#72600 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat May 26, 2007 2:35 am Subject: The 10 Kasinas! bhikkhu5 Friends: Absorption into a Kasina Object is Transient! The Blessed Buddha once said: There are ten kasina spheres, Bhikkhus. And which are these? Someone perceives earth as his kasina, above, below, round about, undivided, as entirety, infinite, without boundaries, ends or limits. Again, someone perceives water as his kasina ... or fire ... or wind ... or blue ... or yellow ... or red ... or white ... or space ... or consciousness, above, below, round about, undivided, as entirety, infinite, without boundaries, ends, or limits. These are the subtle ten kasina spheres... Consciousness above, below, all around about, undivided, as entirety, infinite, without boundaries, ends or limits is considered as the very highest of these kasina spheres. There are beings dwelling in such subtle perception, however even these high aloof beings experience impermanence and change. Understanding this, any wise and Noble disciple turns away from it. By turning all away from it he thereby detaches from the highest, how much more so from lower states!!! Absorption into the Kasina is also Impermanence! Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <....> #72601 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Sat May 26, 2007 2:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Unintelligent Brother and the Cloth christine_fo... > .... > --- Christine Forsyth wrote: > > Can anyone remind me please of the scripture where a Bhikkhu is a > > little ashamed of his younger brother who is 'not so bright'. > .... > S: Now you've found the text, I see in Dhp-a. Looking at the title and > these comments, we have to question what the meaning of 'intelligence' > really is. Also, his brother was an arahant, so I don't think he'd have > felt 'ashamed' of his brother:-). > .. > > The Buddha sees what is happening and askes the younger brother to > > meditate (?) while stroking a cloth. As he strokes, the cloth becomes > > soiled and this brings Understanding to the younger brother, which was > > not dependent on intellectual knowledge. > .... > S: Just a few aeons of hearing and considering the teachings under various > Buddhas:-). Also, just because he couldn't remember the words of a stanza > doesn't mean that his brother's teachings on Abhidhamma were wasted. The > Buddha knew what was the right thing at the right time given his > accumulations and 'ripeness' for the very highest intelligence: Arahatship > with all patisambhidas and so on. > > You may like to review the following: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/24981 > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/25148 > .... > >Nice to see how energetic DSG > > is ... and g'day to all my old friends :-) > .... > S: G'day and hugs to you too, Chris :-). > > Metta, > > Sarah > p.s Send my best wishes to your young as well. > ====== Thanks Sarah. I thought what I remembered was longer than the Dhammapada verse and story. Trust RobK to hit the nail on the head: "Someone of these times might think they could equal his vast insight, but we can check now and see whether rubbing a cloth leads us to arahatship in a few minutes." I thought there was a bit more to it than just polishing the silver. :-) I always tend to forget that all streams of consciousness have re- become thousands of times before, so have all sorts of accumulations that may not be immediately apparent in the form it takes in this particular life. I'll tell Sarah and Luke of your good wishes. Only four or five months until we all meet again. India! - I'm almost looking forward to the vomiting and diarhhoea (~ please don't remind me at any 'appropriate' time that I said that. :-) ) metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- #72602 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 26, 2007 4:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Unintelligent Brother and the Cloth egberdina Hi Azita, On 25/05/07, gazita2002 wrote: > > > Hello Chris, > > I remember the story about the AK 47's :-) > > wondering if you still live at Logan as I sent a couple of copies > of Nina's 'Perfections' to that address? If you havent received > them, write me off-list and I can forward some more copiies. > > Hope you are well. > Azita > p.s. I'm gonna be a grandma!!! I am puzzled. I appreciate the news that you are going to be a grandma. That news is not what is puzzling. I am wondering what to do with your theory of perception, as you were discussing it with Larry. Which one do you want us to take to heart, that you are going to be a Grandma, or your theory of perception? I ask only because they seem to to exclude each other. I wish you, your child, and your grandchild(ren) all that is good in the coming months. Herman PS I was a complete wreck when my firstborn saw the light of day. I'm not sure that things have improved since then, for me :-)))) #72603 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 26, 2007 5:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] DMT Corner 3 (Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace!) jonoabb Hi Herman Herman Hofman wrote: > Hi Jon, > > On 22/05/07, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > >> Mmmm, I'll have to think about that ;-)). >> > > If you intend to think about it with an open mind, it could be quite a > useful way to spend some time :-). > "Quite a useful way to spend some time." As in, I might find it a novel experience? Nah, not interested ;-)) >> A lifespan is determined by the (objective) criteria of a birth at one >> end and a death at the other. Span of memory (a subjective criterion) >> does not come into it. >> > > How very strange that my lifespan is determined by third parties. > Perhaps it is this way with all beliefs about birth and death, they > are all acquired from third parties, who share equally in not knowing > anything about it? Not sure how you see third parties in my comments. Visible to you, but invisible to me, I'm afraid. Petas, perhaps?? >> If you're talking about conventional memory, there is quite a long >> period between death at the end of one lifespan and the time in the new >> lifespan when there can be said to be memory, including the whole of the >> period of gestation. How do you reckon this 'memory-less' period? ;-)) >> > > Depending on which person or group you acquire your views from, > "knowledge" of death and rebirth varies wildly. The only honest view > out there, however, is an agnostic one. This must be a particular (and limited) use of 'agnostic'. You could be saying the only view is no view, but then, that's obviously not your own position. So I give up ;-)) >> Not sure why you keep bringing up the DMT thing. Curiosity, perhaps? ;-)) > > Certainly I am curious. I think it rather fascinating that a variety > of mystical experiences that play a role in religious and > philosophical practices around the world, can also be chemically > induced. It leads me to think that there are mystical practices which > act by altering brain chemistry. Do you mean: mystical practices as the cause and altered brain chemistry as the result, or vice versa? In any event, I see no connection with the development of insight into the true nature of whatever ;-)) Hope you're enjoying a pleasant Bathurst weekend. Jon PS Congrats on the new job. Hope it works out well. #72604 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 26, 2007 1:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and Jon, and all) - In a message dated 5/26/07 2:05:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > Hi Jon, > > On 20/05/07, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > > > > As far as "gathering everything your teacher ever said, to anyone" is > > concerned, I'd be interested to know what you see as being the "enormous > > harm" involved. > > My sentence in full was : I think there would be enormous > harm in gathering everything your teacher ever said, to anyone, and > then gathering everything what his associates and their students over > a long time have said about that, and then feeding your mind with > that, day in, day out. > > Actually, this was exactly the task of the first Great > > Council held shortly after the Buddha's parinibbaana. > > Who took it upon themselves to do this? And why? I suggest this was a > seminal event in the ongoing appropriation of the Buddha's teachings > by those unable or unwilling to implement them. The distance between > dhutanga-bound ascetics, and patimokkha-bound monastics is > unfathomable. -------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm rather glad, however, that the teachings were saved for us, aren't you? Also, do you think of Ananda as an "appropriator? Might you be going just a drop too far here, Herman, for dramatic effect? ;-) ----------------------------------------- > > Without that and > > the efforts of subsequent generations in firstly memorising and later > > writing down the teachings, there'd be no teachings at all extant today > > and we wouldn't be having this conversation. > > I am fully aware that you take the line that the Buddha initiated the > monastry-dwelling spin on what he taught. > > > As far as "feeding your mind with that, day in, day out" is concerned, > > I'm not sure where you're coming from here. As I recall, the comment of > > mine that you disagreed with a couple of posts ago was the idea that one > > should reflect upon and consider what is contained in the teachings. > > How does this relate to that issue? > > One usefully considers what one is taught, not what is in the > teachings. One is usefully taught by one who has implemented what they > were taught, not by one who has also read the books. ------------------------------------------ Howard: There is also the matter of how *much* does one consider, and with *what being sacrificed* one does so, an important part of your point, I think, Herman. I will comment more about this at the end. ---------------------------------------- > > > > > >It would be precisely because one is feeding themselves with such an > > >endless word salad that it would no longer be a possibility to have a > > >minute of mental silence. Some people like to maintain that things are > > >just the same now as they were in the days of the Buddha. After all, > > >they say, it is just the same namas and rupas now as it was then. What > > >rubbish! > > > > Quite apart from the implicit assumption that people in the time of the > > Buddha couldn't read (not correct, as far as I know), > > Show me the stats on literacy rates at Savatthi around 500BC :-) > > the idea that any > > different namas and rupas are involved for the person who reads, as > > compared to the person who doesn't, is an interesting one. I would see > > it differently: just seeing and thinking and memory performing its > function. > > I don't think that the aim of the teachings is to fill your head up > with things to remember. > > MN03 > > "Friends, of a Teacher abiding in seclusion, how do the disciples not > train in that seclusion? > > Here, friends, of a Teacher abiding in seclusion, the disciples do not > train in that seclusion. The things the Teacher said dispel, they > would not dispel, they live in abundance and lethargy, missing the > main aim, and they do not yoke themselves to seclusion. For this the > elders have to be blamed for three things. Of a Teacher abiding in > seclusion, the disciples do not train in that seclusion. This is the > first blame that comes on the elders. > > The things that the Teacher said dispel, they would not dispel. This > is the second blame that comes on the elders. Living in abundance and > lethargy, they miss the main aim and do not yoke themselves to > seclusion. This is the third blame that comes on the elders. The > elders have to be blamed for these three things. > > The middling bhikkhus, too have to be blamad for these three things. > The novice bhikkhus too have to be blamed for these three things. > Friends, it is in this manner, that of a Teacher abiding in seclusion, > the disciples do not train in that seclusion." ---------------------------------------- Howard: I think the foregoing is very important, and I will add something related futher down. ---------------------------------------- > > Show me a sutta that says "remember the Tipitaka", and I'll show you a > fraud. -------------------------------------- Howard: As a counter, some might point to the Buddha saying to take the Dhamma as refuge. But taking it as refuge isn't the same as memorizing it and constantly reviewing it and contemplating it in place of other Dhamma activities. Again, I will add something related below. --------------------------------------- > > > I put it to you that the tradition that has given you the > commentaries, sub commentaries and sub-sub-commentaries demonstrates > it's lack of inclination towards turning away and cessation by those > very works. On the other hand, the lack of such works by > dhutanga-bound ascetics speaks of their understanding of and devotion > to what they have been taught. --------------------------------------------- Howard: In this regard, and with regard to earlier points I have quoted and commented on, I insert here for the consideration of folks here, and to be found at the ATI link http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/a n05/an05.073.than.html, a sutta that I consider to be very much to the point, extremely important, and one which I truly hope DSG members will take very seriously and benefit from: ________________________ Dhamma-viharin Sutta One Who Dwells in the Dhamma Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu PTS: A iii 85 Source: Transcribed from a file provided by the translator. Copyright © 2003 Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight edition © 2003 For free distribution. This work may be republished, reformatted, reprinted, and redistributed in any medium. It is the author's wish, however, that any such republication and redistribution be made available to the public on a free and unrestricted basis and that translations and other derivative works be clearly marked as such. Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One, "'One who dwells in the Dhamma, one who dwells in the Dhamma': thus it is said, lord. To what extent is a bhikkhu one who dwells in the Dhamma?" "Monk, there is the case where a monk studies the Dhamma: dialogues, narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question & answer sessions.1 He spends the day in Dhamma-study. He neglects seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on study, not one who dwells in the Dhamma. "Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard & studied it and teaches it in full detail to others. He spends the day in Dhamma-description. He neglects seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on description, not one who dwells in the Dhamma. "Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard & studied it and recites it in full detail. He spends the day in Dhamma-recitation. He neglects seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on recitation, not one who dwells in the Dhamma. "Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard & studied it and thinks about it, evaluates it, and examines it with his intellect. He spends the day in Dhamma-thinking. He neglects seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on thinking, not one who dwells in the Dhamma. "Then there is the case where a monk studies the Dhamma: dialogues, narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question & answer sessions. He doesn't spend the day in Dhamma-study. He doesn't neglect seclusion. He commits himself to internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk who dwells in the Dhamma. "Now, monk, I have taught you the person who is keen on study, the one who is keen on description, the one who is keen on recitation, the one who is keen on thinking, and the one who dwells in the Dhamma. Whatever a teacher should do â€" seeking the welfare of his disciples, out of sympathy for them â€" that have I done for you. Over there are the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, monk. Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message to you." --------------------------- What could be clearer?? What could be less ambiguous?? ------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Herman > > ============================== With metta, Howard #72605 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat May 26, 2007 6:24 am Subject: Perfections N, no 35 nilovg Dear friends, When there is more understanding of the different characteristics of kusala citta and of akusala citta we can learn to see the disadvantage of akusala and the benefit of kusala. We can notice that there is very little mettã in a day because akusala citta arises more often than kusala citta. We should consider with what types of citta we think of others. We are always quick at judging other people or criticizing them. We may find someone else peculiar in his appearance or behaviour and then there is already conceit, there is no mettã. We are inclined to think of our own welfare more often than of the welfare of others. We are often forgetful and we overlook opportunities to help others, but if we consider the teachings and develop satipatthãna there are more conditions for the arising of mettã. When we do something for someone else, even if it is only a small service, it helps us to become less selfish. At that moment the citta is soft and gentle. When there is true mettã we consider someone else as a friend even if we do not know him. There is a feeling of closeness and sympathy. When there is mettã there is no longer a barrier or separation between people. Mettã can be developed naturally in our daily life. There is no need to think first, "I should develop mettã", or to recite first texts about mettä. Mettã conditions other wholesome qualities such as generosity in giving and kind, agreeable speech. It conditions humbleness due to absence of conceit 1). Mettã conditions patience and forbearance when others are unfriendly to us. Also when there are no people around we still think of them, we have conditions to think of people time and again. We should find out whether there are at such moments kusala cittas or akusala cittas. Instead of thinking of them with annoyance or conceit we can have friendly thoughts, we can think of ways to help them. --------- 1: Expositor II, Book III, 395. ********* Nina. #72606 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat May 26, 2007 6:18 am Subject: Conditions, Ch 1, no 7. nilovg Dear friends, The roots which arise together condition one another by way of root- condition. Alobha and adosa always arise together and they may or may not be accompanied by amoha, paññå. When there is amoha, the two other roots which accompany the citta, namely alobha and adosa, are conditioned by amoha. For instance, right understanding may accompany generosity, alobha. While we give we may realize that generosity is only a type of nåma, not self, and then the generosity is purer, it has a higher degree of wholesomeness than generosity which is not accompanied by right understanding. When someone is born with mahå-vipåkacitta (vipåkacitta of the sense-sphere accompanied by sobhana hetus), this citta may be accompanied by paññå or unaccompanied by paññå. When the patisandhi- citta is accompanied by paññå one may, if paññå is developed during that life, attain enlightenment. Moha and lobha condition one another, and moha and dosa condition one another. We may find it difficult to know the characteristic of moha and we tend to forget that when there is lobha there is moha as well, or when there is dosa there is moha as well. We should remember that whenever akusala citta arises, there is ignorance of realities. When we, for example, cling to a pleasant sound, we are at such a moment blinded, we do not see the object as it really is, as a conditioned reality which is impermanent. When we are annoyed, there is dosa as well as ignorance. We do not like to have dosa because we do not like unpleasant feeling, but we do not understand the conditions for dosa, we forget that ignorance conditions it. When there is ignorance we do not see the danger and disadvantage of akusala. When we develop mettå dosa can be temporarily subdued, but for the eradication of dosa the development of right understanding of realities is necessary. Only the ariyan who has attained the third stage of enlightenment, the anågåmí (non-returner), has developed paññå to such degree that dosa has been eradicated. Ignorance leads to all kinds of defilements and only right understanding of nåma and rúpa can finally eradicate ignorance. ****** Nina. #72607 From: connie Date: Sat May 26, 2007 6:45 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (56) nichiconn dear friends, 3 of 4, Guttaa: Tattha tameva anubruuhehiiti yadattha.m yassa kilesaparinibbaanassa khandhaparinibbaanassa ca atthaaya. Hitvaa putta.m vasu.m piyanti piyaayitabba.m ~naatipariva.t.ta.m bhogakkhandha~nca hitvaa mama saasane pabbajjaa brahmacariyavaaso icchito, tameva va.d.dheyyaasi sampaadeyyaasi. Maa cittassa vasa.m gamiiti diigharatta.m ruupaadi-aaramma.navasena va.d.dhitassa kuu.tacittassa vasa.m maa gacchi. 163. There, devote yourself to that very thing means: for the sake of which (yad attha.m), which is for the sake of (yassa ... atthaaya) the final quenching of the defilements and the final quenching of the aggregates. Give up your son and the wealth that are equally dear to you means: give up your circle of friends and your mass of wealth that can be held dear. You went forth in my teaching desiring the condition of leading the holy life. That is the very thing you should cause to prosper and strive for. Do not go (maa ... gami) under the influence (vasa.m) of the mind (cittassa) means: do not go (maa gacchi) under the influence of your deceptive mind (kuu.ta-cittassa) that has indulged itself under the influence of external material objects, etc. (ruupaadi-aaramma.na-vasena), for a long time. Yasmaa citta.m naameta.m maayuupama.m, yena va~ncitaa andhaputhujjanaa maaravasaanugaa sa.msaara.m naativattanti. Tena vutta.m "cittena va~ncitaa"ti-aadi. 164. Since the mind indeed is like an illusion by which blind ordinary people are deceived. Being under the influence of Maara, they do not pass beyond continued existence. Therefore it is said: deceived by mind, etc. Sa.myojanaani etaaniiti etaani "kaamacchanda~nca byaapaadan"ti-aadinaa yathaavuttaani pa~nca bandhana.t.thena sa.myojanaani. Pajahitvaanaati anaagaamimaggena samucchinditvaa. Bhikkhuniiti tassaa aalapana.m. Orambhaagamaniiyaaniiti ruupaaruupadhaatuto he.t.thaabhaage kaamadhaatuya.m manussajiivassa hitaani upakaaraani tattha pa.tisandhiyaa paccayabhaavato. Ma-kaaro padasandhikaro. "Oramaagamaniiyaanii"ti paa.li, so evattho. Nayida.m punarehisiiti orambhaagiyaana.m sa.myojanaana.m pahaanena ida.m kaama.t.thaana.m kaamabhava.m pa.tisandhivasena puna naagamissasi. Ra-kaaro padasandhikaro. "Itthan"ti vaa paa.li, itthatta.m kaamabhavamicceva attho. 166. Three fetters (samyojanaani) means: these fetters of desire for sensual pleasures, and malevolence, etc, as has been said, are in the sense of the five bonds (pa~nca bandhan'-a.t.tena). Abandoning means: having abolished [them] through the path of the Non-Returner. Bhikkhunii is the way of addressing her [ie, a vocative]. That lead to the lower world (orambhaaga-m-aniiyaani) means: useful and beneficial to human being through being the conditions for rebirth there in the world of sensual pleasures, which is lower than the fine-material and immaterial worlds. The [second] letter m [in orambhaaga-m-aniiyani] makes a euphonic combination of the two words. Ora-m-aagamaniiyaani is [another] reading and has the same meaning. You will not come to this again (punar ehisi) means: through abandoning the fetters leading to the lower [world] you will not come to this again (puna naaga-missasi) through rebirth in a place of sensual pleasures, a sensual existence. The letter r [in punar ehisi] makes a euphonic combination of the two words. "In this way" (ittha.m) is also a reading [for punar, "again"]. "This world" (itthatta.m) and "sensual existence" (kaama-bhavam) have the same meaning. ===tbc, connie #72608 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat May 26, 2007 8:17 am Subject: Re: Sammaadi.t.thi study corner scottduncan2 Dear Mike, Sorry for the delay. Thanks for the reply. I'm still working on: M: "I know of no reason that pa~n~naa can't arise with a concept as object--so maybe that's the trick. I'd still be interested in explicit verification of this from the texts, though....What about pa~n~naa functioning below the level of vipassanaa?...Pa~n~naa with regard to concepts (e.g. "There is what is given and what is offered and what is sacrificed" etc.) or only with regard to dhammas? Of course only the latter (as I understand it) can be vipassanaa." Scott: Its a good question (I don't really know) yet about 'pa~n~na below the level of vipassanaa'. This would be 'mundane' pa~n~na, I guess. The distinction between lokiya and lokuttara, it seems to me, might hinge on level of development; the function or action of mundane dhammas would be the same as lokuttara dhammas but these would be undeveloped and unable to pertain to the Path. This conjecture is sorely in need of checking. I see, in Nyanatiloka, discussing pa~n~na: "With regard to the condition of its arising one distinguishes 3 kinds of knowledge: knowledge based on thinking (cintaa-mayaa-pa~n~naa), knowledge based on learning (suta-mayaa-pa~n~naa), [and] knowledge based on mental development (bhaavanaa-mayaa-pa~n~na)...'Based on thinking' is that knowledge which one has accquired through one's own thinking, without having learnt it from others. 'Based on learning' is that knowledge which one has heard from others and thus acquired through learning. 'Based on mental development' is that knowledge which one has acquired through mental development in this or that way, and which has reached the stage of full concentration; appanaa Vis.M XIV." Scott: In Dhammasa"nga.ni (p. 16), under 'pa~n~nindriya.m', terms such as 'search', 'research', 'searching the Doctrines' [i.e. of the Four Truths (Asl. 147)], 'discernment', 'discrimination', 'differentiation', 'erudition', 'proficiency', 'subtlety', 'criticism', 'reflection', 'analysis', and the like. Does this imply that these are on a 'continuum' dependent on level of development? It is noted in Atthasaalinii (p. 68) that "wisdom and its associated parts should be understood as 'belonging to wisdom.' But here only states associated with wisdom are meant." This is in contrast with "states belonging to ignorance...which by virtue of association 'belong to ignorance.'" And further, "Herein ignorance is fourfold: intellectual darkness concealing the Fact of Ill, its origin, its cessation, and the Path leading to cesstion." Again, is it fair to conjecture that 'associated with wisdom' can include 'mundane' things? Or even thinking of concepts? I'll have to keep looking at pa~n~na re: concepts. Sincerely, Scott. #72609 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat May 26, 2007 9:00 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Sammaadi.t.thi study corner scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Thanks for your reply: H: "Yes, of course there is not a self in charge of elements. Nonetheless, when all these different elements are arising and ceasing in aggregated form in a particular way, we are dealing with a person, not with individual elements. And it is to a compounded, aggregated person, and not to an element, that the following is meaningful "Brahmin, is there an occasion for making effort?" And to a right-thinking person it is answered in the affirmative." Scott: You assert, as do I, that there is no self in charge of elements. So far so good. I don't make the intellectual transitions between elements and concepts in the way you do. You accept that there are elements but then you seem to expand the meaning accorded to them when you shift to 'person'. I think you make an error by reifying the compounded aggregate. You seem to treat the 'person' as if it were, as well, an element. You seem to imply that one of the functions of 'person' is to make meaning of things. It is not, in my opinion, a 'person' that makes meaning; it is a dhamma - pa~n~na, for example - that does so. This next constitutes my point and makes it better than I can, (bear with the quote, its short); in Sammohavinodanii, pp.90-1: "388. Furthermore, while the self of the sectarians does not exist in its own nature (sabhaavato), not so of these; but these are elements (dhaatu) since they carry (dhaarenti) their own nature (sabhaava). And as in the world the variously coloured orpiment, cinnabar, etc., being constituents of stones, are called elements, so also these elements are like those ones, for they are the variously 'coloured' constituents of knowledge and the knowable. Or, just as [the term] 'elements' is used for the juice, blood, etc. which are the constituents of the collection known as the 'body' [when they are] distinguished from each other by dissimilarity of characteristic, so also [the term] 'elements' should be understood as used for constituents of the person called 'the five aggregates'. For these things are distinguished from each other by dissimilarity of characteristics." Scott: Over to you, man. Sincerely, Scott. #72610 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat May 26, 2007 5:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Insight is "Vision," Not Merely Experience. TGrand458@... Hi Ken H. In a message dated 5/26/2007 1:09:59 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, kenhowa@... writes: I can agree with the first part. However, it is very hard to have a discussion with you when you deny the existence of paramattha dhammas. When you say 'monitoring direct experience with mindfulness' you don't mean direct right understanding of paramattha dhammas. You are referring to a conventional (ritualistic) form of satipatthana. I suppose your practice is to remind yourself "This noise I am hearing is anicca dukkha and anatta. This coffee cup I am holding is anicca dukkha and anatta" and that sort of thing. That is not satipatthana and it does not lead to satipatthana. ..................................................... NEWER TG: Nonsense. When I practice mindfulness, I break things down initially into elements so that I am mindful of elements. This, however, is still conceptual, so I realize that it is a "practice" and not the goal. ..................................................... ------------------------ TG: > Both have power and both are important. And that the Buddha was interested in leading minds to "turn away" from phenomena, not to try and decipher ultimate realities. ------------------------- "Turn away?" Renunciation of the five khandhas is a result of right understanding of the five khandhas (conditioned dhammas). But right understanding (and renunciation) can only take place by turning towards the khandhas - seeing them for what they really are - anicca, dukkha and anatta. ................................................................ NEWER TG: I agree and disagree. Although we initially turn toward the elements/aggregates in order to more deeply understand conditionality; when wiser the mind turns away from them. This is "detachment in action" due to insight. If the mind remains focused on the Khandhas and does not turn away from them, it will never be liberated. ............................................................. --------------------------- TG: > > > Much of it (most of it) is 'reflective contemplation' and 'inferential deduction' about the nature of things that are not being experienced. For example, how can past, future, external, or far -- material forms, feelings, perceptions, formations or consciousness have anything to do with direct experience? KH: >> As I said. BTW, I have to wonder why you don't know this. . TG: > Why would you assume I don't know this? It is in fact central to my point. ---------------------------- Another breakdown in communication! :-) You asked. "How can past, future, external, or far material forms (etc) have anything to do with direct experience?" I took that to be a question. Now, I think you are saying it was rhetorical. ......................................................... NEWER TG: Of course. ........................................................... Anyway, I answered by referring you to my previous answer where I had said 'when panna directly knows a conditioned dhamma, it can know it is the reality described by the Buddha as "exactly the same as all past and future conditioned dhammas - anicca, dukkha and anatta.: The same applies to external and far conditioned dhammas: when panna directly knows a conditioned dhamma it knows it is the reality described by the Buddha as exactly the same as all external and far conditioned dhammas - anicca, dukkha and anatta. I think that answers your question as to how it has "anything to do with direct experience." .................................................................... NEWER TG: It knows that because it understands the "principles of conditionality." It is inferred from observation AND direct experience. It is not merely direct experience. ..................................................................... Then I had a shot at you for not knowing this because it has been discussed here several times. I don't know if this is clearing up our communication breakdown at all. Now I have to find out what you mean by, "It is in fact central to my point." -------------------------------------- <. . .> KH: >> I wonder why you haven't noticed. Could it be because you have been too busy disputing the ancient texts and putting forth your own original ideas? TG: > <. . .> It is the "Abhidhammika' It is the " consider "original ideas." The "ultimate realities" etc. don't jibe with the Suttas. When the Buddha discusses how to "know things as they really are," it is not merely directly knowing paramattha dhammas (if that even counts I'm doubtful), but it is a much broader knowledge and vision of phenomena. ------------------- This is what made me a little bit tetchy in my previous post. We have seen people shouting, "CAN'T YOU READ?" and we have seen them making the silly statement, "You might believe that but I prefer to believe what the Buddha taught!" That puerile level of debate can be infuriating. Sorry if I took my infuriation out on you. :-) .................................................................. NEWER TG: Oh that's very nice of you to say so. I know we tend to rub each other the wrong way which is why I don't normally post to you. But now I'm thinking, hey, maybe your a nice guy after all. (I better wait till I read the rest of the post before I come to any rash conclusions.) ;-) ............................................................................ ----------------------------- <. . .> TG: > That's rudely said and I'm not sure who the "tag team" is. ----------------------------- Sorry again. Perhaps you haven't been reading all the posts recently, but there have been at least two, possibly three, jokes about tag- team wrestling. I was just continuing the joke. ........................................................ NEWER TG: Ahh, I've had the same thought independently but don't remember reading them in the posts. I read only the minority of topics. ........................................................................... ------------------- TG: > Let the "Theras" be ... unless its Sariputta, Maha Moggallana, or the like. I'll stick to the Four Great Nikayas. That's where I don't want to be in conflict. Conflict with some commentaries? I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. ------------------- But no one here claims to disagree with Sariputta or with the Nikayas or with the Buddha etc. Some of us are saying the Commentaries agree with Sariputta and the Nikayas and the Buddha etc. So we don't see any conflict in agreeing with the Commentaries. ................................................................ NEWER TG: I know. Its just we disagree on some fine points yet important points. I appreciate the whole of Abhidhamma far more than you might think. I wouldn't have read the Visuddhimagga 10 times and Manual of Abhidhamma 8 times if I didn't find something in there worthwhile. .............................................................................. ......... Please don't make the silly argument that we are choosing to go against the Buddha's teaching. The question is, "What is the Buddha's teaching?" You say you can answer that question better than the Commentaries can, and maybe you are right, but I doubt it. ------------------------ ............................................................................. NEWER TG: Whatever "vision" I have of the dhamma is partly inspired by commentaries I assure you. I just don't follow them by rote. But they need to jibe with the Suttas or they are suspect by me. I see the Buddha's teaching on the elements/aggregates as provisional.... In order to achieve a greater purpose. I.E. detachment and liberation. I don't think he wanted to substantiate them as "paramattha dhammas" and see no evidence in the Suttas of that effort. ............................................................................. <.. .