by sati of different levels. When he sees, he has ahetuka cittas. For us, ordinary people, there are all the latent tendencies of akusala dormant in the citta and these can condition the arising of akusala citta time and again. -------- S:By being mindful, a person is supposed to be able to observe every citta arising and passing away, isn't it? ------ N: This is not possible. If we would try there is the idea of self who observes. First the difference between the characteristics of nama and rupa has to be realized by pa~n~naa. It is insight that can discern the difference and this arises in a mind-door process. Nina. #71312 From: "Robert" Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 8:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Virtue avalo1968 Hello Sukinder, Thank you for trying again to help me understand. We both see that liberation comes with Right View, but will eternally disagree on the practices that allow Right View to arise. That is OK. Each has to find his own way. With metta, Robert A. #71313 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness scottduncan2 Dear Howard (and Larry), Thanks for the replies (too bad 'ART' has to be explained; or 'TOO BAD ART' has to be explained): H: "They are elements of (constructed) experience, and "real" in that sense (of being experienced) and also in the sense that they are imputed upon a host of interrelated, *directly* experienced (i.e. unconstructed) phenomena. But the question was what the experience of self-view is. Having seen my posts in response, you know what I think it is, and you know what I thought you were saying. But with this post of yours, I no longer think I understood your answer. Let's say all those things you mention *are* indeed 'real' in some sense. How does that explain your answer to the question. I'm confused." Scott: Taking the question: "What is the experience of self view?", I got into the word 'experience'. "...and with all the spruce needles on this hill I'd hate to try climbing this in the rain oh a cliff no I've never been here hey a little piece of bone rabbit maybe no too big a femur maybe a bit of a curve on the outside surface deer I bet trees no leaves aw wild for the middle of the city yet late spring that's a deer trail here steep hill down movement wings bigger bird a grouse but flew too slow no wing buzz nice in the sun old growth poplar bush no one has walked here in awhile grass is dry sun deer yard in the winter I bet hey frogs a small pond I remember that salamander old creek bed beaver dam is that called oxbow lake I think so mallard duck green head there nice here peaceful I should come again to relax chickadees are my favourite bird throw the fluff and the seeds look float in the sun ahh little parachutes..." Scott: The prose piece (above) was a depiction of a few minutes of the afternoon I spent with the kids walking in the Whitemud Creek ravine. I meant to show how experience winds up as discursive inner commentary or thinking - the inner monologue. The poetry piece (below) was a response to Larry's question (Larry: "Are you saying the experience of self is discursive thinking?"). It elucidates the solid certainty characteristic of the experience of self-view. "Spruce needles are real, hills are real, the future is real, rain is real, a cliff is real, never been here is real, pieces of bone are real, rabbits are real, femurs are real, curves are real, outer surfaces are real, deer are real, trees are real, leaves are real, wild is real, cities are real, spring is real, deer trails are real, steep hills are real, moving wings are real, grouse are real, sun is real, old growth poplar bush is real, no one has walked here in awhile is real, dry grass is real, deer yards are real, last winter is real, frogs are real, small ponds are real, remembered salamanders are real, old creek beds are real, beaver dams are real, mallard ducks are real, I should come here to relax is real, chickadees are real, favourite birds are real, throwing fluff is real, floating seeds are real, little parachutes are real...I am real." Scott: My answer to Larry's query regarding discursive thought is no. I was meaning to give my opinion that the experience of self-view is the deep and erroneous non-considered CONVICTION that everything from 'I' to 'pieces of bone' are REAL. H: "Okay - you are saying, I think, that self view is either the belief that what you call 'I' is a reality or the 'sense' that it is." Scott: I think the experience of self-view is the experience of the uninstructed worldling. Being 'experience' it is pervasive and pre-cognitive, while capable of generating cognition. So, it is not 'belief' first and foremost; beliefs would be derivative ex post facto cognitions. 'Sense' may come closer to what I think this experience is. Experience, for the uninstructed worldling inured with self-view ('the experience of self-view'), is taken completely and utterly at face value. Everything is exactly what it is and, without really even thinking about it, the way it is experienced it the way it is. H: "But what *is* the 'I' that is believed or sensed as real, and what constitutes 'being real'? What are meant by these? Your answer, a perfectly reasonable one, seems to be of the form <>, but what is meant by "my self"?" Scott: The question is directed to the 'experience of self-view', not to the 'definition of self-view'. I'm not trying to define self-view, rather, I'm trying to describe experience from a particular point of view. The 'I' is considered (without any consideration) to BE the experience. The corollary is that which is experienced comes under the same pall, and is unquestioningly considered to be exactly what it is as well. H: "As soon as we say "I" or "my," we are already using what requires understanding. It seems to me that it is important to examine more and more carefully exactly what we *mean* by 'self' to understand what it is that seems to exist but actually does not." Scott: I don't think this relates to the question of the 'experience of self-view'. This is more about defining self. H: "Without knowing as clearly as possible what it is that is to be rejected, the rejection will never come about." Scott: The 'rejection of self' does not come about via cognitive process. Defining self cognitively first will add nothing to the process whereby self-view is eradicated. But this wasn't Larry's question. H: "As far as I understand it, at the time of the Buddha, and I believe nowadays also, 'self' pertains to 'identity', the primary dictionary sense being 'from Latin identidem repeatedly, contraction of idem et idem, literally, same and same 1 a : sameness of essential or generic character in different instances b : sameness in all that constitutes the objective reality of a thing : ONENESS'." Scott: I think, using the above, self-view experiences same-as-same. Same-as-same is the experience of self-view. A wordless constant immersion. H: "Thus self is an alleged lasting, immutable core or essence. And self view is the belief that such exists in phenomena, and complexes - especially persons." Scott: Definitions of self and self-view, not commentary on the 'experience of self-view'. I'm not sure, but tentatively I don't agree with them, I'll have to see. For later, perhaps. One can sense the next argument and it smells like 'emptiness'... Sincerely, Scott. #71314 From: Dieter Möller Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Meditation Tip - tandem moellerdieter Hi Sarah ( and Howard) , it seems to me 'ages ago' considering the usual speed of DSG communication though I refer only to a message before 4 days .. ;-) I had a first look into the files you recommended and recognised as well the fine DSG archive. A lot of material to study.. for the issue in question I did not yet find a clear reference..maybe I overlooked once more you wrote: S: As I understand, there cannot be jhana without panna, but this is not necessarily the panna of vipassana... snip . D: would you agree to 'jhana without a certain level of panna..? Following the threefold Path training of sila, samadhi and panna , each part provides the ground for the following . A gradual - of course interrelated - process leading to the full penetration into the wisdom of the 4 Noble Truths incl. anicca, dukkha , anatta with the aim of abolishing ignorance/avijja . S:At moments of lokuttara cittas arising, the concentration is said to be equivalent to 1st jhana at least (appana samadhi). For those who have never attained mundane jhana, it is 1st jhana level. So sometimes this is what is referred to in context D: where is it said? The first Jhana is described by (quite ) detached from sensual (5 senses) objects and unwholesome (lobha/dosa.. 5 hindrances) states of minds .. sorry , I do not yet understand what you mean.. with Metta Dieter #71315 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 4/29/07 1:54:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: > One can sense > the next argument and it smells like 'emptiness'... > ================== Ah, you must mean the sweet perfume of emptiness! LOLOL! With metta, Howard #71316 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 12:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness scottduncan2 Dear Howard, H: "Ah, you must mean the sweet perfume of emptiness! LOLOL!" At least I didn't suggest the smell of 'Teen Spirit': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1Qdcdw22Sw Sincerely, Scott. #71317 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 12:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: conditions, to James. repost. nilovg Hi Howard, Op 29-apr-2007, om 16:07 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > N: I do not think that it is good to begin to practise with an idea > > of self, since one accumulates more wrong view in that way. > > > ==================== > Then we cannot begin. It is a like a prisoner who is told that so long > as s/he is imprisoned, s/he should not begin with making appeals, > or a sick > person who is told that so long as s/he is ill, s/he should not start > treatment. ------------- N: Fortunately, we are not imprisoned since we can still listen to the Tipitaka and thus straighten our views (di.t.tujuukata), one of the ten pu~n~na kiriya vatthus. We are like sick people because of our defilements, but see, the Buddha is the greatest healer. The paramis are like vitamins for the long journey, they strengthen us. The situation is not hopeless. Nina. #71318 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 12:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. re: what is sati, third post nilovg Hi Howard, one definition is not good enough. We should understand what is meant, otherwise we stay only with the words. I did not want to give you a straight answer, because I like to be careful. You may stress something else, or mean something in a way different from the way I see sati. It is also said of pa~n~naa that it illumines. Sati is mindful so that pa~n~naa can see the dhamma as it really is. Sati and pa~n~naa have different functions while they, in the case of satipatthana, arise at the same time. When you say: heightening of clarity, you mean clarrity of the object. But, in what way? The purpose is to see the object as a nama, as a rupa, not a thing or a person. There is a situation of a person shouting at me, but, if sati arises and it is aware of sound, pa~n~naa sees through the story, and sees clearly the dhamma at that moment: only a rupa that can be heard. Or say, aversion arises. Sati can be aware of it and pa~n~naa can see it as it is. You do not like the word reality and years ago you suggested actuality. It does not matter how we name it, dhamma, or paramattha dhamma: what is real in the highest sense. Parama means highest. Take the story above. We blame the other person for his angry words. But what is really there? Nama and rupa. Realities, actualities, dhammas, paramattha dhammas. We can name it anything. Nina. Op 29-apr-2007, om 16:14 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > So, Nina, are you saying, yes, sati is "an operation of heightening of > clarity"? That would sit well with me as a definition. #71319 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 12:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness nilovg Dear Scott, to my ears appalling music. Nina. Op 29-apr-2007, om 21:13 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: > At least I didn't suggest the smell of 'Teen Spirit': > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1Qdcdw22Sw #71320 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 1:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness scottduncan2 Dear Nina, N: "to my ears appalling music." Very. The 'experience of self-view' in action. Apologies, Nina. Sincerely, Scott. #71321 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 11:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. re: what is sati, third post upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 4/29/07 3:35:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > one definition is not good enough. We should understand what is > meant, otherwise we stay only with the words. I did not want to give > you a straight answer, because I like to be careful. You may stress > something else, or mean something in a way different from the way I > see sati. > It is also said of pa~n~naa that it illumines. Sati is mindful so > that pa~n~naa can see the dhamma as it really is. Sati and pa~n~naa > have different functions while they, in the case of satipatthana, > arise at the same time. > When you say: heightening of clarity, you mean clarrity of the > object. But, in what way? The purpose is to see the object as a nama, > as a rupa, not a thing or a person. -------------------------------- Howard: As I see the matter, the object is what it is. By "seeing" it very clearly, that, in part, enables wisdom to grasp its nature. I think the microscope example is a good one: The microscope and what it stands on should be stable - not shaky (equanimity), the magnification should be high (concentration), and the lighting should be bright and clear and the focus precise (sati), and then the nature of the specimen can be properly discerned (wisdom). ----------------------------------- > There is a situation of a person shouting at me, but, if sati arises > and it is aware of sound, pa~n~naa sees through the story, and sees > clearly the dhamma at that moment: only a rupa that can be heard. > Or say, aversion arises. Sati can be aware of it and pa~n~naa can see > it as it is. > You do not like the word reality and years ago you suggested > actuality. It does not matter how we name it, dhamma, or paramattha > dhamma: what is real in the highest sense. Parama means highest. Take > the story above. We blame the other person for his angry words. But > what is really there? Nama and rupa. > ------------------------------- Howard: Should a person *not* be blamed for his/her angry words? Behind them l ie intention and negative emotion and the willingness to inflict hurt. When I use angry words, I feel remorseful. I *should* feel remorseful. The responsibility is mine. I AM to blame. ------------------------------- Realities, actualities, dhammas, > > paramattha dhammas. We can name it anything. > Nina. > Op 29-apr-2007, om 16:14 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > > >So, Nina, are you saying, yes, sati is "an operation of heightening of > >clarity"? That would sit well with me as a definition. > ==================== With metta, Howard #71322 From: Sobhana Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 4:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Are we responsible for our actions? shennieca Hi Ken H, Herman, TG, Thanks for your replies. Ken H: I would just like to suggest that some questions (Are we responsible for our actions? Are we not responsible? Are we both responsible and not responsible? Are we neither responsible nor not responsible? ) concern us most when there is a sense of self. Sobhana: The baseline understanding for this discussion is no-self and no permanent identity that makes decision. I'm wondering which component of the mind that is responsible for our actions? Is it the "cetana" (volition) driven by ignorance (or wisdom) that is responsible for all actions? Should we "feel" responsible for the things that we have done? Is it kusala or akusala to have a sense of responsibility? In abhidhammic terms, we explain the workings of the mind with intricate terms and words but in normal language used as a teaching method, do we teach all Buddhists to be responsible for their actions in speech, thoughts and actions? What's your opinion? :-) Herman: Perhaps the law of kamma, by which people are made responsible for their actions, is a law about how a deluded mind proliferates further delusion? Sobhana: Hi Heman, I don't understand this. I understand kamma and vipaka as cause and effect, and all beings reap what they sow. There is no-self but there is still kamma because kusala and akusala actions happens. There must be something different going on in the mind of a wholesome-minded person compared to a person who is unwholesome. What is the "something" that's different? Herman: Personally, I find the kamma / anatta paradox not some lofty profundity that can be penetrated, one simply excludes the other. A really serious anattist must deny kamma, and a kammist must deny anatta. Sobhana: I don't think they are mutually exclusive. The Buddha taught anatta and kamma so both are correct from MPOV. :-) Thank you. Metta Sobhana #71323 From: Sobhana Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 4:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] what is sati, to sobhana. shennieca Hello Nina, Thank you for your reply, it is very deep in its meaning. I appreciate it. What is the difference in the mind of a meditator who is meditating compared to a person who is walking and talking? Why is it that a meditator who focuses on the breath or the rising/falling of the abdomen able to "differenciate" the nama and rupa, compared to a person not meditating, it is difficult for him/her to "see/observe" the anicca nature of the mind and body? Is it because the meditator has more "concentration" and more "mindfulness"? With respect, Sobhana #71324 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 5:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: conditions, to James. repost. egberdina Hi Nina, On 30/04/07, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > > N: Fortunately, we are not imprisoned since we can still listen to > the Tipitaka and thus straighten our views (di.t.tujuukata), one of > the ten pu~n~na kiriya vatthus. We are like sick people because of > our defilements, but see, the Buddha is the greatest healer. The > paramis are like vitamins for the long journey, they strengthen us. > The situation is not hopeless. > Nina. > This won't do, Nina. You are saying that listening to the Tipitaka with self-view is OK, but any other form of "practice" with self-view is not. You are simply expressing a preference for the poison of your choice. Have a nice trip, you and Lodewijk. Herman #71325 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 5:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness lbidd2 Hi Howard, H: "there seems to be an entity that is me, and entities that are my wife and my sons, and an entity that is the huge tree in front of the house, and an entity that is the touch/hardness felt in tapping a key and one that is the tickle in my throat - they also. I know these are all mental constructs, and I do not *believe* in their reality, but since I don't see the reifying construction in progress for the most part, there is the illusion of separate, self-existence. When I speak of an "essence," BTW, in case you were wondering, I mean only separate, self-existent identity and being a thing-in-itself. I don't mean some sort of indwelling "ghost"." L: Thanks for your reply. I've never quite understood these terms, so here are a few questions. Why is a separate self-existence an illusion? Why is a mental construct unreal? Is there a reality that is not a mental construct? How do you know? What is the connection between illusion and unreality and dukkha? Larry #71326 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 5:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness lbidd2 Hi Scott, S: "My answer to Larry's query regarding discursive thought is no. I was meaning to give my opinion that the experience of self-view is the deep and erroneous non-considered CONVICTION that everything from 'I' to 'pieces of bone' are REAL." L: Is there a problem with a conviction that everything is real? Larry #71327 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 5:47 pm Subject: Ugly Defilements buddhatrue Hi Sarah, You are talking in circles and it is really starting to give me a headache. Let's forget this whole line of piece-meal discussion and get to the point. We have two positions here (the first is yours and the second is mine): 1.Viewing the defilements as simply realities which arise. They are not beautiful or ugly and we should not have any aversion toward them. One should not try to rid the mind of defilements because that is ignoring the anatta nature of realities and encourages self-view, as KS teaches. 