> TG: > Just deal with the Sutta and the point. In your entire post, you have failed to do so. (Well, I'll give you credit for side-swiping the issue.) This I find to be the rule and not the exception when a pertinent quote from the Suttas is laid out that does not square with the "knowing ultimate realities/paramatththe "knowing ultimate realiti issue at hand is ignored or gets dropped. ------------------------ We see things differently. The way I see it, every objection to the 'paramattha' version of the Dhamma has been dealt with comprehensively. If other people can't grasp the point and keep asking the same questions (e.g., "When are you going to stop understanding and start practising?"understanding and start practising?" ................................................................ NEWER TG: There are people who are not as "locked" into their positions as you and I are. I continue to make the case for their benefit as well as my own. I see your group doing the same thing. If either case is not made, the other case will ultimately prevail as a principle leading condition of minds. Its a whole lot easier for me to remain silent and sometimes I don't post for many months. But then I see a topic I can't resist and get back into it. I will also say that such back and forth posting has forced deep reflection and testing of my ideas and I consider that beneficial. ................................................................... -------------- TG: > Now, you have actually agreed with my position in your initial responses and yet appear unaware of it. And you don't seem to realize that your agreement then admits to a relevant conceptual aspect to insight development. You have put conceptual analysis on a more or less even plane as that of direct experience. I agree. So we agree, and nothing to be upset about. :-) -------------- It is a good start. The Dhamma as I understand it says that panna can know right conceptual analysis. After knowing right conceptual analysis many, many times panna will grow stronger, and it will go on to know the characterisitcs of namas and rupas directly - not just theoretically. .................................................................... NEWER TG: Yep, pretty much my view as well. I think the only difference from my perspective is that I am uncomfortable with the terminology that call namas and rupas "ultimate realities with their own characteristics." I see them, rather, as "conditional echoes" and empty of anything "of their own." My viewpoint then is... that I am less attached to them as "individual states" (even if for a millisecond), than the other perspective would have it. This is not to say that I think there is not "actual occurrence" of phenomena. There is "actual occurrence." Rather, it is the "nature" of what is occurring that we "define differently." ....................................................................... If that is your understanding of the Dharma, welcome aboard! .................................................................. NEWER TG: I do appreciate this friendlier tone Ken. Especially in light that I was not to delicate in my own communications. ...................................................................... Ken H TG OUT #72611 From: Dieter Möller Date: Sat May 26, 2007 10:31 am Subject: Unintelligent Brother and the Cloth .. Visakah Puja; Vaishaka; Buddha Jayanti; Buddha Purnima; Visakha Bucha; Wesak; Saga Dawa moellerdieter Hi Christine /All, just recognised you are around ;-) you wrote: I'm seeing the Cooran Mob next weekend ~ we're all meeting somewhere near the Glasshouse Mountains for a Study day on articles about the Buddha's Birth, Enlightenment and Parinibbana (plus lunch :-)) . I'll give it to him then ~ providing I don't get lost finding the park/paddock they've chosen.' wishing you and the folks a beautiful and meaningful meeting and like to thank for the reminder to contemplate about this auspious occasion . I was a little bit confused and maybe others too about the date . According to an article (Buddhist Channel) : ' snip..On Vesak Day, Buddhists all over the world commemorate events of significance to Buddhists of all traditions: The Birth, Enlightenment and the Passing Away of Gautama Buddha. The exact date of Vesak is defined according to the astrological calendar, as the time of the full moon of Taurus, which corresponds to the birth, enlightenment (Nirvana) and the passing away (Parinirvana) of Gautama Buddha. According to the Chinese Lunar calendar, Vesak is usually celebrated on the full moon day of the fourth month. For this year 2007 however, there are two full moon days in the month of May. Some countries have opted to celebrate on the first full moon (May 1) based on the resolution passed at Conference of the World Fellowship of Buddhists in 1950, whereas others have chosen to do so on the second full moon day (May 31), based on the traditional chinese calendar.' Thailand for example chose May 31 ...does anybody know more background ? with Metta Dieter #72612 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat May 26, 2007 11:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Unintelligent Brother and the Cloth .. Visakah Puja; Vaishaka; Buddha Jayanti; Buddha Purnima; Visakha Bucha; Wesak; Saga Dawa nilovg Hi Dieter. I did not know, I thought of May 1, I got this from Google. I was with Lodewijk in the train in France and we decided to have extra Vesak discussions as we like to have each year. But now I think of a second celebration, thank you. I was also surprised by this on the Pali list. Somehow every day is Dhamma day and time for awareness, but I still like to especially take note of Vesak, although it is conventional. Nina. Op 26-mei-2007, om 19:31 heeft Dieter Möller het volgende geschreven: > Some countries have opted to celebrate on the first full moon (May > 1) based on the resolution passed at Conference of the World > Fellowship of Buddhists in 1950, whereas others have chosen to do > so on the second full moon day (May 31), based on the traditional > chinese calendar.' > > Thailand for example chose May 31 ...does anybody know more > background ? #72613 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Sat May 26, 2007 11:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Unintelligent Brother and the Cloth .. Visakah Puja; Vaishaka; Buddha Jayanti; Buddha Purnima; Visakha Bucha; Wesak; Saga Dawa christine_fo... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi Dieter. > I did not know, I thought of May 1, I got this from Google. I was > with Lodewijk in the train in France and we decided to have extra > Vesak discussions as we like to have each year. > But now I think of a second celebration, thank you. I was also > surprised by this on the Pali list. > Somehow every day is Dhamma day and time for awareness, but I still > like to especially take note of Vesak, although it is conventional. > Nina. > Op 26-mei-2007, om 19:31 heeft Dieter Möller het volgende geschreven: > > > Some countries have opted to celebrate on the first full moon (May > > 1) based on the resolution passed at Conference of the World > > Fellowship of Buddhists in 1950, whereas others have chosen to do > > so on the second full moon day (May 31), based on the traditional > > chinese calendar.' > > > > Thailand for example chose May 31 ...does anybody know more > > background ? Hello Nina and Dieter, Hello all, Most lay buddhists I know go by the Calendar of Uposatha Days at Access to Insight which lists 31st May for both major Sects in Thailand: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/uposatha2007.html metta cooran #72614 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 26, 2007 9:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Insight is "Vision," Not Merely Experience. upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 5/26/07 3:09:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, you write to TG: > When you say 'monitoring direct experience with mindfulness' > you don't mean direct right understanding of paramattha dhammas. You > are referring to a conventional (ritualistic) form of satipatthana. > ========================= Ken, why do you hurl "ritualistic" at every activity you disapprove of? The dictionary gives the following definitions: Main Entry: ritual Function: noun 1 : the established form for a ceremony ; specifically : the order of words prescribed for a religious ceremony 2 a : ritual observance ; specifically : a system of rites b : a ceremonial act or action c : a customarily repeated often formal act or series of acts Main Entry: rite Function: noun Pronunciation: 'rit Etymology: Middle English, from Latin ritus; akin to Greek arithmos number -- more at ARITHMETIC 1 a : a prescribed form or manner governing the words or actions for a ceremony b : the liturgy of a church or group of churches 2 : a ceremonial act or action 3 : a division of the Christian church using a distinctive liturgy Mindfully attending to what is actually experienced in the moment as best one can dosn't match either of 'ritual' or 'rite' as best I can tell. Why don't you look at the suttas to see what the Buddha concsidered to be ritual? It wasn't what TG is referring to. BTW, Ken, studying "the texts" is also a conventional activity. Why don't you call that "ritual"? With metta, Howard #72615 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat May 26, 2007 10:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Dhammas" and Impermanence (The Abhidhammikas perspective?) TGrand458@... Reposting due to lack of interest. ;-) Hi Nina, Sarah, Jon, Howard, Herman, James, Larry and the Rest... Something occurred to me recently... that when the Abhidhammikas talk about Dhammas "arising and immediately falling away," that it is an inference based on time. I.E., "the present moment" arises and immediately falls away. Therefore, all that constitutes the present moment must also arise and immediately fall way...from this vantage point. This outlook would explain a number of things. First of all, it explains a lack of being comfortable of including the Suttas description of "changing while persisting" as part of the arising and ceasing description. "The present" could not change while persist." It would support the idea of "ultimately real" dhammas. For only the present is "ultimate real"...from this vantage point. It supports the intense focus on "mindfulness of the present moment" as the "heart" of their practice. However, I'm dubious of this conclusion because it would be a relatively easy thing to explain and I don't recall getting this explanation from Nina or Sarah during our many conversations on the subject. It also has it own problems...such as -- how can there be 17 progressive present moments of consciousness for one present moment of rupa? Also, how can the ceasing of a state be a condition for the arising of following state? (In reference to Abhidhammikas view of consciousness.(In reference to Abhidham direct conflict with the Buddha formula of D.O. -- This being, that is; with the arising of this, that arises; this not being, this is not; with the ceasing of this, that ceases. There are other problems as well. Comments? TG #72616 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat May 26, 2007 3:19 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Insight is "Vision," Not Merely Experience. kenhowardau Hi Colette, ------ <. . .> C: > I totally agree with Ken's response since there's absolutely no knowledge of why a person would even consider "turning away" from things if those things were not actually put to the test of their svabhava. <. . .> I have my own predjudices and biases since I've had a couple of Near Death Experiences (NDE) which I would not wish upon my worst enemy let alone a friend or even a stranger. <. . .> I have found that the things I embraced have all failed me and abandonded me since April 10 or 11, 1978. I have always been left destitute and dangling in the breeze as a flag or corpse, see Vlad The Impailor or any Roman crucifiction, and the only satisfaction I've found is through the concentration of what I've experienced outside this physical realm and the interaction that that Ultimate Truth has to this Relative Truth. So, for the time being I'm embracing the Varjayana and it's practices while still gathering bits and pieces of the Yogacara. -------- I am sure that NDE's can be very instructive. Any horrible personal tragedy (the loss of a loved one, for example) can paradoxically help us to see the world in a wonderful new light. But is that the way taught by the Buddha? I am not sure that it is. I must be tactful, and I certainly wouldn't want to belittle anyone else's experiences. For example, I would never say, "Get over it!" But I think Jesus was right when he said anyone who came to him had to do so "as a little child." According to the Buddhadhamma, the past no longer exists, and the future has never existed. Personal stories have to be put aside. We need to say to ourselves, "So what?" There is only the present moment. -------------- <. . .> C: > Thanks, I hope I didn't get too long winded. -------------- Not at all! Thanks for sharing your experiences. I hope I haven't given the wrong impression with my "so what" remark. I don't say that to other people; I say it to myself. I recommend it as a way of seeing past the conventional world to the ultimate - present moment - world taught by the Buddha. Ken H #72619 From: "Larry" Date: Sat May 26, 2007 4:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] re: impermanent versus inconstant lbidd2 Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi Larry, > We have to distinguish thinking of concepts and the experience of > paramattha dhammas, one at a time through one of the six doorways. > There is usually attasa~n~na instead of anattasa~n~na. We take the > flower for the reality, but it is not real in the ultimate sense. L: True, but in distinguishing nama and rupa there is more to know than rupa. We can also know nama. In Vism. there are three kinds of knowing: perception, consciousness, and wisdom. These are all nama and tell us different things about visible object. > A wise man, when he perceives a scarecrow, realizes that the rupa > that is visible object falls away immediately. He knows that because > of former experiences that are remembered he can think of scarecrow. > Nina. L: First a wise man sees that visible object is fragile. See Vism.XX,3: "Materiality (rupa) has the characteristic of being molested (ruppana)." This is the characteristic of rupa that distinguishes wisdom knowing from mere consciousness knowing. In the Lump of Foam Sutta (SN22,95) rupa is likened to a lump of river foam that (relatively) quickly falls apart. It also ties in nicely with Christine's unintelligent brother who dirties a cloth by rubbing it with his sweaty hand. Notice also the mantra: http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/ verseload.php?verse=025 Larry #72620 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 26, 2007 4:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] DMT Corner 3 (Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace!) egberdina Hi Jon, On 26/05/07, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > "Quite a useful way to spend some time." As in, I might find it a novel > experience? > > Nah, not interested ;-)) > That's fine. > >> A lifespan is determined by the (objective) criteria of a birth at one > >> end and a death at the other. Span of memory (a subjective criterion) > >> does not come into it. > >> > > > > How very strange that my lifespan is determined by third parties. > > Perhaps it is this way with all beliefs about birth and death, they > > are all acquired from third parties, who share equally in not knowing > > anything about it? > > Not sure how you see third parties in my comments. Visible to you, but > invisible to me, I'm afraid. It is quite simple, really. Do you remember your own birth? Do you remember your own death? These are not things that you have ever experienced, and that is why I say that any knowledge of them comes through thrid parties. > > > > Depending on which person or group you acquire your views from, > > "knowledge" of death and rebirth varies wildly. The only honest view > > out there, however, is an agnostic one. > > This must be a particular (and limited) use of 'agnostic'. You could be > saying the only view is no view, but then, that's obviously not your own > position. So I give up ;-)) What I am saying is that there is no experience of birth or death, so any "knowledge" about it comes from thinking about it. And how to separate the wheat from the chaff with regards to "knowledge" about birth and death? Your guess is as good mine, or anyone else's. Better to say that one doesn't really know, don't you reckon? > >> Not sure why you keep bringing up the DMT thing. Curiosity, perhaps? ;-)) > > > > Certainly I am curious. I think it rather fascinating that a variety > > of mystical experiences that play a role in religious and > > philosophical practices around the world, can also be chemically > > induced. It leads me to think that there are mystical practices which > > act by altering brain chemistry. > > Do you mean: mystical practices as the cause and altered brain chemistry > as the result, or vice versa? In any event, I see no connection with > the development of insight into the true nature of whatever ;-)) I mean that both mystical practices alter brain chemistry, and that ingesting chemicals alters brain chemistry. Would you object to me saying that reading a book alters brain chemistry? On what grounds? > Hope you're enjoying a pleasant Bathurst weekend. > Sure am. I wish the same for you and Sarah. Herman #72621 From: "robmoult" Date: Sat May 26, 2007 4:41 pm Subject: Angry Monks robmoult Hi All, It really upsets me when I see monks demonstrating anger. To me, this is the antithesis of Buddhism. I have a book in my library, "Satipatthana Vipassana Meditation - Criticisms and Replies". It is a series of articles published in Buddhist Journals in the mid 1960s which are basically arguments between a student of Mahasi Sayadaw (Sayadaw U Nyanuttara) and a senior Sri Lankan monk (Kheminda Thera). Both venerables put forward convincing arguments, but it is the anger (couched in academic discussion) that strikes me. When I read the writings of Nanavira or Buddhadassa, they come across to me as virulent attacks on traditional Theravada positions. These are brilliant monks and it is possible that their positions are valid. However, the anger that comes through in their writings disturbs me. A couple of years back, I mentioned this in a conversation with an elderly scholar monk who was visiting Malaysia. This monk mentioned that he was one of Nanavira's teachers and knew him quite well. Apparently, Nanavira was brilliant and charismatic but he did have mental problems for which he took medication - at the end, he committed suicide (the elderly scholar monk was explaining to me Nanavira's misinterpretation of the Vinaya which Nanavira used to justify committing suicide - some complex stuff related to Pali grammar, sorry I cannot remember the details). I would not want to take as a teacher somebody who is driven by anger, no matter how smart they are. Metta, Rob M :-) #72622 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat May 26, 2007 1:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Angry Monks TGrand458@... In a message dated 5/26/2007 5:42:22 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, rob.moult@... writes: I would not want to take as a teacher somebody who is driven by anger, no matter how smart they are. Metta, Rob M :-) Hi Rob M. Yes indeed. If you're wearing the robes, you should walk the walk...or get out and do your arguing as a lay person. LOL Probably not your exact point, but maybe close enough. LOL TG #72623 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 26, 2007 5:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sammaadi.t.thi study corner egberdina Hi Scott, On 27/05/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > > > Scott: You assert, as do I, that there is no self in charge of > elements. So far so good. Cool. I don't make the intellectual transitions > between elements and concepts in the way you do. You accept that > there are elements but then you seem to expand the meaning accorded to > them when you shift to 'person'. I accept that elements are relative to the state of mind in which they are known. I accept that persons are relative to the state of mind in which they are known. For me, to see a person, yet mentally superimpose some elemental framework on them, is being far removed from the present. > > I think you make an error by reifying the compounded aggregate. You > seem to treat the 'person' as if it were, as well, an element. You > seem to imply that one of the functions of 'person' is to make meaning > of things. It is not, in my opinion, a 'person' that makes meaning; > it is a dhamma - pa~n~na, for example - that does so. Where we differ is that even when in gross form, you explain the gross in terms of the fine. I think this is distorting of the way things are. DN09 "In the same way, Citta, when there is a gross acquisition of a self... it's classified just as a gross acquisition of a self. When there is a mind-made acquisition of a self... When there is a formless acquisition of a self, it's not classified either as a gross acquisition of a self or as a mind-made acquisition of a self. It's classified just as a formless acquisition of a self. "Just as when milk comes from a cow, curds from milk, butter from curds, ghee from butter, and the skimmings of ghee from ghee. When there is milk, it's not classified as curds, butter, ghee, or skimmings of ghee. It's classified just as milk. When there are curds... When there is butter... When there is ghee... When there are the skimmings of ghee, they're not classified as milk, curds, butter, or ghee. They're classified just as the skimmings of ghee." > > This next constitutes my point and makes it better than I can, (bear > with the quote, its short); in Sammohavinodanii, pp.90-1: > > "388. Furthermore, while the self of the sectarians does not exist in > its own nature (sabhaavato), not so of these; but these are elements > (dhaatu) since they carry (dhaarenti) their own nature (sabhaava). > And as in the world the variously coloured orpiment, cinnabar, etc., > being constituents of stones, are called elements, so also these > elements are like those ones, for they are the variously 'coloured' > constituents of knowledge and the knowable. Or, just as [the term] > 'elements' is used for the juice, blood, etc. which are the > constituents of the collection known as the 'body' [when they are] > distinguished from each other by dissimilarity of characteristic, so > also [the term] 'elements' should be understood as used for > constituents of the person called 'the five aggregates'. For these > things are distinguished from each other by dissimilarity of > characteristics." Dissimilarity of characteristics is known by analysis. This does not mean that analysis is the default mental mode. It only means that when analysing, differences / elements are seen. It does also not mean that what is seen during analysis continues to be relevant when analysis ceases, and another mental mode is taken on. It remains a fact, that a chariot broken down into components cannot be used to transport one to town for the hockey game. Similarly, there will be no panna arising in a person who has had all their blood and juice removed for analysis :-) Analysis is destructive of function, because function depends on synthesis /aggregation of elements. Herman #72624 From: "robmoult" Date: Sat May 26, 2007 5:07 pm Subject: Suicide in Buddhism robmoult Hi All, I found the article that the elderly scholar monk referred to in the previous post wrote: ===== SUICIDE IN BUDDHISM -- POST-CANONICAL DEFLECTIONS Bhikkhu Professor Dhammavihari Pursuing a little further our study of suicide in Buddhism into the area of Commentarial literature of the later period, one discovers quite a few interesting developments. The Vinaya texts of Pàràjikà Pàli enumerate a large number of lower grade offenses under Parajika III on destruction of human life which do not come to be classified under the major offense of Pàràjikà. We discover one of these in Na ca bhikkhave attànaü pàtetabbaü. Yo pàteyya àpatti dukkañassa. This injunction seems to have caused a considerable amount of confusion, even at the stage of the Commentary, and a great deal more of misinterpretation, centuries later, in the hands of Sri Lankan scholar monks. Both Burmese and Cambodians texts and traditions share these. All three translate it as ' A monk should not commit suicide. He who commits suicide is guilty of a minor offence '. It is amazing that the English translators have got it perfectly right 'But monks, one should not throw oneself off. Whoever shall throw ( himself ) off, there is an offence of wrong-doing.'. The Thai tradition is the only one which we believe has got it correct. At the moment we are not in a position to say whether it is a mistake of independent origin or is a product of deliberate borrowing or mutual interaction. A Sri Lankan Vinaya manual in Sinhala by the name of Sikhavalanda / Sikhavandavinisa of about the late Anuradhapura period [ i.e. circa ninth to the eleventh centuries ], in a chapter named Miscellaneous or Pakiõõaka, includes two items under suicide, of killing oneself or getting oneself killed, and grade them under the minor offence of Dukkaña or Dukulà in Sinhala. But it is clear that Buddhist Ecclesiastical Law in early Vinaya literature does not take into reckoning incidence of suicide. We presume the reason for this is that in case of suicide, the offender being no more existent in the world of the living, there is no possibility of posthumous prosecution or punishment being carried out. Nor is there any real need to contemplate on the same. But it is also clear that attempted suicide, though not successfully accomplished, has to be viewed as attempted man slaughter. Common sense view woud require it. The Vinaya Commentary, the Samantapasadika totally disapproves of it [ ... a¤¤ena ' pi yena kena ci upakkamena antamaso àhàråpacchedena 'pi na màretabbo. VinA. II. 467 ]. Several incidents of successfully carried out suicides are encountered in the Canonical text of Samyutta Nikaya.[ Godhika at S.I. 119, Vakkali at S. III. 118 and Channa at S. IV. 55f. See also M. III. 263 ]. They all seem to pertain to people of whom it is asserted that they have terminated their process of samsàric journeying. Hence they are not liable to be born again, and as such there is no more talk about the evils of their action. We have already done a very comprehensive study of these elsewhere. [See Paper 3 ]. The Parajika III sub-incident cited above which has triggered off this unfortunate misunderstanding of a vital Vinaya issue, refers to the case of the monk who, not being sufficiently attracted to his monastic life [anabhirato ], was contemplating returning to lay life. But he thought: " Before I come to a breach of my moral life, it would be better for me to die." So he climbed the Gijjhakuta mountain, and letting himself fall to a ravine below, fell upon a cane-worker who was at work down there. This caused the death of the man upon whom he fell. The monk was in doubt with regard to his offense. It being no intended man slaughter, the offense was declared to be no Pàràjikà. What was objectionable herein was the frivolous and indiscreet act of jumping off from a height. Out of this incident, a new Vinaya clause thus emerged. "No monk shall jump off from a height [literally 'let himself fall ' = pàtetabbaü ]. The injunction reads: Na ca bhikkhave attànaü pàtetabbaü. Yo pàteyya àpatti dukkañassa. The language used here could hardly lead to a misunderstanding. But it has done. Note here the very accurate rendering by the English translator: 'But, monks, one should not throw oneself off. Whoever shall throw (himself) off, there is an offence of wrong-doing. The root -/ pat > patati, used here without any prefix, means no more than 'fall'. In its causative form pàteti it means 'causes to fall or to fall off from'. It is the form with the prefix ati + as ati pàteti which means to kill or destroy [Note Yo pàõaü atipàteti = Whoever kills or destroys a living being ]. What is frowned upon here in the Vinaya injunction is the monk's reckless behaviour of jumping off from heights, unmindful of the consequences of such action on others around. It is declared a minor offense of Dukkaña. A similar incident is reported below this. It is about Chabbaggiya monks blasting off of rocks in fun and a piece of broken rock falling upon a cowherd below and killing him It is our opinion that at some early stage in the history of the Sàsana, possibly after the great Commentator Buddhaghosa, some dubious thinking on this subject of suicide seems to have surfaced. The Commentary, while disallowing the plea for suicide, seems to accommodate some very exceptional situations which need, as it were, to be studied on their own merit. Much more than this, the issue of suicide appears to become a general one. It seems to appear like a question of one's right over one's life, pàõàtipàtà or destruction of life being looked upon as the destruction of the lives of others. We look upon this as a lamentable slip, for the concept of compassion for all should invariably include oneself as well. For it is admitted everywhere in Buddhism that everyone loves to live and does not wish to die. This underlying yearning for ' the right to die ', much more than a gross ignorance of the Pali idiom in the passage quoted above, probably led to the deliberate disregard of the difference between pàteti and atipàteti. It is surprising to find that this translation which we declare to be incorrect is found to exist in this form in Burmese and Cambodian traditions. This process of inter-regional or international transmission of a religious tradition is worth a real research which we cannot afford at the moment. But we are glad to record, on evidence very reliably sent to us, that the Thai Vinaya texts translate the controversial Pali word pàteyya as 'causes to fall '. As for the Commentarial explanation on this issue, it appears that they were fully aware of the rulings given by the Buddha himself in the cases of suicide by the theras Godhika, Vakkali and Channa. Except in the case of those who have terminated their rebirth process and are therefore not going to be reborn again [and face the consequences of their evil deeds ], suicide or self destruction remained a blamable offense. We have discussed this position in detail in our article on Euthanasia. [Paper 3 ]. Hence we feel that the Sri Lankan monk tradition [along with Burmese and Cambodian] which reduces suicide by a monk to a mere Dukkaña offence, through an early misunderstanding of the earlier referred to Pali phrase attànaü pàtatabbaü as equivalent to ' destroy oneself ' is totally unacceptable. In search of further clarification on this issue, let us hopefully turn in the direction the Vinaya Commentary. We have it at PTS. Vin A. II. p.467.l.8 f. [ romanized version ] and SHB. XXVIII. Samantapasadika Part I. p.333 f. [ in Sinhala script ]. As referred to above, the disgruntled monk climbs a mountain and attempts to commit suicide [ yàva sãlabhedaü na pàpunàmi tàva marissàmã ' ti. Vin.A.II. 467 ] by jumping off from there. But his attempted suicide failed, because he fell upon a man below and the man died instead in the process. The death of the man was not the outcome of intended murder. Hence the death of the man in the hands of the bhikkhu is ruled out as not being a Pàràjikà offense [ anàpatti pàràjikassa ]. The Commentary adds a beautiful note thereafter. It decries the frivolous act of jumping off from heights and denounces suicide in any form, even through starvation, reminding perhaps of the regular Jain practice. These searches and researches into our texts, specially the Commentary, make us legitimately suspect whether the Vinaya Commentary Samantapasadika is contemplating on the possibility of getting a bit of laxity in the interpretation of an act of suicide within the monastic community. In the stories of monks like Godhika, Vakkali and Channa in the Samyutta Nikaya, implications of suicide has already been thoroughly discussed and explained by the Buddha himself. What has been said in those contexts should, in our opinion, equally well apply even in the lives of lay persons. Suicide, apparently necessitated in undoubtedly challenging situations of monastic life, whose complexity was rapidly multiplying through time, must have called for ethically sound as well as judicially unquestionable precise handling on the part of those in authority in monastic circles. An overall disapproval of suicide, deriving from the conventions of the Sutta tradition, at any rate must have loomed large in the horizon. Whatever literal translation the Commentator was willing to give to the phrase attànaü pàtetabbaü [cause oneself to fall off from or destroy one's own life ], it is difficult for us to determine. But his comment Ettha ca na kevalaü na pàtetabbaü a¤¤ena ' pi yena kena ci upakkamena antamaso àhàråpacchedena ' pi na màretabbo clearly reveals an underlying rejection of suicide [ ... na màretabbo ] as a remedial measure for a monk under any circumstance. The Commentator lists about six different cases where a monk, under very trying conditions, may be driven to suicide. It is mostly in the case of an ailing monk who may be terminally ill. Monks who attend on such a sick one may realize that he is incurably ill [ mahààbàdho cirànubaddho. All Commentarial quotations which follow are from PTS. Vin.A. II. p. 467 ] and feel the drudgery of being engaged in a fruitless task and wish to be relieved of it [ kadà nu kho gilànato mu¤cissàmà ' ti aññiyanti ]. In such a case it is conceded that the ailing monk may cut off his food and medical supplies to expedite his death and to terminate his life, to relieve those who are under stress because of him. A justification appears to be sought here in this negative search for life termination, seeking it in nature's own way, as it were, rather than taking to positive action for life destruction. In a couple of other instances, the spiritual earnestness of a disciple to reach special attainments of samàdhi and vipassanà, and for that reason the wish to cut off food supplies, devoting his time entirely for the furtherance of his meditative assignment without wasting his time in search of them, even at the risk of his own life appears a mitigating factor in favour of a suicidal wish. Such suicides seem to gain approval. In any case, a sick monk's wish to terminate life by rejecting medical supplies and medical attention while they are adequately available, is deemed a bad judgment and an unwise deed. Several similar restrictive curbs on attempts at suicide are presented during this Commentarial briefing. While a possible spiritual attainment may be looked upon as a stimulation towards an accelerated suicide, no monk shall divulge to an average monk such an attainment. He shall do so only to a sabhàga lajjã bhikkhu. All this rather ramified arguments on both sides of the question of suicide for a Buddhist disciple [ only for an ailing monk who is physically or mentally ill ] are indicative of the unavoidable massive assaults, as the centuries rolled by, on the fortress of Buddhist monastic discipline. We maintain that in view of the absolute standards which appear to be maintained on this issue in the sutta versions which we have presented elsewhere under the study of EUTHANASIA, the Commentarial tradition of the Samantapasadika is totally undermining the position taken up by the sutta tradition. We feel the Commentary's explanation of attànaü na pàtetabbaü of the Parajika section of the Vinaya Pitaka does not in any way lead to an idea of suicide. There are two things involved here. 1. What we consider to be the error in translation. The genesis of this, for whatever reason, seems to lie outside the Commentary 2. The laxity involved and the liberties taken in the attempt to smuggle in a few cases of 'so- called' allowable suicides. The Commentary must take full responsibility for this. Which of these preceded, the error in translation or the laxity in Commentarial interpretation, is the question. The two Sub-Commentaries on the Samantapasadika, Saratthadipani and Vimativinodani which came after seven centuries and much later, are equally well silent on this issue. Both are identical in their comments and pick up only a single grammatical laxity in the use of the accusative case instead of the nominative [ na attànaü pàtetebbaü instead if attà pàtetabbo ]. Apparently they both decided on a wise policy of 'Let sleeping dogs lie at rest.' EUTHANASIA The religious, moral and social correctness of Euthanasia [ or more precisely of legalized voluntary euthanasia ] and its justifiability became a subject of serious inquiry and judgement, at least with us, only after the death of Mr. Robert [ Bob ] Dent of Darwin in Australia a few months ago. The newspaper THE AGE of Melbourne, in its story of the death of Bob Dent, made out that he had derived from Buddhism a great deal of inspiration in his tormented life as a cancer patient. This report immediately refreshed my memories of having met the late Mr. Bob Dent as far back as the early months of 1994 in Darwin itself. He visited us in the Buddhist Vihara of Darwin, told us of his recovery from a cancer which his doctors had diagnosed he was suffering from. He insisted that he achieved it through the combined practices of Chi kung [ = the Chinese meditation method ] and traditional Indian Buddhist meditation techniques. He appeared to be thoroughly reassured and in high spirits. He did not think there were even lingering traces of cancer within him. Apparently his cancer was totally submerged and sent underground. He drove us through the town several days and visited us many times at the temple. We profusely thanked him for his services, wished him well and the story ended at that. But the story of the Northern Territories Euthanasia Bill seems to have continued unabated over the years. If my memory is correct, I recollect reading in a Sydney newspaper in March or April 1995, during my second visit to Australia the following year, a comment that Buddhist teachings [ certainly not of the Theravada tradition ] make allowances for acts of suicide. It was probably a provincial version from a sectarian tradition. At that time we took it for no more than a passing comment. [ We gather that such comments are being made even today.] Assuming that Bob Dent was by then completely cured of his cancer, I had no reason to suspect any impact of this line of thinking on him. But his choice of legalized voluntary euthanasia in 1996 as a solution to the lamentable situation into which he had finally slipped makes me now think different. Hence this endeavour to clarify the Buddhist position, primarily from the Theravada religious angle. These situations of taking or making life-involving decisions, we believe, cannot be totally divorced from one's regular philosophy of life which may be derived through one's religious beliefs or from anywhere else. But on the continuity of a philosophy of life, inspite of the complexity of life in the world today, we insist. I would also attempt to make a few observations on the moral and social impacts of the issue of suicide and euthanasia on the human community at large. As to who makes these judgements to terminate life, [ over whom, in what contexts and on what basis ] would continue to be relevant questions. In discussing the issue of Euthanasia we are essentially concerned with the death of human beings. At a very down to earth level death may be defined as termination or cessation of life. It can come about through a number of causes. Failure of life-sustaining forces at any point of time in life brings about what we term death through natural causes. Here no agency of persons or processes is involved. As a second category we can think of death caused through accidents. This would clearly be sudden termination of life while full capacity to live lies with a person. In such cases the person who dies would have had no apprehension of death until that fatal moment. Nor would he have even vaguely anticipated it. Neither is there the necessity of personal involvement of any external agency. It is no more than a violent termination of life-sustaining factors or faculties. It becomes an involuntary process efficiently put through. The persons responsible for the accident are only peripherally connected. Brain- death could be a sub-category within both these groups. But precise determination of the reality of brain-death deserves to be under- taken as a separate study. Further to these we have death of persons through killing : suicide and murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Termination of life or bringing about death, whether by oneself or by another, is undeniably killing of one sort or another. The intensity of the offense or crime, as under serious provocation or in self-defense, may be judged differently. A trial judge presiding over an unaccomplished act of suicide would probably have many legal tools which he could dexterously handle in such a situation. In any normal case of suicide, without insanity and such other factors intervening, Buddhist teachings would view it as an act of destruction of life, without any differentiation, even though one would try to claim that particular life involved as one's own. Circumstances leading to the act of suicide may entitle one to plead in mitigation on behalf of the offender. Nevertheless, the crime would be in the category of destruction of life, and destruction of human life would rank a very gross of offense with serious consequences. Our study therefore would concern itself with suicide and euthanasia only. As we attempt to view the question of suicide from the Buddhist point of view, the greater part of relevant evidence comes to us from Buddhist monastic history. A very small number of suicides, of a mere three or so [ Godhika at S.I.120f. & K.S.I.149f. Vakkali at S.III. 119f & K.S.III. 101-106. Channa at S. IV. 55f & K.S. IV. 30- 33. A complete sutta on Advice to Channa or Channovàda occurs at M.III. 263-6 ] of the disciples of the Buddha, is reported in Buddhist texts. A monk by the name of Godhika who was strenuously struggling for liberation was unsuccessful in every attempt he made, up to a sixth. He is said to have achieved partial release from time to time, sàmayikaü cetovimuttim , and then fallen off from that state repeatedly up to a sixth time. He reached it again for the seventh time. But faced with an unbearable sense of frustration, i.e. of possible collapse again, he is said to have reached for his razor and slashed his throat. Atha kho àyasmà godhiko appamatto àtàpã pahitatto viharanto sàmayikaü cetovimuttiü phusi. Atha kho àyasmà godhiko tàya sàmayikàya cetovimuttiyà parihàyi. Dutiyam ' pi ...tatiyam ' pi ... catuttham ' pi... pa¤camam ' pi ... chaññham ' pi kho àyasmà godhiko tàya sàmayikàya cetovimuttiyà parihàyi. Sattamam ' pi kho àyasmà godhiko appamatto àtàpã pahitatto viharanto sàmayikaü cetovimuttim phusi. Atha kho àyasmato godhikassa etadahosi. Yàva chaññhaü khvà ' haü sàmayikàya cetovimuttiyà parihãno. Yannånà ' haü satthaü àhareyyan ' ti. [ S. I. 120 f. PTS / S. I. 220. BJTS ]. ' And he, abiding in zealous, ardent and strenuous study, touched temporary emancipation of mind, and fell away therefrom. And this befell him a second, and yet a third time, yea even six times. [ .......... .... ? ] Then he thought : Up to six times have I fallen away from temporary emancipation of mind. What if I were now to use the knife? ' [ K.S. I. 150 ] [ But note that the Pali Text Society English translation given above unfortunately lacks the reference to the seventh successful attainment of Godhika which he desperately wanted to maintain. That is apparently why he wanted to terminate his life while still in that state of emancipation of mind. The relevant untranslated Pali text of the PTS edition is printed in bold type in the above quotation. The PTS knows of a Burmese text which refers to the seventh time that he attained it. Our Sri Lankan BJTS text also has reference to the seventh time.]. The important thing to note is that Godhika did commit suicide while he was in a state of emancipatation, temporary though, at the seventh time. He did not do it while he had lost it after the sixth time. The Buddha apparently was aware of this. He is said to have summed up the situation in the following words. Ay, thus the strong in mind do go to work. No longing have they after living on, Craving and root of craving tearing out, Hath Godhika passed utterly away. [ K.S. I. 151 ] Evaü hi dhãrà kubbanti nàvakaïkhanti jãvitaü samålaü taõhaü abbuyha godhiko parinibbuto. S.I.121 PTS / S. I. 220 BJTS At this very moment in Godhika's life, the cumulative effect of his successful repeated spiritual endeavours apparently converged with this suicidal termination of his life. Since his physical death was brought about while he was still in his temporary emancipation, it is said that there was none left to pay, in a life after, the penalty for this undoubtedly misjudged action [ The venerable Sariputta prevails upon the venerable Channa to refrain from doing such a thing. See K.S. IV. 31.]. That Godhika had ended his possibility of rebirth, i.e. wound up his journeying in the life process of samsàra is implied in the Buddha's words ' root of craving tearing out : samålam taõhaü abbuyha'. It is also said that 'He harboured no yearning for life : nàvakaïkhanti jãvitaü. ' In the other two incidents of Vakkali and Channa, both are victims of severe and painful afflictions. Even Godhika's falling off from his emancipation is attributed [ in the Commentary ] to a physical deterioration. Of Vakkali, the texts say : Lord , the brother Vakkali is sick , afflicted , stricken with a sore disease... ' Strong pains come upon me. They do not abate. There is no sign of their abating , but of their increasing.' [ K.S. III. 102 ]. Of Channa, the report is even more painfully graphic. At that time the venerable Channa was sick , afflicted , stricken with a sore disease.... ' Just as if friend, a strong man with a sharp- pointed sword were crashing into my brain , just so , friend , does the strong rush of vital air torment my brain. ... Strong pains come upon me. They do not abate. There is no sign of their abating , but of their increasing. I ' ll use the knife, friend Sariputta. I wish to live no longer.' K.S. IV. 30 f. [ Note. The Pali equivalent of the last statement is Nàvakaïkhàmi jivitaü. This is the same that the Buddha said of enlightened persons, while commenting on thera Godhika's suicide, that ' they do not long to continue living '. That life and death are both the same to them. They matter not very much. ]. On hearing these words of the venerable Channa, the venerable Sariputta prevailed upon him not to do such a thing. He promised to attend on him looking after all his needs. If the venerable Channa has no proper food, I will search for proper food for him. ... If he has no fit attendants, I will wait on the venerable Channa. But the venerable Channa turns down all these offers, assuring that all these are available to him. But adds further that he has himself attended on the Master for long lengths of time, and that with great pleasure and not displeasure. That being the proper thing for a disciple to do, he adds that his suicide should be looked upon as being blameless. Api ca me àvuso satthà pariciõõo dãgharattaü manàpen ' eva no amanàpena. Etaü hi àvuso sàvakassa patiråpaü yaü satthàraü paricareyya manàpen ' eva no amanàpena. Taü anupavajjaü channo bhikkhu satthaü àharissatã ' ti evametam àvuso Sàriputta dhàrehã ' ti. [ S. IV. 57 PTS / S. IV. 128 BJTS ]. In the above quotation we would agree with the PTS translation of anupavajja as blameless. But it is to be noted that the Commentary further explains it with the words anupavattikam appañisandhikaü which mean ' not resulting in rebirth.' This drives us to accept the position that the venerable Channa too is here regarded as being in the position of an arahant or ' not-to-be-born '. This is the venerable Channa's own claim. The Buddha is seen to accept it. Continuing this persuasive dialogue, the venerable Sariputta enables the venerable Channa to point out and convincingly admit that in none of the six cognitive processes in our phenomenon of life could one entertain the idea of a self or a derivative of a self. The venerable Channa categorically says : ' Seeing ceasing to be [ nirodhaü ], comprehending ceasing to be , friend Sariputta, do I so regard them.' nirodhaü abhi¤¤àya cakkhuü cakkhuvi¤¤àõam cakkhuvi¤¤àõavi¤¤àtabbe dhamme ' netaü mama n ' eso ' hamasmi na m ' eso attà ' ti samanupassàmi. ... manovi¤¤àõavi¤¤àtabbe dhamme ' netam mama n ' eso ' hamasmi na m ' eso attà ' ti samanupassàmã ' ti. [ Ibid. 59 / 130 ] At this point, the venerable Cunda the Great who was in this same company with the venerables Sariputta and Channa makes this further observation which is very revealing. Wherefore, friend Channa, you ought to ever bear in mind the teaching of that Exalted One, to wit : -'In him that clingeth, there is wavering. In him that clingeth not, wavering is not. Where there is no wavering, there is calm. Where there is calm, there is no bent. Where there is no bent, there is no wrong practice. Where there is no wrong practice, there is no vanishing and reappearing. Where there is no vanishing and reappearing , there is no here no yonder nor yet midway. That is the end of Ill .' [ K.S. IV. 32 ]. Literally, this is to assert that rebirth is ended and that samsàra is transcended. That is all that a Buddhist disciple is endeavouring to achieve. At the end of this very profound deliberation, however, the venerable Channa did end up his life with the knife. He did commit suicide. The venerable Sariputta hastens to question the Buddha about it. Lord , the venerable Channa has used the knife. What is his rebirth ? What is his attainment ? And the Buddha explains. Was it not face to face with you , Sariputta , that the brother Channa declared that no blame attached to him ? With conviction, the Buddha appears to add further. Nevertheless, Sariputta , I am not one to reproach him , saying ' He is to blame.' For whoso, Sariputta lays down one body and takes up another body, of him I say ' He is to blame.' But it is no so with the brother Channa. Without reproach was the knife used by the brother Channa. So should you maintain, Sariputta. [ Ibid. 33 ]. Ayasmatà bhante Channena satthaü àharitaü. Tassa kà gati ko abhisamparàyo ' ti. Nanu te Sariputta Channena bhikkhunà sammukhà y ' eva anupavajjatà byàkatà ' ti. .... Na kho panà ' haü Sàriputta saupavajjo ' ti vadàmi. Yo kho Sàriputta ima¤ ca kàyaü nikkhipati a¤¤a¤ ca kàyaü upàdiyati tamahaü aupavajjo ' ti vadàmi. Taü Channassa bhikkhuno natthi. Anupavajjaü Channena bhikkhunà satthaü àharitan ' ti. Evam etam Sàriputta dhàrehã ' ti. [ S. IV. 59f. PTS / S. IV. 133. BJTS. ] Both these cases pertain to Buddhist disciples of long standing in the Order whose religious earnestness and spiritual maturity are unquestionable. They were persons with deep-seated convictions. The question of physical bodily pain is here analytically examined in the truly Buddhist way, with a great deal of philosophic realism. The role of the mind which recognizes and reports pain, to the utter consternation of the recipient, is convincingly reduced to a bundle of psychic processes which are within the control of the psyche or the mental self. In the case of Vakkali, the Buddha goes to see him, and getting to know from Vakkali himself that he is in acute and unbearable pain, the Buddha counsels him in this manner. As to this what think you , Vakkali ? Is body permanent or impermanent ? Impermanent , Lord. Whatever is impermanent, does it contribute to grief or happiness ? To grief, Lord. Whatever is impermanent, contributes to grief and is subject to change, is it proper to look upon it as ' This is mine, this I am , this is my self ' ? No, Lord. Is feeling ... perception , ...the activities , ... consciousness permanent , or impermanent ? Impermanent , Lord. Wherefore , Vakkali , he who thus seeth ... he knows ' ... for life in these conditions there is no hereafter. ' [ K.S.III. 103 ]. In the passage quoted above, the PTS translation, for some mysterious reason, does not contain the portion in bold type which we have reproduced here. Those lines clearly reveal the Buddhist imposition of the threefold concept of anicca dukkha anatta [ i.e. impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and soullessness ] on our outlook on the phenomenon of existence. Or simply regularises what we think of ourselves. The acquisition or culture of such an up-graded outlook necessarily leads to the vaporization of the menacing conceptualization of an ego or sakkàya with regard to our selves. It is that kind of acquired new vision, that kind of attitude to life which gets one beyond samsàra, i.e. beyond the process of life and death. After thus inquiring from Vakkali as to his true view of life and obtaining his very sound judgement as seen above, the Buddha seems to come to the conclusion that Vakkali had by then reached the goal of his religious aspirations. He had apparently gained the vision of looking upon the conglomeration of the Five Aggregates or pa¤cakkhandha in terms of anicca dukkha anatta and hence being devoid of a distorted notion of self. Backed by this, the Buddha puts confidence into Vakkali, saying ' Fear not Vakkali, your death would not be deemed sinful [ pàpika ] i.e. as being fruitless ' : Mà bhàyi vakkali. Apàpakaü te maraõaü bhavissati. Apàpikà kàlakiriyà ' ti. S.III. 122 PTS / S. III. 210. BJTS. This is virtually saying that Vakkali is dying as an arahant, i.e. as a fully emancipated person who has reached the goal of his spiritual aspirations. In fact this is corroborated by a statement ascribed to a deity in this context that Vakkali would ' be liberated as a totally liberated ' person : suvimutto vimuccissatã ' ti. [ Ibid. ]. After Vakkali's suicidal termination of life, the Buddha finally confirms that Vakkali being a liberated person, his Consciousness [ vi¤¤àõa ] will not re-establish itself in rebirth any more: Appatiññhitena ca bhikkhave vi¤¤àõena vakkali kulaputto parinibbuto. [ loc.cit.]. All these three incidents of Godhika, Vakkali and Channa clearly show that the persons here concerned had all gone beyond the stage of 'entertaining any longing for life or continuing the life process' : nàvakaïkhanti jãvitaü. This total detachment or eradication of craving [ samålaü taõhaü abbuyha ] also implied that they were not going to be reborn. In such a situation their act of suicide would be one which is incapable of fruition or bearing fruit. Their behaviour in this context would be in the same category like the criminal acts of murder of Angulimala who committed them prior to his attainment of final liberation. They would in fact, we believe, fall in the category of 'acts only' [ ahosi kamma ] which 'bear no fruit' [ na vipàko ]. Our assessment of the act of suicide in these cases is from a highly sophisticated religious angle. It applies only to the totally accomplished disciples, namely arahants. This would not be applicable even to the lower grades of monks. Much less in the case of ordinary laymen. It is also to be appreciated in this context that Buddhism accommodates a dimension of its own with regard to the concept of life and death. To all those who are not liberated here in this very life from their life process of samsàra there is to be a life after death in conformity to the present, with its quality determined by the life style of the present one. Suicide and those within the cycle of samsàra. Outside this frame, the Buddhist has to view terminating of life in suicide, no matter under what circumstances, as amounting to destruction of human life. Many mitigating factors could possibly be put forward and the offense could be sub-graded to man-slaughter, culpable homicide not amounting to murder etc. In any case, destruction being by oneself, what is destroyed is believed to be one's own life. To the Buddhist, this position is untenable. What is destroyed is life, whether claimed as one's own or differentiated as that of another. In Buddhism, the very first precept of admonition for good living [ i.e. sãla ] is the abstinence from destruction of life [ pàõàtipàtà veramaõã ]. This applies to life of all grades, both human and animal [ sabba-pàõa-bhåta-hitànukampã ]. And the precept is equally binding on both monks and nuns, laymen and laywomen. In the ethical injunctions of Buddhism for good living both for the monk and the layman, referred to above, the precepts of sãla have no legal validity. They are left to the judgement and good sense of those who opt to follow them [ sikkhàpadaü samàdiyàmi. ]. However, within the monastic order of monks and nuns, they are rephrased and elevated to the status of legal enactments, with accompanying penalties and punishments. In the corpus of monastic laws, a distinction is even made between the destruction of human and animal life. In the monastic rules of Vinaya discipline, destruction of human life [ manussa-viggaha ] is placed in the first category of the four major offenses or Pàràjikà [ = defeat ], entailing total destruction of one's monastic status. Legally, destruction of animal life by monks and nuns comes in a category of lesser offense known as Pàcittiya. In Buddhist ecclesiastical law known as the Vinaya which pertains to the conduct of the fully graduated monks of senior status [ known as upasampnna ], there are four offenses of the most serious type which entail immediate expulsion from the Order. It is for this reason they are referred to as Pàràjikà which means 'implying defeat'. Offense No.3 in this group is concerned with i. depriving a human being of life which in other words means killing. Associated with this, and getting into the same category of offense are ii. provision of a killer weapon, iii. speaking in praise of death, iv. inciting any one to bring about his own death, i.e. suicide, by speaking disparagingly of his pitiable and miserable plight in life. It is to be noted that these injunctions are with reference to a Buddhist monk of senior status [ upasampanna bhikkhu ] who comes under the jurisdiction of the Codified Law of the Patimokkha. [ See Book of the Discipline - I.B.Horner, Part I. p.125f.] Thus it is clear from this that from the highest point of spiritual evaluation in Buddhism both killing as well as aiding and abetting suicide are deemed criminal and hence disallowable. But since the Codified Law here has jurisdiction only over the monastic community, it is only a bhikkhu who stands liable to be prosecuted and punished [ for aiding and abetting in suicide, in this case.] . A layman stands outside legal prosecution. Buddhist ethics make no legal provision for prosecution of lay persons for breaches of any ethical injunctions. Aiding and abetting by a lay person in the commission of an act of suicide, though ethically censurable, may even be considered as ' not amounting to murder ' where one is actually not a party to the act of killing , as in the case of a self- administered lethal dose of poison. An interesting incident which relates to aiding and abetting another for the termination of his life which is believed to be miserable and unworthy of living , and therefore needs to be escaped through suicide or murder, is found in the anecdotal accounts of the Pàràjikà No.3. [ See Book of the Discipline, Part I . 117 f. ] We are told here of a group of misguided monks who through misunderstanding of the Buddha's directions about the unwholesomeness of human life which as a rule is saddled with disease, decay and death, sought the assistance of a miscreant [ the sham recluse Migalaõóika ] to have them put to death. Armed with a sword, he readily did it, saying to himself that he was helping those who had not crossed to cross over, i.e. to attain their spiritual goal [ = atiõõe tàresã ' ti. ]. The reality of misguided thinking , in the direction of killing through compassion or killing for the benefit of others can be seen here. Now as for instances of suicide or the decision to terminate one's life, we notice we are driven to collect our data from monastic history. Extreme despair in the face of spiritual failure is indicated as a prompting for the choice of suicide. A monk named Sappadàsa [Theragàthà v. 407 ] and a nun named Sãhà [ Therãgàthà v. 80 ], both say, in a more or less relative assessment, that it would be better to terminate their lives, either with a weapon or by hanging themselves rather than return to the lay-life which they had already rejected. Such a return, they would logically argue, tantamounts to the death of their spiritual life. It is worded exactly so in the text where it says ' a disciple's return to lay- life tantamounts to death ' [ Maraõa¤hetaü bhikkhave ariyassa vinaye yo sikkhaü paccakkhàya hãnàyàvattati. Maraõamatta¤hetaü bhikkhave dukkham yadidaü aïïatarü saïkiliññhaü àpattiü àpajjati yathàråpàya àpattiyà vuñthànaü païïàyati. Samyutta Nikaya II. p.271]. We look upon these situations as instances of the use of a severe yardstick of measurement by honest and serious disciples. They do so to boost up their sagging religious enthusiasm as well as to sharpen the dull edge of their spiritual tools. Some tend to take them as real incidents of suicide. In any case we are certain that these persons did not end up in suicide. Both these are only attempts at suicide. Both persons concerned lived to tell the story of their success. They triumphed and attained the goal of their religious quest. Sãhà says that at that moment of contemplated suicide by hanging she gained the release of mind [ Pakkhipiü pàsaü gãvàyaü atha cittaü vimucci me. Thig. v. 80 ]. Sappadàsa is equally clear in his assertion that as he attempted to slash an artery with a razor he gained the release of his mind [ Parinãto khuro àsi dhamaniü chettum attano. Tato cittam vimucci me. Thag. v. 407 ]. Let us now come to the realities of the world we live in and consider the situations in which euthanasia is sought and euthanasia is carried out. The following categories may be witnessed, possibly with a few others to come. One has to reckon with the complexities of the problem, whether one agrees with them, endorses them or not. We may present them as follows. 1. Unlegalised euthanasia carried out by medical practitioners on patients whom they believe are terminally ill and whom they deem would better be dead than alive. 2. These may be at the request of the patient, with consent on suggestion, or without consent. 3. On request by persons closely related to the patient [ but other than the patient himself ], made out to be on grounds of sympathy or compassion [ about the reality or otherwise of which one can entertain considerable doubt ]. It may also be expediency in the interests of those other than the patient [ i.e. good riddance of what may be deemed a burden or unwanted source of trouble . ] 4. On decisions taken by individuals or groups, not substantially related to the patient, but interested in the termination of the life of the patient for various other social and economic reasons [ like cost to the family or the state.]. 5. Legalized voluntary euthanasia on request by the patient, made in a state of sanity or perfect mental health and good judgement. This may primarily be i. due to a desire to terminate an unbearable state of pain to the patient or ii. in the interests of those on whom the patient is dependent economically, emotionally etc. Of the above considerations, legalized voluntary euthanasia [ No.5 ] seems to be the only one on behalf of which the Buddhists may claim any legitimacy. Here alone the patient claims full responsibility for the termination of his life. It is equally well ascertained that the patient does it with a full awareness of what he is doing. As far as basic Buddhist teachings of the Theravada are concerned this has to be viewed as an error of judgement. This is certainly in violation of the pledge by every Buddhist to abstain from destruction of life. For lay persons it remains at the level of an ethical injunction, no more than a precept [ pàõàtipàtà vramaõã sikkhàpadaü ], without any legal implications or punishments involved. But it is at the same time a socio-ethical wrong-doing of the highest order. At the level of the full-fledged monk, considerations regarding destruction of human life, whether one's own or that of another, acquire legal status with the necessary provision for prosecution and punishment. It involves a disciplinary rule of the highest grade [ Pàràjikà No.3 ], requiring total expulsion from monastic life. In the case of voluntary euthanasia, legalized or otherwise, the doctor's share lies only in setting up the involuntary process of execution of getting the lethal dose into the patient's body at his request. In compliance with a patient's request, the doctor is only 'aiding and abetting' a patient who, for whatever reason, chooses to terminate his life. As far as a monk is concerned, this is as serious an offense as murder or man slaughter. [ Note the details of Pàràjikà No.3 given above.]. From the Buddhist point of view, one would here question the correctness of the patient's decision. It is to be remembered that except in the case of the liberated ones, i.e. those in Nirvana who are not destined to be born again, death begets life anew for everyone. Death does not terminate life, or more precisely the life process. Hence it cannot terminate pain and unhappiness. They are linked up with new life wherever it begins. Suicide or destruction of life being viewed as an evil act in itself, such a termination of life to terminate pain and suffering at this end would entail payment for it hereafter with interest compounded to it. Hence a sufferer's desire to terminate pain in this life through suicide has to be unequivocally declared an error of judgement. As for the desire to relieve the burden on others, it would as much be a serious error of judgement. Such sympathy would be no more than misguided charity. Suicide would show itself up as an attempt to cheat pain in life, forgetting the possibility of its recurrence in a life after. Attempts to dodge threatening instances of shame and insults, to erase off memories of defeat and frustration, seem to drive both men and women, young and old, to extremely lamentable acts of suicide. Except in very special cases of hopeful life restoration, resorting to life-supporting systems like a respirator to prolong life would appear to be a futile attempt to cheat death. All other attempts, under the dignified name of euthanasia, to terminate human life by persons other than the patient himself, on i. compassionate grounds of pain relieving , ii. bringing about dignified dying for those abandoned as terminally ill, or iii. clearing spots of social eyesore by ridding society of its ' unwanted members ' who are judged 'not fit to live' would be clear reflections of egoistic high-handedness, both individual and collective, justified in the name of sympathetic and humane considerations as well as veiled notions of social grooming. The possible unethical turns on these blind alleys are bound to be invariably unavoidable. Let us now turn our attention to the impact of Euthanasia on society at large and the moral assessment of its possible abuse. It is now widely accepted that many in our circle of humans do reach stages in their lives when the unmanageable condition of their physical bodies, resulting from cases of terminal illness, drive them to choose death to relieve themselves of the pain suffered in those conditions. Under normal circumstances, the legal permission sought under legalized Euthanasia is to execute and carry out these requests. But there can be many instances where these are overstepped. Many requests can come from persons other than the patients themselves who seek riddance of unwanted persons in their midst, unwanted perhaps for many reasons which may lie in different areas like social, cultural and economic. We would consider some of these apparently well intended attempts as verging on man-slaughter or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. They are no less than acts of deliberate termination of human life, the justifiability of which under various circumstances we may attempt to concede, might be hotly debated. Equally weighty arguments, for and against, may spring from different levels of one's religious stand and cultural development. Another area of social intervention in the termination of another's life, for various understandable reasons which we need to consider here, lies in the withdrawal of a life-supporting system which had been hopefully introduced for the rescue of a human life through medication or surgery. But seeing the tragic ebb of chances of retrieval, people are often driven, sometimes more meaningfully, to withdraw such support. The relatively larger economic gains [ through not incurring any more unproductive expenditure on life- supporting systems as well as through earlier-than-expected inheritance of assets and estates of such a dying person ] often outweigh the concern for a very definitely fading out human life. As Buddhists, we would view such situations as taking 'the bull by the horns'. In doing so, in putting patients of diverse sorts on life- supporting systems, particularly in view of their economic viability or otherwise, we would be indulging in an unwise and unwarranted undertaking. But once undertaken, we would have to decide and judge in favour of life. At most levels, attempts to delay death in the hope of rescuing and consolidating life amounts to no more than attempts to cheat death. Buddhists would have in many cases to accept such endeavours as both unacceptable and fruitless adventures. A very specific area of challenge for the relative value of life comes in the decision to save the life of a pregnant mother in the face of danger to her life on account of her unborn child. The direct question to face is ' With what respect do we treat the fetal life of an unborn child ? ' It is now admitted in many parts of the world that the unborn child has a right to defend itself, i.e. save its life. It is a right with near complete independence of the mother who carries the child. We would at the same time consider the mother to be compelled by what we could consider decent human ethics to respect this. These conservative evaluations uphold that a mother may even safeguard her child at the risk of her own life. We do understand that such concepts which had their origin in very ancient times are therefore timewise and spacewise well beyond notions like ' unwanted children ' , and the loss of prestige [ at least in certain quarters ] of ' unmarried mothers '. Here it would admittedly be difficult to invoke a religious law in favour of one or the other as it would in any case involve the destruction of life [ of the mother or the child ] , of the bigger or the smaller, of the fully grown or not yet fully grown. Does the natural law of survival of the fitter come to our rescue here and save us of the embarrassment ? ===== Metta, Rob M :-) #72625 From: "robmoult" Date: Sat May 26, 2007 5:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Angry Monks robmoult Hi TG, Arguing can be done without anger from within the Sangha - see Bhikkhu Bodhi's critique of Nanavira's position as an example. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > > In a message dated 5/26/2007 5:42:22 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, > rob.moult@... writes: > > I would not want to take as a teacher somebody who is driven by > anger, no matter how smart they are. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > > > > Hi Rob M. > > Yes indeed. If you're wearing the robes, you should walk the walk...or get > out and do your arguing as a lay person. LOL Probably not your exact point, > but maybe close enough. LOL > > TG > #72626 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Sat May 26, 2007 5:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Angry Monks christine_fo... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > > In a message dated 5/26/2007 5:42:22 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, > rob.moult@... writes: > > I would not want to take as a teacher somebody who is driven by > anger, no matter how smart they are. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > Hello Rob, TG, all, This is interesting. What is 'anger'? Serious question, not smart remark. I think correct definition is important. So often we label something as 'anger' when it is something else ... something that makes us uncomfortable, or affronts us. Say a little child is running across the footpath towards a busy road and certain death or injury. I cannot reach him in time but scream in my most penetrating and strong voice "Stop! naughty!". The child stops and bursts into inconsolable tears and, pointing, tells his mother, who had her back turned, that "the lady" is angry with him. The Buddha could have been viewed as angry when talking to and about the Bhikkhu Sati. Bhikkhu Sati definitely felt embarrassed and uncomfortable "drooping shoulders and eyes turned down". "Foolish man, to whom do you know me having taught the Dhamma like this. Haven't I taught, in various ways that consciousness is dependently arisen. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet you, foolish man, on account of your wrong view, you misrepresent me, as well as destroy yourself and accumulate much demerit, for which you will suffer for a long time." Then the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus: "Bhikkhus, what do you think, has this this bhikkhu Sati, son of a fisherman, learned anything from this dispensation?" "No, venerable sir." When this was said the bhikkhu Sati became silent, unable to reply back, and sat with drooping shoulders and eyes turned down. Then the Blessed One, knowing that the bhikkhu Sati had become silent, unable to reply back, and was sitting with drooping shoulders and with eyes turned down; Foolish man, you will be known on account of this pernicious view;" http://leighb.com/mn38.htm Other traditions have the idea of 'wrathful compassion' ~ which seems to align with the modern idea of 'tough love'. Doesn't it depend on the understanding of the disciple and the Teacher? metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- #72627 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Sat May 26, 2007 5:29 pm Subject: Re: Suicide in Buddhism christine_fo... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > > Hi All, > > I found the article that the elderly scholar monk referred to in the > previous post wrote: > > ===== > > SUICIDE IN BUDDHISM -- POST-CANONICAL DEFLECTIONS > Bhikkhu Professor Dhammavihari Hello Rob, all, What previous post? Could you give a link please? I don't wish to repeat what has already been discussed previously. metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- #72628 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat May 26, 2007 5:29 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Insight is "Vision," Not Merely Experience. kenhowardau Hi Howard, ------------- H: > Ken, why do you hurl "ritualistic" at every activity you disapprove of? ------------- To my mind, an understanding of "ritualistic" is a godsend (a buddhasend). One word speaks a thousand pictures. :-) It is the same with "anatta." When I include these words in a sentence I feel I am connecting what I have said with the Dhamma. I am sorry if you see it as an accusation (as if the person I am speaking to has no comprehension of right view or anatta). But I notice you have made the same complaint to Nina; so I am not alone. :-) --------------------- H: > The dictionary gives the following definitions: Main Entry: ritual Function: noun 1 : the established form for a ceremony ; specifically : the order of words prescribed for a religious ceremony 2 a : ritual observance ; specifically : a system of rites b : a ceremonial act or action c : a customarily repeated often formal act or series of acts Main Entry: rite Function: noun Pronunciation: 'rit Etymology: Middle English, from Latin ritus; akin to Greek arithmos number -- more at ARITHMETIC 1 a : a prescribed form or manner governing the words or actions for a ceremony b : the liturgy of a church or group of churches 2 : a ceremonial act or action 3 : a division of the Christian church using a distinctive liturgy ----------------------- Yes, yes, yes! I know all that! :-) And I know the suttas define ritual in much the same way. But they are using the conventional- language style of instruction. The Abhidhamma and the commentaries, however, spell it out for us in case we have missed the point. Any "Way" (any practice in the pursuit of ultimate right understanding) that is not the Middle Way must be a rite or ritual. I can, for example, drive to the supermarket and bring back a bag of groceries. There is no ritual in that. But if I belong to a weird cult that sees grocery shopping as the way to enlightenment then it is a rite or ritual. ------------------ H: > Mindfully attending to what is actually experienced in the moment as best one can doesn't match either of 'ritual' or 'rite' as best I can tell. Why don't you look at the suttas to see what the Buddha concsidered to be ritual? It wasn't what TG is referring to. --------------------- Is it the Middle Way? Is it the mundane path factors arising in a moment of conditioned reality to correctly understand a paramattha- dhamma? I know what you mean by "mindfully attending" and by "on-going mindfulness" and that kind of thing. It is not satipatthana. It is a conventional equivalent, which, as the commentaries would tell us, can be practised not only by human beings but also by dogs and jackals. In fact, wild dogs and jackals are intensely mindful in that way. They have to be. ----------------------------- H: > BTW, Ken, studying "the texts" is also a conventional activity. Why don't you call that "ritual"? ----------------------------- It is a ritual if it is done with wrong view. I might add, however, that it differs from formal (on-going mindfulness) practices. There is no mention in the Tipitaka of concentrating on the movements of the feet while walking (for example). There is, however, mention of studying the Dhamma. Ken H #72629 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 26, 2007 2:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Insight is "Vision," Not Merely Experience. upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 5/26/07 8:30:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowa@... writes: > Yes, yes, yes! I know all that! :-) And I know the suttas define > ritual in much the same way. But they are using the conventional- > language style of instruction. The Abhidhamma and the commentaries, > however, spell it out for us in case we have missed the point. > Any "Way" (any practice in the pursuit of ultimate right > understanding) that is not the Middle Way must be a rite or ritual. > =========================== Well, there you go, Ken: You prize the Abhidhamma, only purportedly the word of the Buddha, and the commentaries, definitely not the word of the Buddha, over the suttas, which are almost certainly the word of the Buddha. The Abhidhamma is a marvelous work, but it does not supercede the word of the Buddha in the suttas, and for sure the commentaries do not. The school of thought that they do supercede it is what I call "Abhidhammism", and IMO opinion it is a substitute Dhamma, a pseudo-Dhamma, and not admirable. With metta, Howard #72630 From: "gazita2002" Date: Sat May 26, 2007 8:57 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Unintelligent Brother and the Cloth gazita2002 hello Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Azita, > Azita > > p.s. I'm gonna be a grandma!!! > > I am puzzled. I appreciate the news that you are going to be a > grandma. That news is not what is puzzling. I am wondering what to do > with your theory of perception, as you were discussing it with Larry. > Which one do you want us to take to heart, that you are going to be a > Grandma, or your theory of perception? I ask only because they seem to > to exclude each other. azita: I personally do not mind who takes what to heart; I guess that will depend on ones understanding as to what is more important for him/her. > > I wish you, your child, and your grandchild(ren) all that is good in > the coming months. > > Herman > PS I was a complete wreck when my firstborn saw the light of day. I'm > not sure that things have improved since then, for me :-)))) azita: thank you for your kind thoughts, Herman. This child will be the first born of my first born.... and on and on it goes..... birth, old age, sickness, death, birth, old age, sickness, death,......... Patience, courage and good cheer, azita #72631 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat May 26, 2007 9:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Jhana as necessity to enlightenment... nilovg Dear Rob M, Thank you for giving B.B.'s article in full. I am reading it now. Nina. Op 27-mei-2007, om 0:30 heeft robmoult het volgende geschreven: > The Jhaanas and the Lay Disciple According to the Paali Suttas by > Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi #72632 From: Sarah and Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 26, 2007 10:19 pm Subject: A friendly reminder! dsgmods Dear Friends, As DSG is a busy list, we ask everyone to keep in mind the Guidelines below. Thanks to all for your participation! Jon & Sarah ***** 1. Stay friendly and pleasant when writing to the list. Please avoid any sarcasm, discourtesy or overly personal remarks. 2. Be tolerant of others' views and opinions, no matter how off-base they may seem to you. 3. Respect the particular focus of this list as a place for those who have an interest in the texts of the Theravada tradition (including the Suttanta, Abhidhamma, Vinaya and the ancient commentaries). 4. Stay on-topic, by discussing dhamma issues only. The following are off-topic: politics or purely social issues, advertisements, chain letters, virus alerts, change of address messages, circulars, petitions, requests for donations/support, news reports, urban legends, test posts, promotion of other discussion lists. 5. Trim your posts (including Yahoo footer material). Always assume that other members have read the post you are replying to, and remove anything that is not essential to understanding your reply. 6. Use a name, at the beginning of your post, to indicate who is (mainly) being addressed, and also at the end, to sign off (we encourage members to use a real name, not just a cyber-name, for this). 7. Give links where possible rather than quoting large slabs of material, and respect copyright in published materials. 8. Acknowledge material from DSG that you quote elsewhere, giving both the author's name and the source (the URL for the original post). Also, make sure you have the author's permission to quote his or her material. 9. Comment off-list if you wish to comment on the running of the list or the behaviour of other members. Please do not bring up any such matters on-list, or respond to posts that do. ***** #72633 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat May 26, 2007 10:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Jhana as necessity to enlightenment... sarahprocter... Dear RobM, James, Nina & all, --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Rob M, > Thank you for giving B.B.'s article in full. I am reading it now. > Nina. > Op 27-mei-2007, om 0:30 heeft robmoult het volgende geschreven: > > > The Jhaanas and the Lay Disciple According to the Paali Suttas by > > Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi ***** S: Pls note that this article can now be found in the DSG files: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/ Rob, if you'd like to put the Nanavira article there, pls go ahead. Connie put one there before, but this may be a different one. Metta, Sarah ========= #72634 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 26, 2007 10:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Theriigaathaa - Sisters (55) jonoabb Hi Connie This was a very inspiring story. Interesting that the Buddha accompanied her to the gates of the monastery after she had taken her final leave. Perhaps unique in the texts? Great stuff, the whole series! Jon connie wrote: > dear friends, > part 17 of 17: > > > "Tato gotamidhaatuuni, tassaa pattagataani so; > upanaamesi naathassa, aanando buddhacodito. > "Paa.ninaa taani paggayha, avoca isisattamo; > mahato saaravantassa, yathaa rukkhassa ti.t.thato. > "Yo so mahattaro khandho, palujjeyya aniccataa; > tathaa bhikkhunisa"nghassa, gotamii parinibbutaa. > "Aho acchariya.m mayha.m, nibbutaayapi maatuyaa; > saariiramattasesaaya, natthi sokapariddavo. > "Na sociyaa paresa.m saa, ti.n.nasa.msaarasaagaraa; > parivajjitasantaapaa, siitibhuutaa sunibbutaa. > > Then Aananda, urged on by the Buddha, put the relics of Gotamii in a > bowl and gave it to the Protector. > The Best of Sages took them in his hand and said, "Just as a large tree > with the heartwood that is standing up could fall down because even the > greatest mass possesses the characteristic of impermanence, Gotamii of the > Order of Bhikkhuniis is quenched. > "O the marvel when my mother was quenched. There is no grief or > lamentation for her bodily remains. > "Others should not grieve for her - one who has gone beyond the ocean of > continued existence, who avoided intense heat, who has become cool, who is > well quenched. > > ... > #72635 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat May 26, 2007 11:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Dhammas" and Impermanence (The Abhidhammikas perspective?) sarahprocter... Hi TG, --- TGrand458@... wrote: > Reposting due to lack of interest. ;-) .... S: Well, that always gets my interest ;-). Seriously, when there's a long line of names, it probably has got our interest, but we all wait for one of the others to take the bait:-)). I hope the rest chime in too. ..... > > Hi Nina, Sarah, Jon, Howard, Herman, James, Larry and the Rest... > > Something occurred to me recently... that when the Abhidhammikas talk > about > Dhammas "arising and immediately falling away," that it is an inference > based > on time. I.E., "the present moment" > arises and immediately falls away. Therefore, all that constitutes the > present > moment must also arise and immediately fall way...from this vantage > point. ..... S: To me it is simply about anicca, the characteristic of all conditioned dhammas. For example, to use your quote in Patisambhidamagga again, Treatise on Knowledge, 371: "Eye [base] is unlasting, uneternal, subject to change.....Eye is impermanent, formed, dependently-arisen, subject to destruction, subject to fall, subject to fading away, subject to cessatkion. He defines eye as impermanent.....painful, not as pleasant....not self, not as self......" The same is said of all other conditioned dhammas. This is true whether such dhammas (realities as opposed to concepts) are known or not known, taught or not taught by a Buddha. When we refer to 'all that constitutes the present moment', we have to be very clear as to what this 'all' is. It is not referring to people and computers, but to the 5 khandhas. Each dhamma included in the 5 khandhas arises and falls away. This can be realized not by inference but by developed insight. .... > > This outlook would explain a number of things. First of all, it > explains a > lack of being comfortable of including the Suttas description of > "changing > while persisting" as part of the arising and ceasing description. "The > present" could not change while persist." .... S: The texts make it clear that as soon as such dhammas arise they are already disappearing or decaying. The use of 'persist' in translation has to be understood in this context. I've taken the following from a message of RobK's (#12073) "Tín'imáni bhikkhave sankhatassa sankhatalakkhanáni. Katamáni tíni. Uppádo paññáyati, vayo paññáyati, thitassa aññathattam paññáyati. Imáni kho bhikkhave tíni sankhatassa sankhatalakkhanání ti. Anguttara III,v,7 There are, monks, these three determined-characteristics of conditioned phenomena. Which are the three? Arising (appearance) is manifest; disappearance is manifest; change while standing is manifest. These, monks, are the three determined-characteristics of conditioned phenomena." .... > It would support the idea of "ultimately real" dhammas. For only the > present is "ultimate real"...from this vantage point. > > It supports the intense focus on "mindfulness of the present moment" as > the > "heart" of their practice. .... S: Yes, I'd say: "mindfulness of the present dhamma appearing". There is no other object that can ever be known 'as it really is'. This is the world! .... > However, I'm dubious of this conclusion because it would be a > relatively > easy thing to explain and I don't recall getting this explanation from > Nina > or > Sarah during our many conversations on the subject. .... S: :-/ ... > > It also has it own problems...such as -- how can there be 17 > progressive > present moments of consciousness for one present moment of rupa? Also, > how > can > the ceasing of a state be a condition for the arising of following > state? ... S: We have answers for it all, but I'd like you to confirm that the above is all clear first. Then pls follow up with any of these questions, one at a time. Nothing simple here.... .... > (In reference to Abhidhammikas view of consciousness.(In reference to > Abhidham > direct conflict with the Buddha formula of D.O. -- This being, that is; > with > the arising of this, that arises; this not being, this is not; with the > > ceasing of this, that ceases. There are other problems as well. .... S: Not as we see it. As I said, let's take it one step at a time. We need to agree on the meaning of present dhammas, present realities first. Also, the distinction between namas and rupas and between dhammas (realities) and concepts. Helpful reflections, TG. Thank you! Look forward to more. Metta, Sarah p.s I can't speak for others, but I'm nearly always behind with replies - it never means I'm not interested. Just not Super Woman!! Reminding me when it seems too long, does bring them to my attention, however, lol:)) ========== #72636 From: "robmoult" Date: Sat May 26, 2007 11:35 pm Subject: Re: Suicide in Buddhism robmoult Hi Christine, I was referring to the immediately previous post, on "angry monks" which included a reference to this topic. Metta, Rob M :-) #72637 From: "Sukinder" Date: Sat May 26, 2007 11:51 pm Subject: My Meditation Re: Correction Re: A Bit More Re: [dsg] jhaana and superpowers. sukinderpal Hi Howard, I hope you don't see this as me finding fault with your practice. But if you are right, then I must be wrong, so I am in effect, defending my own viewpoint. ;-) ------------------------ Howard: I can only tell you about how *I* meditate on the breath. At first, concept is surely involved, for that is how I distinguish "the breath" form other things, how I distinguish in-breath from out-breath, and how I distinguish long breath from short, as per the Buddha's instructions(!). But, very shortly, what I purposely attend to are bodily sensations of touch, softness, motion, warmth, coolness, etc - that is, I attend to the experiential, rupic realities that are the basis upon which "the breath" is imputed. My meditation is an in-tandem one aimed at cultivating both ease and clarity. Recently I wrote a friend of mine offlist describing my meditation. I'll quote from it here: <> Sukin: :-/ What does this mean? Why this distinction between `need to apply' and `proceed effortlessly on its own'? I know by description, that you distinguish between when the attention is fixed on the breath and/or body sensations and later when it goes on to other sense doors. But why the above idea? It seems to go against the understanding of it all being about conditionality and anatta. Also too, "effort" arises with all javana cittas! -------------------------------------------- Howard: I hope this gives you some perspective on what my meditation is. You, of course, are free to evaluate it however you wish. For me, it is a faithful interpretation of the Buddha's teaching. In any case, it works well for me. Sukin: According to which Sutta / Suttas? Not the Satipatthana Sutta surely? Metta, Sukinder #72638 From: "wisdomcompassion" Date: Sun May 27, 2007 12:24 am Subject: question, to Nina wisdomcompas... Dear Nina thanks for your detailed reply. i have one more question, does the definitions of words differ in sutta and abhidhamma. it seems to me that it is so at times. what do u think, and if yes how must one approach two of them. regards nidhi #72639 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun May 27, 2007 12:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Virtue sarahprocter... Dear Robert A, --- Robert wrote: > RA: Thank you for your kind words. > > You are quite right - my practice does not 'fit' with momentary > consciousness which is anatta. That is because my experience of life > is not momentary consciousness which is anatta - my experience of life > is very much an experience of a self living this life and having > emotions, thoughts, and sensations. .... S: I understand what you're saying. Can we put it that whether or not we ever hear the Buddha's teachings, whether or not a Buddha ever arises, there really only ever is the 'momentary consciousness which is anatta'? Now, because of ignorance, this is not realized,but it is only the perverted view that makes it seem that it is 'my experience......of a self....having emotions....'? Can we also say that the path is not about following and practising the usual perverted views or practices, but 'going against the stream' by developing the understanding of dhammas as they really are at this moment? I'm not sure that I'm expressing myself well here. .... >I know intellectually this is not > true, having read the Buddhist text, but this is why I call it theory - > because it is not my *experience* of life, and I can only work with > what I experience, not what I read in a book. .... S: My point is that we think what you say above ('my experience...self...having emotions' and so on)is our '*experience* of life', but isn't it really just the distorted view of our esperience? By considering the 'right' theory, doesn't it help us to consider what the experience really is at this moment? When the theory gets closer and closer to the truth, awareness can then surely begin to develop and know this truth? <...> > We seem very far apart in our views Sarah, but I wish you well with > the practice you are following. Everyone must find their own way and > I think both of us have, although those two ways are two very > different paths. I enjoy reading your posts - you make a sincere > effort to make your view intelligible to me and I appreciate that > effort. ... S: Likewise, Robert. Would you agree that there is only one way, one path of satipatthana? Again, thank you for all your kind comments and thoughtful responses. Metta, Sarah ========= #72640 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun May 27, 2007 12:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! egberdina Hi Howard, On 26/05/07, upasaka@... wrote: > > -------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I'm rather glad, however, that the teachings were saved for us, aren't > you? Also, do you think of Ananda as an "appropriator? Might you be going > just a drop too far here, Herman, for dramatic effect? ;-) > ----------------------------------------- I certainly am happy that the texts have been handed down to us. But this does not prevent me from reading them critically, and from discerning the various political and social and philosophical inputs that shape them here and there. I am not really familiar with the histories of the saints, so I do not know how to think of Ananda. But I really didn't think I was being dramatic in saying that the teachings of the Buddha have been appropriated. I would say exactly the same about the teachings of Jesus. Neither of these men sought to create a world religion, and neither of them praised life on earth. Yet both Buddhism and Christianity have become vehicles for the entrenchment of ongoing phenomenal existence. > > "Now, monk, I have taught you the person who is keen on study, the one who is > keen on description, the one who is keen on recitation, the one who is keen > on thinking, and the one who dwells in the Dhamma. Whatever a teacher should do > - seeking the welfare of his disciples, out of sympathy for them - that have > I done for you. Over there are the roots of trees; over there, empty > dwellings. Practice jhana, monk. Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This > is our message to you." > --------------------------- > What could be clearer?? What could be less ambiguous?? > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks for sharing the above. Nothing could be clearer. Nothing could be less ambigious. So let's write a commentary on it:-) Herman #72641 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun May 27, 2007 12:53 am Subject: How to Win Suprahuman Force? bhikkhu5 Friends: Suprahuman Force is gained by Establishing Awareness! Once when the Venerable Anuruddha was dwelling at Savatthi in Jeta's Grove , AnÄ?thapindika 's Park, a number of Bhikkhus went to the Venerable Anuruddha and exchanged polite greetings with him. Then they sat down & asked the Venerable Anuruddha : Venerable Sir: What has the Venerable Anuruddha developed & cultivated so that he has attained to his famous greatness of direct knowledge? It is, friends, because I have developed and cultivated these four Foundations of Awareness that I have won great direct knowledge. What four? Here, friends, I dwell constantly contemplating upon: The Body only as a formed group, neither as I, me, mine nor a self... The Feelings only as passing reactions neither as I, mine, nor self... The Mind only as habitual & transient moods neither as I, nor self... All Phenomena only as constructed mental states not as any real... while eager, clearly comprehending, & fully aware , thereby removing all desire & frustration rooted in this world! It is, friends, because I have developed & cultivated these Four Foundations of Awareness that I have become empowered with suprahuman force: Having been one, I become many; having been many, I become one; I appear & I vanish; I go fully unhindered through a wall, through a barricade, even through a massive granite mountain as if through open space; I dive in and out of the earth at if it were water; I travel in space like a bird seated cross-legged, I walk on water without sinking as though it were solid earth; with my hand I touch the moon and sun so powerful and mighty; I master this body and any form as far as the fine dark matter Brahma World ... Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. [V:303] section 52: Anuruddha. Thread 12: Suprahuman Force! Details and references for further study: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/One_and_only_Way.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Four_Foundations_of_Awareness.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/sa/saavatthi.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/j/jetavana.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/b_f/brahma_loka.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/b/brahmaloka.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Sati_Studies.htm Suprahuman Force! #72642 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun May 27, 2007 12:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! sarahprocter... Dear Nina, --- nilovg wrote: > thanks for the text. The last part reminded me of the Co. to the > Satipatthanasutta,mentioning the people in Kuru who developed > satipatthana. They said: those who are not mindful are like the dead. > I discussed this with Lodewijk.Life is so senseless when one does not > develop mindfulness of whatever appears through one of the six doors. > One might as well be dead, just being absorbed in the outward > appearance of things, being ignorant of what is really there. > Nina. .... S: It's a helpful reminder isn't it? without the development of mindfulness we just continue on and on, lifetime after lifetime, absorbed and ignorant as you say. By the way, I'm very glad that your fall was not more serious. As you said, we never know what may happen next....even at home! Take care! Metta, Sarah ========= #72643 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 27, 2007 1:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] question, to Nina nilovg Dear Nidhi, The Abhidhamma gives more details of citta, cetasika, rupa, and thus the word explaining these will differ. The essence, though, is the same in the three Pitakas. The Buddha taught the Path leading to the end of defilements. He taught the wisdom that can eradicate defilements. Also in the suttas paramattha dhanmmas are taught, but the Buddha adapted his manner of teaching to the different listeners. In order to understand the message contained in the sutta we also need the basics of the Abhidhamma. We are further away from the Buddha's time and thus we are in need of more details. Our approach: verify in your daily life what you learn, apply it to your life. Understand the difference between paramattha dhammas and conventional notions. Understand the reality arising at this moment through one of the six doorways. Nina. Op 27-mei-2007, om 9:24 heeft wisdomcompassion het volgende geschreven: > i have one more question, does the > definitions of words differ in sutta and abhidhamma. it seems to me > that it is so at times. if yes how must one > approach two of them. > #72644 From: "wisdomcompassion" Date: Sun May 27, 2007 3:47 am Subject: Re: what is sati wisdomcompas... Hi Mike, ..... both believe their system is what one leads to > > nibbana, and both have deep faith in their scriptures and the masters > > (buddha and mahavir). but that is not new i think; as these > > differences were prevalent during time of buddha and mahavir as well. > > Well, I'm speaking from ignorance here, but surely the conceptions of > nibbaana with and without atta must be profoundly different? ******* N: I m also ignorant. i don't know,as its a matter beyond reasoning.When such a great difference could exist in Buddha and Mahavir, my opinion has no validity. But as i see the texts of both systems i seem to think that when one read jain texts the image of buddhist philosphy is entirely different from what it actually is, i think the same for some of the buddhist texts about jain philosphy as well. may be there were some historical reasons.but certainly the difference in philosophy of two systems is quite clear. ******* > > > > the best thing about buddhist scriptures is that it is very simple to > > understand, and discourses of buddha are very practical and doable. > > That was my impression too when I first encountered Buddhism. Since > then I've read a number of suttas stating explicitly that the Dhamma > is deep, difficult to understand and so on, and so it now seems to me. > The abhhidhamma texts and commentaries reinforce that impression, for > those of us with confidence in them. The practice(s) seem to me to be > especially difficult--to do correctly, at least--most particularly > because of the difference between the two doctrines I mentioned above > of anatta. Of course this is only my opinion but it is well supported > by the texts, I think. ********* yes practicing dhamma is very difficult, and reading abhidhamma is difficult too. ******** > > i > > couldnt find such a thing anywhere, neither in upnishads, gita or jain > > books. and buddha deliberately talked only about how to be free from > > suffering, and discard other less important things.so i m buddhist in > > all practiacal ways. for me personally Buddha's words touch me more > > deeply than other books, and i m more inclined towards buddhist > > scriptures for their simplicity and practical value. i think buddha > > did great help to humanity by considering relevance of teaching, and > > investigating from middle; that is cause and effect. > Yes, especially if you mean kamma and vipaaka. But there were other > sects who held kamma and vipaaka to be real (were the Jains one of > these sects? I don't recall) and the vinaya allowed for quicker > ordination of > converts from those sects, which suggests to me the importance of this > doctrine. > > Anyway, good to see you here and I'm very glad for your appreciation > of the Buddhist texts (I honestly know next to nothing of the others) > and I do appreciate your explanation of the differences and > similarities as you see them. > > mike > ******** yes almost all indian traditions as on today believe in kamma and vipaka and jainism is one of them. but middle way of buddhism is quite unique. and i find it quite logical too.As long as conversion is concerned both systems claimed such conversions. But to me buddhist doctrine is important for its philosophy,the doctrine, the path, depth, and above all buddha's discourses and these days abhidhamma.i think knowing buddism "only" is enough. its very very deep.i came across it quite late. with metta nidhi #72645 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun May 27, 2007 3:57 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: daana corner sarahprocter... Hi Sukin (Connie, Phil, Han, Nina & all), --- sukinder wrote: > Remember Phil, I suggested to you once about the "Cheating Dhammas", > that > these arises particularly under those circumstances in which we feel > concern > about "our" practice. .... S: I just remembered your reference to 'cheating dhammas' (va~ncaka dhammas), when I read this in one of Connie's Sister posts (#72607): "Yasmaa citta.m naameta.m maayuupama.m, yena va~ncitaa andhaputhujjanaa maaravasaanugaa sa.msaara.m naativattanti. Tena vutta.m ***"cittena va~ncitaa"***ti-aadi. 164. Since the mind indeed is like an illusion by which blind ordinary people are deceived. Being under the influence of Maara, they do not pass beyond continued existence. Therefore it is said: deceived by mind, etc." ..... S: 'Cittena va~ncitaa' - deceived by the mind....Yes, looking in the dictionary, Va~nceti is the verb 'to cheat, deceive' and va~ncaka is a cheat, fraudulent. Same root. [More in U.P. under 'Cheating dhammas', if anyone is interested.] As for cheating dhammas and 'concern' about *our* practice, the following was a good point in Nina's series on Perfections from discussions in India (#72576): "When we develop mettaa we should not cling to any gain for ourselves. We may be inclined to develop metta because we cling to calm. When we are angry, we have aversion about our anger and, since anger is so unpleasant, we want to subdue it by try-ing to develop mettaa. However, mettaa cannot be developed if there is no right understanding of kusala as kusala and akusala as akusala. Mettaa cannot be developed when we take for kusala what is akusala. We cling to calm we cling to an idea of self who should have mettaa and then the citta is akusalaa...." ... S: So true! I also found the reminders Nina quoted KS as having given helpful in another letter: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/70834 "Khun Sujin reminded us that when there is the development of satipatthana there is no attachment to the result of kusala, no clinging to an idea of: I should have more dana, I should have more sila, I should have more calm . All kinds of kusala are good, but they can become objects of clinging and when there is clinging there is no development of kusala." .... S: Thanks for the reminder Sukin. I think we all go wrong when we think about 'our' practice, 'our' kusala, 'our development of understanding and so on...."under the influence of the deceptive mind (kuuta-cittassa)." Always being 'deceived by the mind' (cittena va~ncitaa)like Therii Guttaa and all the other Sisters before the attainment of the various paths. Metta, Sarah ======= #72646 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun May 27, 2007 4:00 am Subject: [dsg] Re: daana corner rjkjp1 > S: I just remembered your reference to 'cheating dhammas' (va~ncaka > dhammas), when I read this in one of Connie's Sister posts (#72607): > > > [More in U.P. under 'Cheating dhammas', if anyone is interested.] Dear Sarah here is another link http://www.abhidhamma.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=88&hl=cheating Robert #72647 From: "colette" Date: Sun May 27, 2007 3:38 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Insight is "Vision," Not Merely Experience. ksheri3 Hi Ken, Boy, the monitors didn't like your responses too well to my post. lol They cut you up pretty good. > > I am sure that NDE's can be very instructive. colette: I wanted to do a post on the paragraph I responded too since you blended a major hinderance to the learning of Buddhism from the Western point of view. You've just been so programmed by christianity that I truely don't feel that there's much of a hope in your grasping the totality of which Buddhism addresses. Here I can go with our friend Laozi: "...Confucius and Laozi discussed ritual and propriety (cornerstones of Cunfucianism) over the following months. Laozi strongly opposed what he felt to be hollow practices. Taoist legend claims that these discussions proved more educational for Confusius than did the contents of the libraries". The paragraph addresses the complete acceptance of linear thought, linear behavior, and linear predictabilities as what meglamaniacs' term as CONTROL, yes, I can go with applying the jokes Hollyweird used to make about this type of person through the show GET SMART where Maxwell Smart worked for CONTROL. The humor is in the idiocy of this ideology, as Laozi suggests, they are hollow practices without having any satisfaction. <....> That paragraph I chose to address to the group had EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE GLORIFICATION OF HEIRARCHIES and the building block of a heirarchy must be the VALUE STRUCTURE, somebody other's values, not my values. "instructive" you say. Surely a learning experience can be seen as an educational experience but I feel from your obedience to the heirarchy glorification, as though you may be a member of a fraternal order, you understand the manufacturing process here don't you, the ken and barbie dolls, being EXACTLY THE SAME AND MADE TO ORDER BY THE SINGLE BLUE PRINT then can only differentiate between the numerous horde of replications is by means of a number system, for instance ken doll 1 is literally identicle to ken doll 10,000,000,000... since the ken doll was made from a single blue print and there is no deviation from the quality control used to deliver cattle to the market place, fodder to a consuming war machine, etc. Who is the instructor giving the instructions? ----------------------------- Any horrible personal > tragedy (the loss of a loved one, for example) colette: as you can see, you simply can't escape your Western theological programming as robots tend toward. Your statement is lossed in DUALITY since you've contaminated the statement by using this hallucination of "loss" in contradiction to gain, for instance. We can also view your hallucinations in a form of greed, avarice, etc. since it probably is your christian side saying that you must sacrifice something you value in order to gain something that you think you want. Wants are Desires, desires defile the mind. Was the supposed "loved one" actually here to begin with so that this loss could somehow take place? Is this supposed loss to you since then you say that losing this supposed loved one creates a deficit in your bank account? How could you possibly lose if you cannot prove that you owned your loved one? Or can you prove that you own individuals? Can it be proven that you own individuals? Thoughts to ponder. "There's a feelin' I get. When I look to the West." Led Zepplin. ------------------- can paradoxically help > us to see the world in a wonderful new light. But is that the way > taught by the Buddha? I am not sure that it is. colette: which is why I was going to make sport of your paragraph, your addiction to heirarchies, to somebody else's values, etc. "The doctrine of the non-existence of self necessitates a view of individuals as not possessing any intrinsic existential value;" ---------------------------------- > > I must be tactful, and I certainly wouldn't want to belittle anyone > else's experiences. For example, I would never say, "Get over it!" > But I think Jesus was right when he said anyone who came to him had > to do so "as a little child." According to the Buddhadhamma, the past > no longer exists, colette: shades of Aliester Crowley and his Thelemites who cannot allow a past to exist that would raise any thoughts. As thelemites tend to go, the vast majority are not allowed to think. Concerning Laozi: "... he refused to set his ideas down in writing, worrying that written words might solidify into formal dogma. Laozi laid down no rigid code of bheavior. He believed a person's conduct should be governed by instinct and conscience." So Homarabie's Code, as a written formal dogma, in Laozi's eyes and belief structure, would be tabboo, the ultimate of perversions.