2.Viewing the defilements as pernicious obstacles to wisdom and happiness. They are ugly in every sense of the word and we should have aversion toward them because they are ugly and harmful. One should do his/her best to rid the mind of the defilements because that is what the Buddha taught. I am going to quote another sutta to support my position. It is much longer and detailed than the Dhammapada quotes. Sarah, I want you to note that you have yet to quote one single, solitary sutta to support your position: The Blessed One said, "Monks, before my self-awakening, when I was still just an unawakened Bodhisatta, the thought occurred to me: 'Why don't I keep dividing my thinking into two sorts?' So I made thinking imbued with sensuality, thinking imbued with ill will, & thinking imbued with harmfulness one sort, and thinking imbued with renunciation, thinking imbued with non-ill will, & thinking imbued with harmlessness another sort. "And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued with sensuality arose. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with sensuality has arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to the affliction of others or to the affliction of both. It obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding.' "As I noticed that it leads to my own affliction, it subsided. As I noticed that it leads to the affliction of others... to the affliction of both... it obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding, it subsided. Whenever thinking imbued with sensuality had arisen, I simply abandoned it, destroyed it, dispelled it, wiped it out of existence. "And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued with ill will arose. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with ill will has arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to the affliction of others or to the affliction of both. It obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding.' "As I noticed that it leads to my own affliction, it subsided. As I noticed that it leads to the affliction of others... to the affliction of both... it obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding, it subsided. Whenever thinking imbued with ill will had arisen, I simply abandoned it, destroyed it, dispelled it, wiped it out of existence. "And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued with harmfulness arose. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with harmfulness has arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to the affliction of others or to the affliction of both. It obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding.' "As I noticed that it leads to my own affliction, it subsided. As I noticed that it leads to the affliction of others... to the affliction of both... it obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding, it subsided. Whenever thinking imbued with harmfulness had arisen, I simply abandoned it, destroyed it, dispelled it, wiped it out of existence. "Whatever a monk keeps pursuing with his thinking & pondering, that becomes the inclination of his awareness. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking imbued with sensuality, abandoning thinking imbued with renunciation, his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with sensuality. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking imbued with ill will, abandoning thinking imbued with non-ill will, his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with ill will. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking imbued with harmfulness, abandoning thinking imbued with harmlessness, his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with harmfulness. "Just as in the last month of the Rains, in the autumn season when the crops are ripening, a cowherd would look after his cows: He would tap & poke & check & curb them with a stick on this side & that. Why is that? Because he foresees flogging or imprisonment or a fine or public censure arising from that [if he let his cows wander into the crops]. In the same way I foresaw in unskillful qualities drawbacks, degradation, & defilement, and I foresaw in skillful qualities rewards related to renunciation & promoting cleansing. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.019.than.html#cowherd2 Now, Sarah, if you want to discuss this sutta in light of what we are discussing, I'm all for that. But, if you want to continue with "lines of reasoning" in order to support your contentions; I am not interested in that. Metta, James #71328 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 5:54 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: thundering on. buddhatrue Hi Nina, > I cannot quote anything else that has to do with this issue. Then you have no support for your position. Metta, James #71329 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 6:05 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? buddhatrue Hi Nina and All, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: Better just listen first and try to understand what one hears. No > person starts. When there are conditions sati may arise. When the > moments are very, very few, it is good. No forcing, no hurrying, not > doing this or that in order to have result soon. Better a few moments > of sati and a beginning pa~n~naa then misleading oneself one's whole > life, making oneself believe that one makes progress while one is not. > Nina. Don't you think that this is justification for being rather lazy? How are you ever going to wake up with this attitude? Move over, we can both just take a nap together. ;-)) Metta, James #71330 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 6:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dangers of rebirth: anatta, pinnacle of dhamma? kenhowardau Hi Rob K, -------- <. . .> RK: > 1.It depends on understanding. Someone might have atta belief while thinking that anotehr might understand that I refers to nama and rupa. Certainly teh Buddha talked about beings ect and had no atta belief. Take this sutta: http://www.vipassana.info/130-devaduta-e.htm QUOTE "Then the warders of hell give him the fivefold binding. That is two hot iron spikes are sent Bhikkhus, I say this not hearing from another recluse or brahmin, this is what I have myself known and seen and so I say it.'"" end quote. Do you think this sutta is beneficial? --------------- It goes without saying that all suttas are beneficial. I see this one as (in part) a description of micha-ditthi as a powerful conditioning factor for the most unpleasant forms of vipaka. However, I also know that hell-wardens and iron spikes are concepts (illusions). So too are the victims of their torture. Knowing that keeps me sane. ------------------------ RK: > 2. Even those beings who have atta belief if they have right view about kamma and rebirth the path of heaven is still open. They benfit to the extent that they understand correctly. ------------------- Just for the record, and at the risk of stating the obvious, I will point out that right view about kamma and vipaka cannot arise in the same citta as wrong view about eternal self. However, a citta can have latent tendencies for both kinds of view. And that is the type of citta you are referring to. Yes, I can see that the way to heaven is still open in such cases. We know that great samatha can be developed when there is panna of the kind that knows the advantages of kusala and the disadvantages of akusala. I suppose "advantages and disadvantages" would entail knowing that kusala kamma will have pleasant results in the future and akusala kamma will have unpleasant results. But I am not sure about that. I could be convinced either way. Maybe, for jhana meditators before the Buddha's time, it was enough to know that kusala citta was accompanied by true calm, and akusala citta was accompanied by, at best, false calm. (?) Which way do you see it? Ken H #71331 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Are we responsible for our actions? kenhowardau Hi Sobhana, Thanks for these questions. ----------------- <. . .> S: > The baseline understanding for this discussion is no-self and no permanent identity that makes decision. I'm wondering which component of the mind that is responsible for our actions? Is it the "cetana" (volition) driven by ignorance (or wisdom) that is responsible for all actions? -------------------- According to my understanding cetana *is* our actions. In that case, it would be illogical to regard cetana as being responsible (for itself). Like all conditioned dhammas, cetana arises when conditions allow it to arise, and it arises in the form that conditions allow it to arise in. So it is conditions in general - rather than cetana in particular - that are responsible for our actions. ------------------------------ S: > Should we "feel" responsible for the things that we have done? Is it kusala or akusala to have a sense of responsibility? ------------------------------ That's a broad question that I wouldn't want to answer until we had agreed on some definitions. :-) -------------------------------- S: > In abhidhammic terms, we explain the workings of the mind with intricate terms and words but in normal language used as a teaching method, do we teach all Buddhists to be responsible for their actions in speech, thoughts and actions? What's your opinion? :-) --------------------------------- The Dhamma teaches virtuous behaviour for every possible situation. No matter where we are or what we are doing, there is always a possibility for either dana or sila and/or bhavana. So we might well ask, "What about now? Is there one of those kusala cittas now?" There isn't always a opportunity to give to the needy or to refrain from harming someone, however, there are always dhammas. One of the presently arisen dhammas can, potentially, become an object of right understanding here and now. For someone who has studied and practised correctly in the past there will be conditions for deep, meaningful, right understanding now. For those of us who have been less vigilant, direct satipatthana will not be an option. However, a lesser degree of right understanding is always possible (depending only on our having heard and considered the true Dhamma). Ken H #71332 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? egberdina Hi Scott, On 29/04/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > > Me: "...Knowing how to guard the sense doors is conventional speech > indicating the function of sati when it is well-developed. No one > actually knows this or does this. Sati arises, performs its function, > and falls away, serving as condition for a new moment with sati. > > H: "This is all thinking. Not just spontaneous thinking, or even an > attempt to describe the flow of experience, but this is the acquired > thinking of a tradition of thinkers. As we agreed with orgasm, sati > and the book about it are unrelated, but by thinking." > > Scott: I do see your point regarding the difference between thinking > and experience. In the above you appear to reject the product of > thinking while holding to the reality of thinking. Yes, sati and > words about sati differ. Sati was taught by the Buddha. Do you agree? Yes, the Buddha taught sati, and its 4 foundations. > > Going back to the discourses (and leaving aside the problems related > to whether or not they are an accurate record of the teachings) if one > applies the above argument to the teachings as they exist within the > Theravaadin tradition (let's say the suttas as we have them, for > example), then it would appear that these too need to be dismissed as > 'just thinking'. Yes, the suttas are thinking. That's why, once a sutta has done it's job, you do with it what you do with a raft that has served it's purpose. > > The Buddha would have had to think in order to speak, therefore his > original teachings are also the product of thinking. As you say > above, 'There's nothing conventional about teaching.' And '...the > ultimate reality that the Buddha taught can be known in this way too. > He called it anicca, anatta, and dukkha.' You seem to accept that, > within the teachings themselves - the content of the teachings - there > exist descriptions of certain realities which you seem to accept as valid. > > Having agreed that there is both a difference and a link between > theory and practise, having agreed that within the teachings their > exist valid descriptions of realities, how can you then be so > apparently dismissive of all that you call 'thinking' in reference to > texts (suttas) since these too are a product of thinking - the > thinking of a Buddha? The Buddha and the rest of us were born into a world of thinking, and a world of suffering. The Buddha is not the originator of thinking and suffering, but he uses skillful means to serve others. I see no instructions by the Buddha to enshrine his texts, but rather to do what they say. The end of suffering is not in having the Buddha's words echoing in your head from dawn till dusk, but in depriving a foothold to consciousness in name-and-form. A piece of remembered text is just such a foothold. But if the text is an instruction, and that instruction is followed, there is not such a foothold. > > I'd say that the Buddha, being a Buddha, was able to think about > realities and teach about realities 1) because they were known to him, > and 2) because they exist in only a certain way and in no other. The > teachings are, therefore, records of the Buddha's thinking about > realities based on his experience of realities. If one equivocates on > thinking and the product of thought in relation to teachings, one is > left with nothing but one's own uninstructed experience, whether one > thinks about it or not. > > Am I wrong to sense this sort of equivocation in these ideas? Its > like a 'not-having-your-cake-and-not-eating-it-too' kind of vibe. > The Buddha taught the noble eightfold path, in service of the 4 noble truths. Agreed? Which of the factors of that path endorses the proliferation of thinking about the teachings? > Me: "Why do you need 'other' to be accounted for, by the way? What > can a puppet do? > > H: "I know what a puppet cannot do. A puppet cannot harm or be harmed. > Nor can it communicate instructions to me, whether helpful or > otherwise. We were talking about being influenced by others." > > Scott: This is an old bone of contention. So you need 'other' to be > accounted for in order to somehow make sense of certain mental > factors, for example, dosa, and of certain experiences, for example > akusala vipaaka. I don't know how to put into words why I don't have > a problem with the 'other'. No, I need other to be accounted for because Buddhism is not about the workings of a solipsistic mind. I signed off in yesterdays post with the holy life being exactly nothing but others, namely good friends. Others are not mental factors, or objects - that is solipsism. Some more about others: "the individual who practices for his/her own benefit and for that of others is the foremost, the chief, the most outstanding, the highest, & supreme." "And who is the individual who practices for his/her own benefit and for that of others? There is the case where a certain individual practices for the subduing of passion within him/herself and encourages others in the subduing of passion; practices for the subduing of aversion within him/herself and encourages others in the subduing of aversion; practices for the subduing of delusion within him/herself and encourages others in the subduing of delusion. Such is the individual who practices for his/her own benefit and for that of others. More to follow, good buddy Herman #71333 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/29/07 8:22:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@... writes: > L: Thanks for your reply. I've never quite understood these terms, so > here are a few questions. Why is a separate self-existence an illusion? --------------------------------- Howard: Because nothing actually *is* separate from, or independent of, other conditions. Nothing SELF-exists, but exists only contingently. That exactly makes separate self-existence illusory. It does NOT make contingent existence illusory, for that is a fact. ---------------------------------- > Why is a mental construct unreal? Is there a reality that is not a > mental construct? How do you know? What is the connection between > illusion and unreality and dukkha? ---------------------------------- Howard: Paramattha dhammas are not mental constructs, but the sense of them as separate, self-existent, independent entities, is. Unimagined mental constructs such as trees, houses, and people (as opposed to unicorns and selves) are not unreal. They are truly elements of experience. What is unreal and delusive about them is the same as for paramattha dhammas mentioned above *plus* their seeming to exist independently of mental construction. What do exist independently of mental construction are the underlying, interrelated paramattha dhammas that serve as the basis for imputation. With metta, Howard #71334 From: "Antony Woods" Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:34 pm Subject: Re: Computer is not a "thing" antony272b2 Hi Sarah, I posted a question on Yahoo Answers: "What is a computer?" My favorite answer was: "You're using it" I am beginning to understand what a computer is as I am using it. Experiential. Then I had to reboot whilst trying to write this post! Thanks for listening / Antony. #71335 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Are we responsible for our actions? egberdina Hi Sobhana, On 30/04/07, Sobhana wrote: > You have a beautiful name :-) > Herman: Perhaps the law of kamma, by which people are made responsible for their actions, is a law about how a deluded mind proliferates further delusion? > > Sobhana: Hi Heman, I don't understand this. > I understand kamma and vipaka as cause and effect, and all beings reap what they sow. There is no-self but there is still kamma because kusala and akusala actions happens. There must be something different going on in the mind of a wholesome-minded person compared to a person who is unwholesome. What is the "something" that's different? > I see kamma/vipaka as cause/effect as well. But let me ask you a question to clarify for me how you understand this. All beings reap what they sow. Is it vipika that they sow? By which I mean, are our actions caused by, or the results, of previous actions? > Herman: Personally, I find the kamma / anatta paradox not some lofty profundity that can be penetrated, one simply excludes the other. A really serious anattist must deny kamma, and a kammist must deny anatta. > > Sobhana: I don't think they are mutually exclusive. The Buddha taught anatta and kamma so both are correct from MPOV. :-) > I agree with you. Perhaps we need to take a closer look at how the Buddha uses anatta in the Suttas. For me the touchstone on this matter is DN 15, the Maha-Nidana Sutta. The following may seem a divisive statement to make, but it addresses your point that the Buddha taught both kamma and anatta. Perhaps kamma and anatta appear paradoxical because anatta in the hands of some commentators cannot be reconciled with DN 15. Herman #71336 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness egberdina Hi Nina, On 30/04/07, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > > Dear Scott, > to my ears appalling music. > Nina. No, sorry to correct you , but to your ears it is just sound. But to your view of yourself it is appaling. The appaling music is your experience of self-view in action. Herman #71337 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 8:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness lbidd2 Hi Howard, I'm not getting what you mean by the illusion of separate and self-existent. A tree seems separate from a house. If it didn't it couldn't be perceived as a tree. Are you saying insight is a matter of not differentiating objects? As for things seeming to exist independently from perception, what's the problem with that? What is to be gained by thinking you are entirely a product of my imagination? Larry #71338 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 8:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness lbidd2 Hi Herman, H: "to your ears it is just sound. But to your view of yourself it is appaling. The appaling music is your experience of self-view in action." L: If