<....> --------------------- and the future has never existed. colette: just because at one time the Western belief structure was to obey the church because the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth does not mean that it didn't change in beliefs. The future certainly hasn't unfolded yet and it would be total ignorance to allow some sucker to unfold my future for me since when they do the unfolding then they will find a wonderously rich and valuable future that I had but was not conscious enough to unfold it myself. <.....> -------------------------- Personal stories > have to be put aside. We need to say to ourselves, "So what?" There > is only the present moment. colette: at best a child could find some humor in that statement. ---------------------- -------------- > > Not at all! Thanks for sharing your experiences. I hope I haven't > given the wrong impression with my "so what" remark. I don't say that > to other people; I say it to myself. I recommend it as a way of > seeing past the conventional world to the ultimate - present moment - > world taught by the Buddha. colette: so be it, but I got the a very wrong impression from your wordings as if you were setting up bowling pins to stand in a certain order so that your amuzement could be gratified by knocking the pins down. I do not see how abandoning the past can bring about any understanding of the Buddha's message. I just had a vision. It has to do with the word for "moral shame" something like "Ottapa". toodles, colette #72648 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 27, 2007 12:55 am Subject: It's All Illusion, It's All Real upasaka_howard Hi, all - Some more thoughts on concept and reality: 1) First perspective: It's all Illusion. Every "entity", "thing", or "individual", as such, from the most complex (e.g., "a human body", "a tree" or "the Dhamma" or "the Buddha" or "Holland" or "the 'A' key on my computer keyboard") to the simplest ("a" hardness or "a" visible object or "a" sound or "a" knowing [i.e., "a" citta] or "a" pleasant feeling [i.e. "a" pleasant vedana] or "a" recognizing ["a" sa~n~na]), every one of these, is a conventional object, definitely depending on thought. These simplest, these "paramattha dhammas", are themselves in possession of complexity of structure both statically and across time. I've already pointed out the static complexity of visible object. The same is true of "a" sound. When "a" sound is object of consciousness, it is not just "lute sound" or "speech sound" or "bird sound", but an amalgam. And all rupas vary across time, at the very least composed of three inseparable "stages" of crescendo, peaking, and decrescendo. And every nama is a complex operation intricately varying in nature across time. But our thinking processes, largely subliminal, parse these as unitary individuals, reifying them, and unifying them and separating them out. The difference in conceptuality between "paramattha dhammas" and "pa~n~natti" is only a matter of degree, with the so-called paramattha dhammas being more elementary, but all, as separate individuals, being conventional objects. None of them is a graspable, concept-independent reality, and one of the greatest thought-induced errors is conceiving of them as independent of thought. 2) Second Perspective: It's All Real. It is there, "right in front of us": Inseparable, ungraspable, unnameable, indescribable, not what it seems yet not otherwise ... and indisputable. There is not nothing at all. There *is* reality. The teachings of the Tipitaka do not directly point to it, for concept can't touch it. Instead, the teachings provide access, both descriptively and in terms of prescribed transformative activities, to all the levels, gross and refined, of illusion, driving us to the brink of relinquishing conceptuality and enabling the arising of the means, pa~n~na, of seeing through the illusion to the reality. Two perspectives, that of illusion and that of reality, both proper, two sides of the same coin. With metta, Howard #72649 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun May 27, 2007 5:30 am Subject: Re: Sammaadi.t.thi study corner scottduncan2 Dear Mike, I think I've quoted this before in part, and sorry if I'm repeating myself but, in Visuddhimagga I,6-7: "'He who is possessed of constant virtue, Who has understood and is concentrated, Who is strenuous and diligent as well, Will cross the flood so difficult to cross' (S.i.53) "...Develops consciousness and understanding: develops both concentration and insight. For it is concentration that is described here under the heading of 'consciousness', and insight under that of 'understanding'." Scott: And in Note 4, quoting Paramattha Ma~njuusaa, the Visuddhimagga A.t.thakathaa: "'Develops' applies to both 'consciousness' and 'understanding'. But are they mundane or supramundane? They are supramundane, because the sublime goal is described; for one developing them is said to disentangle the tangle of craving by cutting it off at the path moment, and that is not mundane. But the mundane are included here too because they immediately precede, since supramundane concentration and insight are impossible without mundane concentration and insight to precede them; for without the access and absorption concentration in one whose vehicle is serenity, or without the momentary concentration in one whose vehicle is insight, and without the gateways to liberation, the supramundane can never in either case be reached." Scott: I don't know if this gets closer to the consideration of 'mundane insight', because I think this likely refers to the place of 'mundane' moments of consciousness preceding the path, and points out that the conditionality of things is such that one thing leads to another. What do you think? I'll keep looking... Sincerely, Scott. #72650 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 27, 2007 1:53 am Subject: Re: My Meditation Re: Correction Re: A Bit More Re: [dsg] jhaana and superpow... upasaka_howard Hi, Sukin - In a message dated 5/27/07 2:52:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sukinder@... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > > I hope you don't see this as me finding fault with your practice. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: LOLOL! Why would I take seriously criticism of a my practice by a non-practitioner? --------------------------------------- But if > > you are right, then I must be wrong, so I am in effect, defending my > own viewpoint. ;-) -------------------------------------- Howard: Why defend it? I haven't attacked it. ------------------------------------- > ------------------------ > Howard: > I can only tell you about how *I* meditate on the breath. At first, > concept is surely involved, for that is how I distinguish "the breath" form > other things, how I distinguish in-breath from out-breath, and how I > distinguish long breath from short, as per the Buddha's instructions(!). > But, very shortly, what I purposely attend to are bodily sensations of > touch, softness, motion, warmth, coolness, etc - that is, I attend to the > experiential, rupic realities that are the basis upon which "the breath" is > imputed. My meditation is an in-tandem one aimed at cultivating both > ease and clarity. > Recently I wrote a friend of mine offlist describing my meditation. > I'll quote from it here: > < bhavana. My "effort" is to achieve a balance of heightened calm and > clarity, with an ungrasping mindfulness as the central tool. In a way, I > pretty much follow the Anapanasati Sutta. I begin with attending to > the breath sensations at the nostrils, "looking" with care but relaxedly, > balancing attention and calm, and attempting to avoid getting lost in > thought, excitement, or torpor. > > Sukin: I think you realize that your interpretation of your own > experience does not match with the Abhidhamma description of the way > things are. > ------------------------------------- Howard: Ahh! I am utterly bereft. It doesn't fall far from the sutta description. But, in any case, I described for you how my meditating works. The description is based on that reality. I presumed you wanted to hear the truth. ----------------------------------- > and the question about how mindfulness of concept can lead to > satipatthana. I'll also not go into the fact of there being bhavanga and > other mind door processes in between any two sense door experience. ---------------------------------- Howard: Oh, boy! I hold myself in check from saying more. ---------------------------------- > What I want to ask you about here is what according to you, is the > relationship between "ease" and "clarity" that you seek to develop? > > I suppose you will say that when there is "calm" the hindrances having > been subdued, this allows for wisdom to arise and know / insight > realities. My next question would be, how are the hindrances and other > akusala then known? You will agree after all, that they *must* be > known….? --------------------------------------- Howard: The states of calm I typically enter into are not absorptive jhanas, though they do match sutta descriptions of jhana. Hindrances are mollified, but not fully removed. At times, though, I do enter into classical absorptive jhana, and then there are no hindrances in evidence at all. I do take your point. If hindrances do not arise at all, they are not available for inspection. Of course, even the tradition of absorptive jhanas allows for inspection upon exit from such a jhana with a mind having been made a fit instrument by the jhana. ---------------------------------------------- > > Also while you are concerned about being lost in thought, is there any > awareness of the characteristic of "thinking" or any of the akusala > roots? If so, why the particular concern about being `lost in thought'? ------------------------------------------ Howard: When I am meditating, I'm not in the midst of being concerned about anything. I'm just staying with what arises. When there is a getting lost in thought, excitement, or torpor, that has been a lapse in mindfulness. When I'm caught in thinking, I'm not meditating. Of course, thoughts do arise. When they do, but they are simply "seen"as they pass, that is still meditating.Ifit is a train ofthought,and Ihop on that train,then there is no meditating going on at that time. -------------------------------------------- > ----------------------- > Howard: > When this goes well, and both calm and clarity increase, I almost > always begin to feel > pleasant sensations in the body, at first in the limbs. > > Sukin: What do you mean, the "increase" in which way and in relation > to what? Do you mean realities are observed with ever greater > precision? --------------------------------- Howard: Sukin, I cannot and will not try to explain the sound of music to a person who never listens to music. I can't do it, no more than I could describe red and green to a red/green color-blind person. To you this is all theory. -------------------------------------- > ------------------------ > Howard: > At that point, while keeping nostril breath sensations at the center of > attention, I permit my sensation to expand to the body as a whole. At > that point, the pleasant sensations begin to be felt suffusing the entire > body, and clarity and ease increase even more. > > Sukin: What is the significance of this? It is at this stage surely, not a > matter of experiencing nama or rupa i.e. satipatthana. Why the need to > go along with this? ------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't know what you want. It is natural to do - it requires no effort. It happens unless I stop it. And it goes along with what the Buddha taught. ------------------------------------------- > ------------------------ > Howard: > This may be then followed by an opening up to input through the other > sense doors as well, with the entire world of experience becoming a > part of the > meditation. > > Sukin: Now you seem to be talking about what sounds like the > experience of nama and rupa through different doorways. So perhaps I > misunderstood each stage of the above? Would you like to further > explain? -------------------------------------------------- Howard: No. :-) ------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------- > Howard: > Sometimes at this point, there is no longer any need to *apply* > attention at all. Instead, the meditating seems to "coast", to proceed > effortlessly on its own.>> > > Sukin: :-/ What does this mean? ------------------------------------ Howard: How can I tell you? It seems to match a cessation in vitakka and vicara. Now that I speak your lingo, perhaps you get it. But unless you experience it for yourself, you really cannot get it. ----------------------------------- > Why this distinction between `need to > apply' and `proceed effortlessly on its own'? I know by description, that > you distinguish between when the attention is fixed on the breath > and/or body sensations and later when it goes on to other sense doors. > But why the above idea? It seems to go against the understanding of it > all being about conditionality and anatta. Also too, "effort" arises with > all > javana cittas! ------------------------------------- Howard: I don't know what you are talking about. You are going off on your own tangent, but it holds no meaning for me. I find it entirely irrelevant. --------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > I hope this gives you some perspective on what my meditation is. You, > of course, are free to evaluate it however you wish. For me, it is a > faithful interpretation of the Buddha's teaching. In any case, it works > well for me. > > Sukin: According to which Sutta / Suttas? Not the Satipatthana Sutta > surely? ------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, indeed! In any case, as far as I'm concerned, all your reading, from now till "kingdom come", will, without actual practice - without getting your feet wet and your hands dirty, amount to very little. No "kingdom" WILL come. ---------------------------------------------- > > Metta, > > Sukinder > ===================== With metta, Howard P.S. Thanks for not "finding fault" with my practice ... not! ;-) #72651 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 27, 2007 5:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Insight is "Vision," Not Merely Experience. nilovg Hi Howard, please read the Commentaries that you find pseudo dhamma, not admirable. Before historical arguments were given and these did not impress. Now I think it helpful to get to the bottom of the matter and appraoch it internally. Where do you find them pseudo dhamma, abhidhammism, any passages? It is helpful to clarify this matter, it is not for the sake of arguing. Nina. Op 27-mei-2007, om 3:55 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > the word of the Buddha, and the commentaries, definitely not the > word of the > Buddha, over the suttas, which are almost certainly the word of the > Buddha. The > Abhidhamma is a marvelous work, but it does not supercede the word > of the > Buddha in the suttas, and for sure the commentaries do not. The > school of thought > that they do supercede it is what I call "Abhidhammism", and IMO > opinion it is > a substitute Dhamma, a pseudo-Dhamma, and not admirable. #72652 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 27, 2007 2:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 5/27/07 3:50:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > Thanks for sharing the above. Nothing could be clearer. Nothing could > be less ambigious. So let's write a commentary on it:-) > ===================== LOLOL!!!! With metta, Howard #72653 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 27, 2007 6:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! nilovg Dear Sarah, thanks. Every day I have such pain with every step, I thought of India. But I know how your going to India is beset with troubles. You still do it. I may see the doctor if there is no improvement. Nina. Op 27-mei-2007, om 9:31 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > I'm very glad that your fall was not more serious. #72654 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 27, 2007 2:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Insight is "Vision," Not Merely Experience. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 5/27/07 9:01:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > please read the Commentaries that you find pseudo dhamma, not admirable. ----------------------------------------- Howard: Nina, please reread what I wrote!! I never said that I find the Abhidhamma or the commentaries not admirable. I *do* find them admirable and useful. You really should have been more careful. What I said was <> What is it that I said was "a substitute Dhamma, a pseudo-Dhamma, and not admirable"? It was NOT the Abhidhamma and NOT the commentaries, but the school of thought that these *supercede* the word of the Buddha in the suttas, the school of thought that treats the suttas as second-class Dhamma. I was quite precise in what I wrote, Nina, and it is not what you thought. ----------------------------------------------- > Before historical arguments were given and these did not impress. Now > I think it helpful to get to the bottom of the matter and appraoch it > internally. > Where do you find them pseudo dhamma, abhidhammism, any passages? It > is helpful to clarify this matter, it is not for the sake of arguing. -------------------------------------- Howard: As I said, Nina, you misread what I wrote, and as a result you are addressing a non-issue. My sole objection is to a perspective that sees the suttas as second-class Dhamma. And I do not put you among the people who share that perspective, for I see you quoting suttas all the time, and it is clear to me that you do not accord them anything less than first-class status. ---------------------------------------- > Nina. > =================== With metta, Howard #72655 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun May 27, 2007 6:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Insight is "Vision," Not Merely Experience. egberdina Hi Nina and all, On 27/05/07, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi Howard, > please read the Commentaries that you find pseudo dhamma, not admirable. > Before historical arguments were given and these did not impress. Now > I think it helpful to get to the bottom of the matter and appraoch it > internally. > Where do you find them pseudo dhamma, abhidhammism, any passages? It > is helpful to clarify this matter, it is not for the sake of arguing. > Nina. I feel I am in the wrong place, for even having to bring this nonsense to your attention. "The Magadhabhâsâ is regarded as the speech of the âriyans (e.g., Sp.i.255). If children grow up without being taught any language, they will spontaneously use the Magadha language; it is spread all over Niraya, among lower animals, petas, humans and devas (VibhA.387f)." Next time you leave out your milk and biscuits for the petas, make sure to mark them appropriately in Magadha. Herman #72656 From: "nidive" Date: Sun May 27, 2007 6:44 am Subject: Re: It's All Illusion, It's All Real nidive Hi Howard, > Two perspectives, that of illusion and that of reality, both > proper, two sides of the same coin. Shouldn't that be two sides of nibbana? Swee Boon #72657 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun May 27, 2007 7:04 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Sammaadi.t.thi study corner scottduncan2 Dear Herman, I appreciate your reply: H: "I accept that elements are relative to the state of mind in which they are known. I accept that persons are relative to the state of mind in which they are known. For me, to see a person, yet mentally superimpose some elemental framework on them, is being far removed from the present." Scott: In a consistent fashion I find that you understand quite differently the discourse we have in the way shown above. You seem to consider, say, 'elements' (or any description of process or things of a so-called 'ultimate' nature) to be mere cognitive superimpositions onto an experiential/phenomenal ground. This is, I guess, because these are not part of experience now and hence, you see them as irrelevant (?) or of no use. For me, the experiential/phenomenal aspect, that is the way you and I see things now, is a function of ignorance. That is, ignorance being: "...lack of knowledge, of vision...the lack of co-ordination, of judgement, of enlightenment, of pentetration; the inability to grasp thoroughly; the inability to compare, to consider, to demonstrate..." (Dhammasa"nga.ni, p.94). I see it the other way 'round. The imposition is the failure to grasp that 'seeing a person' is what it is due to ignorance. I don't know, but I'd hazard a guess that, for one in whom the path has arisen, things around look pretty much the same; still 'people' all over the place, but 'people' are not understood to be only what they are seen to be. H: "Where we differ is that even when in gross form, you explain the gross in terms of the fine. I think this is distorting of the way things are." DN09 "In the same way, Citta, when there is a gross acquisition of a self... it's classified just as a gross acquisition of a self. When there is a mind-made acquisition of a self... When there is a formless acquisition of a self, it's not classified either as a gross acquisition of a self or as a mind-made acquisition of a self. It's classified just as a formless acquisition of a self. "Just as when milk comes from a cow, curds from milk, butter from curds, ghee from butter, and the skimmings of ghee from ghee. When there is milk, it's not classified as curds, butter, ghee, or skimmings of ghee. It's classified just as milk. When there are curds... When there is butter... When there is ghee... When there are the skimmings of ghee, they're not classified as milk, curds, butter, or ghee. They're classified just as the skimmings of ghee." Scott: I see what you are getting at here. Classification is one thing. Categorical descriptions are, it seems to me, the very thing you don't appreciate when it comes to experience. If one doesn't mix description with experience, which I don't think I do, then one can discuss categories as categories and experience as experience. If one is to consider the phenomenological aspect, categorical description is inadequate, since it fails to take 'dynamics' into account. And 'dynamics' refer to conditionality and then we are into what I consider to be the 'ultimate' level, beyond which there is no further analysis. H: "Dissimilarity of characteristics is known by analysis. This does not mean that analysis is the default mental mode. It only means that when analysing, differences / elements are seen. It does also not mean that what is seen during analysis continues to be relevant when analysis ceases, and another mental mode is taken on." Scott: You are conflating form with function here, I think; or, in other words, you seem to consider experience to be the ulitmate arbitrator of what there is. I think experience is a function of the constituents of the moment of consciousness and when ignorance colours experience that experience is not what it seems. The function of analysis is that of one or some particular mental factors. A moment of consciousness arises and, due to the many mental factors constituting it, is complex and functions complexly. This moment conditions the next, equally complex, and the experiential overlay differs phenomenologically according to the constituent mental factors. What role do you see ignorance playing in experience? H: "It remains a fact, that a chariot broken down into components cannot be used to transport one to town for the hockey game. Similarly, there will be no panna arising in a person who has had all their blood and juice removed for analysis :-) Analysis is destructive of function, because function depends on synthesis /aggregation of elements." Scott: We always differ on the meaning of the chariot simile, and will continue to do so, I guess. Again, how do you understand 'analysis'? I see it as a function and you suggest it is 'destructive of function'. What is it then? Function, as I understand it, is that which is done or accomplished by a particular dhamma. Analysis is a function of pa~n~na. One can think too much, or over-intellectualise or whatever, but the mental factor pa~n~na has analysis as one of its functions. Over... Sincerely, Scott. #72658 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 27, 2007 3:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Insight is "Vision," Not Merely Experience. upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and Nina) - In a message dated 5/27/07 9:45:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > I feel I am in the wrong place, for even having to bring this nonsense > to your attention. > > "The Magadhabhâsâ is regarded as the speech of the âriyans (e.g., > Sp.i.255). If children grow up without being taught any language, they > will spontaneously use the Magadha language; it is spread all over > Niraya, among lower animals, petas, humans and devas (VibhA.387f)." > > Next time you leave out your milk and biscuits for the petas, make > sure to mark them appropriately in Magadha. > > > Herman > ======================== There is some silliness to be found almost everywhere one looks, in Buddhist sources and everywhere else. The Hindus viewed Sanskrit as a sacred language with words having inherent, not merely conventional, meaning. In fact they saw Sanskrit as the vehicle for creation.The kabbalists think the same of Hebrew. The Buddha, however, clearly pointed out the merely conventional nature of language in the suttas, and he did so 2500 years ago! He was brilliant! In any case, that some silliness appeared in the commentaries doesn't make them without great value. For me, the suttas are the word of the Buddha, most of them are uncorrupted, and they are of ultimate value in the record of the Buddha's teaching, but the Abhidhamma and the commentaries are certainly valuable as well as far as I'm concerned. Some of the psychology that appears in the commentaries and that goes beyond that in the Abhidhamma, for example, strikes me as amazingly insightful work. As I pointed out to Nina, I didn't write a put-down to the commentaries, but to the view that they or even the Abhidhamma supercede the suttas. It is such Abhidhammic and commentarial triumpalism that I consider pseudo-Dhamma. With metta, Howard #72659 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 27, 2007 3:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: It's All Illusion, It's All Real upasaka_howard Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 5/27/07 9:47:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nidive@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > >Two perspectives, that of illusion and that of reality, both > >proper, two sides of the same coin. > > Shouldn't that be two sides of nibbana? > > Swee Boon > > ===================== Okay. :-) With metta, Howard #72660 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 27, 2007 7:15 am Subject: Conditions, Ch 1, no 8. nilovg Dear friends, The akusala hetus, unwholesome roots, are dangerous; they are accumulated and they cause the arising of akusala cittas again and again. They prevent us from kusala and cause disturbance of mind. We read in the "Itivuttaka''(Khuddhaka Nikåya, ''As It Was Said'', Book of the Threes, Ch IV,§ 9 [1]) : "There are three inner taints, three inner foes, three inner enemies, three inner murderers, three inner antagonists. What are these three? Greed is an inner taint... Hatred is an inner taint... Delusion is an inner taint, an inner foe, an inner enemy, an inner murderer, an inner antagonist. Greed is a cause of harm, Unrest of mind it brings. This danger that has grown within, Blind folk are unaware of it. A greedy person cannot see the facts Nor can he understand the Dhamma. When greed has overpowered him, In complete darkness is he plunged. But he who can forsake this greed And what to greed incites, not craves, From him will quickly greed glide off, As water from the lotus leaf." The sutta then speaks about the danger and the forsaking of hate and of delusion. We read about the forsaking of delusion: "But who has shed delusion's veil, Is undeluded where confusion reigns, He scatters all delusion sure, Just as the sun dispels the night." Feelings are also conditioned by the accompanying hetus by way of hetu-paccaya. Pleasant feeling is different depending on whether it accompanies akusala citta or kusala citta. There is unrest of mind with the pleasant feeling accompanying clinging and there is calm with the pleasant feeling accompanying generosity. When there is awareness we may realize that these two kinds of pleasant feeling are different. It is useful to read about the different conditions of phenomena, but we should consider their implications in daily life, so that we can understand what kind of life we are leading Is it a life full of lobha, dosa and moha, or is right understanding being developed? ---------- 1. I am using the translation by Ven.Nyanaponika, in "Roots of Good and Evil", Wheel no.251/ 253,B.P.S. Kandy. ********* Nina. #72661 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 27, 2007 7:15 am Subject: Perfections N, no 36 nilovg Dear friends, The Buddha preached to the monks about mettå, exhorting them to show each other kindness through body, speech and mind, both in public and in private. We read in the 'Gradual Sayings" (Book of the Sixes, Ch II, par. 1, On being considerate): Monks, there are six ways of being considerate. What six? Herein, monks, a monk's part is amity in deed towards his fellows in the godly life, openly and in private; verily, this is a way of being considerate. Again, his part is amity in word. . .amity in thought towards his fellows in the godly life, openly and in private; this also is a way of being considerate. Then, those proper gains, gotten according to rule- be they but bowl- scraps, he loves to share them impartially, to have them in common with his virtuous fellows in the godly life; this also is a way of being considerate. And those virtues that are unbroken, without flaw, spotless, without blemish, bringing freedom, praised by wise men, incor-ruptible, leading to concentration- he dwells one in virtue with them among his fellows in the godly life, openly and in private; this also is a way of being considerate. And that ariyan view, saving, leading him who acts accordantly to the utter destruction of Ill- he dwells one in view with that among his fellows in the godly life, openly and in private; this is also a way of being considerate. Verily, monks, these are the six ways of being considerate. These six ways of being considerate, and above all satipatthãna, lead to harmony and unity between the monks. The sixth way which is mentioned by the Buddha can remind us to develop satipatthäna, no matter what we are doing. There can be mindfulness of nãma and rupa when we are helping others or when we speak to them with kind words. If right understanding is not being developed while one applies oneself to mettå, mettå can become object of clinging. One may think of oneself as having a great deal of mettå. The perfection of mettã should be developed together with right understanding so that mettå will become purified. We should not expect any gain for ourselves, but the goal should be the eradication of defilements, otherwise mettã is not a perfection. ******** Nina. #72662 From: "nidive" Date: Sun May 27, 2007 7:25 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Insight is "Vision," Not Merely Experience. nidive Hi Ken H, > There is no mention in the Tipitaka of concentrating on the > movements of the feet while walking (for example). In DN 22, the Buddha did say: ------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.than.html [3] "Furthermore, when going forward & returning, he makes himself fully alert; when looking toward & looking away... when bending & extending his limbs... when carrying his outer cloak, his upper robe & his bowl... when eating, drinking, chewing, & savoring... when urinating & defecating... when walking, standing, sitting, falling asleep, waking up, talking, & remaining silent, he makes himself fully alert. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From my personal experience, concentrating on bodily movements can bring about a sense of loss of self over the body, showing how the body is not mine, not what I am. It's truly anatta personally experienced. Pretty scary the first few times. I am not sure about others. Swee Boon #72663 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 27, 2007 7:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Insight is "Vision," Not Merely Experience. nilovg Hi Howard, I am sorry. I had to look up the word 'supercede', replace I did not know in my ignorance. But still the question remains, what school are you referring to? A school in the commentaries, or derived from the commentaries? I cannot find in the ancient commentaries any school that sees the suttas as second class, on the contrary. I am thinking of the co. to the Mahaaraahulovaadasutta , I translated and put section by section next to the relevant sutta text. Do you want any illustrations? Nina. Op 27-mei-2007, om 15:28 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > It was NOT the Abhidhamma and NOT the commentaries, but the > school of thought that these *supercede* the word of the Buddha in > the suttas, > the school of thought that treats the suttas as second-class > Dhamma. I was > quite precise in what I wrote, Nina, and it is not what you thought. #72664 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 27, 2007 4:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Insight is "Vision," Not Merely Experience. upasaka_howard Hi, Swee Boon (and Ken) - In a message dated 5/27/07 10:26:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nidive@... writes: > Hi Ken H, > > >There is no mention in the Tipitaka of concentrating on the > >movements of the feet while walking (for example). > > In DN 22, the Buddha did say: > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.than.html > > [3] "Furthermore, when going forward &returning, he makes himself > fully alert; when looking toward &looking away... when bending & > extending his limbs... when carrying his outer cloak, his upper robe > &his bowl... when eating, drinking, chewing, &savoring... when > urinating &defecating... when walking, standing, sitting, falling > asleep, waking up, talking, &remaining silent, he makes himself > fully alert. > ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Howard: It is the foregoing that I have in mind when I speak of the practice of "ongoing mindfulness". -------------------------------------- > > From my personal experience, concentrating on bodily movements can > bring about a sense of loss of self over the body, showing how the > body is not mine, not what I am. It's truly anatta personally > experienced. Pretty scary the first few times. --------------------------------------- Howard: Exactly! The impersonality - sense of no actor, of nobody doing any controlling is dramatic. (I never found it scary, but that's probably because I had undergone a very profound "not-self experience" before ever seriously engaging in walking meditation.) Also, it came as a surprise to me that I entered a very deep, state of calm and concentration once while doing walking meditation at a (Larry Rosenberg) retreat. I had presumed that the bodily motion would have prevented that, but far from it. ------------------------------------------ > > I am not sure about others. > > Swee Boon > > ===================== With metta, Howard #72665 From: connie Date: Sun May 27, 2007 8:07 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (56) nichiconn dear friends, Gutta, 4/4 -- beautiful. peace, connie Raaganti ruuparaaga~nca aruuparaaga~nca. Maananti aggamaggavajjha.m maana.m. Avijja~nca uddhacca~ncaati etthaapi eseva nayo. Vivajjiyaati vipassanaaya vikkhambhetvaa. Sa.myojanaani chetvaanaati etaani ruuparaagaadiini pa~ncuddhambhaagiyaani sa.myojanaani arahattamaggena samucchinditvaa. Dukkhassanta.m karissasiiti sabbassaapi va.t.tadukkhassa pariyanta.m pariyosaana.m paapu.nissasi. 