self view is simply like or dislike where is the "I"? What is "I"? Larry #71339 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 4:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/29/07 11:05:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I'm not getting what you mean by the illusion of separate and > self-existent. A tree seems separate from a house. If it didn't it > couldn't be perceived as a tree. Are you saying insight is a matter of > not differentiating objects? -------------------------------- Howard: No. I've said again and again that things are distinguishable. The separateness and independence of a thing that I'm denying is with respect to those phenomena that are requisite conditions for that thing. A tree is not self-existent, but it is dependent on mental imputation upon a host of interelated paramattha dhammas, each of which is also a contingent reality dependent on, hence inseparable from, a host of other (distinguishable) conditions all equally empty of self. These all lack self. --------------------------- > > As for things seeming to exist independently from perception, what's the > problem with that? What is to be gained by thinking you are entirely a > product of my imagination? ----------------------------- Howard: This is a somewhat different can of worms that I'll wait for some other time to open. Actually, as Ithink about it, I've discussed this many, many times before, and I've pointed out several suttas that I believe express a radical phenomenaist perspective - so I'm really not very strongly motivated to give it yet one more once-over, not even in the near future. :-) ------------------------------ > > Larry > ================ With metta, Howard #71340 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 9:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness egberdina Hi Larry, On 30/04/07, LBIDD@... wrote: > > H: "to your ears it is just sound. But to your view of yourself it is > appaling. The appaling music is your experience of self-view in action." > > L: If self view is simply like or dislike where is the "I"? What is "I"? > The "I" is craving for existence / becoming. It takes the form of "I will be this, I will not be that". While on the topic, I think it is useful to differentiate self into two components, there is I, and there is me. I is the active subject of the self, and me is the passive object of self. I am the one who is actively hating the music, and this godawful music is happening to me. I am doing this awful music to myself. This is not to say that the sound is mind generated. (let's all say pish-posh to idealism. I liked your expression pish-posh very much, BTW :-)) But the meaning of any appearance, in this case the aversion, is mind-generated. Not through some necessity, but because of the craving to be the one who hates that sort of music Herman #71341 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 9:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness lbidd2 Hi Howard, Since you seem to be running out of steam I will answer my own questions. H: "The separateness and independence of a thing that I'm denying is with respect to those phenomena that are requisite conditions for that thing." L: Does anyone really perceive a tree as being separate from its color, shape, hardness, or life and death? No, this wrongly formulated. No one perceives a tree. We only perceive the signs of a tree, such as shape, texture, etc. A tree shape is not a tree. "Separateness" means separate from me, from what I own. Wonderful. We agree! Larry #71342 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ugly Defilements sarahprocter... Hi James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > You are talking in circles and it is really starting to give me a > headache. ... S: I'm carefully indicating the inconsistency in your arguments which do go round in a circle, I think:). ... >Let's forget this whole line of piece-meal discussion and > get to the point. ... S: I think you've missed the point ... >We have two positions here (the first is yours and > the second is mine): > > 1.Viewing the defilements as simply realities which arise. They are > not beautiful or ugly ... ... S: Nope. Quote where I've said this. I see no point in putting imaginary ideas into others' clear-cut comments: To refresh your memory, these were the first 3 statements we agreed together: 1. We both believe that Greed, Hatred and Ignorance are unwholesome or 'bad'. We can even use the word 'ugly' here. 2. The greed, hatred and ignorance which is of such a gross kind as to inflict harm on others is very bad, very ugly indeed. 3. More subtle kinds of greed, hatred and ignorance which may not even be noticed by ourselves or others are also bad, ugly. ... > 2.Viewing the defilements as pernicious obstacles to wisdom and > happiness. They are ugly in every sense of the word and we should > have aversion toward them because they are ugly and harmful. ... S: In effect you are saying that even though defilements are 'pernicious obstacles to wisdom and happiness', 'ugly in every sense of the word', still aversion (one of these 'pernicious' and 'ugly defilements) should be actively cultivated. It makes no sense to me. .... One > should do his/her best to rid the mind of the defilements because > that is what the Buddha taught. ... S: Did the Buddha teach that the way to rid the mind of the defilements ('the pernicious obstacles to wisdom and happiness')was by cultivating the defilement of aversion (dosa)? .... > > I am going to quote another sutta to support my position. It is much > longer and detailed than the Dhammapada quotes. Sarah, I want you to > note that you have yet to quote one single, solitary sutta to support > your position: ... S: OK, before I even read yours, here's the first common one that comes to mind: MN21 "Bhikkhus, even if bandits were to sever you savagely limb by limb with a two-handled saw, he who gave rise to a mind of hate towards them would not be carrying out my teaching. Herein, bhikkhus, you should train thus: 'Our minds will remain unaffected, and we shall utter no evil words; we shall abide compassionate for their welfare, with a mind of loving-kindness, without inner hate...." ... S: "with a mind of loving-kindness, without inner hate...." (metta cittaa no dosantaraa). With metta, not dosa. What is dosa? As indicated by others and clearly stated in the Abhidhamma, it includes ALL kinds of aversion from the very slightest unease to the most extreme kinds of anger. By remaining 'unaffected', is meant having equanimity. Of course there is bound to be dosa for all of those of us who are not anagamis. Still, no use in thinking that such moments of dosa is the path to wisdom. .... S: And from the sutta you kindly quoted: ... > "And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued > with ill will arose. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with ill will > has arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to the > affliction of others or to the affliction of both. It obstructs > discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding.' > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.019.than.html#cowherd2 .... S: Any ill will (i.e dosa from the most subtle to the grossest varieties) 'obstructs discernment, promotes vesation, & does not lead to Unbinding.' Seems pretty clear-cut to me, James! Metta, Sarah ======= #71343 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness lbidd2 Hi Herman, H: "The "I" is craving for existence / becoming. It takes the form of "I will be this, I will not be that". While on the topic, I think it is useful to differentiate self into two components, there is I, and there is me. I is the active subject of the self, and me is the passive object of self. I am the one who is actively hating the music, and this godawful music is happening to me. I am doing this awful music to myself. This is not to say that the sound is mind generated. (let's all say pish-posh to idealism. I liked your expression pish-posh very much, BTW :-)) But the meaning of any appearance, in this case the aversion, is mind-generated. Not through some necessity, but because of the craving to be the one who hates that sort of music" L: I like the distinction between I and me but it doesn't quite ring true that there is craving to be the one who hates the music. Maybe the craving is craving to be an experience, craving to be the hating in this case. We must secretly know we don't exist otherwise there wouldn't be a craving to exist, which basically means exist as an experience. "I" is a concept in search of an experience. Is that what you said? Larry #71344 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 6:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ugly Defilements TGrand458@... Hi Sarah and James Couple of comments... In a message dated 4/29/2007 11:05:04 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: S: In effect you are saying that even though defilements are 'pernicious obstacles to wisdom and happiness', 'ugly in every sense of the word', still aversion (one of these 'pernicious' and 'ugly defilements) should be actively cultivated. It makes no sense to me. .... TG: Perhaps the word "revulsion" instead of "aversion" would makes this easier for you Sarah? Did the Buddha teach us to develop revulsion toward conditionality, as a natural process of insight development? You bet he did! Over and over and over again. One > should do his/her best to rid the mind of the defilements because > that is what the Buddha taught. ... S: Did the Buddha teach that the way to rid the mind of the defilements ('the pernicious obstacles to wisdom and happiness')was by cultivating the defilement of aversion (dosa)? TG: If we stick with "revulsion," its not a defilement, but in effect, it acts much as aversion. Its much like the "desire" to be enlightened. Desire generally is a mental state that maintains Beings in samsara. But under the right conditions, its a motivator that can help bring about other states that can help free us from samsara. So, aversion which is usually on the side of holding us in samsara, under the right conditions (insight inspired aversion, i.e., revulsion), actually acts as a final impetus to lead us to freedom from samsara. TG #71345 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 11:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] what is sati, to sobhana. nilovg Dear sobhan, Tonight I cvlose up my Email and I am not sure I can asnwer you. I want to pay good attention to you post which raises important questions. Nina. Op 30-apr-2007, om 1:39 heeft Sobhana het volgende geschreven: > What is the difference in the mind of a meditator who is meditating > compared to a person who is walking and talking? #71346 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 11:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: conditions, to James. repost. nilovg Dear Herman, I did not say this. At the moments of listening and understanding there is no wrong view. I am thinking of momentary cittas. I cannot explain more, leaving tomorrow. Nina. Op 30-apr-2007, om 2:01 heeft Herman Hofman het volgende geschreven: > You are saying that listening to the Tipitaka > with self-view is OK #71347 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 11:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? nilovg Dear James, lazy? On the contrary, right effort together with the other Path factors. Your other post: You want us to quote suttas for everything that Kh Sujin explains. But, don't forget: satipatthaana is the application of the Abhidhamma. I do not think of the books of the Abhidhamma, there is also Abhidhamma in the suttas. Let us put off debate until I am back. Nina. Op 30-apr-2007, om 3:05 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > Don't you think that this is justification for being rather lazy? How > are you ever going to wake up with this attitude? #71348 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 12:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ugly Defilements buddhatrue Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi James, > > --- buddhatrue wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > > > You are talking in circles and it is really starting to give me a > > headache. > ... > S: I'm carefully indicating the inconsistency in your arguments which do > go round in a circle, I think:). > ... > >Let's forget this whole line of piece-meal discussion and > > get to the point. > ... > S: I think you've missed the point > ... I read this post (and TG's post) but I will have to get back to responding tomorrow. I have allowed myself time during school to read and respond to DSG, but not in the evenings or weekends. I need to start practicing meditation more than I debate about it! ;-)) However, I do have to say that I like the tone of this post which is more straightforward and avoids all of the confusing "niceties" which usually pepper your other posts. You show that it is okay to be aggressive and confrontational without being nasty and personal (please take note Ken H. and Scott). Metta, James #71349 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 12:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ugly Defilements sarahprocter... Hi TG (& James), --- TGrand458@... wrote: > S: In effect you are saying that even though defilements are > 'pernicious > obstacles to wisdom and happiness', 'ugly in every sense of the word', > still aversion (one of these 'pernicious' and 'ugly defilements) should > be > actively cultivated. It makes no sense to me. > .... > > TG: Perhaps the word "revulsion" instead of "aversion" would makes > this > easier for you Sarah? .... S: Well 'aversion' was the word James used. Earlier he had *disagreed *with this: 4. So feeling angry, annoyed, uneasy or disturbed by any object is not of value, just as being attached to any object is not of value, even though such states of mind occur all the time. .... S: Clearly what James and I have been discussing is a common ordinary defilement. ..... >Did the Buddha teach us to develop revulsion > toward > conditionality, as a natural process of insight development? You bet > he did! > Over and over and over again. .... S: Probably here you are referring to something like nibbidaanupassanaa-~na.na, i.e one of the advanced stages of insight. No dosa (anger, disturbance, annoyance or uneasiness) involved, no matter what the translation used. To suggest that this is what the discussion was about might make a good escape clause for a keen debater, but would definitely be not only a moving of the goal posts, but a complete change of game in the process:). .... > TG: If we stick with "revulsion," its not a defilement, but in effect, > it > acts much as aversion. Its much like the "desire" to be enlightened. > Desire > generally is a mental state that maintains Beings in samsara. But > under the > right conditions, its a motivator that can help bring about other > states that > can help free us from samsara. .... S: As I said, insight is not what is being discussed. As for your other comments, if by revulsion, you are referring to nibbidaanupassanaa-~na.na, it definitely doesn't act anything like aversion. The first is a highly developed wisdom accompanied by pleasant or neutral feeling and by adosa (the opposite of aversion). The latter is dosa, one of the 3 roots of evil, always accompanied by unpleasant feeling. Similarly, desire (lobha,attachment) is another root of evil and the opposite of alobha (detachment). Chanda(sometimes translated [mis-translated?} as desire) can be wholesome or unwholesome, but the wholesome chanda never accompanies lobha. .... > So, aversion which is usually on the side of holding us in samsara, > under > the right conditions (insight inspired aversion, i.e., revulsion), > actually > acts as a final impetus to lead us to freedom from samsara. .... S: You'd have to clarify your terms. 'Inspired aversion' is a new one to me? Inspired dosa? See my comments above. ***** ****** S: While we're chatting, with regard to your comments about what the Buddha said and your disturbance (inspired aversion??)over some comments of Nina's and mine, let me know which of the following you agree with: 1. Suttas attributed to the Buddha are the Buddha's word (Buddha vacana). 2. Suttas attributed to key disciples are Buddha vacana. 3. When the Buddha says that his key disciples explain the teachings as he does and that what is in conformity with his teachings is Buddha vacana, he is correct. 4. Whether such key disciples expound/elaborate in the Suttas, Vinaya or Abhidhamma does not affect their validity. 5. Whether such key disciples expound/elaborate in the Tipitaka or commentaries does not affect their validity. 6. Dhamma-Vinaya refers to the Tipitaka, inc. the Abhidhamma 7. Some commentaries, such as that to the Sutta Nipata were included with the Suttas from the First Council. 8. Some suttas were originally commentaries but became part of the Sutta Pitaka. 9. Some of the Abhidhamma texts were originally part of the Sutta Pitaka. ***** S: I have more I could ask with regard to the early Councils, the Theravada tradition/the Mahavihara tradition and so on. Let's see about these ones first however.[for others, see also, Abhidhamma- origins, Commentaries -origins in 'useful posts'] I assure you I don't wish to be a condition for any disturbance over this, TG. I appreciate your elaborating on your misgivings over these 2 areas and for continuing the discussions. Metta, Sarah ====== #71350 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 12:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Meditation Tip - tandem sarahprocter... Hi Dieter, Apologies for the delay. You asked in your earlier message for a reference with regard to those who attain enlightenment without prior mundance jhanas and the concentration level. Perhaps this summary note in the Guide to #30,31 'Compendium of Consciousness' in 'Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma' ed by B.Bodhi will help: "Those who develop insight without a basis of jhaana are called practitioners of bare insight (sukkhavipassaka). When they reach the path and fruit, their path and fruition cittas occur at a level corresponding to the first jhaana. "Those who develop insight on the basis of jhaana attain a path and fruit which corresponds to the level of jhaana they had attained before reaching the path." .... S: So when we read in suttas about jhaana, it can refer to mundane or supramundane jhaana. This was what I was referring to with regard to the Dhp quote you gave. ... --- Dieter Möller wrote: > S: As I understand, there cannot be jhana without panna, but this is > not necessarily the panna of vipassana... snip . > > D: would you agree to 'jhana without a certain level of panna..? ... S: No, there cannot be jhana without panna. There cannot be any development of samatha without panna. As I emphasised above, there are different degrees and kinds of panna, however. ... > Following the threefold Path training of sila, samadhi and panna , each > part provides the ground for the following . A gradual - of course > interrelated - process leading to the full penetration into the wisdom > of the 4 Noble Truths incl. anicca, dukkha , anatta with the aim of > abolishing ignorance/avijja . .... S: When there is a gradual, interrelated process 'leading to the full penetration.....etc', there is sila, samadhi and panna from the very start as I understand. Even for the prelude or prior steps of satipatthana, there has to be right concentration and right understanding. There is sila whenever there is any 'right'. For example, now we are reflecting (wisely, I think) on the path. Without panna, there couldn't be even this wise reflection. There is also sila - the avoidance of any harm at such times and the momentary concentration is right, not wrong. .... > S:At moments of lokuttara cittas arising, the concentration is said to > be equivalent to 1st jhana at least (appana samadhi). For those who have > never attained mundane jhana, it is 1st jhana level. So sometimes this > is what is referred to in context > > D: where is it said? ... S: OK, this is what I started with. It's said in the Abhidhamma and commentaries. It's also said in the Suttas, depending on how one understands the references:). .... > The first Jhana is described by (quite ) detached from sensual (5 > senses) objects and unwholesome (lobha/dosa.. 5 hindrances) states of > minds .. > sorry , I do not yet understand what you mean.. .... S: And the lokuttara cittas experience nibbana with concentration equivalent to this degree. Of course, the lokuttara cittas are far, far superior because they eradicate for good the unwholesome roots at various levels. Pls let me know if this is not clear. I appreciate your posts and patience with my slow replies. Metta, Sarah ======== #71351 From: han tun Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 1:04 am Subject: Daana Corner (48) hantun1 Dear Dhamma Friends, We have come to the last essay compiled by Bhikkhu Bodhi: The Perfection of Giving (Acariya Dhammapala). It is being presented in 7 parts. The following is 6 of 7 parts. Questions, comments and different views welcome:-) ------------------------------ The gift of visible forms should be understood thus. Having gained something, such as a flower, garment, or relic of a blue, yellow, red, or white color, etc., considering it in terms of its visible form, thinking to make a gift of a visible form, he offers it to a worthy recipient together with its base. The gift of sounds should be understood by way of the sounds of drums, etc. It is certainly not possible to give a sound as one gives a cluster of lotuses, tearing it out by its bulb and roots and placing it in the hands. But one gives a gift of sound by giving its base. Thus he makes a gift of sound by presenting a musical instrument, such as drums or tom toms, to the Triple Gem; or by giving medicine for the voice, such as oil and molasses, to preachers of the Dhamma; or by announcing a lecture on the Dhamma, chanting the scriptures, giving a discourse on the Dhamma, holding a discussion, or expressing appreciation for the good deeds of others. The gift of scents is made when, after getting a delightfully scented object, such as scented roots, powdered scent, etc., considering it in terms of its scent, thinking to make a gift of scent, he offers it to the Triple Gem. He relinquishes a scented object such as agaru or sandalwood, for the purpose of making an offering of scent. The gift of tastes is made when, after getting a delightfully flavored object, such as flavored roots, etc., considering it in terms of its taste, thinking to make a gift of taste, he gives it to worthy recipients. Or he relinquishes a flavorful object, such as grain, cows, etc.[13] The gift of tangibles should be understood by way of beds, chairs, etc., and by way of coverlets and mantels, etc. For having gained some soft, delightful, blameless tangible object, such as a bed, chair, cushion, pillow, undergarment, or uppergarment, considering it in terms of its tangible qualities, thinking to make a gift of a tangible item, he gives it to worthy recipients; having gained the aforesaid tangible objects, he relinquishes them. The gift of mental objects (dhammadana) should be understood by way of nutriment, drink, and life, since it is the mental-object base which is here intended.[14] Having gained a delightful object such as nutriment, considering it as part of the mental-object base, thinking to make a gift of a non-sensory object, he gives nutriment — i.e., ghee, butter, etc., or a drink — i.e., the eight kinds of drink such as mango juice, etc.; or, considering it a gift of life, he gives a ticket-meal or a fortnightly meal, etc., gets doctors to wait upon the sick and afflicted, liberates animals from a net, has a fishing net or bird-cage destroyed, releases prisoners from prison, causes an injunction to be given forbidding the slaughter of animals, or undertakes any action of a similar nature for the sake of protecting the life of beings. This entire accomplishment in giving he dedicates to the welfare and happiness of the whole world, and to his own unshakable emancipation through supreme enlightenment. He dedicates it to the attainment of inexhaustible desire (for the good), inexhaustible concentration, ingenuity, knowledge, and emancipation. In practicing the perfection of giving the Great Being should apply the perception of impermanence to life and possessions. He should consider them as shared in common with many, and should constantly and continuously arouse great compassion towards beings. Just as, when a house is blazing, the owner removes all his property of essential value and himself as well without leaving anything important behind, so does the Great Man invariably give, without discrimination and without concern. Note 13. Doubtlessly the commentator means cows as a source for the "five delicacies" — milk, curd, butter, ghee, and cream of ghee — not as a source of beefsteak. Note 14. Dhamma here, as the context indicates, means the sixth type of object, not the Buddha's teaching. This class of object includes the nutritive essence of food and the life faculty, hence the explanation that follows in the text. To be continued. metta, Han #71352 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 4:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness scottduncan2 Dear Larry, Thanks for the question: L: Is there a problem with a conviction that everything is real? Scott: Please correct anything that seems akilter. I guess what I mean by 'real' requires qualification. The sense of 'real' in the above is in contradistinction to the 'real' of naama, ruupa, and Nibbaana. The lyric from Strawberry Fields, 'nothing is real', is not a solution to this problem so I'm meaning it in only a certain way. That being said, yes, I think there is a problem with a conviction that 'everything is real'. This conviction is samsaara. It is a low ceiling. It is being imbedded. When the Dhamma is unknown, when even the idea that things are other than what they seem ('everything is real') has not arisen, experience is so pressing, so compelling, so enchanting, so awful, so whatever, that one is deeply into it. 'Everything is real' describes this state. In a moment, when refuge in the Buddha arises, and even before this experience includes any knowledge about the content of Dhamma - just in that moment - things change. This would be like seeing the Buddha, I think, and wanting to go hear him speak. What was 'real' before is shattered - a Buddha is in the world, what does he say? When the Dhamma is encountered it can further shatter 'everything is real'. There is content now. There is a way it is. There are words and concepts describing what it is that is 'real'. What is was when 'everything is real' is no longer what it is after hearing even a bit of the Dhamma. I can only dimmly imagine what one must have experienced at the time of the Buddha, actually hearing the Dhamma and suddenly and deeply 'getting it'. Time and again, in 'Sisters' this experience is described. This would have to include a profound shattering of what 'real' means. Anyway, Larry, please go over this and help me consider what I've said. Sincerely, Scott. #71353 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 12:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/30/07 12:42:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@... writes: > Does anyone really perceive a tree as being separate from its color, > shape, hardness, or life and death? No, this wrongly formulated. No one > perceives a tree. We only perceive the signs of a tree, such as shape, > texture, etc. ================= Larry, what you are pointing to here are those conditions one takes as the qualities of a tree, which are not "it's" only conditions; there is also all the dhammas entering into what we call soil and air and sunlight and pollonization, etc.But in any case, what you are telling me here is that YOU are not beset by reification. But I can assure that most folks think of a tree as an entity, an individual. People may not perceive a tree, but they sure think they do - and what they actually perceive in THAT regard is a mental fabrication. With metta, Howard #71354 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 1:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ugly Defilements upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah & James (and Nina) - In a message dated 4/30/07 1:05:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > S: Any ill will (i.e dosa from the most subtle to the grossest varieties) > 'obstructs discernment, promotes vesation, &does not lead to Unbinding.' > Seems pretty clear-cut to me, James! > > =================== James, I think that you were quite right right in saying to Nina that the defilements should not just be observed and accepted, but should be observed, seen for how injurious they are, and weakened and rooted out by purposeful action. OTOH, Sarah, you also are very much correct, I think, that aversive response to the defilements, while oh-so-natural, is one of those very defilements in action. James, the whole point, I think, of cultivating the jhanas is to calm the mind and weaken defilements in a way that doesn't exercise those defilements. More generally, the greater the equanimity with which we can observe whatever arises, including defiled reactions, the more objectively and clearly we can see them for what they are, and the more successful we can be in energetically opposing them. Obviously, we can only do the best we can, and we start where we are, but putting aversive reaction on the back-burner as best we can, even with regard to the defilements, is only to the good, I would say. With metta, Howard #71355 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 5:39 am Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Thanks for the reply. H: "Yes, the suttas are thinking. That's why, once a sutta has done it's job, you do with it what you do with a raft that has served it's purpose." Scott: Yes, this is often said. I'm not saying that I think I understand what the simile means but, to me, one either parrots it (and I'm not suggesting this is what you are doing) or that which is described via simile occurs. Heres a definition of simile: "A direct, expressed comparison between two things essentially unlike each other, but resembling each other in at least one way. In formal prose the simile is a device both of art and explanation, comparing the unfamiliar thing (to be explained) to some familiar thing (an object, event, process, etc.) known to the reader. There is no simile in the comparison, "My car is like your car," because the two objects are not "essentially unlike" each other." home.cfl.rr.com/eghsap/apterms.html Scott: To say a sutta 'has done its job' is to say a lot with few words - pithy. The sutta expresses a Buddha's thoughts about Dhamma. Dhamma is a way out of samsaara. Hearing the Dhamma, when conditions are right (natural support thingy) effects changes in the moment. If this moment is the Path, certain mental factors are strengthened and some things just don't occur due to lack of conditions. This occurs because it does and this, I'd say, is like 'do[ing] what you do with a raft that has served its purpose'. The raft floats away. There is, to reiterate, no one who does anything with a raft which isn't there either. (Not to be annoying, just sticking to my side of the discussion). H: "The Buddha and the rest of us were born into a world of thinking, and a world of suffering. The Buddha is not the originator of thinking and suffering, but he uses skillful means to serve others. I see no instructions by the Buddha to enshrine his texts, but rather to do what they say. The end of suffering is not in having the Buddha's words echoing in your head from dawn till dusk, but in depriving a foothold to consciousness in name-and-form. A piece of remembered text is just such a foothold. But if the text is an instruction, and that instruction is followed, there is not such a foothold." Scott: Very good. I agree about the world of thinking and suffering. I agree that the Buddha did not originate thinking and suffering. I agree that no edict was issued by the Buddha to 'enshrine' texts. I would suggest, though, that the suttas were spoken, not to be memorised or 'meditated on', nor even to 'instruct' in the sense of 'driver's manual', rather Dhamma is taught to describe a Path. The Dhamma is like a path. This is a simile. I likely understand 'instruction' differently than you, since we each differ how we see the role of 'actor' in the scheme of things. H: "The Buddha taught the noble eightfold path, in service of the 4 noble truths. Agreed? Which of the factors of that path endorses the proliferation of thinking about the teachings?" Scott: Good question. Since breakfast time is fast approaching, I'm going to skip to the end and come back to this one, if you don't mind. It needs more consideration. I'd say quickly that this is more or less a rhetorical question since I think we both agree that a 'proliferation of thinking' is not helpful... H: "No, I need other to be accounted for because Buddhism is not about the workings of a solipsistic mind. I signed off in yesterdays post with the holy life being exactly nothing but others, namely good friends. Others are not mental factors, or objects - that is solipsism." Scott: A brief interlude while I add a few definitions of solipsism, music please (not 'Smells Like Teen Spirit'): "The view confining reality to oneself and one's experiences." "The theory that self is the only object of real knowledge or that nothing but self exists." "The belief that no one exists other than oneself." "[A] theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified, or that the self is the only reality." "A form of SCEPTICISM. Solipsism is the belief that nothing exists except my mind and the creations of my mind." Scott: I don't endorse these views. I don't think the Dhamma is solipsistic nor do I think it teaches solipsism. I don't for a minute think that 'others' are mental factors or 'objects'. I do think, though, that action leads to result. I do think that this 'takes place' in only 'one stream'. That you are kind to me is the end product of a vastly complex set of factors occuring 'within you'. This kindness, a mental factor, is developing through its repeated arising, but its developing 'in you'. This is only 'for the good of' the mental factor as it arises 'over there'. Conditions are in place here, with 'me', which allow for certain mental factors to constellate a 'reaction'. If conditions are in place, your kindness can serve as benefit to me. It might not either. I mean, I might be unable to experience it as kindness, for any number of reasons. That I do experience it that way is due to the constellation of that moment of consciousness. If I experience your kindness, then, I'd say, this would reflect the result of kusala kamma for 'me'. Its good to discuss this. I think its very difficult and important. H: Some more about others: "The individual who practices for his/her own benefit and for that of others is the foremost, the chief, the most outstanding, the highest, & supreme." "And who is the individual who practices for his/her own benefit and for that of others? There is the case where a certain individual practices for the subduing of passion within him/herself and encourages others in the subduing of passion; practices for the subduing of aversion within him/herself and encourages others in the subduing of aversion; practices for the subduing of delusion within him/herself and encourages others in the subduing of delusion. Such is the individual who practices for his/her own benefit and for that of others." Scott: Yay, suttas. What's the reference please? Gotta go - never enough time for this... Thanks, Herman. Have at the arguments above if you will. Sincerely, Scott. #71356 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dangers of rebirth: anatta, pinnacle of dhamma? rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" ? > --------------- > > It goes without saying that all suttas are beneficial. I see this one > as (in part) a description of micha-ditthi as a powerful conditioning > factor for the most unpleasant forms of vipaka. > > However, I also know that hell-wardens and iron spikes are concepts > (illusions). So too are the victims of their torture. Knowing that > keeps me sane. > > ------------------------ Dear Ken, As long as you know the pain in those states is absolutely real. ---------------- > RK: > 2. Even those beings who have atta belief if they have right > view > about kamma and rebirth the path of heaven is still open. They > benfit to the extent that they understand correctly. > ------------------- > > Yes, I can see that the way to heaven is still open in such cases. We > know that great samatha can be developed when there is panna of the > kind that knows the advantages of kusala and the disadvantages of > akusala. > > I suppose "advantages and disadvantages" would entail knowing that > kusala kamma will have pleasant results in the future and akusala > kamma will have unpleasant results. But I am not sure about that. I > could be convinced either way. Maybe, for jhana meditators before the > Buddha's time, it was enough to know that kusala citta was > accompanied by true calm, and akusala citta was accompanied by, at > best, false calm. (?) Which way do you see it? ============= Those jhana meditators had great wisdom- only surpassed by the Buddha's path. Robert #71357 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:58 am Subject: what is sati, to sobhana. The stream of Dhamma. nilovg Dear Sobhana, S: What is the difference in the mind of a meditator who is meditating compared to a person who is walking and talking? ---------- N: What is meditation? This includes Samatha and Vipassana. People have different accumulated inclinations, some in the Buddha's time could develop samatha to the level of jhaana and if they also developed vipassanaa jhaana could be a foundation for insight. Who is walking and talking may do so with moha and wrong view or with right understanding of nama and rupa. -------- S: Why is it that a meditator who focuses on the breath or the rising/ falling of the abdomen able to "differenciate" the nama and rupa, -------- N: As I understood from the Visuddhimagga the movement of the abdomen is not included in mindfulness of breath. When he develops in the right way mindfulness of breath as it touches the nosetip or upperlip, and if he has accumulated skill for jhaana he can attain jhaana. He can reach the first stage of insight, which is tender insight, namely knowing the difference between the characteristics of nama and rupa, if he is mindful of nama and rupa that appear. --------- S: compared to a person not meditating, it is difficult for him/her to "see/observe" the anicca nature of the mind and body? Is it because the meditator has more "concentration" and more "mindfulness"? --------- N: This depends on the development of insight in stages. It depends on pa~n~naa. Right view of the eightfold Path is accompanied by right concentration and right mindfulness. The concentration developed in mundane jhaana does not have nama and rupa as object, but it has the meditation subjects of samatha as objects. The following sutta shows that people have different inclinations, but that most important is whether hearing Dhamma has effect. We read Anguttara Nikaaya Book of the Sixes, (III, 3470, § 2 Migasaala, about two brothers Puraa.na and Isisdatta, chamberlains of the King. Isidatta was married and enjoyed sense pleasures, whereas Isidatta abstained from sense pleasures. Puraa.na was excellent in siila whereas Isidatta was excellent in insight. They both after their death were sakadagami, dwelling in Tusita. The Buddha speaks about six types of persons and explains that one cannot judge other people. What matters is whether hearing Dhamma and learning have effect. For example: The opposite is true for someone in whom hearing has effect. Thus, someone may speak harshly, but when hearing Dhamma has effect, he can develop understanding of nama and rupa, even when he speaks with anger. Cittas are so fast, and in between akusala cittas there can be kusala cittas with understanding. Returning to your first remark, hearing dhamma can take effect also when walking and talking, even when akusala cittas arise. We also read in the same sutta: Not everyone can live like Isidatta, who saw the disadvantages of sense pleasures and lived secluded. Nobody can judge other people except the Buddha. Nina. #71358 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:06 am Subject: Perfections N, 23. nilovg Dear friends, Khun Sujin said that she asked us about our attitude, even though paññå has not reached the stage that the characteristics of impermanence, dukkha and anattå can be directly experienced, in order to show us that our different feelings about reality are dependent on our accumulations. She said that it may seem that the characteristics of impermanence, dukkha and anattã are known merely by thinking about them, but that this is not so. The nãma or rupa which appears can be directly known as impermanent, dukkha or anattå. She said that it is very important to remember that they are known by a reality which is not self. At this moment things appear as a whole, there is the whole world with all the people, there is self. Even when we consider nãma and rupa, paramattha dhammas, there is bound to be a notion of my understanding, we believe that there is I who understands. When there is a moment of insight there is no notion