167. Desire means: desire for the fine-material world and desire for the immaterial world. Pride means: pride that is the destroyer of the highest path. And ignorance, and conceit means: these are to be understood here in the same manner [ie as destroyers of the highest path]. Avoiding means: discarding through insight. Cutting (chetvaanaa) the fetters means: abolishing (samucchinditvaa) through the path of Arahatship the five fetters leading to the upper worlds - desire for the fine-material world, etc. You will put an end to pain (dukkhass'anta.m) means: you will attain an end, an end (pariyanta.m) of all the pain of continued existence (va.t.ta-dukkhassa). Khepetvaa jaatisa.msaaranti jaati samuulikasa.msaarapavatti.m pariyosaapetvaa. Nicchaataati nitta.nhaa. Upasantaati sabbaso kilesaana.m vuupasamena upasantaa. Sesa.m vuttanayameva. Eva.m satthaaraa imaasu gaathaasu bhaasitaasu gaathaapariyosaane therii saha pa.tisambhidaahi arahatta.m patvaa udaanavasena bhagavataa bhaasitaniyaameneva imaa gaathaa abhaasi. Teneva taa theriyaa gaathaa naama jaataa. Guttaatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa ni.t.thitaa. 168. Annihilating journeying on from rebirth to rebirth (jaati-sa.msaara.m) means: bringing to an end the occurrence of journeying on, which has its root in birth (jaati-samuulika-sa.msaara-pavatti.m). Without hunger means: without craving. Stilled means: stilled through calming these defilements in every way. The meaning of the rest has been explained. Then at the end of the verses spoken by the Teacher, the therii attained Arahatship together with the [four] discriminations. She spoke these verses as a solemn utterance in the same way they were spoken by the Blessed One. They therefore became the verses of that therii. Here ends the commentary on the verses by Therii Guttaa. #72666 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 27, 2007 4:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Insight is "Vision," Not Merely Experience. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 5/27/07 10:48:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > I am sorry. I had to look up the word 'supercede', replace I did not > know in my ignorance. > ------------------------------------- Howard: No problem, Nina. I apologize for not having been clearer. ----------------------------------- But still the question remains, what school are > > you referring to? A school in the commentaries, or derived from the > commentaries? ----------------------------------- Howard: Again, I apologize for not being more careful with my language. I thought Iwas being clear. I did not mean any formal or official school or tradition. I was using the term "school of thought" informally, referring to an attitude that some people have that the suttas are inferior to the Abhidhamma and the commentaries. ------------------------------------- > I cannot find in the ancient commentaries any school that sees the > suttas as second class, on the contrary. I am thinking of the co. to > the Mahaaraahulovaadasutta , I translated and put section by section > next to the relevant sutta text. Do you want any illustrations? --------------------------------------- Howard: Nope. No need. Certainly the commentaries wouldn't see the suttas as inferior. It was the purpose of the commentaries to aid people in their understanding of the Tipitaka, and most particularly the suttas. I referred only to an attitude that is held by some people today - an attitude of Abhidhammic and commentarial triumphalism that I view as (unintentionally) deprecating to the Buddha. ------------------------------------- > Nina. > Op 27-mei-2007, om 15:28 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > > >It was NOT the Abhidhamma and NOT the commentaries, but the > >school of thought that these *supercede* the word of the Buddha in > >the suttas, > >the school of thought that treats the suttas as second-class > >Dhamma. I was > >quite precise in what I wrote, Nina, and it is not what you thought. > > ===================== With metta, Howard #72667 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun May 27, 2007 5:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Dhammas" and Impermanence (The Abhidhammikas perspective?) TGrand458@... Hi Sarah In a message dated 5/27/2007 12:05:57 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi TG, --- _TGrand458@..._ (mailto:TGrand458@...) wrote: > Reposting due to lack of interest. ;-) .... S: Well, that always gets my interest ;-). Seriously, when there's a long line of names, it probably has got our interest, but we all wait for one of the others to take the bait:-)). I hope the rest chime in too. ..... > > Hi Nina, Sarah, Jon, Howard, Herman, James, Larry and the Rest... > > Something occurred to me recently... that when the Abhidhammikas talk > about > Dhammas "arising and immediately falling away," that it is an inference > based > on time. I.E., "the present moment" > arises and immediately falls away. Therefore, all that constitutes the > present > moment must also arise and immediately fall way...from this vantage > point. ..... S: To me it is simply about anicca, the characteristic of all conditioned dhammas. For example, to use your quote in Patisambhidamagga again, Treatise on Knowledge, 371: ........................................................ NEW TG: It seems to me that you see this characteristic of impermanence in "the dhammas themselves." I see it in the "mechanics of conditionality" and not a trait belonging to something specific. Does that make sense and does my idea of your view reflect your view? ................................................................... "Eye [base] is unlasting, uneternal, subject to change.....Eye is impermanent, formed, dependently-impermanent, formed, dependently-arise to fall, subject to fading away, subject to cessatkion. He defines eye as impermanent.impermanent.....painful, noimpermanent.....painful, no The same is said of all other conditioned dhammas. This is true whether such dhammas (realities as opposed to concepts) are known or not known, taught or not taught by a Buddha. .............................................................. NEW TG: This seems to back up my reflection above. It seems to me you see the "individual states" as having a sort of innate quality of impermanence. The question relates back to an earlier post of mine this month...."what causes impermanence?" I think the key to this question is contained in the paragraph you quoted. It is the "mechanics" of Dependent Arising that forge, mold, and pressure the present to arise as it does...and simultaneously forge, mold, and pressure it to destruction. As present states are 100% dependent, they are mere "resultants" and are nothing "of themselves." Therefore they cannot have "their own" nature. It is merely nature that has nature...the states we define are merely "victims" of that nature. The states that are presently arisen are only here in whatever manner they manifest due to the conditionality forces that support them. This might sound radical, but its merely -- This being, that is. With the arising of this, that arises. This not being, that is not. With the ceasing of this, that ceases. This formula shows that arisen states have no "power" or characteristic of their own, but rather, are merely "respondents" or "resultants" of "other conditions" which are also subject to them same "lack of own characteristic." ..................................................................... When we refer to 'all that constitutes the present moment', we have to be very clear as to what this 'all' is. It is not referring to people and computers, but to the 5 khandhas. Each dhamma included in the 5 khandhas arises and falls away. This can be realized not by inference but by developed insight. .... ............................................................. NEW TG: Above you have made the claim that -- "This is true whether such dhammas (realities as opposed to concepts) are known or not known, taught or not taught by a Buddha." This claim is an inference. But I'll grant that direct experience can verify and give credence to such an inference. But its still an inference. As far as "people" and "computers" are concerned. Please save that for the 101 students thank you. It just something that I've known for 25 plus years. But, if its intended for other readers, OK. But I think virtually everyone in this group seems quite privy to that knowledge though...by now. .............................................................................. . > > This outlook would explain a number of things. First of all, it > explains a > lack of being comfortable of including the Suttas description of > "changing > while persisting" as part of the arising and ceasing description. "The > present" could not change while persist." .... S: The texts make it clear that as soon as such dhammas arise they are already disappearing or decaying. The use of 'persist' in translation has to be understood in this context. ................................................................. NEW TG: This also seems to confirm my understanding of you position. You are dealing with "individual dhammas" and not with the mechanics of conditionality. You'll never have a full grasp on impermanence by just thinking ... "they are impermanent." Not even through experience. The view needs to be expanded to see "what is causing impermanence." This "science" is the "science" derived by a contemplative investigation of what is contained in the Suttas. It is the science of conditionality. ..................................................................... I've taken the following from a message of RobK's (#12073) "TÃ'imáni bhikkhave sankhatassa sankhatalakkhaná"TÃ'imáni bhikkhave sankhatas paññáyati, vayo paññáyati, thitassa aññathattam paññáyati. Imáni kho bhikkhave tà sankhatassa sankhatalakkhanábhikkhave t Anguttara III,v,7 There are, monks, these three determined-characteThere are, monks, thes phenomena. Which are the three? Arising (appearance) is manifest; disappearance is manifest; change while standing is manifest. These, monks, are the three determined-charactemonks, are the three determined- .... .................................................................. NEW TG I'm curious. Since the stated position I usually here form you and Nina is that "dhammas arise and then immediately fall away; how does "change while standing" come into play? (See, I'm throwing you a softball here...maybe ;-) ) ................................................. > It would support the idea of "ultimately real" dhammas. For only the > present is "ultimate real"...from this vantage point. > > It supports the intense focus on "mindfulness of the present moment" as > the > "heart" of their practice. .... S: Yes, I'd say: "mindfulness of the present dhamma appearing". There is no other object that can ever be known 'as it really is'. This is the world! .... > However, I'm dubious of this conclusion because it would be a > relatively > easy thing to explain and I don't recall getting this explanation from > Nina > or > Sarah during our many conversations on the subject. .... S: :-/ ... ................................................................ NEW TG: Well from that sour face, I suspect you aren't quite seeing my overall thesis. I have a sense ... that I tend to view the overall general picture of dhamma and you and Nina tend to view the details. But I bet its an opinion you won't agree with! ;-) .......................................................................... > > It also has it own problems...such as -- how can there be 17 > progressive > present moments of consciousness for one present moment of rupa? Also, > how > can > the ceasing of a state be a condition for the arising of following > state? ... S: We have answers for it all, ....................................................... NEW TG: I'm sure you do! ... they're what's found in the books, no? And limited to the books, no? ..................................................... but I'd like you to confirm that the above is all clear first. Then pls follow up with any of these questions, one at a time. Nothing simple here.... .... > (In reference to Abhidhammikas view of consciousness. (In reference to > Abhidham > direct conflict with the Buddha formula of D.O. -- This being, that is; > with > the arising of this, that arises; this not being, this is not; with the > > ceasing of this, that ceases. There are other problems as well. .... S: Not as we see it. As I said, let's take it one step at a time. We need to agree on the meaning of present dhammas, present realities first. Also, the distinction between namas and rupas and between dhammas (realities) and concepts. ......................................................................... NEW TG: LOL So I need to agree with your ontological views before we can be in sync. That does make sense but that's sort of the crux of the problem. :-) I will agree to consider -- "the conditions that manifest" -- are as described in the Suttas. And that they should be seen "as they really are." Since you and I have come up empty in finding the Suttas to say "seeing dhammas as realities," I find no footing to justify that approach. But I think we can agree the Suttas say... “Form is like a lump of foam, Feeling like a water bubble; Perception is like a mirage, Volitions like a plantain trunk (coreless), And consciousness like an illusion, (The Buddha . . . CDB, vol. 1, pg. 952 â€" 953) .................................................................. Helpful reflections, TG. Thank you! Look forward to more. Metta, Sarah p.s I can't speak for others, but I'm nearly always behind with replies - it never means I'm not interested. Just not Super Woman!! Reminding me when it seems too long, does bring them to my attention, however, lol:)) ========== ......................................................................... NEW TG: Yes, you are Superwoman! Or maybe Abhidhammawoman is more appropriate... Its The Adventures of Abhidhammawoman! Faster than a speeding citta; more powerful than Sakka, ruler of the gods; able to leap beyond Suttas with a single bound... Its Abhidhammawoman! Abhidhammawoman, strange visitor to Earth from another realm, with powers and abilities far beyond ordinary man; Abhidhammawoman, who can change the course of mighty Suttas, bend meanings in her bare mind, and who, disguised as Sarah Procter, mild mannered monitor ... fights a never ending battle, for truth, justice, and the Abhidhamma Way!!! Thanks for the feedback. And the investment of time. TG OUT #72668 From: "Robert" Date: Sun May 27, 2007 9:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Virtue avalo1968 Hello Sarah, Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Sarah: Can we put it that whether or not we ever hear the Buddha's teachings, whether or not a Buddha ever arises, there really only ever is the 'momentary consciousness which is anatta'? Now, because of ignorance, this is not realized,but it is only the perverted view that makes it seem that it is 'my experience......of a self....having emotions....'? Robert A: What you say above is a belief. I think what you are saying is you start out with this belief and then set out to see the reality of this belief in your daily life and, through this seeing, transform that believing into knowing. Sarah: Can we also say that the path is not about following and practising the usual perverted views or practices, but 'going against the stream' by developing the understanding of dhammas as they really are at this moment? Robert A: For me it is less 'going against' and more 'questioning' the stream and trying to see what is real, not necessarily trying to make things conform to any particular theory. Sarah: My point is that we think what you say above ('my experience...self...having emotions' and so on)is our '*experience* of life', but isn't it really just the distorted view of our esperience? By considering the 'right' theory, doesn't it help us to consider what the experience really is at this moment? When the theory gets closer and closer to the truth, awareness can then surely begin to develop and know this truth? Robert A: You speak of a distorted view of our experience, and this shows we are using the word 'experience' differently. For me, it is meaningless to speak of a 'view' of experience because experience is just what it is. If I experience something as pleasant, that is my experience. It may not conform to some theory which says this sensation I experience as pleasant is *really* suffering, but it is my experience, such as it is. Sometimes it seems to me that your insistence on seeing the 'realities' in every moment in some ways separates you from the reality of your experience of the moment, which would be to your loss. Sarah: Would you agree that there is only one way, one path of satipatthana? Robert: I tend to steer away from such statements, for I really don't have anyway of knowing the answer - whatever I said in answer to this kind of question would just be my belief and how useful is that?. I take a different approach of trying to find the way to work skillfully with whatever is my experience of the moment, even though at the moment my experience my be very far from the theory. I have found the Buddhist texts to be the most useful guide in figuring out how to do that. So my relationship with Buddhism is less that I believe whatever I read in the texts than that I use whatever I find useful. When I work with my experience in the way I do, I have found that, over time, I can experience, in a flash, fairly dramatic shifts in perspective and glimpses of what seems like reality that is always there but which we cannot see when caught up in the normal ridiculous lives we live. Maybe one day those glimpses and flashes I get now will turn out to be just what the Abhidhamma says it is, but I won't prejudge. Thank you again for your responses. Robert A. #72669 From: "wisdomcompassion" Date: Sun May 27, 2007 11:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] question, to Nina wisdomcompas... Dear Nina, thanks for ur reply. > > Our approach: verify in your daily life what you learn, apply it to > your life. Understand the difference between paramattha dhammas and > conventional notions. Understand the reality arising at this moment > through one of the six doorways. ******* So the approach of sutta and abhidhamma is just the same. understand look and verify. that suits me. though the scope of understanding is more in abhidhamma and verifying very less because of paramattha dhamma. But reading Abhidhamma is good, no doubt about it. metta nidhi #72670 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 27, 2007 11:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Dhammas" and Impermanence (The Abhidhammikas perspective?) nilovg Hi TG. I have read that there are two ways of realizing the ceasing of phenomena. It is necessary to penetrate the momentary arising and falling away of dhammas as Sarah explained. It is developed in the course of insight. The second way is: realizing that what arises does so because of conditions, that it is ignorance that conditions arising, and that the eradication of ignorance means that there will be the ceasing of conditioned phenomena. This reminds me that the D.O. is not in the book, that we have to apply it. Your quoted text below refers to this. Thank you for bringing up this point. Nina. Op 27-mei-2007, om 18:40 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende geschreven: > This might sound radical, but its merely -- This being, that is. > With the > arising of this, that arises. This not being, that is not. With the > ceasing > of this, that ceases. #72671 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 27, 2007 12:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] question, to Nina nilovg Dear Nidhi, But exactly the paramattha dhammas are to be verified. This does not mean that you have to understand all the details of all phenomena, but some are appearing now. Seeing appears now and its characteristics can be known; it cognizes or sees what is visible. Just that. Then you may think with doubt, and also this paramattha dhamma has a characteristic that can be known. It is different from seeing. Understanding cannot be clear yet, but it can begin. They are paramattha dhammas or dhammas or realities, whatever you like to call them. They have inalterable characteristics. Nobody can change the characteristic of seeing. Seeing is always seeing, we can give it another name, but its characteristic is just experiencing what is visible. Nina. Op 27-mei-2007, om 20:45 heeft wisdomcompassion het volgende geschreven: > the scope of understanding is > more in abhidhamma and verifying very less because of paramattha > dhamma. #72672 From: "Larry" Date: Sun May 27, 2007 12:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Dhammas" and Impermanence (The Abhidhammikas perspective?) lbidd2 Hi TG, TG: " This seems to back up my reflection above. It seems to me you see the "individual states" as having a sort of innate quality of impermanence. The question relates back to an earlier post of mine this month...."what causes impermanence?" I think the key to this question is contained in the paragraph you quoted. It is the "mechanics" of Dependent Arising that forge, mold, and pressure the present to arise as it does...and simultaneously forge, mold, and pressure it to destruction. "As present states are 100% dependent, they are mere "resultants" and are nothing "of themselves." Therefore they cannot have "their own" nature. It is merely nature that has nature...the states we define are merely "victims" of that nature. The states that are presently arisen are only here in whatever manner they manifest due to the conditionality forces that support them. "This might sound radical, but its merely -- This being, that is. With the arising of this, that arises. This not being, that is not. With the ceasing of this, that ceases. This formula shows that arisen states have no "power" or characteristic of their own, but rather, are merely "respondents" or "resultants" of "other conditions" which are also subject to them same "lack of own characteristic." " L: If conditioning force or functionality were something separate from dhammas they would be another dhamma. There is no such dhamma included in the "all". A tree is not visible data because it is also tangible data. A tree is not tangible data because it is also visible data. A tree is not both visible data and tangible data because there is no dhamma that is both visible data and tangible data. A tree is not neither visible data nor tangible data because there is both visible data and tangible data called a tree. Therefore a tree is empty of treeness but full of dhamma. In what sense is visible data empty of visible data? Visible data arises in a rupa group dependent on tangible data. How does that dependency implicate visible data being empty of itself in the same way as tree is empty of treeness? Visible data would have to be made of parts other than visible data. The parts of visible data are moments of arising, presence, and dissolution, but all those parts are visible data. Larry #72673 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 27, 2007 11:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Dhammas" and Impermanence (The Abhidhammikas perspective?) upasaka_howard Hi, Larry (and TG) - In a message dated 5/27/07 3:57:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@... writes: > Hi TG, > > TG: " This seems to back up my reflection above. It seems to me you see > the "individual states" as having a sort of innate quality of impermanence. > The question relates back to an earlier post of mine this month...."what > causes impermanence?" I think the key to this question is contained in the > paragraph you quoted. It is the "mechanics" of Dependent Arising that forge, > mold, and pressure the present to arise as it does...and simultaneously > forge, > mold, and pressure it to destruction. > > "As present states are 100% dependent, they are mere "resultants" and are > nothing "of themselves." Therefore they cannot have "their own" nature. It > is > merely nature that has nature...the states we define are merely "victims" of > that nature. The states that are presently arisen are only here in whatever > manner they manifest due to the conditionality forces that support them. > > "This might sound radical, but its merely -- This being, that is. With the > arising of this, that arises. This not being, that is not. With the ceasing > of this, that ceases. > > This formula shows that arisen states have no "power" or characteristic of > their own, but rather, are merely "respondents" or "resultants" of "other > conditions" which are also subject to them same "lack of own > characteristic." " > > L: If conditioning force or functionality were something separate from > dhammas they > would be another dhamma. There is no such dhamma included in the "all". ------------------------------------- Howard: I don't go along with TG's "conditionality forces" terminology. This/that conditionality, as I see it, is not a theory of hidden forces but merely an explanatory scheme to the effect that, with regularity, when this is, that is, and without this, not that. Just as "states" have no power of their own in the way of existence and characteristic, they also lack causal power. Specific conditionality is simply a regular, objective, fact of nature from the Dhammic perspective. ------------------------------------- > > A tree is not visible data because it is also tangible data. A tree is not > tangible data > because it is also visible data. A tree is not both visible data and > tangible data because > there is no dhamma that is both visible data and tangible data. A tree is > not neither visible > data nor tangible data because there is both visible data and tangible data > called a tree. > Therefore a tree is empty of treeness but full of dhamma. ------------------------------------ Howard: To be full of dhamma it first has to *be*. The "being" of a tree is quite marginal, being even more dependent on thought than the so-called paramattha dhammas. You are quite right, Larry, about the tree-notion and specific tree-percepts being imputed upon a basis of multi-sense-door phenomena, it being a mental amalgam of diverse sense data experienced at a variety of non-contiguous times. I don't believe in any individual *entities* independent of though t, not trees nor hardnesses nor warmths nor visible objects. ----------------------------------------- In what sense is visible data > > empty of visible data? > ------------------------------------- Howard: In addition to the fact that a "visible datum" is nothing at all in-and-of-itself, being utterly dependent on pre-occurring and co-occurring conditions, it, atemporally, has parts (its various colors), and, temporally, has (three) stages as do all rupas. It is a matter of convention (and thinking) to consider all aspects of "it" as being visible data and to view it as a single thing. In all these ways, it is empty of itself, not as radically so as a tree, yet still empty of itself. ---------------------------------------- Visible data arises in a rupa group dependent on tangible data. How > > does that dependency implicate visible data being empty of itself in the > same way as tree > is empty of treeness? Visible data would have to be made of parts other than > visible data. ----------------------------------------- Howard: Those parts, the colors, are NOT visible data. It is the whole "palette", the whole "scene", that is the visible datum. ---------------------------------------- > The parts of visible data are moments of arising, presence, and > dissolution, but all those > parts are visible data. ------------------------------------------ Howard: That is your convention. Another would be that of three dhammas: visible rising, visible stasis, and visible decline, in which the three together would be a sequence of three dhammas. Anyway, please don't forget about the *atemporal* parts. ---------------------------------------- > > Larry > ==================== With metta, Howard #72674 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun May 27, 2007 4:28 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,157 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII 157. At the least, thirty material instances arise with the decads of the tongue, body, and physical basis, in those who are blind from birth, deaf, noseless,26 and sexless. Between the most and the least, the allotment should be understood according as appropriate. ------------------------- Note 26. Pm. (p. 611) has a long discussion here of the difficulty of speaking of the Brahmaa-world (where there are only the senses of seeing and hearing) in terms of the decads, which contain the components of odour and flavour (par. 156). It ends by defending the Visuddhimagga standpoint. ********************** 157. avaka.msato pana jaccandhabadhiraaghaanakanapu.msakassa jivhaakaayavatthudasakaana.m vasena ti.msa ruupaani uppajjanti. ukka.msaavaka.msaana.m pana antare anuruupato vikappo veditabbo. #72675 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun May 27, 2007 4:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Dhammas" and Impermanence (The Abhidhammikas perspective?) lbidd2 Hi Howard, H: "...nature..." L: Sure, that's a good explanation. Simplifies things a lot! H: "I don't believe in any individual *entities* independent of thought, not trees nor hardnesses nor warmths nor visible objects." L: I bet you do. Otherwise you wouldn't be so contentious. If my views aren't separate from your views, where's the argument? H: "In addition to the fact that a "visible datum" is nothing at all in-and-of-itself, being utterly dependent on pre-occurring and co-occurring conditions, it, atemporally, has parts (its various colors), and, temporally, has (three) stages as do all rupas. It is a matter of convention (and thinking) to consider all aspects of "it" as being visible data and to view it as a single thing. In all these ways, it is empty of itself, not as radically so as a tree, yet still empty of itself." L: No matter how you slice it it is one kind of dhamma, not a group of different kinds of dhammas like a tree or person and as such it is experienced. Larry #72676 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun May 27, 2007 12:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Dhammas" and Impermanence (The Abhidhammikas perspective?) TGrand458@... Hi Howard In a message dated 5/27/2007 4:20:58 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: I don't go along with TG's "conditionality forces" terminology. This/that conditionality, as I see it, is not a theory of hidden forces ........................................ NEW TG: The "forces" aren't hidden. There right in front of our eyes. They are what we are made of. It seems silly to be uncomfortable with the idea of energy. But alas, this is what some Buddhists feel. ......................................................... but merely an explanatory scheme to the effect that, with regularity, when this is, that is, and without this, not that. Just as "states" have no power of their own in the way of existence and characteristic, they also lack causal power. .............................................. NEW TG: This almost slipped by me. States do not lack causal power. They have no "self directing causal power" if that's what you mean. But causality is what "they are." ................................................... Specific conditionality is simply a regular, objective, fact of nature from the Dhammic perspective. NEW TG: From the Dhammic perspective? What the hell has a "dhammic perspective" have to do with actuality? (said in good humor.) Its just a fact of nature period. And it is precisely what I am talking about in reference to forces/energy. TG #72677 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun May 27, 2007 4:55 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Insight is "Vision," Not Merely Experience. kenhowardau Hi Swee Boon, Nothing has been discussed more comprehensively on DSG than mindfulness of walking in the Satipatthana Sutta. Have a look at Useful Posts under W for walking, and you will see what I mean. The commentaries permit no doubt: * According to them, the conventional meaning of walking is not being referred to. Right mindfulness does not know walking in the conventional sense of the word! Several DSG members claim to know better than the commentaries. Therefore, the question must be asked; can those people possibly be right - can the Satipatthana Sutta be interpreted another way - can it possibly be interpreted as mindfulness of walking in the conventional sense? No, it can't! "Furthermore, when walking, the monk discerns that he is walking." (Thanisaro translation.) "And further, monks, a monk knows, when he is going, "I am going";" (Nyanasata translation) And further, O bhikkhus, when he is going, a bhikkhu understands: 'I am going'" (Soma translation) I am no scholar, but I gather the word translated as "discerns" "knows" or "understands" is "pajaanaati." ** In the Pali language pajaanaati is a synonym for panna. Panna does not know if I am running as opposed to walking. It doesn't know if I am holding up three fingers or two. Panna (pajaanaati) knows *only* the characteristics of paramattha dhammas. So it is a matter of Abhidhamma in daily life. At any time, except while we are in deep sleep, panna can know the characteristics of an arisen paramattha dhamma. If panna is going to arise and function in that way it will be in accordance with conditions. It will not be under the auspices of a controlling self. -------- SB: > From my personal experience, concentrating on bodily movements can bring about a sense of loss of self over the body, showing how the body is not mine, not what I am. It's truly anatta personally experienced. Pretty scary the first few times. I am not sure about others. -------- I am sure they have all had pretty much the same experience. I know when I was a meditator (back in the dark ages) I had some freaky moments when I had to wonder if I existed or not. Also in the Useful Posts file you will see where K Sujin was asked about this. She said it was not satipatthana. The notion "there is no self who is walking" "there is no self who is making this cup of tea" (and so on) is not satipatthana. If you ask me, that sort of knowing it is madness. Ken H * From Sarah's post # 46576: Gacchanto - As I recently quoted from the tiika: "Going. The term is applicable both to the awareness of the fact of moving on and to the knowledge of the (true) characteristic qualities of moving on. The terms sitting, standing and lying down , too, are applicable in the general sense of awareness and in the particular sense of *knowledge of the (true) characteristic qualities. ***Here (in this discourse) the particular and not the general sense of awareness is to be taken.***" ** Also from 46576: Pajaanaa(ti) is a synonym for pa~n~na, sampaja~n~na,sammaadi.t.thi, vipassanaa or anupassanaa as I understand. From the Satipatthana comy: (clearly sampaja~n~na, pa~n~naa and sammadi.t.thi are again given as synonyms): "sampajaanoti tattha katama.m sampaja~n~na.m? yaa pa~n~naa pajaananaa...pe0... sammaadi.t.thi. ida.m vuccati sampaja~n~na.m. iminaa sampaja~n~nena upeto hoti...pe0... samannaagato. tena vuccati sampajaanoti." <. . .> S: Pajaanaati is therefore referring to the understanding and awareness of the particular characteristics (lakkhana) of namas and rupas appearing, not awareness of ideas about walking and so on #72678 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 27, 2007 1:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Dhammas" and Impermanence (The Abhidhammikas perspective?) upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - In a message dated 5/27/07 8:00:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > H: "...nature..." > > L: Sure, that's a good explanation. Simplifies things a lot! > > H: "I don't believe in any individual *entities* independent of thought, > not trees nor hardnesses nor warmths nor visible objects." > > L: I bet you do. Otherwise you wouldn't be so contentious. If my views > aren't separate from your views, where's the argument? --------------------------------------- Howard: First of all, please note that I said "independent of thought". I didn't say not at all. Also, by "entity" I mean something self-existent. ---------------------------------- > > H: "In addition to the fact that a "visible datum" is nothing at all > in-and-of-itself, being utterly dependent on pre-occurring and > co-occurring conditions, it, atemporally, has parts (its various > colors), and, temporally, has (three) stages as do all rupas. It is a > matter of convention (and thinking) to consider all aspects of "it" as > being visible data and to view it as a single thing. In all these ways, > it is empty of itself, not as radically so as a tree, yet still empty of > itself." > > L: No matter how you slice it it is one kind of dhamma, not a group of > different kinds of dhammas like a tree or person and as such it is > experienced. ---------------------------------------- Howard: We slice it differently.But, sure, I amke category distinctions. I don't claim that hardness and warmth are one and the same. -------------------------------------- > > Larry > > > > ==================== With metta, Howard #72679 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun May 27, 2007 1:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Dhammas" and Impermanence (The Abhidhammikas perspective?) TGrand458@... Hi Nina In a message dated 5/27/2007 12:55:15 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi TG. I have read that there are two ways of realizing the ceasing of phenomena. It is necessary to penetrate the momentary arising and falling away of dhammas as Sarah explained. It is developed in the course of insight. ............................ NEW TG: Agreed. ............................. The second way is: realizing that what arises does so because of conditions, ............................. NEW TG: Agreed. ..................................... that it is ignorance that conditions arising, and that the eradication of ignorance means that there will be the ceasing of conditioned phenomena. ............................................ NEW TG: I'm a little confused as to what you mean here. If its a reference to arahantship, then I get it. ......................................... This reminds me that the D.O. is not in the book, that we have to apply it. Your quoted text below refers to this. Thank you for bringing up this point. .......................... NEW TG: I'm not 100% sure what you mean, but your welcome. :-) .................................. Nina. Op 27-mei-2007, om 18:40 heeft _TGrand458@..._ (mailto:TGrand458@...) het volgende geschreven: > This might sound radical, but its merely -- This being, that is. > With the > arising of this, that arises. This not being, that is not. With the > ceasing > of this, that ceases. TG OUT #72680 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun May 27, 2007 1:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Dhammas" and Impermanence (The Abhidhammikas perspective?) TGrand458@... Hi Larry In a message dated 5/27/2007 1:58:13 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, LBIDD@... writes: Hi TG, TG: " This seems to back up my reflection above. It seems to me you see the "individual states" as having a sort of innate quality of impermanence. The question relates back to an earlier post of mine this month...."what causes impermanence?causes impermanence?" I think the key to this questio paragraph you quoted. It is the "mechanics" of Dependent Arising that forge, mold, and pressure the present to arise as it does...and simultaneously forge, mold, and pressure it to destruction. "As present states are 100% dependent, they are mere "resultants" and are nothing "of themselves." Therefore they cannot have "their own" nature. It is merely nature that has nature...the states we define are merely "victims" of that nature. The states that are presently arisen are only here in whatever manner they manifest due to the conditionality forces that support them. "This might sound radical, but its merely -- This being, that is. With the arising of this, that arises. This not being, that is not. With the ceasing of this, that ceases. This formula shows that arisen states have no "power" or characteristic of their own, but rather, are merely "respondents" or "resultants" of "other conditions" which are also subject to them same "lack of own characteristic.con L: If conditioning force or functionality were something separate from dhammas they would be another dhamma. There is no such dhamma included in the "all". ................................... NEW TG: They are not separate. "Dhammas" doesn't mean anything real in they way those who think it means "realities" use it. Its just a system for conceptually organizing experiences. Its just nature that's the issue. Dhamma much more accurately means "nature." I interpret dhamma to mean -- "the natural order of events." There are not separate states or realities, there are just separate delusions...i.e., identifiable things that seem separate. All of nature is interacting and pushing and pulling this way and that. The things we "identify" are not really separate things. They are just part of that natural process. ................................. A tree is not visible data because it is also tangible data. A tree is not tangible data because it is also visible data. A tree is not both visible data and tangible data because there is no dhamma that is both visible data and tangible data. A tree is not neither visible data nor tangible data because there is both visible data and tangible data called a tree. Therefore a tree is empty of treeness but full of dhamma. ............................................... NEW TG: Reminds me a little of Nagarjuna's dialectical criticism. .............................................. In what sense is visible data empty of visible data? Visible data arises in a rupa group dependent on tangible data. How does that dependency implicate visible data being empty of itself in the same way as tree is empty of treeness? Visible data would have to be made of parts other than visible data. ............................................. NEW TG: At the risk of sounding like a wuss, its just too much work to untangle this web. ............................................ The parts of visible data are moments of arising, presence, and dissolution, but all those parts are visible data. ......................................... NEW TG: As above...these parts are not really parts. But we can break them down this way in order to analyze experience. They all have aspects of delusion associated with them unless they are realized as mere "factors of analysis" and seen in relation to the whole of conditionality. ..................................... TG OUT Larry #72681 From: "m_nease" Date: Sun May 27, 2007 5:58 pm Subject: Vedanaa and Cetanaa, Bangkok 2005 m_nease Hi All, Working on a picture here and listening to the Bkk 2005 cd, something caught my attention: (KS): Cetanaa plays a very important role because everyone clings to vedanaa. So even cetanaa follows or is ruled or is led by feeling...it's very important that the other cetasikas have to do something to have such kind of vedanaa because of the clinging of vedanaa is so very strong. If you like something, it's so pleasant, then all the cetasikas will be sankhaara khandha to develop or to have the feeling again and again..." Nicely put, I thought. mike #72682 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun May 27, 2007 6:29 pm Subject: Re: Jhana as necessity to enlightenment... buddhatrue Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi James, > thank you for your kind post. > The Vis. also mentions dry insight elsewhere, if you care to know. > > Ch XXIII, 18 (Nanamoli): who do not attain cessation: < no ordinary > men, no Stream Enterers or Once-returners, and no Non-returners and > Arahats who are bare-insight workers, attain it.> Thanks for your post. I should have just looked in the Index! ;-)) Anyway, regarding this reference, it doesn't really define the bare-insight worker, other than he/she cannot obtain the cessation (stopping) of consciousness. To digress a bit, to understand the Vism. it is necessary to take into account large passages, not short passages (as you and others usually quote). In today's world we are accustomed to sound bites (short statements which contain the main idea) but the Vism. was written during a time when the attention span and the memory capabilities were much larger than they are today. So to quote such short passages from the Vism. is to potentially lose the meaning. Let's look at the longer passage from which you quote the short snippet: "Herein, What is the attainment of cessation? It is the non-occurrence of consciousness and its concomitants owing to their progressive cessation. Who attains it? Who do not attain it? No ordinary men, no Stream Enterers or Once-returners, and no Non-returners and Arahants who are bare-insight workers, attain it. But both Non-returners and those with cankers destroyed who are obtainers of the eight attainments, attain it. For it is said `Understanding that is mastery, owing to possession of two powers, to the tranquillization of three formations, to sixteen kinds of exercise of concentration, is knowledge of the attainment of cessation'. And these qualifications are not to be found together in any persons other than Non-returners and those whose cankers are destroyed, who are obtainers of the eight attainments. That is why only they and no others attain it. So, the attainment of cessation is only achieved by Non-returners and those arahants who have achieved the eight jhanas. Bare insight workers cannot achieve this because they have only achieved the first jhana, according to XXI 112. > > The Tiika in footnote to I, 6: exclude, not virtue, etc., but serenity(i.e.jhana), which is the > opposite in the pair, serenity and insight.- This is for emphasis. > But the word 'alone' actually excludes only that concentration with > distinction (of jhana), for concentration is classed both as access > and absorption (see Ch IV, 32).Taking this stanza as the teaching for > one whose vehicle is insight does not imply that there is no > concentration; for no insight comes about without momentary > concentration. And again, insight should be understood as the three > contemplations of impermanence, pain and not-self; not contemplation > of impermanence alone.> I am not exactly sure what the "Tikka" is, but I believe it is a commentary to the Vism.? Or a sub-commentary? If so, what is it a commentary to? What part of the Vism.? I need to have some idea of where this quote comes from and what it is in reference to, or I cannot adequately respond. Again, Nina, you need to quote much larger sections to get the full meaning of these ancient texts! These little sound bites that you quote simply won't do! > The last words may interest you, I remember a remark of yours > emphasizing impermanence. James: I don't think that was me. I have posted several times that annica, dukkha, and anatta have equal importance. This is usually in response to the K. Sujinites who, in my view, over-emphasize anatta. > Nina Metta, James #72683 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 27, 2007 3:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Dhammas" and Impermanence (The Abhidhammikas perspective?) upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 5/27/07 8:01:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: > Hi Howard > > > In a message dated 5/27/2007 4:20:58 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, > upasaka@... writes: > > Howard: > I don't go along with TG's "conditionality forces" terminology. > This/that conditionality, as I see it, is not a theory of hidden forces > ........................................ > > NEW TG: The "forces" aren't hidden. There right in front of our eyes. > They are what we are made of. It seems silly to be uncomfortable with the > idea > of energy. But alas, this is what some Buddhists feel. > > ......................................................... > > > > but merely > an explanatory scheme to the effect that, with regularity, when this is, > that > is, and without this, not that. Just as "states" have no power of their own > > in > the way of existence and characteristic, they also lack causal power. > .............................................. > > NEW TG: This almost slipped by me. States do not lack causal power. They > > have no "self directing causal power" if that's what you mean. But > causality > is what "they are." > > ................................................... > > > > > Specific > conditionality is simply a regular, objective, fact of nature from the > Dhammic perspective. > > > > NEW TG: From the Dhammic perspective? What the hell has a "dhammic > perspective" have to do with actuality? (said in good humor.) Its just a > fact of > nature period. And it is precisely what I am talking about in reference to > > forces/energy. > > TG > > =========================== Well, TG, you wrote the following: 1) The "forces" aren't hidden. There right in front of our eyes. They are what we are made of. It seems silly to be uncomfortable with the idea of energy. But alas, this is what some Buddhists feel. 2) This almost slipped by me. States do not lack causal power. They have no "self directing causal power" if that's what you mean. But causality is what "they are." 3) From the Dhammic perspective? What the hell has a "dhammic perspective" have to do with actuality? (said in good humor.) Its just a fact of nature period. And it is precisely what I am talking about in reference to forces/energy. Well, I can't argue with you, 'cause it appears that you "know"! LOL! A bit more seriously, T: We're both reductionists, you reducing everything to energies and forces, and me to experience. As long as we each know that we might well be damn wrong, we're okay! I think that's a good thing for us to keep in mind, don't you, because clinging to belief only serves as a blinder? ;-) With metta, Howard #72684 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun May 27, 2007 7:40 pm Subject: Re: Jhana as necessity to enlightenment... buddhatrue Hi Jon, You really crack me up!! I just can't believe the mental gymnastics you are going through to get the "jhana" out of this description of the bare-insight worker (sukkha-vippasaka). The text clearly states that the bare-insight worker has achieved the five jhana factors, and you write: Jon: The five jhana factors referred to here are the cetasikas of: vitakka - initial application vicara - sustained application piiti - zest ekaggataa - one-pointedness somanassa - joy As you will appreciate, these factors are not exclusive to mundane jhana, but it is a question of their intensity. Note that there is no mention of jhana *citta*. James: LOL! Are you smoking crack or what? ;-)) If the text states that the bare-insight worker achieves the five jhana factors, then of course it is the five JHANA factors. You can't say, "Well, of course, these factors are not exclusive to jhana so jhana isn't involved since the text doesn't mention jhana cittas." If the text states "jhana factors" then of course it means jhana cittas; it couldn't mean anything else. You are not convincing me of anything Jon; you are just irritating me. It is an insult to my intelligence to put forth the bogus arguments you put forth and expect me to believe them. Don't consider what anyone else has written about this subject, just directly consider the text. As I was writing to Nina, you must look at the larger passage. "IN EACH CASE there are seven enlightenment factors, eight path factors, and FIVE JHANA FACTORS….when their insight reaches the state of equanimity about formations AT THE TIME OF EMERGENCE it is accompanied by joy." "At the time of emergence" means when they emerge from the first jhana, their insight is accompanied by joy. The next section in the Vism. begins: "When the paths are made to arise by using the second, third and fourth jhanas in the fivefold reckoning as the basis for insight, then the jhana in those paths has respectively four, three, and two, factors." So, the previous section, which contains the sukkha-vipassaka, is the path which is made to arise using the first jhana. It is so clear! All you have to do is read it! It is interesting because the Pali for bare-insight worker is "sukkha-vipassaka". The commentary to the Vism. defines the sukkha as "dry" (as in the literal absence of water), but "sukkha" can also be defined as blissful bodily pleasure- as that which is strongest in the first jhana! I believe that the commentary to the Vism. has lead many people astray as to the real meaning of sukkha-vipassaka. There is no such thing as the Arahant who hasn't achieved a jhana. Metta, James #72685 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun May 27, 2007 7:46 pm Subject: Re: Jhana as necessity to enlightenment... scottduncan2 Dear James, Jon, James: "It is interesting because the Pali for bare-insight worker is "sukkha-vipassaka". The commentary to the Vism. defines the sukkha as "dry" (as in the literal absence of water), but "sukkha" can also be defined as blissful bodily pleasure- as that which is strongest in the first jhana! I believe that the commentary to the Vism. has lead many people astray as to the real meaning of sukkha-vipassaka. There is no such thing as the Arahant who hasn't achieved a jhana." PTS PED: Sukkha (adj)...dry, dried up... Sukha (adj. -- n.)...agreeable, pleasant, blest Sincerely, Scott. #72686 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun May 27, 2007 8:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Dhammas" and Impermanence (The Abhidhammikas perspective?) lbidd2 Hi TG, TG: "I interpret dhamma to mean -- "the natural order of events." There are not separate states or realities, there are just separate delusions...i.e., identifiable things that seem separate. All of nature is interacting and pushing and pulling this way and that. The things we "identify" are not really separate things. They are just part of that natural process." L: If understanding everything as 'nature's way' is helpful, that is fine. But the Buddha went to a lot of trouble to point out different kinds of experience and explain why experience happens the way it does. It happens the way it does because one kind of experience is different from another kind of experience, with different characteristics, different functions, and different capabilities. We can say 'dependent on ignorance formations arise', but what does that mean? Why do formations arise dependent on ignorance? Larry #72687 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun May 27, 2007 8:20 pm Subject: Re: Jhana as necessity to enlightenment... buddhatrue Hi Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear James, Jon, > > James: "It is interesting because the Pali for bare-insight worker is > "sukkha-vipassaka". The commentary to the Vism. defines the sukkha as > "dry" (as in the literal absence of water), but "sukkha" can also be > defined as blissful bodily pleasure- as that which is strongest in the > first jhana! I believe that the commentary to the Vism. has lead many > people astray as to the real meaning of sukkha-vipassaka. There is no > such thing as the Arahant who hasn't achieved a jhana." > > PTS PED: > > Sukkha (adj)...dry, dried up... > > Sukha (adj. -- n.)...agreeable, pleasant, blest > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > Bliss (pleasant bodily pleasure) is written both as "Sukkha" and "Sukha". However, dry is only written as "Sukkha". So, does it make more sense that insight is accompanied by bliss or that insight is accompanied by physical dehydration? I think "bliss" makes more sense and fits in with the suttas. Metta, James #72688 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun May 27, 2007 8:29 pm Subject: Psudeo Dhamma: accepting the Thervada Commentaries rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Nina - > > In a message dated 5/27/07 9:01:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > vangorko@... writes: > > > Hi Howard, > > please read the Commentaries that you find pseudo dhamma, not admirable. > > ----------------------------------------- > Howard: > Nina, please reread what I wrote!! I never said that I find the > Abhidhamma or the commentaries not admirable. I *do* find them admirable and useful. > You really should have been more careful. > What I said was < supercede the word of the Buddha in the suttas, and for sure the commentaries > do not. The school of thought that they do supercede it is what I call > "Abhidhammism", and IMO opinion it is a substitute Dhamma, a pseudo-Dhamma, and not > admirable.>> > > As I said, Nina, you misread what I wrote, and as a result you are > addressing a non-issue. My sole objection is to a perspective that sees the > suttas as second-class Dhamma. And I do not put you among the people who share that > perspective, for I see you quoting suttas all the time, and it is clear to me > that you do not accord them anything less than first-class status. +++++++++++++++ Dear Howard Who/what is this special psudo-dhamma school that you are referring to? When Theravada Buddhist accept the Commentaries explanation of a sutta aren't they actually following the ancient Theravada tradition. You and Nina were talking about the Susima sutta and you claim the Commentary misinterpreted the sutta. But how do you know that..I have read that sutta many times and the explanation in the Commentary fits the facts very well in my opinion. While it is true one can think up other interpretations it is not clear to me why you want to or assert that these must be right and the Commentary wrong. You said that you thought that perhaps the ancient monks had a bias against Jhana, but what evidence do you have for this.. or any other anti-Commentary statement? Also when you claim to give suttas priority is that always true. There are suttas in the Anguttara Nikaya and Digha Nikaya that state that at times the human lifespan is over 80,000 years, and I think you said you don't believe that.. How do you reach a decision as to whether a sutta is right and when it is wrong? Robert #72689 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun May 27, 2007 8:29 pm Subject: Re: Jhana as necessity to enlightenment... scottduncan2 PTS PED: Sukkha (adj)...dry, dried up... Sukha (adj. -- n.)...agreeable, pleasant, blest J: "Bliss (pleasant bodily pleasure) is written both as "Sukkha" and 'Sukha'. However, dry is only written as 'Sukkha'. So, does it make more sense that insight is accompanied by bliss or that insight is accompanied by physical dehydration? I think "bliss" makes more sense and fits in with the suttas." Nyanatiloka: "Sukha: pleasant, happy; happiness, pleasure, joy, bliss. It is one of the three feelings see: vedanaa and may be either bodily or mental. The texts distinguish between the happiness of the senses and the h. of renunciation A. II, worldly carnal;sÄ?misa and unworldly non-carnal; niraamisa happiness M. 10. See A. II, ch. VIII. - Happiness is an indispensable condition for attaining concentration of mind samaadhi, and therefore it is one of the 5 factors or constituents of the 1st absorption jhaananga see: jhaana and is present up to the 3rd absorption inclusively.;The mind of the happy one has concentration as its fruit and reward; A.X,1. -;In him who is filled with happiness, right concentration has found a foundation; A.X,3." "Sukkha-vipassaka: 'one supported by bare insight', is the commentarial term for one who, without having attained any of the meditative absorptions jhaana, has realized only by the support of insight vipassanaa one or several of the supra-mundane paths see: ariya-puggala In Vis.M XVIII, he is called suddha-vipassanaa-yaanika as distinguished from 'one who has tranquillity as vehicle' samathayaanika. Though the primary meaning of sukkha as intended here is as stated above, subcommentaries e.g. D. Tiikaa employ also the literal meaning of sukkha i.e. 'dry':;His insight is dry, rough, unmoistened by the moisture of tranquillity meditation.; This justifies a frequent rendering of this term by 'dry-visioned' or 'having dry insight', which, however, should not lead to misconceptions about the nature of insight meditation as being 'dry' or 'merely intellectual', while in fact the development of insight will produce rapture piiti and a sense of urgency samvega in the meditator. - App.." Sincerely, Scott. #72690 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 27, 2007 4:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Jhana as necessity to enlightenment... upasaka_howard Hi, James (and Jon) - In a message dated 5/27/07 10:40:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > It is interesting because the Pali for bare-insight worker is > "sukkha-vipassaka". The commentary to the Vism. defines the sukkha as > "dry" (as in the literal absence of water), but "sukkha" can also be > defined as blissful bodily pleasure- as that which is strongest in the > first jhana! ======================= Different words, I think, James. Sukkha = dry, and sukha = joy/happiness. With metta, Howard #72691 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun May 27, 2007 8:44 pm Subject: Re: Jhana as necessity to enlightenment... buddhatrue Hi Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > PTS PED: > > Sukkha (adj)...dry, dried up... > > Sukha (adj. -- n.)...agreeable, pleasant, blest "We come to recognize when the mind is restless (rgod-pa, Skt. auddhatya, Pali: uddhacca, flightiness of mind) or content (bde-ba, Skt. su:kha, Pali: sukkha, happy) and exceptionally perceptive (lhag-mthong, Skt. vipashyana, Pali: vipassana), http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/study/comparison_buddhist_traditio\ ns/theravada_hinayana_mahayana/theravada_practice_04.html Metta, James #72692 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun May 27, 2007 8:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Dhammas" and Impermanence (The Abhidhammikas perspective?) lbidd2 Hi Howard, I would like to clarify my opinionated opinion on why you can't claim to not believe in any 'entity' separate from thought. From that point of view there is no my thought or your thought. There is an implicit dualistic separation in any view we cling to, even if we later say, 'it's all just thought'. 'No dhamma separate from experience' seems all very reasonable, but what we think and what we believe are sometimes at odds. To really not believe in a separate entity would entail the complete eradication of self view. I think only an arahant can truly say 'I don't believe in any entity separate from thought'. As you have said many times, we have to begin where we are. Where we are is in the trenches of duality. Larry #72693 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun May 27, 2007 4:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Dhammas" and Impermanence (The Abhidhammikas perspective?) TGrand458@... Hi Howard In a message dated 5/27/2007 8:25:12 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: Well, I can't argue with you, 'cause it appears that you "know"! LOL! A bit more seriously, ......................................... NEW TG: What part wasn't serious? LOL ....................................... T: We're both reductionists, you reducing everything to energies and forces, and me to experience. ......................................... NEW TG: Yea I suppose but I include experiences as energies as well. I see experiences as transferring energies in progress and as felt. Movements and changing structures...including whatever is felt. Its just a way of thinking about it. Its a way of seeing how it is working. Its a model but as subtle as one can make it. Its something to let go of as soon as the conditions ripen enough to allow for it. ........................................... As long as we each know that we might well be damn wrong, we're okay! I think that's a good thing for us to keep in mind, don't you, because clinging to belief only serves as a blinder? ;-) ............................................ NEW TG: Righ-Tow. In fact, the model is guaranteed to be wrong to some extent. Its really whatever brings forth insight into impermanence, affliction, and no-self as clearly as possible that fills the bill. Good stuff Howard. Glad you didn't take offense. I got to have some fun and DSG is about my only outlet. LOL TG OUT #72694 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 27, 2007 4:54 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Psudeo Dhamma: accepting the Thervada Commentaries upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 5/27/07 11:29:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rjkjp1@... writes: > Dear Howard > Who/what is this special psudo-dhamma school that you are referring > to? ----------------------------------------- Howard: Asked and answered, Robert. The following is the part of my post to Nina that is relevant: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (Nina asks) But still the question remains, what school are > > you referring to? A school in the commentaries, or derived from the > commentaries? ----------------------------------- Howard: Again, I apologize for not being more careful with my language. I thought I was being clear. I did not mean any formal or official school or tradition. I was using the term "school of thought" informally, referring to an attitude that some people have that the suttas are inferior to the Abhidhamma and the commentaries. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------------------------------------------ When Theravada Buddhist accept the Commentaries explanation of a > > sutta aren't they actually following the ancient Theravada > tradition. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: This isn't relevant, Robert. My coversation with Nina resulted from a brief conversation between Ken and me, and that led me to discussing and objecting to a perspective that the Abhidhamma and the commentaries trump the suttas. That is what was being discussed, nothing more. ------------------------------------------------ > You and Nina were talking about the Susima sutta and you claim the > Commentary misinterpreted the sutta. But how do you know that..I > have read that sutta many times and the explanation in the > Commentary fits the facts very well in my opinion. While it is true > one can think up other interpretations it is not clear to me why you > want to or assert that these must be right and the Commentary wrong. > > You said that you thought that perhaps the ancient monks had a bias > against Jhana, but what evidence do you have for this.. or any other > anti-Commentary statement? ---------------------------------------------- Howard: I might be moderately anti-communist, Robert, but not anti-commentary. ------------------------------------------- > > Also when you claim to give suttas priority is that always true. > There are suttas in the Anguttara Nikaya and Digha Nikaya that state > that at times the human lifespan is over 80,000 years, and I think > you said you don't believe that.. > ------------------------------------------- Howard: You've got that right, Robert. I do not. I also don't believe in Creationism and in the Immaculate Conception. ------------------------------------------ How do you reach a decision as to > > whether a sutta is right and when it is wrong? > ------------------------------------------- Howard: I speak to the Lord God, Jehova, and He tells me. A drop more seriously, when the sutta is clear, Iuse my own judgement. When it is unclear, I look elsewhere,and that certainly includes the commentaries when available to me. Robert, I'm tiring of this. The Inquisition went out many years ago. I do not have to prove any sort of Theravadin loyalty to anyone. When a sutta is clear, I rely on the sutta. As I have stated before, I believe that most suttas that we have are uncorrupted. But I think one would have to be a fool to believe that none is. ----------------------------------------- > Robert > ===================== With metta, Howard #72695 From: "colette" Date: Sun May 27, 2007 6:18 pm Subject: Blazing saddles? ksheri3 Hi Group, Before I leave for a day or two I'd like to thank the members of the Karma Kagyu for a much deeper and richer view recently since I gave another person their address to better understand the Kagyu viewpoint on the 3 Kayas, and Karma. I can't wait 'til Tues to begin printing it out to read the material. I can't wait to get deeper into the Mahamudra. BTW, the teachings of Yamantaka are interesting since a few days ago I asked, openly, on a Western esoteric site, why Yama, Lord of Death, is always pictured holding THE WHEEL OF LIFE, in Buddhist iconography. I think I'm getting the picture of rational as we speak. That's a cool way of doing it! I'm very interested in the workings of this "Sambhogakaya." And concerning the recent post I gave to ken I also found another piece of material that may be of some help: "...: if elements of experience do not exist intrinisically (that is, if objects and concepts do not exist on their own), and all elements are necessarily dependent upon other elements for their existence, then all things must be considered only within the context of other things, because any divorcing of such interdependent elements dissolves the web that binds all things to one another." Thanx all, have a good Memorial Day holiday, in the USA. Remember, veneration of the grave sites or the dead is not always a bad thing, is it? toodles, colette #72696 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 27, 2007 5:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Dhammas" and Impermanence (The Abhidhammikas perspective?) upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - In a message dated 5/27/07 11:46:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I would like to clarify my opinionated opinion on why you can't claim to > not believe in any 'entity' separate from thought. From that point of > view there is no my thought or your thought. There is an implicit > dualistic separation in any view we cling to, even if we later say, > 'it's all just thought'. > ------------------------------------ Howard: I do make distinctions, and I do distinguish my thinking from yours. But viewing a process of thinking across a time period as "a thought", as unity/individual, is a matter of convention. ------------------------------------- 'No dhamma separate from experience' seems all> > very reasonable, but what we think and what we believe are sometimes at > odds. To really not believe in a separate entity would entail the > complete eradication of self view. > ------------------------------------- Howard: To not *believe* in entities is not the same as not seeming to be aware of them. ------------------------------------ I think only an arahant can truly say> > 'I don't believe in any entity separate from thought'. ---------------------------------- Howard: Only an arahant can truly say "I don't sense entities." -------------------------------- As you have said> > many times, we have to begin where we are. Where we are is in the > trenches of duality. > > Larry > ======================== Larry, my point is not a matter of making distinctions, but of grasping "things"as unities/individuals. I say there there is no basis for that independent of thought/convention. With metta, Howard #72697 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun May 27, 2007 9:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Psudeo Dhamma: accepting the Thervada Commentaries egberdina Hi RobK, On 28/05/07, rjkjp1 wrote: > > Who/what is this special psudo-dhamma school that you are referring > to? When Theravada Buddhist accept the Commentaries explanation of a > sutta aren't they actually following the ancient Theravada > tradition. > You and Nina were talking about the Susima sutta and you claim the > Commentary misinterpreted the sutta. But how do you know that..I > have read that sutta many times and the explanation in the > Commentary fits the facts very well in my opinion. While it is true > one can think up other interpretations it is not clear to me why you > want to or assert that these must be right and the Commentary wrong. > > You said that you thought that perhaps the ancient monks had a bias > against Jhana, but what evidence do you have for this.. or any other > anti-Commentary statement? > > Also when you claim to give suttas priority is that always true. > There are suttas in the Anguttara Nikaya and Digha Nikaya that state > that at times the human lifespan is over 80,000 years, and I think > you said you don't believe that.. How do you reach a decision as to > whether a sutta is right and when it is wrong? The fundamentals of Buddhism rule out the possibility of there being fundamentalist Buddhists. When fundamentalism raises it's ugly head, and calls itself Buddhist, it is mistaken about that as well. The teaching of the Buddha is qualified as Ehi-Passiko, inviting you to come and see, but not to come and believe. Ven Dr W Rahula Perfectly formulated is this Buddha-Dhamma: Visible right here & now, immediately effective, timeless...!!! Inviting each & everyone to come and see for themselves, inspect, examine & verify...!!! Leading each & everyone through progress towards perfection...!!! Directly observable, experiencable & realizable by each intelligence...!!! Bhikkhu Samahita Herman #72698 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun May 27, 2007 5:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Dhammas" and Impermanence (The Abhidhammikas perspective?) TGrand458@... In a message dated 5/27/2007 9:04:48 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, LBIDD@... writes: Hi TG, TG: "I interpret dhamma to mean -- "the natural order of events." There are not separate states or realities, there are just separate delusions...delusions...i.e., identifiable things that se All of nature is interacting and pushing and pulling this way and that. The things we "identify" are not really separate things. They are just part of that natural process." L: If understanding everything as 'nature's way' is helpful, that is fine. But the Buddha went to a lot of trouble to point out different kinds of experience and explain why experience happens the way it does. It happens the way it does because one kind of experience is different from another kind of experience, with different characteristics, different functions, and different capabilities. We can say 'dependent on ignorance formations arise', but what does that mean? Why do formations arise dependent on ignorance? Larry Hi Larry You got a good point. I feel that when there comes to be a good understanding of how those parts are working, and what the nature generating them is, they get dropped as maters of concern....because nature/Dhamma is more fully comprehended. The "parts" are for instructional purposes for the most part IMO. They are our conduit for potentially understanding natures activities. TG #72699 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun May 27, 2007 10:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Psudeo Dhamma: accepting the Thervada Commentaries rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: >right and when it is wrong? > > The fundamentals of Buddhism rule out the possibility of there being > fundamentalist Buddhists. When fundamentalism raises it's ugly head, > and calls itself Buddhist, it is mistaken about that as well. > > The teaching of the Buddha is qualified as Ehi-Passiko, inviting you > to come and see, but not to come and believe. Ven Dr W Rahula > > Perfectly formulated is this Buddha-Dhamma: > Visible right here & now, immediately effective, timeless...!!! > Inviting each & everyone to come and see for themselves, inspect, > examine & verify...!!! > ________ Dear Herman I don't read the sutta you quote as saying one should not believe what the Buddha said. Anguttara Nikaya III.126 Gotamaka-cetiya `Monks, I proclaim Dhamma with full comprehension, not without full comprehension. I proclaim Dhamma with causal connexions, not without. I proclaim Dhamma accompanied by wonders, not without wonders. Since I do so there is good reason why I should admonish, there is good reason why I should instruct. Well may ye be glad. Well may ye be satisfied. Well may ye be pleased at the thought: Perfectly enlightened is the Exalted One. Well taught by the Exalted One is Dhamma. Well conducted is the Order.' So spake the Exalted One. And while this explanation was being given, the ten- thousand fold world-system quaked."" We need to examine ourselves to see what level of saddha is present. If saddha is weak it means that there has been no understanding of the depth of Dhamma at all. If we study Dhamma and still doubt even basic concepts like rebirth, devas, petas etc then we are like a spoon in soup, which cannot taste the flavour even though it is all around us. Lost but not knowing it.. sad indeed. And this is the way of samsara. Robert #72700 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun May 27, 2007 10:49 pm Subject: The 8 stages of Mental Mastery! bhikkhu5 Friends: What are the Eight Stages of Mental Mastery? The Blessed Buddha once said: 1: Experiencing forms on one's own body, one visualizes small forms, as if they were external, (e.g. a tooth, scar) both beautiful or ugly. When mastering these, one understands: Now I know, now I see... This is the first stage of mastery. (Beginning with familiar objects) 2: Experiencing forms on one's own body, one visualizes large forms, as if external, (e.g. a leg, a bone) beautiful or ugly. When mastering these, one understands: Now I know, now I see... This is the second stage of mastery. (Mastering form perception!) 