of self who knows. There is no I, no world; the six doors are separated, there are only realities appearing through one doorway at a time. Khun Sujin stressed that insight is developed together with detachment, detachment from the self. When insight has been developed to the stage of knowing the true nature of realities it arises naturally in daily life, for example, while one looks at people and all the things around oneself. The moment of insight is not intellectual understanding, it is developed panna which directly knows the nãma or rupa which appears as it is. In the Theragatha (Canto 43) we read about the Thera Sumangala who was born in a poor family of farmers. He went forth and, after a meditation subject was given to him, he was sent to the woods. He found it too difficult to live in solitude and therefore he departed to his village again. There he saw the peasants ploughing the fields in soiled garments, covered with dust blown by hotwinds. We read in the Commentary to this Canto: And he thought: Truly these fellows earn their living in great misery! and feeling anxious, his insight approaching maturity, he set himself to do exercises that had been given him, going to the roots of a tree, and biding in seclusion... After he had seen the farmers he realized with insight that life is dukkha. His wisdom reached maturity and he finally attained arahatship. He spoke the following verse which gives expression to his freedom from dukkha: Well rid, well rid, O excellently rid am I from these three crooked tasks and tools, rid of my reaping with your sickles, rid of trudging after ploughs, and rid is my back of bending over these wretched little spades. Though they be ever here, ay, ever here, enough of them, I say, for me, enough! Go meditate, Sumangala, ay go and meditate, Sumangala, and bide Earnest and diligent, Sumangala! While Sumangala looked at the farmers he developed right understanding of the nãrna and rupa appearing at that moment. He had developed understanding during countless previous lives, otherwise he could not have attained arahatship. We do not have to look for a particular object in order to develop insight, we do not have to avoid looking at people, talking to them or laughing, because any object in daily life can be the object of insight. Our aim should be to have more understanding of what is real so that the notion of self and other defilements can be eradicated. In this way the perfection of wisdom can develop. ******** Nina. #71361 From: "Robert" Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ugly Defilements avalo1968 Sarah, James, and all, Thank you for a very interesting and helpful discussion. In what is perhaps a related line, I wonder if some of our Pali scholars could help me with the following passage from the Girimananda Sutta as translated by Nanamoli Bhikkhu: "And what, Ananda, is contemplation of impermanence in all formations? Here, Ananda, a bhikkhu is horrified, humiliated, and disgusted by all formations" The translator comments: Horrified: has horror, is oppressed. Humiliated: feels shame, is abashed Disgusted: arouses disgust as though having seen something filthy Does anyone know what Pali terms are translated as horrified, humiliated, and disgusted? Thank you for your help. Robert A. #71362 From: han tun Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ugly Defilements hantun1 Dear Robert (and others), If the passage is from AN 10.60 Girimananda Sutta, 9. Katamaacaananda sabbasankhaaresu aniccaasa~n~naa: Idhaananda bhikkhu sabbasankhaarehi attiiyati haraayati jigucchati. Ayam vuccataananda sabbasaïkhaaresu aniccaasa~n~naa. [9] "And what is the perception of the undesirability of all fabrications? There is the case where a monk feels horrified, humiliated, & disgusted with all fabrications. This is called the perception of the undesirability of all fabrications. (But this translation is by Thanissaro Bhikkhu) a.t.tiyati = horrified (to be in trouble or anxiety, to be worried, usually combined with “haraayati”) haraayati = humiliated (to be ashamed, often combined with “a.t.tiyati”) jigucchati = disgusted (loathe, detest) Respectfully, Han --- Robert wrote: > Sarah, James, and all, > The translator comments: > Horrified: has horror, is oppressed. > Humiliated: feels shame, is abashed > Disgusted: arouses disgust as though having seen > something filthy > > Does anyone know what Pali terms are translated as > horrified, humiliated, and disgusted? > > > #71363 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:07 am Subject: The Problem! bhikkhu5 Friends: The Problem of Life is sure Death! The Blessed Buddha once said: The days and nights are flying past, Life dwindles hurriedly away: The life of mortals vanishes Like water in a tiny stream. SN 4:10 FUTURE FALL As in the morning one may fear The falling of the ripened fruits, So all mortals in this world Live in constant fear of death. Since certain is their death! Snp 576 CERTAIN All beings are subject to death, end in death, can never escape death. As every earthenware pot that has Been fashioned by the potter's hand, No matter whether small or great, Will fall & break to pieces in the end: Just so are all beings subject to death, end in death, can never escape death. All beings some time have to die, Their life one day will end in death, And they will fare after their doings, The good or bad fruits they will earn. The evil-doer fares to the burning hell, The good noble man to a happy world. Hence, noble doings you should perform As a safe provision for the next life, For good doings in the next world give To living beings their only support On the other side! SN 3:22 CRUSHED Just as the mighty rocky mounts Are stretching high up to the sky, Traversing all the land around, And weighing heavily down on it! Just so do old age and death suppress All living beings in this world, whether warriors, priests, traders, workers, The sweepers and the animals, too, Not sparing anyone or anything whatsoever, Crushing all life that can be found. SN 3:25 MOMENTARY Whosoever knows this body to be as temporary as a bubble, as insubstantial as the mirror image, such one will break the flower tipped arrows of Mara and cannot be seen by this King of Death ... Dhammapada 46 SURPRISE Death carries off the man while distracted by gathering flowers of sensual pleasures, exactly & even so as a great flood carries away a sleeping village. Dhammapada 47 http://What-Buddha-Said.net/Canon/Sutta/KN/Dhammapada.htm Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <.....> #71364 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 3:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness egberdina Hi Larry, On 30/04/07, LBIDD@... wrote: > > > L: I like the distinction between I and me but it doesn't quite ring > true that there is craving to be the one who hates the music. Maybe the > craving is craving to be an experience, craving to be the hating in this > case. We must secretly know we don't exist otherwise there wouldn't be a > craving to exist, which basically means exist as an experience. "I" is a > concept in search of an experience. Is that what you said? > Yeah, pretty much. "I" in this case being consciousness (vinnana), in search of an object (namarupa) Herman #71365 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 12:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ugly Defilements TGrand458@... Hi Sarah, James, others, I realized today I made an extraordinarily weak case yesterday regarding the use of aversion in Buddha's teaching. Now that I think about it, the primary gist of the whole of the Buddha's teaching is designed to make one averse to conditionality. I don't care how you want to dissect the word aversion, the idea is to -- retreat, "get away from," "to be repulsed by," etc. Examples taught by the Buddha, which include the Sutta copied below from Han, include ... 1) The nine charnel grounds 2) The foulness of the body 3) The various states of hell 4) The various tortures of the times 5) Conditions as a murderer with raised sword about to cut off your head 6) Sickness 7) Old age 8) Death 9) Imagining your hair on fire This is just a little simple list from the top of my head. Indeed, the Buddha over and over taught to "scare us straight." As the Buddha made clear, most people tend toward lust and seeing beauty in things. His teaching tended to use aversion and seeing the ugliness of things as a way to put minds in a more neutral state ... whereby phenomena could be seen more objectively. But also, to strongly motivate folks to "get the hell out of here." Although these teachings can apply to the "almost enlightened," my sense is they are designed for all stages on the Path. And maybe especially to beginners and intermediates. In my book, they are generating aversion toward conditionality and opening eyes to the actualities of conditional nature. TG #71366 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 5:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ugly Defilements kenhowardau Hi all, Sorry if I am stating the obvious, but I would like to point out that there are two distinct topics being discussed here. Firstly, there is the [misguided] notion that the Buddha taught us to hate our defilements. Secondly, there is the [correct] notion that the Buddha taught dispassion and renunciation in regard to all conditioned existence (as in the Girimananda Sutta). At.tiyati and haraayati are not cetasikas. They do not always refer to dosa. We must not for a moment think that the Buddha taught dosa as a way out of samsara. As far as I can see, they are commonly used words being used in this case to describe the unique function of panna when it is directing the mind away from conditioned dhammas and towards nibbana. Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > Sarah, James, and all, > > Thank you for a very interesting and helpful discussion. > > In what is perhaps a related line, I wonder if some of our Pali > scholars could help me with the following passage from the > Girimananda Sutta as translated by Nanamoli Bhikkhu: > > "And what, Ananda, is contemplation of impermanence in all > formations? Here, Ananda, a bhikkhu is horrified, humiliated, and > disgusted by all formations" > #71367 From: "Robert" Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 5:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ugly Defilements avalo1968 Thank you Han, That is exactly the information I was seeking and I appreciate your prompt reply. Robert A. #71368 From: LBIDD@... Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 5:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness lbidd2 Hi Scott, I think you are saying self is ignorance. I can see how ignorance can be a cause of self belief and a factor in self belief, but I would like to see something a little more specific that characterizes self belief and distinguishes it from other erroneous beliefs. If I've gotten this wrong, please correct. Larry --------------------- S: "The sense of 'real' in the above is in contradistinction to the 'real' of naama, ruupa, and Nibbaana." #71369 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ugly Defilements rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > >> > TG: If we stick with "revulsion," its not a defilement, but in effect, it > acts much as aversion. Its much like the "desire" to be enlightened. Desire > generally is a mental state that maintains Beings in samsara. But under the > right conditions, its a motivator that can help bring about other states that > can help free us from samsara. > > So, aversion which is usually on the side of holding us in samsara, under > the right conditions (insight inspired aversion, i.e., revulsion), actually > acts as a final impetus to lead us to freedom from samsara. _________ Dear TG I was wondering if you have more support for this idea. I would have thought the factor was one of panna not aversion. Robert #71370 From: LBIDD@... Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness lbidd2 Hi Howard, I would say ordinarily we perceive a dhamma or whatever without considering its dependent relationships. If we actually perceive dependent relationships that is the next level of insight after distinguishing nama and rupa (Purification by Overcoming Doubt). To my mind not perceiving dependent relationships doesn't add up to self view. It is more like independence view or ignorance view. But I will concede that it could be construed as self view. However, one thing to remember about any kind of wrong view is that it is totally wrapped in attachment. Larry #71371 From: LBIDD@... Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness lbidd2 Hi Herman, H: " "I" in this case being consciousness (vinnana), in search of an object (namarupa)" L: If "I" is consciousness how can consciousness be anatta? Larry #71372 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:45 pm Subject: Re: Ugly Defilements buddhatrue Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > >We have two positions here (the first is yours and > > the second is mine): > > > > 1.Viewing the defilements as simply realities which arise. They are > > not beautiful or ugly ... > ... > S: Nope. Quote where I've said this. I see no point in putting imaginary > ideas into others' clear-cut comments: James: Sorry, when I wrote that summary of your position I had in mind the quote by K. Sujin where she clearly states that defilements aren't ugly, they are just realities. I thought that you were in agreement with KS and that's why you were posting to me. It was difficult for me to keep all of your points in mind because you had at least 11 of them and they were going to keep growing! My brain is just too small to remember all that information at once. Howard might be able to do that, but I can't. ;-)) Anyway, I am only interested in addressing the statement by KS as a reference point. I can't be debating your, Nina's, Scott's, Howard's, KT's, etc. individual positions/variations on this subject. That is just too much and too confusing for me. If you disagree with where KS states that defilements are ugly, then just say so and let's move on. I want to stick to the original parameters of this discussion. > > To refresh your memory, these were the first 3 statements we agreed > together: > What is dosa? As indicated by others and clearly stated in the Abhidhamma, > it includes ALL kinds of aversion from the very slightest unease to the > most extreme kinds of anger. By remaining 'unaffected', is meant having > equanimity. > > Of course there is bound to be dosa for all of those of us who are not > anagamis. Still, no use in thinking that such moments of dosa is the path > to wisdom. > .... > S: And from the sutta you kindly quoted: > ... > > "And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued > > with ill will arose. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with ill will > > has arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to the > > affliction of others or to the affliction of both. It obstructs > > discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding.' > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.019.than.html#cowherd2 > .... > S: Any ill will (i.e dosa from the most subtle to the grossest varieties) > 'obstructs discernment, promotes vesation, & does not lead to Unbinding.' > Seems pretty clear-cut to me, James! James: I don't know how you could possibly say that this issue is clear cut! This is a very complicated issue and you are trying to over-simplify it: "I shall show you, O monks, a way of Dhamma presentation by which there are one hundred and eight (feelings). Hence listen to me. "In one way, O monks, I have spoken of two kinds of feelings, and in other ways of three, five, six, eighteen, thirty six and one hundred and eight feelings. "What are the two feelings? Bodily and mental feelings. "What are the three feelings? Pleasant, painful and neither-painful- nor-pleasant feelings. "What are the five feelings? The faculties of pleasure, pain, gladness, sadness and equanimity. "What are the six feelings? The feelings born of sense-impression through eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind. "What are the eighteen feelings? There are the (above) six feelings by which there is an approach (to the objects) in gladness; and there are six approaches in sadness and there are six approaches in equanimity. "What are the thirty six feelings? There are six feelings of gladness based on the household life and six based on renunciation; six feelings of sadness based on the household life and six based on renunciation; six feelings of equanimity based on the household life and six based on renunciation. "What are the hundred and eight feelings? There are the (above) thirty six feelings of the past; there are thirty six of the future and there are thirty six of the present. "These, O monks, are called the hundred and eight feelings; and this is the way of the Dhamma presentation by which there are one hundred and eight feelings." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel303.html The subject of feelings is not easy to understand or clear-cut. It is important to differentiate between feelings (vedana), emotions, and underlying tendencies, because they are each different. Feelings (pleasant, painful, and neither) are experienced by both the arahant and the worldling. They are not the defilements and as long as there is a body with senses, these feelings will be experienced. However, the underlying tendencies and the emotions are the defilements and they can be eliminated. This is what the Buddha taught about the underlying tendencies: "When an untaught worldling is touched by a painful (bodily) feeling, he worries and grieves, he laments, beats his breast, weeps and is distraught. He thus experiences two kinds of feelings, a bodily and a mental feeling. It is as if a man were pierced by a dart and, following the first piercing, he is hit by a second dart. So that person will experience feelings caused by two darts. It is similar with an untaught worldling: when touched by a painful (bodily) feeling, he worries and grieves, he laments, beats his breast, weeps and is distraught. So he experiences two kinds of feeling: a bodily and a mental feeling. "Having been touched by that painful feeling, he resists (and resents) it. Then in him who so resists (and resents) that painful feeling, an underlying tendency of resistance against that painful feeling comes to underlie (his mind). Under the impact of that painful feeling he then proceeds to enjoy sensual happiness. And why does he do so? An untaught worldling, O monks, does not know of any other escape from painful feelings except the enjoyment of sensual happiness. Then in him who enjoys sensual happiness, an underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feelings comes to underlie (his mind). He does not know, according to facts, the arising and ending of these feelings, nor the gratification, the danger and the escape, connected with these feelings. In him who lacks that knowledge, an underlying tendency to ignorance as to neutral feelings comes to underlie (his mind). When he experiences a pleasant feeling, a painful feeling or a neutral feeling, he feels it as one fettered by it. Such a one, O monks, is called an untaught worldling who is fettered by birth, by old age, by death, by sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair. He is fettered by suffering, this I declare. "But in the case of a well-taught noble disciple, O monks, when he is touched by a painful feeling, he will not worry nor grieve and lament, he will not beat his breast and weep, nor will he be distraught. It is one kind of feeling he experiences, a bodily one, but not a mental feeling. It is as if a man were pierced by a dart, but was not hit by a second dart following the first one. So this person experiences feelings caused by a single dart only. It is similar with a well-taught noble disciple: when touched by a painful feeling, he will no worry nor grieve and lament, he will not beat his breast and weep, nor will he be distraught. He experiences one single feeling, a bodily one. "Having been touched by that painful feeling, he does not resist (and resent) it. Hence, in him no underlying tendency of resistance against that painful feeling comes to underlie (his mind). Under the impact of that painful feeling he does not proceed to enjoy sensual happiness. And why not? As a well-taught noble disciple he knows of an escape from painful feelings other than by enjoying sensual happiness. Then in him who does not proceed to enjoy sensual happiness, no underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feelings comes to underlie (his mind). He knows, according to facts, the arising and ending of those feelings, and the gratification, the danger and the escape connected with these feelings. In him who knows thus, no underlying tendency to ignorance as to neutral feelings comes to underlie (his mind). When he experiences a pleasant feeling, a painful feeling or a neutral feeling, he feels it as one who is not fettered by it. Such a one, O monks, is called a well-taught noble disciple who is not fettered by birth, by old age, by death, by sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair. He is not fettered to suffering, this I declare. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel303.html So, a bodily feeling of pain or pleasure is followed by an underlying tendency toward greed, hatred, or delusion. These underlying tendencies develop into the full-fledged emotions that we all experience. Now, KS states that one should not "hate" or disapprove of these underlying tendencies and resulting emotions- they are just realities. I disagree and say that the Buddha didn't teach this. Sarah, you are stating that aversion toward this process only fuels the process more, but I also disagree. The feeling of aversion that I support isn't the aversion that springs from the underlying tendencies, but the aversion that comes from wisdom. Yes, just as there is wholesome desire I believe that there is wholesome aversion. This wholesome aversion doesn't continue the underlying tendencies, it stops them cold in their tracks. This is what the Buddha taught in this regard: "There are, O monks, these three feelings: pleasant feelings, painful feelings, and neither-painful-nor-pleasant feelings." Be it a pleasant feeling, be it a painful feeling, be it neutral, one's own or others', feelings of all kinds6 — he knows them all as ill, deceitful, evanescent. Seeing how they impinge again, again, and disappear,7 he wins detachment from the feelings, passion-free. Now Sarah, I don't really know what the Abhidhamma has to say about this. But if the Abhidhamma says that a pleasant mental feeling accompanies the knowledge of "he knows them all as ill, deceitful, and evanescent" then I don't agree with the Abhidhamma. However, I suspect that the Abhidhamma doesn't say this. There are seven books to the Abhidhamma which detail in more and more detail the conditions and interrelations between the dhammas. It seems to me that you are looking at the basic list of the dhammas and drawing conclusions which don't match reality. Metta, James #71373 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ugly Defilements buddhatrue Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > James, the whole point, I think, of cultivating the jhanas is to calm > the mind and weaken defilements in a way that doesn't exercise those > defilements. More generally, the greater the equanimity with which we can observe > whatever arises, including defiled reactions, the more objectively and clearly we > can see them for what they are, and the more successful we can be in > energetically opposing them. I agree. The defilements are indispensable for riding the mind of the defilements. However, prior to the jhanas (and after the jhanas) the practitioner must practice Right Effort which can then create the conditions (and support) for jhana. Metta, James #71374 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 4:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/30/07 10:25:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I would say ordinarily we perceive a dhamma or whatever without > considering its dependent relationships. > --------------------------------------------- Howard: I would too. We ordinarily reify. As for paramattha dhammas, though, we ordinarily don't see them at all except as qualities of conventional objects, which is an ass-backwards (forgive me, Nina & others) perspective, if there ever was one. By seeing in isolation, with relation unattended to, reification runs wild. And that is the norm. ------------------------------------------------- If we actually perceive> > dependent relationships that is the next level of insight after > distinguishing nama and rupa (Purification by Overcoming Doubt). > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, I've misplaced my playbill, so I'm not so conversant with the order of play or the number of acts. In any case, I pretty much distinguish namas from rupas, so I'm looking forward to whatever comes next. ;-) -------------------------------------------------- To my> > mind not perceiving dependent relationships doesn't add up to self view. > It is more like independence view or ignorance view. But I will concede > that it could be construed as self view. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: That depends on what 'self' is taken to mean. Self view is the belief that "self" is a reality, but that means nothing at all unless there is agreement on the meaning of 'self'. I gave you my definition. It works for personal self and also forall other uses of it,as for example when one refers to "the rock itself". ---------------------------------------------------- However, one thing to remember> > about any kind of wrong view is that it is totally wrapped in > attachment. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: That depends on what is meant by "wrong view". In the technical Dhammic sense of "wrong view,", that is certainly correct. In the simple, everyday sense of "error in understanding" it need not be. ------------------------------------------------------ > > Larry > ============================ With metta, Howard #71375 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 4:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ugly Defilements upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 4/30/07 11:00:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > > James, the whole point, I think, of cultivating the jhanas > is to calm > >the mind and weaken defilements in a way that doesn't exercise > those > >defilements. More generally, the greater the equanimity with which > we can observe > >whatever arises, including defiled reactions, the more objectively > and clearly we > >can see them for what they are, and the more successful we can be > in > >energetically opposing them. > > I agree. The defilements are indispensable for riding the mind of the > defilements. However, prior to the jhanas (and after the jhanas) the > practitioner must practice Right Effort which can then create the > conditions (and support) for jhana. > > Metta, > James > ========================== I agree that resisting the defilements and engaging in cultivation of wholesome factors that resistance and that cultivation is based in aversion to (or revulsion at) defilements is infinitely better than not resisting the defilements and not engaging in kusala cultivation at all on the pretext that "conditions are not perfect". We DO start where we are, and that is typically in a state of being beset by defilements, so that even our resistance to them is flawed by the very defilements we need to uproot. That is the reality of things. There is much talk here of realities. Well, that is a reality that must be faced and surmounted. Just waiting for "the right conditions" is a forever thing. When we see the need to do something, we should begin, not waiting for the perfect time or for magical conditions to arise on their own. No matter how deeply buried in excrement we are at first, we *can* work our way out - provided we start. The beautiful lotus DOES arise from out of the mud. But the sooner we can achieve a degree of holding in check of the defilements, most especially aversion, the faster will be our progress in fighting off Mara's children. Cultivation of sila and "gladdening the mind" through contemplation of the Dhamma, through guarding the senses, and through cultivation of the jhanas is central to this holding of our dark demons at bay. This is Dhamma practice,and it should not be ignored. With metta, Howard #71376 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:42 pm Subject: Re: Atta views: suffering and/or happiness scottduncan2 Dear Larry, Thanks for looking at this with me: S: "The sense of 'real' in the above is in contradistinction to the 'real' of naama, ruupa, and Nibbaana." L: "I think you are saying self is ignorance." Scott: Or 'the experience of self-view' is somehow related to or a function of ignorance; I'd hesitate to define 'self' as ignorance or to equate them. I'd wonder about the relationship between aviijaa and di.t.thi. View is clearly a way of seeing things. Dhammasa"nga.ni: "[390] What on that occasion is dullness? The lack of knowledge, of vision, which there is on that occasion; the lack of coordination, of judgement, of enlightenment, of penetration; the inability to comprehend, to grasp thoroughly; the inability to compare, to consider, to demonstrate; the folly, the childishness, the lack of intelligence; the dullness that is vagueness, obfuscation, ignorance, the Flood of ignorance, the Bond of ignorance, the bias of ignorance, the obsession of ignorance, the barrier of ignorance; the dullness that is the root of badness - this is the dullness that there then is." Scott: Nyanatiloka: "Ignorance, nescience, the blindness of not knowing, is synonymous with confusion moha...is the primary & deepest root of all evil and suffering in the world, veiling man's mental eyes and preventing him from seeing the true nature of things. It is the confusion that fools beings by making life appear to them as permanent, happy, substantial and beautiful and preventing them from seeing that everything in reality is impermanent, liable to suffering, void of 'I' and 'mine', and basically impure see: vipallaasa. Ignorance is defined as not knowing the Four Noble Truths, namely, suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the way to its ceasing... As ignorance is the foundation of all life-maintaining actions, and the root of all evil and suffering, it therefore stands first in the formula of Dependent Origination paticca-samuppaada. But for that reason, says Vis.M XVII, 36f ignorance should not be regarded as the causeless root-cause of the world, since is not causeless. The cause of it is stated thus: With the arising of mental fermentations (aasava) there is the arising of ignorance M. 9. But there is a figurative way in which it can be treated as a root-cause; namely, when it is made to serve as a starting point in an exposition of the Round of Existence... As it is said: No first beginning of ignorance can be perceived, Bhikkhus, before which ignorance was not, and after which it came to be. But it can be perceived that ignorance has its specific causal condition idappaccaya A. X, 61. The same statement is made A. X, 62 about the craving for existence bhava-tanhaa (see tanhaa). Craving and ignorance are called the outstanding causes or creators of the kamma that lead to unhappy and happy destinies Vis.M XVII, 38. As ignorance still exists though in a very refined way until the attainment of Arahatship, it is counted as the last of the 10 mental chains samyojana, which bind beings to the cycle of rebirths. As the first two roots of evil, greed and hate...are on their part rooted in ignorance, consequently all disadvantageous states of mind are inseparably bound up with ignorance. Ignorance or confusion is the most obstinate , dense, deep, subtle, hidden and fearsome of the three roots of evil." L: "I can see how ignorance can be a cause of self belief and a factor in self belief, but I would like to see something a little more specific that characterizes self belief and distinguishes it from other erroneous beliefs." Scott: Self is pa~n~natti, isn't it? I checked 'di.t.thi' in Nyanatiloka: "lit. 'sight'; Verbal root: dis to see: view, belief, speculative opinion...Wrong or evil views ditthi or micchaa-ditthi are declared as utterly rejectable for being a source of wrong and evil aspirations and conduct, and liable at times to lead man to the deepest abysses of depravity...Wrong views (di.t.thi) are one of the latent tendencies (anusaya), fermentations (aasava), clingings (upaadaana), one of the three modes of perversions (vipallaasa). Unadvantageous consciousness akusala citta rooted in greed, may be either with or without wrong views (ditthigata-sampayutta or vippayutta)..." Scott: I can see this connection as well. Ignorance is shown, by the method of Paticcasamuppasda, to condition sankhaara. Di.t.thi is subsumed by sankhaara, wouldn't you say? By the method of the Four Noble Truths, tanhaa is the cause of dukkha. If, by the same method, the first of the Noble Eightfold Path is samma-di.t.thi, then can one suggest the obverse: that wrong-view is the first of the 'Ignoble Eightfold Path'. Wouldn't self-view fall in here? And wouldn't this lead to or condition 'experience of self-view? I'm not sure of the answer to your question as to the differentiation of self-view from views in general. Shall we keep looking? L: "If I've gotten this wrong, please correct." Scott: I can't. No credibility. I was expecting the above from you. What do you think of all this? Are we any further ahead? Sincerely, Scott. #71377 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 4:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ugly Defilements upasaka_howard Hi again, James - My first sentence got messed up, with the crucial word 'when' missing. It should read as follows: In a message dated 4/30/07 11:47:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: > I agree that resisting the defilements and engaging in cultivation of > wholesome factors WHEN that resistance and that cultivation is based in > aversion to (or revulsion at) defilements is infinitely better than not resisting > the > defilements and not engaging in kusala cultivation at all on the pretext > that > "conditions are not perfect". With metta, Howard #71378 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 9:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ugly Defilements buddhatrue Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi again, James - > > My first sentence got messed up, Funny, my first statement got messed up also. I wrote "The defilements are indispensable for riding the mind of the defilements." I meant to write: "The jhanas are indispensable for riding the mind of the defilements. But, you probably knew what I meant. ;-)) Metta, James #71379 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ugly Defilements TGrand458@... Hi Robert Not off hand in terms of quotes. I believe from studies and experience that these mental factors conjoin asynchronously to produce the impetus that develops insight and detaches the mind. For example, "common aversion" without much or any insight can lead a mind to seek freedom from the conditions that caused that aversion. This is basically the beginning of a spiritual path. This seeking is a type of desire. Therefore, due to unpleasantness, that caused aversion, one now has desire to overcome the unpleasantness. None of this is insight...but it the beginnings of the "mechanics" that can start to develop insight. As insight develops, the things the mind was once attached to eventually come to be seen as affliction/suffering and the mind is averse to that (or at least revolted by that.) This continues the cycle for desire to overcome suffering,etc. At what stage this aversion overcomes its emotional component and becomes a detached intellectualism, I can't say right now. I suspect most of us are "stuck" at our respective levels because we are not taking insight "personal enough." I.E., I suspect it needs to affect us very strong emotionally before we really get the gumption to stop playing games and become enlightened! The Suttas are often very inspirational. Inspiration is something that affects emotions. It does not affect a technical understanding of "reality lists." The Buddha was not satisfied with his great attainments until he reached Nibbana. Up until then, he continued to have desire to progress. Throughout most of the day, these days, I am not being mindful. Then something will happen to trigger "my" thoughts that -- I should be mindful. There are various reasons this might arise. Perhaps a passing thought of death will trigger a slight sense of aversion toward death and will be a motivating factor to become mindful. This will, for practical purposes, immediately end the aversion, but the aversion was still a motivator and I believe the Buddha used that type of motivation a lot. TG In a message dated 4/30/2007 7:39:44 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, rjkjp1@... writes: --- In _dhammastudygroup@dhammastudygdha_ (mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com) , TGrand458@.., TG > >> > TG: If we stick with "revulsion," its not a defilement, but in effect, it > acts much as aversion. Its much like the "desire" to be enlightened. Desire > generally is a mental state that maintains Beings in samsara. But under the > right conditions, its a motivator that can help bring about other states that > can help free us from samsara. > > So, aversion which is usually on the side of holding us in samsara, under > the right conditions (insight inspired aversion, i.e., revulsion), actually > acts as a final impetus to lead us to freedom from samsara. _________ Dear TG I was wondering if you have more support for this idea. I would have thought the factor was one of panna not aversion. Robert #71380 From: "colette" Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 4:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness ksheri3 Hi Larry and Herman, I wasn't gonna reply, originally, to this since it was self- explanatory and if I stick my nose in or stick my fingers in this pie, then I'm changing the samadhi that it generates. I have a definition of HATE from a Vietnamese (I believe) buddhist site/dictionary and it specifically identifies hate as dosa, no maybe it is anger, and I transformed the anger into an action which is hate. this is why I didn't want to respond to this post. I guess I'm seeing hate as an action, a verb, and a noun but, in my case, the action-statements take precidence and so subordinate that simple definition as a noun, making it, Hate, a thing. If it's a verb, an action, then it clouds the vision as an obscuration to be transcended but as a noun it seems too humorous to even bother with and so would be avoided both intentionally and deliberately. I will say that actually EXPERIENCING hatred, knowing it's characteristics, and such, is a very good way of transcending it, or as it is said in one of those Hermetic Sacred Doctrines called the Kyballion: taking the higher truth, the higher path, to the divine, transcending the mundane and vile ways. Again, I'm blending in troublesome concepts such as the seperation between the Relative and Ultimate Truths, which is debateable. Herman, when you said something about a "search" for an object do you mean a whipping post with which to vent YOUR ANGER and thus give what you have no control of to another sentient being, ANGER in the form of HATRED. This can be seen also as corpereal punishment, no? look, now I'm really screwin around with posts that I have no stake in and should never have allowed my desire to release things from myself, get the better of me to place me into this conversation in the first place. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Larry, > > On 30/04/07, LBIDD@... wrote: > > > > > > L: I like the distinction between I and me but it doesn't quite ring > > true that there is craving to be the one who hates the music. Maybe the > > craving is craving to be an experience, craving to be the hating in this > > case. We must secretly know we don't exist otherwise there wouldn't be a > > craving to exist, which basically means exist as an experience. "I" is a > > concept in search of an experience. Is that what you said? > > > > Yeah, pretty much. "I" in this case being consciousness (vinnana), in > search of an object (namarupa) > > > Herman > #71381 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue May 1, 2007 1:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness egberdina Hi Larry, On 01/05/07, LBIDD@... wrote: > > > H: " "I" in this case being consciousness (vinnana), in search of an > object (namarupa)" > > L: If "I" is consciousness how can consciousness be anatta? > You wrote:"I" is a concept in search of an experience. Is that what you said? My reply meant to clarify that it is not an I that in is in search of an experience, it it is consciousness in search of an experience. The dependent origination in DN 15 starts with a mutual dependency between consciousness and name-and-form, they both depend on each other. There is no consciousness without name-and-form, and vice versa. Consciousness "itself" is nothing. Herman #71382 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 1, 2007 1:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Leading to stream entry sarahprocter... Dear Han, --- han tun wrote: > I agree with you that Lily’s article was > ‘action-packed’ with many suttas. Later on, when we > have time, we can come back to some of the suttas for > discussion. .... S: Good idea! I can help find any if you give me the brief reference. Anytime.... .... > As regards Nina’s article, there are many useful > points which are really note-worthy. At first, I > thought of highlighting those passages. But I thought > if I did that, I might only be dotting her i’s and > crossing her t’s, and might be accused of being biased > because I like her writings! ... S: I think it would be useful for you to point out any lines/passages which you find note-worthy for others to consider and give their own views on:-). I'm still behind with my reading - hope to fully catch up soon.... Metta, Sarah ====== #71383 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 1, 2007 1:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Free will? sarahprocter... Hi Howard, I agree that people probably mean different things by 'free-will' and you may well be right in what you wrote below (#70978), though I'm not sure about your point no 2): --- upasaka@... wrote: > People seem to mean differing things by "free will". When push > comes > to shove, I think that most, upon introspection, will discover that they > mean > an apparent randomness (and arbitrariness) to willing, so that "one" can > will > randomly [Note the common expression "at will"], with that willing > arising > without prior condition. A little more careful analysis will, I > believe, show two > things, however: 1) the alleged unconditioned "freeness" of the willing > is a > fiction, with desire being an obvious one (just one) of many requisite > conditions and that desire in turn arising due to many prior and > concomitant > conditions, and 2) random willing itself would not even be desirable! > (Something is > willed for a *reason* - always, and "we" would have no interest in it > otherwise.) ..... Metta, Sarah ============ #71384 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 1, 2007 1:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate sarahprocter... Hi Nidhi, Thx for sharing more of your reflections again with us. I think we're all misfits of one kind or other here, so join the club:-). --- abcd wrote: > for me important thing is to see the reality and not read it 'only'. > the reason being that we are caught in words and their interpretations > and miss the bus. important thing is to see, i believe. .... S: I often read similar comments. However, I don't think anyone here is interested in 'missing the bus' and I don't think anyone thinks that just reading without any development or practice is the way. Where there are differences is in what such development or practice means. .... > > but having said that , i dont undervalue the importance of reading > sutta, it has limited advantage, but give more priority to seeing, so > sutta is a help for me in seeing, and not otherway round. > > well all these are my personal opinion, every one is free to choose > one's own method/way depending upon one's inclinations. i wish all cross > the samsara successfully in least possible time. .... S: This is a kind message. We do need to have heard the 'message', the essence of the Dhamma in order for such seeing to occur, I think. Without such wise reading/listening/considering, it's very easy to assume that 'we' can follow the path, follow the teachings and that 'we' can become enlightened, don't you think? I was interested to hear you live in Pune (nr Bombay, I think). Hope the floods aren't too bad this year! Metta, Sarah ======== #71385 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 1, 2007 2:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: a question sarahprocter... Hi James, (Swee Boon, Robert A, Howard & all), You wrote (#70894): --- buddhatrue wrote: > The statement "There are only dhammas" implies existence, and the > Buddha taught against existence. Instead the Buddha taught dependent > origination which demonstrates that nothing really "exists" but > rather just arises temporarily. It is not beneficial to think of > things existing or not existing, but rather arising temporarily. > Dhammas are fleeting phenomenon, not self-existent entities. .... S: Dhammas arise temporarily and at such times they *exist*. How else is there any seeing of visible objects, hearing of sounds and so on? I liked the quote Swee Boon gave recently which is directly relevant, I think: >'Name-&-form exists when what exists? From what as a requisite condition is there name-&-form?' From my appropriate attention there came the breakthrough of discernment: 'Name-&-form exists when consciousness exists. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form.' Then the thought occurred to me, 'Consciousness exists when what exists? From what as a requisite condition comes consciousness?' From my appropriate attention there came the breakthrough of discernment: 'Consciousness exists when name-&-form exists. From name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness.' "Then the thought occurred to me, 'This consciousness turns back at name-&-form, and goes no farther. It is to this extent that there is birth, aging, death ... http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.065.than.html -------------------------------------------------------------------< .... S: Yes, Swee Boon - the world only *exists* when there are conditions for it to arise and appear. If there is no hearing and no contact, for example, then no world of sounds appears. (Of course dhammas are arising and falling away regardless, but if there isn't the 'coming-together' or the 'meeting' of the ayatanas, there is no experience.) .... J:> And yes, you are quite correct; the purpose of the Buddha's teaching > is practice. .... S: And here's another quote which may be relevant to 'practice' and our other discussion on whether aversion is ever part of such practice. It may also have been Swee Boon who recently referred to part of this extract from MN 140, Dhatuvibhanga Sutta. In any case, I was reminded of it when I saw Howard's comments in response to mine along these same lines, I think: "..... When he does not cling, he is not agitated. When he is not agitated, he personally attains Nibbana....... "If he feels a pleasant feeling, he understands: 'It is impermanent; there is no holding to it; there is no delight in it.' If he feels a painful feeling, he understands: 'It is impermanent; there is no holding to it; there is no delight in it.' If he feels a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he understands: 'it is impermanent; there is no holding to it; there is no delight in it.' "If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it detached; if he feels a painful feeling, he feels it detached; if he feels a neither painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he feels it detached......." (Nanamoli/Bodhi transl). .... Metta, Sarah p.s James, thx for your further responses in our other thread. Nina and others already explained in detail that you had misunderstood KS's comment taken out of context. I'd rather not go over that side-issue again, if you don't mind. Btw, I agree with you that we should take care not to make our comments too personal, so I've snipped out some very personal parts of this post I'm responding to (#70894). Thx for the reminder:-);-). Swee Boon, good to see your comments as usual! ============= #71386 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue May 1, 2007 1:42 am Subject: Finest Friendliness! bhikkhu5 Friends: The Speech of the Buddha on Friendliness: What should the clever one advantageously do To attain This State called Peace, is this: He should be intelligent, straight, honest, Humble, gentle and never proud, Contented, and easy to support, Not busy, careful, and silenced. In abilities & senses, cautious, & modest, Not flattering families nor be demanding. He should do no even minor thing at all, That other wise men might criticize. Then he should think: May all beings be joyous and safe! Let every creature's mind rejoice. Whatever breathing beings there are, No matter whether feeble or firm, With none excepted, whether long; Tall, big, medium, short or small; Whether seen or unseen, visible or not; Whether living far or near, here or there; Whether existing or just about to become; Let every living being's mind be jubilant!!! Let none kill or another one undo, Nor harm anyone anywhere at all … Let none wish another any ill, neither From provocation nor by any evil revenge. Thus, as a mother with her own life Might guard her son, her only child, thus Should he maintain an infinite friendliness; for every living being, in sympathy for this entire universe, unlimited, endless & vast! Above, below, and all around, unimpeded, without any hatred, without any enemies! Whether standing, walking, seated or lying down while slumbering, he should always maintain such Awareness of gentle kindness... This is the Divine Abiding here, they say. He that do not traffic with various views, Perfected in seeing what is right & wrong, Purged of lust for sense-pleasures, he will surely not come back here to any womb... Source: Minor Readings and the Illustrator http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=130231 Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <...> #71387 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 1, 2007 2:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: anatta sarahprocter... Hi TG & all, --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > yes, that is why the Visuddhimagga went over the conditions as taught > in the Patthana, before it dealt with the D.O. I will read from my > 'Conditions' to Lodewijk tonight and start a new series. > Nina > Op 25-apr-2007, om 4:54 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende geschreven: > > > Understanding conditionality is key for generating insight into > > impermanence, > > affliction, and no-self. And this insight is key in overcoming > > affliction/dukkha. ... S: I highly recommend Nina's book on 'Conditions' which she is just starting to post extracts of. I know it's difficult to read everything when the list is so busy, but I think most people here will appreciate this series very much and it's easier to start reading it at the beginning. I know she'd be delighted when she returns if you, TG, or anyone else were to join in with comments/questions or misgivings! Metta, Sarah ======= #71388 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 1, 2007 4:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Virtue sarahprocter... Hi Robert A, --- Robert wrote: > Hello again Sarah, > > If I could say one more thing about meditation: > > I have seen some discussions that imply that the really useful place > to see dhammas arise and pass away is in the situations of our lives - > that somehow meditation is a lost opportunity to confront the dhammas > in their native environment, so to speak. .... S: Thx for your further reflections - helpful for us all. I think the point being made by Ken H, Sukin and others is that 'there is only the present moment' (e.g. Ken H's posts #70820 𑓟). In other words, the only really useful time and place to see dhammas is now and here, no matter what the situation of our lives might be. So if now we are sitting cross-legged under a tree, then the realities of seeing, hearing, thinking, likes, dislikes and so on can be known when they appear. However, if now we are sitting at the computer or doing the washing-up, the realities of seeing, hearing, thinking, likes, dislikes and so on can still be known when they appear. In other words, seeing consciousness and visible object have the same characteristics whether there or here. However, only the dhammas which have arisen and which appear, one at a time, at the present moment can ever be known. Anytime we think another situation, another reality would be more useful for insight to develop, we 'lose' the present reality -- there is no awareness of it. .... > I don't know about for you, but for me, in meditation, there are still > a lot of dhammas coming and going, and I have always thought that one > of the points of meditation is to create a special environment where > we can be more skillfully aware of them, and our getting to know them > in this more simple setting enhances our ability to see their true > nature in the more complex setting of that Thanksgiving family > gathering. .... S: I understand your point. However, if by conditions we find ourselves at the Thanksgiving family gathering (or a very simple birthday lunch at the beach for me!!), then the practice is the development of awareness of dhammas that are conditioned already. If such dhammas are forgetfulness, aversion, hearing, sound, attachment or any other - they are just as valid as at any other time. Indeed there is no other time at such moments. Either there is 'practice' then and there whilst chatting with family/friends, or there isn't. If we think that such a setting is too complex or not 'right' in some way, that will be a condition for there not to be practice. We're so used to thinking in terms of particular 'situations', such as being quiet, being alone, sitting, reading a sutta/Abhidhamma or even reflecting on a particular topic, in order for awareness to develop. However, I think that when we think like this we miss the whole point of the teachings which is about the development of sati-sampajanna (awareness and understanding) of those dhammas conditioned already at this moment regardless of the activity. This leads to the growth of detachment as opposed to attachment, I believe. Thank you for considering all the comments and for your helpful feedback. I'd be glad to hear how this sounds but quite understand if you've had your 'present moment' fill for now:-). Metta, Sarah p.s Thx for the sutta in another thread. ========== #71389 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 1, 2007 4:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness sarahprocter... Hi Howard (Herman, Larry & all), I was glad you came in on this thread with yr message #71124 Herman:> > In the meantime, I continue to read atta-belief as a belief in a soul, > > an enduring, substantial agent that is itself not subject to change. > > > ========================== Howard:> Is not the alleged soul of anything an unchanging essence, core, > or > identity in that thing - it's self? Why apply the notion of atta only to > the > conglomerate that is the conventional person? ... S: Why indeed? Otherwise, what's the difference between atta belief and sakkaya ditthi? Thanks Howard for your contributions in this thread. As for a translation of atta, I think it's clear from your later discussions with Larry and others how 'self-view' can lead people to think that it just refers to 'me'. So we do our best with translations, but sometimes it helps to consider the Pali term further as well, I think... Metta, Sarah ======== #71390 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 1, 2007 4:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what is sati sarahprocter... Dear Nidhi, --- wisdomcompassion wrote: > i think i have different opinion on the question of effort and other > subtle things. i would like to discuss what i think. i hope my > grammatical mistakes would be ignored and spirit of the words would be > understood. ... S: Thank you for all your comments. The 'spirit' of your words is very clear and your English is fine. I was especially interested in this paragraph: ... N:> since i had to make 'effort' to learn this, i feel in the beginning one > has to make some effort. buddha has said in satipatthana "atapi sampjano > satima" therefore i m not very sure that sati gets establish without > making any effort. ... S: Yes, 'atapi sampajano satima' - this means with right effort, understanding and mindfulness. In the development of satipatthana/the eightfold path, they arise and grow together. In other words, right understanding has to be assisted by these other factors 'in all circumstances', at any moment. From the comy to the Satipatthana Sutta (Soma transl): "In the passage beginning with "ardent," Right Exertion [sammappadhaana] is stated by energy [aataapa]; the subject of meditation proper in all circumstances [sabbatthika kamma.t.thaana]......Insight [vipassanaa] by clear comprehension; and the fruit of inner culture [bhaavanaa phala] through the overcoming of covetousness and grief [abhijjhaa domanassa vinaya]." ... S: When sati- sampajaano develops, the 4 sammappadhaanas (4 right efforts) are also developing until they are fulfilled at moments of enlightenment. .... N:>i think effort is a must in the beginning, then it > becomes effortless automatically. may be for some other people it might > be effortless but at present not for me, so i have no option but to try. > > that is why in another post i asked whether anyone knows any other way i > would be glad to learn, because this process is very difficult for me. .... S: I would just say that when the consciousness (citta) is wholesome, there is right effort at that moment. When the path develops, there is right effort of the path already. When we try to have the path develop, if it is a trying with attachment or a trying with an idea of 'I', then it's not right effort at such a time. Only awareness can be aware of what the reality is, however. ... > i would be glad if i m pointed out for any misunderstanding in my logic > or interpretation. that was one of the reasons i wrote in such detail. ... S: I think that just on this point we may have a different understanding. I'd also be glad if you'd care to point out any problems with my logic too. Thanks, Nidhi. Metta, Sarah ========= #71391 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue May 1, 2007 5:20 am Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? scottduncan2 Dear Herman, I've a bit of time here for: H: "The Buddha taught the noble eightfold path, in service of the 4 noble truths. Agreed? Which of the factors of that path endorses the proliferation of thinking about the teachings?" Scott: Thinking, it seems to me, would come in under Right View (sammaa-di.t.thi), and probably Right Motivation (sammaa-sankappa). And it would have to be related to, if not 'about' the teachings wouldn't it (in order to be 'samma')? There would have to be thinking about 4NT as far as Right View is concerned, and 'sankappa' means thinking: "thought, intention, purpose, plan...sammaa-sankappa - right thoughts or intentions..." (PTS PED). As far as Abhidhamma goes, I read in Dhammasa"nga.ni that sammaa-di.t.thi is defined as is 'faculty of insight', which is pa~n~na. There would have to be a process whereby a given degree of pa~n~na would have influence over thinking such that the thoughts would conform to that which pa~n~na knows. As far as 'proliferation of thinking', this might include 'vipallaasa': "...'perversions' or 'distortions'. - ''There are 4 perversions which may be either of perception (sa~n~naa-vipallaasa); of consciousness (citta-vipallaasa) or of views (di.t.thi-vipallaasa). And which are these four? To regard what is impermanent (anicca) as permanent; what is painful (dukkha) as pleasant or happiness-yielding; what is without a self (anattaa) as a self; what is impure ugly (asubha) as pure or beautiful'' A. IV, 49," (Nyanatiloka); as well as 'di.t.thi': "...view, belief, dogma, theory, speculation, esp. false theory, groundless or unfounded opinion," (PTS PED), in particular miccha-di.t.thi. Don't these involve thinking? As far as 'other', I was thinking about the influence of culturally imbedded post-Christian views regarding siila, which I may as well put to you for your consideration. Isn't it the case that, within the Christian teachings (which would likely suffuse the West to some extent, and be contained in various wrong-views about things) the model exists whereby another (i.e. a Christ) acts compassionately in such a powerful way (such as in the Atonement) that this compassion actually has a literal effect on a second party ? Such ideas as 'the love of Christ' and 'love one another as I have loved you' - a 'love' which is said to be able to alter an other and lead to good things for that other - suggest that these good things would be literally unattainable were it not for the intervention of a Christ. Such a view, I'd suggest, is self-view. I wonder if this distorts the way a Westerner understands siila as taught by the Buddha. I don't think the Buddha teaches that my act of kindness can, in and of itself, literally have an effect on you. It only has an effect on me. The Buddha's enlightenment is only his own, and a result of aeons of action. He taught 4NT, but this has to arise in 'me'. I mean that there is no way I can see for anything contained within the 'stream' which is the 'flux' of actions known as 'Scott' to enter, mingle with and interact with that 'stream' known as 'Herman'. I cannot literally influence you. What we think is influence is really a function of dhammas in a 'separate stream'. This doesn't, for me, extenuate loving kindness or any of these dhammas. It removes from thinking about these notions a conceit which imbues Western (read 'christian'?) ways of considering them. Please try this out and let me know of its flaws (and of course accuracies). Sincerely, Scott. #71392 From: han tun Date: Tue May 1, 2007 5:32 am Subject: Daana Corner (49) Last Installment hantun1 Dear Dhamma Friends, We have come to the last essay compiled by Bhikkhu Bodhi: The Perfection of Giving (Acariya Dhammapala). It is being presented in 7 parts. The following is 7 of 7 parts, and the last installment of Daana Corner. Questions, comments and different views welcome:-) ------------------------------ When the Great Man has made a mental determination to completely relinquish whatever possessions come his way, whether animate or inanimate, there are four shackles to giving (which he must overcome), namely, not being accustomed to giving in the past, the inferiority of the object to be given, the excellence and beauty of the object, and worry over the loss of the object. (1) When the Bodhisatta possesses objects that can be given and suppliants are present, but his mind does not leap up at the thought of giving and he does not want to give, he should conclude: "Surely, I have not been accustomed to giving in the past, therefore a desire to give does not arise now in my mind. So that my mind will delight in giving in the future, I will give a gift. With an eye for the future let me now relinquish what I have to those in need." Thus he gives a gift — generous, openhanded, delighting in relinquishing, one who gives when asked, delighting in giving and in sharing. In this way the Great Being destroys, shatters, and eradicates the first shackle to giving. (2) Again, when the object to be given is inferior or defective, the Great Being reflects: "Because I was not inclined to giving in the past, at present my requisites are defective. Therefore, though it pains me, let me give whatever I have as a gift even if the object is low and inferior. In that way I will, in the future, reach the peak in the perfection of giving." Thus he gives whatever kind of gift he can — generous, openhanded, delighting in relinquishing, one who gives when asked, delighting in giving and in sharing. In this way the Great Being destroys, shatters, and eradicates the second shackle to giving. (3) When a reluctance to give arises due to the excellence or beauty of the object to be given, the Great Being admonishes himself: "Good man, haven't you made the aspiration for the supreme enlightenment, the loftiest and most superior of all states? Well then, for the sake of enlightenment, it is proper for you to give excellent and beautiful objects as gifts." Thus he gives what is excellent and beautiful — generous, open-handed, delighting in relinquishing, one who gives when asked, delighting in giving and in sharing. In this way the Great Man destroys, shatters, and eradicates the third shackle to giving. (4) When the Great Being is giving a gift, and he sees the loss of the object being given, he reflects thus: "This is the nature of material possessions, that they are subject to loss and to passing away. Moreover, it is because I did not give such gifts in the past that my possessions are now depleted. Let me then give whatever I have as a gift, whether it be limited or abundant. In that way I will, in the future, reach the peak in the perfection of giving." Thus he gives whatever he has as a gift — generous, open-handed, delighting in relinquishing, one who gives when asked, delighting in giving and in sharing. In this way the Great Being destroys, shatters, and eradicates the fourth shackle to giving. Reflecting upon them thus in whatever way is appropriate is the means for dispelling the harmful shackles to the perfection of giving. The same method used for the perfection of giving also applies to the perfection of virtue and the other perfections. ------------------------------ This is the End of the presentation of “Dana”, a collection of essays edited by Ven Bhikkhu Bodhi. I thank the Group for giving me their time and kind attention. With metta and deepest respect to All, Han #71393 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 1, 2007 3:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ugly Defilements upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 5/1/07 12:14:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > >Hi again, James - > > > > My first sentence got messed up, > > Funny, my first statement got messed up also. I wrote "The defilements > are indispensable for riding the mind of the defilements." > > I meant to write: > > "The jhanas are indispensable for riding the mind of the defilements. > > But, you probably knew what I meant. ;-)) > > Metta, > James ======================= LOLOL! You ARE tenacious, James. (Yes, I knew you meant to write "ridding".) With metta, Howard #71394 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 1, 2007 2:49 am Subject: The Middle-Way Mode of Existence: The Sheaves of Reeds Sutta upasaka_howard Hi, all - The Sheaves of Reeds Sutta, SN 12.67, is another sutta that, like the Kaccayanagota Sutta, presents the middle-way mode of existence of all conditioned Dhammas. In it Ven.Sariputta, the Buddha's lieutenant and the person credited with codifying and passing on the Abhidhamma, is asked about the nature and basis for existence of the items dealt with in the chain of dependent origination. Sariputta consistently asserts for each [He chooses a number of them, such as consciousness for explicit mention] that "It's not the case, Kotthita my friend, that [this phenomenon] is self-made, that it is other-made, that it is both self-made & other-made, or that — without self-making or other-making — it arises spontaneously. However, from [another one of the phenomena] as a requisite condition comes [this phenomenon]." This is the assertion of Buddhist conditionality, denying that a dhamma (or a complex such as aging & death) self-exists, denying that is preexists in its conditions, denying a mix of the preceding two, and denying that is arises spontaneously/randomly, but asserting a contingent, middle-way mode of existence, the mode of this/that conditionality. The centerpiece of Sariputta's presentation of this/that conditionality i s his sheaves of reeds simile to explain the inter-conditionality of vi~n~nana and namarupa. In this regard he says "Very well then, Kotthita my friend, I will give you an analogy; for there are cases where it is through the use of an analogy that intelligent people can understand the meaning of what is being said. It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one another. In the same way, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form." And, a bit later, he goes on to point out that "If one were to pull away one of those sheaves of reeds, the other would fall; if one were to pull away the other, the first one would fall. In the same way, from the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of consciousness, from the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form." With metta, Howard #71395 From: connie Date: Tue May 1, 2007 7:44 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (53) nichiconn dear friends, Sujaataa, part 2 of 3: satthaara.m vanditvaa geha.m gantvaa saamika~nca maataapitaro ca anujaanaapetvaa satthu-aa.naaya bhikkhunupassaya.m gantvaa bhikkhuniina.m santike pabbaji. Pabbajitvaa ca attano pa.tipatti.m paccavekkhitvaa udaanavasena- 145. "Ala"nkataa suvasanaa, maalinii candanokkhitaa; sabbaabhara.nasa~nchannaa, daasiiga.napurakkhataa. 146. "Anna.m paana~nca aadaaya, khajja.m bhojja.m anappaka.m; gehato nikkhamitvaana, uyyaanamabhihaarayi.m. 147. "Tattha ramitvaa kii.litvaa, aagacchantii saka.m ghara.m; vihaara.m da.t.thu.m paavisi.m, saakete a~njana.m vana.m. 148. "Disvaana lokapajjota.m, vanditvaana upaavisi.m; so me dhammamadesesi, anukampaaya cakkhumaa. 149. "Sutvaa ca kho mahesissa, sacca.m sampa.tivijjhaha.m; tattheva viraja.m dhamma.m, phusayi.m amata.m pada.m. 150. "Tato vi~n~naatasaddhammaa, pabbaji.m anagaariya.m; tisso vijjaa anuppattaa, amogha.m buddhasaasanan"ti.- Imaa gaathaa abhaasi. She paid homage to the Teacher and went home. She obtained permission from her husband and her parents; then at the order of the Teacher, she went to the bhikkhuniis' monastery and went forth in the presence of the bhikkhuniis. After going forth she looked over her attainment and spoke these verses: 145-46. Ornamented, well dressed, wearing a garland smeared with sandalwood paste, covered with all my ornaments, attended by a crowd of slave women, going out from [my] house, taking food and drink, hard food and soft food in no small quanitity, I had [it] brought to the pleasure garden. 147. I delighted [myself and] played there; [then] coming back to my house, I saw a monastery. I entered the A~njana wood at Saaketa. 148. I saw the Light of the World. I paid homage [to him] and sat down. In pity, the One with Vision taught me the Doctrine. 149. And hearing the Great Seer, I completely pierced the truth. In that very place, I attained the stainless Doctrine, the state of the undying [quenching]. 150. Then knowing the true Doctrine, I went forth into the homeless state. I have obtained the three knowledges. The Buddha's teaching was not in vain. RD: Saluting the Master, and going home, she obtained her husband's and her parents' consent, and by command of the Master was admitted to the Order of Bhikkhuniis. Reflecting on her attainment, she exulted thus: Adorned in finery, in raiment fair, In garlands wreathed, powdered with sandalwood, Bedecked with all my jewelry, begirt (145) With troop of handmaidens, and well-supplied With food solid and soft, and drink enow, From home I drove me to the fair pleasaunce. (146) There did we sport and make a merry time, Then gat us once more on the homeward way. So entered we the grove called A~njana, Hard by Saaketa, where amidst the trees Stands the Vihaara [of the holy men]. (147) Him saw I sitting there, Light of the World, And went into his presence worshipping. And of his great compassion for us all, He taught to me the Norm - the One who Sees! (148) Forthwith I, too, could pierce and penetrate, Hearing the truth taught by the mighty Seer, For there, e'en as I sat, my spirit touched *272 The Norm Immaculate, th' Ambrosial Path. (149) Then first it was I left the life of home, When the blest Gospel *273 I had come to know, And now the Threefold Wisdom have I won. O wise and sure the bidding of the Lord! (150) *272 This is another subtle stroke of artistry, to let the visual emphasis in the poem culminate in the intenser metaphor of touch. 'Seeing is believing, but touch is the real thing.' The word is frequently so used in the Pitakas, but without the theosophical mysticism of the Neoplatonic ?f?. *273 Saddhamma means good teaching (e?a???????), not, of course, God's 'spell.' {{c: Greeky(?) characters from Mrs RD's notes 272 & 273 lost & meaningless to me anyway - sorry!}} tomorrow then? connie #71396 From: "Robert" Date: Tue May 1, 2007 7:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Virtue avalo1968 Hello Sarah, I appreciate you taking another shot at helping me to see your point of view. For the last 30 years or so I have been working with a simple practice that has at its core just to know objects of name and form in the present moment as they arise and pass away. Perhaps we agree this is a useful thing to do. Over the same 30 years, I have had the understanding that it is possible to undertake a systematic training that develops our ability to do this knowing objects of name and form in the present moment as they arise and pass away with increasing skill as our training progresses. This training includes all of the Noble Eightfold Path. This seems to be controversial at the DSG - both as to what form that training should take, or even the concept of any training other than studying of texts and being aware in the present moment as best you can. You all might be right that in doing what I do, I am not practicing correctly. However, I have found that in practicing this way it allows me to become less harmful to myself and others, and more at peace with the circumstances of my life. Maybe I am clinging to these 'results', but I feel that is the right thing for me to do at the moment. Maybe it is just ignorance that lets me think this practice is helpful, but you have to work with the wisdom (or ignorance) you have as best you can. In the end I have to make judgements as to what is wholesome and unwholesome and act on those judgements and so I do. But I do appreciate you sharing your own practice with me and I wish you well with it. May you have peace and happiness. Robert A. #71397 From: "nidive" Date: Tue May 1, 2007 8:06 am Subject: Re: The Middle-Way Mode of Existence: The Sheaves of Reeds Sutta nidive Hi Howard, > The Sheaves of Reeds Sutta, SN 12.67, is another sutta that, like > the Kaccayanagota Sutta, presents the middle-way mode of existence > of all conditioned Dhammas. The middle-way mode of existence of all conditioned dhammas is explained by the forward order of Dependent Origination. > And, a bit later, he goes on to point out that "If one were to pull > away one of those sheaves of reeds, the other would fall; if one > were to pull away the other, the first one would fall. In the same > way, from the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of > consciousness, from the cessation of consciousness comes > the cessation of name-&-form." The cessation of this very middle-way mode of existence of all conditioned dhammas is explained by this reverse order of Dependent Origination. Nibbana is not simply a "vision shift" of how one 'looks' at conditioned dhammas. There is one step further: the stilling of all conditioned dhammas. Swee Boon #71398 From: Dieter Möller Date: Tue May 1, 2007 9:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Meditation Tip - tandem moellerdieter Hi Sarah , thanks for your reply .. no need for an apology at all .. I was late anyway in looking into the files you recommened ... there was a misunderstanding as I should have written : ': would you agree to ' there cannot be jhana without a certain level of panna..? ( but left the 'cannot be ' out) ... S: No, there cannot be jhana without panna. There cannot be any development of samatha without panna. As I emphasised above, there are different degrees and kinds of panna, however. D: so I believe we agree ... (>D: Following the threefold Path training of sila, samadhi and panna , each > part provides the ground for the following . A gradual - of course > interrelated - process leading to the full penetration into the wisdom > of the 4 Noble Truths incl. anicca, dukkha , anatta with the aim of > abolishing ignorance/avijja .) .... S: When there is a gradual, interrelated process 'leading to the full penetration.....etc', there is sila, samadhi and panna from the very start as I understand. Even for the prelude or prior steps of satipatthana, there has to be right concentration and right understanding. There is sila whenever there is any 'right'. D: I think the Visuddhi Magga refers in length to the 3 fold Path training.. unfortunately not available to me at present , so I can't advise where exactly . I will look for sutta sources if you like. There is a certain level available to us - the status quo - which we are expected to bring into perfection by the sila , samadhi, panna training, usually taking special care for the Path links 3,4,5 .. 6,7,8 .. 1,2 . When you write ' there is sila, samadhi and panna from the very start as I understand', it seems to me that there may be a misunderstanding.. the links are in a way interrelated , but for example training mindfulness/Sati , the 7th step in order to obtain insights in respect to body, feelings, mind/citta and mind objects (dhamma) as outlined in the Maha Satipatthana Sutta , there is of course a difference in the training of the 8th step, concentration , i.e. the Jhana states..., don't you agree? . S:At moments of lokuttara cittas arising, the concentration is said to > be equivalent to 1st jhana at least (appana samadhi). For those who have > never attained mundane jhana, it is 1st jhana level. So sometimes this > is what is referred to in context > > D: where is it said? ... S: OK, this is what I started with. It's said in the Abhidhamma and commentaries. It's also said in the Suttas, depending on how one understands the references:). D: I suppose there must be a sutta source to which Abhidhamma / commentaries refer to.. I have no idea how 'At moments of lokuttara cittas arisings ' and Jhana is related.. but that may be due to my lack of knowledge of Abhidhamma terminology S:Perhaps this summary note in the Guide to #30,31 'Compendium of Consciousness' in 'Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma' ed by B.Bodhi will help: "Those who develop insight without a basis of jhaana are called practitioners of bare insight (sukkhavipassaka). When they reach the path and fruit, their path and fruition cittas occur at a level corresponding to the first jhaana. "Those who develop insight on the basis of jhaana attain a path and fruit which corresponds to the level of jhaana they had attained before reaching the path." D: I think the important point is here to recognise different Dhamma approaches and assume that is a source of many misunderstandings in list communication , hence a deeper look should be benefitial please let me quote from a recent message to Sukinder: ' I say that is a matter of type /character ... as you may know the Abhidhamma quite well , I wonder whether you studied the Puggalapannatti . There is a nice essay The Jhanas in Theravada .. by Bhikkhu Henepola Gunaratana..please see http://www.budsas.org/ebud/jhanas/jhanas06.htm Seven Types of Disciples The sevenfold typology is originally found in the Kitagiri Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya (M.i,477-79) and is reformulated in the Puggalapannatti of the Abhidhamma Pitaka. This typology classifies the noble persons on the paths and fruits into seven types: 1. the faith-devotee (saddhanusari), 2. the one liberated by faith (saddhavimutta), 3. the body-witness (kayasakkhi), 4. the one liberated in both ways (ubhatobhagavimutta), 5. the truth-devotee ( dhammanusari), 6. the one attained to understanding (ditthipatta), and 7. the one liberated by wisdom (pannavimutta). unquote with Metta Dieter #71399 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue May 1, 2007 4:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Virtue egberdina Hi Sarah, On 01/05/07, sarah abbott wrote: > > > I think the point being made by Ken H, Sukin and others is that 'there is > only the present moment' (e.g. Ken H's posts #70820 𑓟). > > In other words, the only really useful time and place to see dhammas is > now and here, no matter what the situation of our lives might be. So if > now we are sitting cross-legged under a tree, then the realities of > seeing, hearing, thinking, likes, dislikes and so on can be known when > they appear. However, if now we are sitting at the computer or doing the > washing-up, the realities of seeing, hearing, thinking, likes, dislikes > and so on can still be known when they appear. > If the point that is being made is that there *is* only the present moment, why do you then talk about the dhammas that *can* occur? That is a reference to possibilities, to a future, a luxury which the present moment does not afford you. Recently I asked KenH something similar, namely, why was he talking about dhammas in the past tense? Anyway, perhaps you can clarify. Also, I doubt very much that the point of the discussion is whether it *is possible* that certain realities are knowable in all situations, but whether *they are*. You have steadfastly implied ever since you were a younger woman that the frequency of mindfullness for a householder absorbed in their daily life is no different than for a person who arouses effort to be mindful, and seeks out those conditions that support that effort. I will steadfastly disagree with you. > In other words, seeing consciousness and visible object have the same > characteristics whether there or here. However, only the dhammas which > have arisen and which appear, one at a time, at the present moment can > ever be known. Anytime we think another situation, another reality would > be more useful for insight to develop, we 'lose' the present reality -- > there is no awareness of it. If you would like to insist that standing at the sink thinking, oh, that fork still has some dirt on it, and I must get to the shops before 5, blah blah blah, is a case of being mindful of dhammas then we are not on the same page, not even the same book. Herman