3. Not experiencing any internal form, one visualizes small external forms. (e.g. a glass, a chair) beautiful or ugly. When mastering these, one understands: Now I know, now I see... This is the third stage of mastery. (Expanding object complexity!) 4. Not experiencing internal form, one visualizes infinite external forms. (e.g. a galaxy, a universe) beautiful or ugly. When mastering these, one understands: Now I know, now I see... This is the fourth stage of mastery. (Mastering size perception!) 5. Not experiencing internal form, one visualizes external forms. blue forms, forms of blue radiance, blue appearance, blue lustre. When mastering these, one understands: Now I know, now I see... This is the fifth stage of mastery. (Mastering colour perception!) 6. Not experiencing internal form, one visualizes external forms. yellow forms, of yellow radiance, yellow appearance, yellow lustre. When mastering these, one understands: Now I know, now I see... This is the sixth stage of mastery. (First consolidating repeating!) 7. Not experiencing internal form, one visualizes external forms. red forms, forms of red radiance, red appearance, and red lustre. When mastering these, one understands: Now I know, now I see... This is the seventh stage of mastery. (Second consolidating repeat) 8. Not experiencing internal form, one visualizes external forms. white forms, white radiance, white appearance, white lustre. When mastering these, one understands: Now I know, now I see... This is the eighth stage of mastery. (3rd consolidating repeat!) More on these Eight Stages of Mental Mastery (AbhibhÄ?yatana): http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/a/abhibhayatana.htm The Eight Stages of Mental Mastery! Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <....> #72701 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun May 27, 2007 11:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Dhammas" and Impermanence (The Abhidhammikas perspective?) lbidd2 Hi Howard, H: "my point is not a matter of making distinctions, but of grasping "things"as unities/individuals. I say there there is no basis for that independent of thought/convention." L: I agree that one dhamma doesn't make an experience so there is no way to know if there is such a singular thing. So if we can't know one, we can't know 17, and we can't divide one into 3, a beginning, middle, and end. These are conventions. But I would say we can experience every element of the citta process (except maybe the bhavanga cittas) on a larger, more fluid scale. And I think we can experience the beginning, middle, and end of an experience, as well as the characteristic, function, and conditioning force of that experience. And we can experience one kind of experience after another, one at a time, not hot and hard at the same time, not feeling and desire at the same time. It is said that consciousness arises with several cetasikas and with repeated investigation I think we can detect universal and occasional types of cetasika experience. The purpose of this is to break down a vague solid whole into a fluid composite of different experiences that is empty of ignorance, so to speak. We certainly don't have to experience it all, but if we want to know what the 'all' is, either on a conceptual or experiential level, there it is. Larry #72702 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun May 27, 2007 11:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Psudeo Dhamma: accepting the Thervada Commentaries egberdina Hi RobK, On 28/05/07, rjkjp1 wrote: > > > > > The teaching of the Buddha is qualified as Ehi-Passiko, inviting > you > > to come and see, but not to come and believe. Ven Dr W Rahula > > > > Perfectly formulated is this Buddha-Dhamma: > > Visible right here & now, immediately effective, timeless...!!! > > Inviting each & everyone to come and see for themselves, inspect, > > examine & verify...!!! > > > ________ > Dear Herman > I don't read the sutta you quote as saying one should not believe > what the Buddha said. > Anguttara Nikaya III.126 > Gotamaka-cetiya > `Monks, I proclaim Dhamma with full comprehension, not > without full comprehension. I proclaim Dhamma with causal > connexions, not without. I proclaim Dhamma accompanied by wonders, > not without wonders. Since I do so there is good reason why I should > admonish, there is good reason why I should instruct. Well may ye be > glad. Well may ye be satisfied. Well may ye be pleased at the > thought: Perfectly enlightened is the Exalted One. Well taught by > the Exalted One is Dhamma. Well conducted is the Order.' So spake > the Exalted One. > And while this explanation was being given, the ten- > thousand fold world-system quaked."" I see nothing in the above that could even remotely mean that the Buddha says that the Theravadan commentaries bear his stamp of approval. > We need to examine ourselves to see what level of saddha is present. > If saddha is weak it means that there has been no understanding of > the depth of Dhamma at all. If we study Dhamma and still doubt even > basic concepts like rebirth, devas, petas etc then we are like a > spoon in soup, which cannot taste the flavour even though it is all > around us. Lost but not knowing it.. sad indeed. And this is the way > of samsara. If you think I am ignorant, and ignorant of my ignorance, please have the courtesy and courage to say so directly, rather than just making allusions. But be advised that if you do, I will report any such statement to the moderators. Herman #72703 From: "Htoo Naing" Date: Sun May 27, 2007 11:54 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Virtue htootintnaing Dear Ken H, Rob K and all, The discussions here are interesting. Just to add some points for more discussions. There are 5 facts as bala or indriya ( 5 faculties). 2 in one side and 2 in the other and sati or mindfulness involves in both side. A. 1. viiriya B. 2. samaadhi A. 1. saddhaa B. 2. pa~n~naa A and B have to be in balance. Sati does not need balance and so sati have to be in both sides. The more viiriya the less samaadhi, the more saddhaa the less pannaa. Am I right? Htoo On 23/04/07, Robert wrote: > In most discussions of Buddhist teachings, if the question would be > asked - Why practice virtue? - the answer would be something along the > lines that this practice brings non-harming, joy, calm, is helpful to > meditation practice, and leads to good rebirth. > > As I have been reading the postings on this group, there seems to be > some question about the usefulness of meditation and also whether > states of mind can be thought of as 'good' - is calm good and agitation > not good? > > So, I would be very interested is the opinions of the regular members > of this group on the subject - why practice virtue? > #72704 From: "colette" Date: Mon May 28, 2007 12:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Dhammas" and Impermanence (The Abhidhammikas perspective?) ksheri3 Hi Nina, A very quick reply in case I'm forced to get off by the children. I like your reply since I was just reading about the similarities and differences between Personal Construct Psychology and Buddhist meditations. I really want to get into question the actual validity of applying Western psychology and psychiatry to Buddhist meidation and meditation practices. They are applying "mantra meditations and mindfulness meditations as their grouping to compare and I feel they've TOTALLY PERVERTED THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF TRANSCENDENCE. I have a lot of specific questions in this paper which I shall deal with in due course but right now I want to question your piece. No I am not trying to mock you, nor make fun of you, nor do anything to you. I am merely placing my ignorance at the front of the line and using it to project from and hopefully recieve a reply I can understand and develope. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi TG. > I have read that there are two ways of realizing the ceasing of > phenomena. It is necessary to penetrate the momentary arising and > falling away of dhammas as Sarah explained. It is developed in the > course of insight. colette: I have questions but don't have the time now. I don't want to use my time up that I originally created to use now which is in the next section. > The second way is: realizing that what arises does so because of > conditions, that it is ignorance that conditions arising, colette: I thought that "conditioning" was a resultant phenomina from EXPERIENCE where the experience created the bija (seeds) of good, bad, indifferent feelings toward an event. It was the IGNORANCE of the function that EXPERIENCE imposes upon the individual which also clouds and defiles the mind, vision, and vipissana. ------------------------------------------ and that > the eradication of ignorance means that there will be the ceasing of > conditioned phenomena. colette: my interpretation is that the ceasation of the conditioned phenomena is resultant from the eradication of the IGNORANCE of functionality. I mean that if a person knows that "this or that CAUSES another condition, state of being, then they impose their value structure upon that CAUSE as being good bad or indifferent, thus remain in IGNORNACE AND SAMSARA." Please remember that I'm not trying to impose my beliefs or constructs upon anyone or anything. I am laying my cards on the table and they can be either accepted or rejected. I wish I had a Russian keyboard so that I could say "goodbye" or "goodnight" in Russian to ya. I always liked doing that with the Polish here in Chicago to keep them on their toes. toodles, colette This reminds me that the D.O. is not in the > book, that we have to apply it. Your quoted text below refers to > this. Thank you for bringing up this point. > Nina. > Op 27-mei-2007, om 18:40 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende > geschreven: > > > This might sound radical, but its merely -- This being, that is. > > With the > > arising of this, that arises. This not being, that is not. With the > > ceasing > > of this, that ceases. #72705 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Mon May 28, 2007 1:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Virtue christine_fo... Hello Htoo, I've been away for a while, and it is lovely to read you again. :-) metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- #72706 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon May 28, 2007 1:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Dhammas" and Impermanence (The Abhidhammikas perspective?) nilovg Hi T. G. Vis. Ch XX deals with the stages of insight. The third stage of tender insight, sammasana ~naa.na, comprehension by groups. Seeing rise and fall in two ways: by way of instant and by way of condition. XX, 97: < He sees the rise of the material aggregate in the sense of conditioned thus: With the arising of ignorance there is the arising of materiality... with the arising of craving...with the arising of kamma... He sees the fall of the materiality aggregate in the sense of conditioned cessation thus: with the cessation of ignorance there is the cessation of materiality... XX, 100: So when he sees rise and fall in the two ways, according to condition and according to instant thus, the Truth of Origination becomes evident... ------- N: All this does not pertain to arahatship yet, but to insight. Insight is not thinking. I find the above quoted texts difficult to understand. But the reason is that first the first stage of insight has to be realized: discerning the difference between nama and rupa, and this in daily life, now. Nina. Op 28-mei-2007, om 2:22 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende geschreven: > that it is ignorance that conditions arising, and that > the eradication of ignorance means that there will be the ceasing of > conditioned phenomena. > ............................................ > > NEW TG: I'm a little confused as to what you mean here. If its a > reference > to arahantship, then I get it. #72707 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon May 28, 2007 1:42 am Subject: Could you please help? sarahprocter... Hasituppada (many of you will remember him!) wrote me the following off-list and gave me permission to f/w it to DSG ================ Dear Sarah, I am seeking your help to clarify a paragraph that I had written about thoughts: Could you please read it and make your comments. I should be very grateful: "But the mental faculty is different, it can function as a seeing faculty, hearing faculty, smelling faculty and so on. For instance, if you were to close your eyes and think of a beautiful painting you have seen, a piece of music you have heard, smell of a jasmine flower or a rose, taste of a mango, or a pear, or a peach, the mind would imagine those experiences which were the results of the different functions of the respective sense faculties. As much as two thoughts will not arise at the same time, no two thoughts will take the same object. If you keep on looking at an object, there will be a number of thoughts arising and falling away. If you do not know, that no two thoughts will take the same object, you will think you had been looking at the same object, for a long time." Thanking you in advance. ========================= #72708 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon May 28, 2007 1:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Dhammas" and Impermanence (The Abhidhammikas perspective?) nilovg Dear Colette, I very much doubt whether one can apply Western psychology and psychiatry to Buddhist meditation, let alone applying a mantra. I really do not understand what you write about THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF TRANSCENDENCE. I know you are not mocking, but I find this matter too complicated. Give me the simple paramattha dhammas: citta, cetasika, rupa and nibbaana. When we meet something complicated in life we should check: is this citta, cetasika or rupa? Nina. Op 28-mei-2007, om 9:42 heeft colette het volgende geschreven: > I like your reply since I was just reading about the similarities and > differences between Personal Construct Psychology and Buddhist > meditations. I really want to get into question the actual validity > of applying Western psychology and psychiatry to Buddhist meidation > and meditation practices. They are applying "mantra meditations and > mindfulness meditations as their grouping to compare and I feel > they've TOTALLY PERVERTED THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF TRANSCENDENCE. #72709 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon May 28, 2007 2:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Could you please help? sarahprocter... Dear Hasituppada, Thx for writing. H:> I am seeking your help to clarify a paragraph that I had written > about thoughts: > > Could you please read it and make your comments. I should be very > grateful: .... S: I follow your meaning and agree with the gist which is nicely expressed. I have some difficulty with the terminology, however. Let me be 'picky' here: .... H.> "But the mental faculty is different, it can function as a seeing > faculty, hearing faculty, smelling faculty and so on. .... S: I think you are referring to the mind-door consciousness following a sense door consciousness process. Without the preceding sense-door consciousness, such as seeing or hearing, there wouldn't be any idea or imagery about the visible object or sound just seen or heard. I don't think we can say, however, that mind-door consciousness 'can function' as a 'seeing faculty....' Also, 'mental faculty' may be taken for naama, what do you think? Of course, as you know, any citta (consciousness) is naama. ..... H.>For instance, > if you were to close your eyes and think of a beautiful painting you > have seen, a piece of music you have heard, smell of a jasmine flower > or a rose, taste of a mango, or a pear, or a peach, the mind would > imagine those experiences which were the results of the different > functions of the respective sense faculties. .... S: I would just be cautious about using 'results' here. Again, as you know, in an Abhidhamma sense, results usually refer to vipaka cittas. Perhaps 'based upon'? .... H.>As much as two thoughts > will not arise at the same time, no two thoughts will take the same > object. If you keep on looking at an object, there will be a number > of thoughts arising and falling away. If you do not know, that no two > thoughts will take the same object, you will think you had been > looking at the same object, for a long time." .... S: Yes, many different cittas (thoughts?), many different concepts of paintings, flowers or music. ..... H> Thanking you in advance. .... S: Thx for asking. Pls let me know if you have further comments. Metta, Sarah ========================= #72710 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon May 28, 2007 2:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Pseudo Dhamma: accepting the Thervada Commentaries rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > >> If you think I am ignorant, and ignorant of my ignorance, please have > the courtesy and courage to say so directly, rather than just making > allusions. But be advised that if you do, I will report any such > statement to the moderators. > > Herman ====== Dear Herman We all have degrees of ignorance, as there are no longer arahants in the world. But the Buddhists who try to discredit the ancient bhikkhus are in a special category of severe ignorance, in my opinion. So yes I consider you ignorant and ignorant of your ignorance. Even worse than that you repeatedly assert wrongviews, such as there is no rebirth, this is very foolish as you not only cling to your own mistakes but attempt to convince others. I trust this is direct enough. I await your report to the moderators. Robert #72711 From: "gazita2002" Date: Mon May 28, 2007 2:13 am Subject: Re: Unintelligent Brother and the Cloth gazita2002 Hello Chris, give my regards to the Cooran mob. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christine Forsyth" wrote: > I'm seeing the Cooran Mob next weekend ~ we're all meeting somewhere > near the Glasshouse Mountains for a Study day on articles about the > Buddha's Birth, Enlightenment and Parinibbana (plus lunch :-)) . > I'll give it to him then ~ providing I don't get lost finding the > park/paddock they've chosen. azita; you'll find them in that very dry brown paddock under the Glasshouse Mts. :-) Sorry, but couldnt resist that! its barely stopped raining here for 3 days. wish I could send you somme. Maybe you mob could do a rain dance!!!!! Patience, courage and good cheer, azita #72712 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon May 28, 2007 2:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Jhana as necessity to enlightenment... nilovg Hi James, Tiika, subcommentary, to the entire Visuddhimagga. I just took the short quotes because they were short quotes. That is all. I translated a Pali part for Rob's forum about dry insight, nothing to do with pleasure. It was stated that when developing insight without samatha, there is more tiredness (kilamati). I cannot find the text now. Perhaps Rob K can help out! Another thing, please read (Nina version of the James version about reading, just kidding): Concentration that is lokuttara has, for the dry insight worker, the same strength as that of the first mundane jhana stage, but the object is nibbaana. This will prevent misinterpretation of texts. What is the sense of it that in the Abhidhamma cittas are classified as 89 (including eight lokuttara cittas) and as is said, for the wise, as 121 (including 40 lokuttara cittas)? The last ones include lokuttara cittas accompanied by the jhanafactors of the four stages of jhana. This difference is meaningful, I think. The term jhanafactors can also be used in a wider sense and this is done in the Patthana. When you steal there have to be jhanafactors with the citta, otherwise you could not make one step in front of the other (as quoted once by Scott). Your objections to this are not warranted, I believe. See also Abh Studies by Nyanaponika, it is on line. do you like a link? Nina. Op 28-mei-2007, om 3:29 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > I am not exactly sure what the "Tikka" is, but I believe it is a > commentary to the Vism.? Or a sub-commentary? If so, what is it a > commentary to? What part of the Vism.? #72713 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon May 28, 2007 2:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! sarahprocter... Hi Herman,(Jon, Howard & all), Just reflecting on a sutta Herman quoted recently: --- Herman Hofman wrote: > I don't think that the aim of the teachings is to fill your head up > with things to remember. > > MN03 > > "Friends, of a Teacher abiding in seclusion, how do the disciples not > train in that seclusion? ..... S: Later in the same sutta (Nanamoli/Bodhi transl): "In what way, friends, do disciples of the Teacher who lives secluded train in seclusion? Here disciples of the Teacher who lives secluded train in seclusion; they abandon what the Teacher tells them to abandon; they are not luxurious and careless, they are keen to avoid backsliding, and are leaders in seclusion." .... S: What is 'train in seclusion' here? It is 'vivekamanusikkhunti', i.e they train in 'mental detachment', 'seclusion' from unwholesome states: "It is in this way that disciples of the Teacher who lives secluded train in seclusion. "Friends, the evil herein is greed and hate. [S: i.e what is to be abandoned above in order to become 'an heir of Dhamma rather than of material things.'] There is a Middle Way for the abandoning of greed and hate, giving vision, giving knowledge, which leads to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. And what is that Middle Way? It is just this Noble Eightfold Path:........ "The evil herein is anger and revenge...contempt and a domineering attitude...envy and avarice...deceit and fraud...obstinacy and presumption....coneit and arrogance...vanity and negligence. There is a Middle Way for the abandoning of vanity and negligence, giving vision, giving knowledge, which leads to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana......" ..... H:> Show me a sutta that says "remember the Tipitaka", and I'll show you a > fraud. .... Thanks for pointing out these passages, Herman. Reflecting on the ultimate meaning of seclusion and the Middle Way, developing understanding right now - this is what I understand by 'remember the Tipitaka'. No fraud:-). Metta, Sarah ============= #72714 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon May 28, 2007 3:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Pseudo Dhamma: accepting the Thervada Commentaries egberdina Hi RobK (and moderators at the end), On 28/05/07, rjkjp1 wrote: > > Dear Herman > We all have degrees of ignorance, as there are no longer arahants in > the world. But the Buddhists who try to discredit the ancient bhikkhus > are in a special category of severe ignorance, in my opinion. So yes I > consider you ignorant and ignorant of your ignorance. > Even worse than that you repeatedly assert wrongviews, such as there > is no rebirth, this is very foolish as you not only cling to your own > mistakes but attempt to convince others. > I trust this is direct enough. I await your report to the moderators. Yes, it is direct enough. And as black and white as what I expect from people immersed in their own self-righteousness. Do you remember this little gem of self-righteousness? #58224 April 23, 2006. "Dear Group, This is my final post on dsg. For various reasons I find it an inappropriate venue to discuss Dhamma, and especially regret how my posts have helped to create this foolish atmosphere. Dan and Sukin: I will continue to read your excellent contributions. Robert." My advice to you is to not make vows as cheaply as you do, nor to take yourself as seriously as you do. Your prophesies, judgments and mea culpas harm only yourself. Herman Dear moderators, RobK said I was ignorant. Herman #72715 From: "Phil" Date: Mon May 28, 2007 3:53 am Subject: Re: Sila Corner: Sila as struggle philofillet Hi Andrew I cut some of your post, sorry, the parts referring to the Dhammapada quote because I hadn't really tuned in (due to my intellectual lazinness) to what you and then Sarah were discussing. > Now, how many posts have I read where you describe yourself as > subject to strong or gross defilements? Can I assume, therefore, > that you would not place yourself within the ambit of paragraph 7? > Indeed, you would have to be a paragraph 6 sort of guy, wouldn't > you? By nature, strong on lobha/dosa/moha, having made lots of > akusala vipaka ("weeping with tearful face") AND YET leading the > perfect and holy life (let's tone that down by adding "to some > degree"). > > How the hell do we interpret that? [Come on all you folk who insist > the suttas don't need interpretation!] This sutta certainly does! It's long and confusing in its whole. I don't even know where we were or are, and Naomi has the radio on quite loud. I think I'll stick to Anguttara Nikaya for the next little while! The suttas are so much more concise and easier to appreciate. But I think I can appreciate this from paragraph 16: "What bhikkhus is the way of undertaking things that is painful now and ripens in the future as pleasue. Here, bhikkhus, someone in pain and grief abstains from killing living beings, and he expereiences pain and grief that have abstention from killing living beings as condition (and same for the other 10 akusala kamma patha.) On the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination, even in the heavenly world. This is called the way of undertaking things that is painful now and ripens in the future as pleasure." I suppose I'm misunderstanding, but this says to me that for some people it is painful to abstain. If this isn't the case, well, I'll still benefit from this sutta because it inspires me to keep on abstaining. I'm sure a proper understanding of abhidhamma would steer me away from taking inspiration in this kind of shallow man's approach to Dhamma, and perhaps it will someday, but for now I am being very well served by an increasingly simple approach to Dhamma, with conceptual objects of meditation and reflection in daily life. > > Here's my guess: defilements/akusala can be the object of panna, > conditioning more panna in the future. It's classic Abhidhamma, > isn't it? > > I'm open to all other interpretations ... Yes, I'm sure you're right. But I do not aspire to this kind of panna because I know it is not there for me. I will not be the kind of person who, for example, eyes a sexy woman and believes that because there is awareness of the characteristic of the reality of lust, of the lobha cetasika, that there is wholesome development of some kind happening. Wishful thinking by a fellow who is too fond of thinking about panna, if it were me. Thinking about panna while accumulating more and more kilesa. Any busy householder who feels protected by panna is in grave danger of going very wrong. Andrew, I hardly remember where we were or are in this discussion! Sorry for being so lazy. I just want to carry on doing good things to help people and avoid doing bad things that harm people. I want to be less flammable in this world that is burning with greed, hatred and delusion. I guess I say that again and again but it's all that interests me these days. The paramattha dhammas that are invovled (and I have no doubt that there is noting but paramattha dhammas involved) are of no interest to me these days. I think they will be again, someday. Recalling, reflecting that there is nothing but dhammas at work is helpful, helps in washing away remorse, irritation, hatred, lust. Temporarily, as the mindstream undergoes rudimentary cleansing, superficial cleansing - of the kind that can help provide conditions for the deep cleansing. Something like that. I also appreciate this sutta and others that make it clear that people have different tendencies. I've been told here that it is not wise to compare oneself to others but the Buddha again and again pushes us toward such comparisons. I guess I'll drop this now, Andrew. Sorry not to be able to go deeper into this sutta with you, especially since I'm the one who brought it up! :) Metta, Phil > #72716 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon May 28, 2007 4:09 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Jhana as necessity to enlightenment... rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi James, > Tiika, subcommentary, to the entire Visuddhimagga. > I just took the short quotes because they were short quotes. That is > all. > I translated a Pali part for Rob's forum about dry insight, nothing > to do with pleasure. It was stated that when developing insight > without samatha, there is more tiredness (kilamati). I cannot find > the text now. Perhaps Rob K can help out! > > +++++++++ Dear Nina, In the commentary to Aane~njasappaaya sutta (MN 106) it is said: Uparipannasa-Atthakatha 4.67 [i QUOTE ]Samaapatti.m taava pada.t.thaana.m katvaa vipassana.m va.d.dhetvaa [/i] When he has made the attainment of jhana the proximate cause of insight and increased vipassana, arahatta.m ga.nhanto bhikkhu naava.m vaa u.lumpaadiini vaa nissaaya and he attains arahatship, the bhikkhu who is as it were depending on a boat or a raft mahogha.m taritvaa paara.m gacchanto viya na kilamati. crosses the great flood and reaches the other side, is not tired. ========================== The above is the path of the great ones of the past who attained arahatship using mundane jhana as basis. These are the highest type of arahant. Below is the path of the Sukkhavipassaka- the very lowest type of arahant. [ QUOTE i]Sukkhavipassako pana paki.n.nakasa'nkhaare sammasitvaa arahatta.m ga.nhanto[/i] But the person with dry insight who has thoroughly known the particular conditioned dhamma and attains arahatship, baahubalena sota.m chinditvaa paara.m gacchanto viya kilamati. after he has as it were cut the stream with much force and reaches the other side, is tired. ___ Bhikkhu Bodhi gives some other notes from the commentary of this sutta (M.106): In the sutta Ananda asks the Buddha, "a bhikkhu is practising thus: 'If it were not it would be mine; it will not be and it will not be mine. What exists, what has come to be, that I am abandonding. Thus he attains equanimity. Venerable sir , does such a one attain Nibbana?."......The note by bodhi (1021)from Majjima attahakatha, "Anandas question is intended to elicit from the Buddha an account of the practice of the dry-insight meditator (sukkhavipassaka) who attains arahatship without depending on a jhanic attainment." Sutta "This is deathless, namely the liberation of mind through not clinging" note 1023 Majjhima atthakatha says that the arahstship of the dry- insight meditator (sukkhavipassaka) is intended."" ++++++++ Robert #72717 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon May 28, 2007 4:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Pseudo Dhamma: accepting the Thervada Commentaries jonoabb Hi Herman (Rob K & all), Herman Hofman wrote: > > <...> > Dear moderators, > > RobK said I was ignorant. > > ..... Contrary to what some some may think, we can read(!), and we do take careful note of the exchanges. As you know, we prefer to deal with moderator matters off-list. Let's keep it pleasant guys! Jon #72718 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 28, 2007 1:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Dhammas" and Impermanence (The Abhidhammikas perspective?) upasaka_howard Hi, Larry (and RobK & Herman, in an aside and postscript) - In a message dated 5/28/07 2:30:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > H: "my point is not a matter of making distinctions, but of grasping > "things"as unities/individuals. I say there there is no basis for that > independent of thought/convention." > > L: I agree that one dhamma doesn't make an experience so there is no way > to know if there is such a singular thing. So if we can't know one, we > can't know 17, and we can't divide one into 3, a beginning, middle, and > end. These are conventions. But I would say we can experience every > element of the citta process (except maybe the bhavanga cittas) on a > larger, more fluid scale. And I think we can experience the beginning, > middle, and end of an experience, as well as the characteristic, > function, and conditioning force of that experience. And we can > experience one kind of experience after another, one at a time, not hot > and hard at the same time, not feeling and desire at the same time. It > is said that consciousness arises with several cetasikas and with > repeated investigation I think we can detect universal and occasional > types of cetasika experience. The purpose of this is to break down a > vague solid whole into a fluid composite of different experiences that > is empty of ignorance, so to speak. We certainly don't have to > experience it all, but if we want to know what the 'all' is, either on a > conceptual or experiential level, there it is. > > Larry > > =========================== I also think that whatever is actually the case we have the potential for seeing as it actually is. Much of what there is said to be I am able to see, but much more not. The fundamental points of Dhamma have been becoming increasingly clear to me. (We all know what they are, and they have nothing to do with rebirth, petas and devas and 80,000-year lifespans, RobK and Herman, though I do happen to believe, not as an article of faith however, that the various realms of experience are not fiction.) In any case, the marrow of the Dhamma, the "heartwood of the bodhi tree" as that "heretic" Buddhadasa calls it ;-), has been becoming increasingly clear to me, and I have never been more sure of it's correctness and most especially of the correctness of the Buddha's practice teachings. I have great confidence that continuing with Dhamma practice will further cultivate the mind and enable liberating insight to eventually reach critical mass. But, somehow, it isn't the distant goal that beckons me on. The Dhamma practice is just what I do. Right here and now - it is what goes on, and it is good. No, it is wonderful. :-) With metta, Howard P.S. Robert, have you seen Toni Packer's most recent book, The Silent Question? There's much in it I like, especially in the 3rd and 4th chapters so far. #72719 From: "pannabahulo" Date: Mon May 28, 2007 5:21 am Subject: just in case you didn't get my mail pannabahulo Dear Sukin, I don't know if you got my letter or not so I'm sending this in case. I'm sorry to have jumped so quickly because I can see you didn't mean to say things in the wrong way. But I had to act swiftly so that others might not think that a monk was alone with Ajan Suchin. Monks alone with women is fire and gasoline stuff; I was just being a city fire-fighter for a day. I will be down for the 3 days that Sarah and Jonathan are in Bangkok. I hope to see you then. With metta and blessings, Phra Alan (Pannabahulo bhikkhu) #72720 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon May 28, 2007 5:41 am Subject: Re: Sammaadi.t.thi study corner scottduncan2 Dear All, 9. "Saying, 'Good, friend,' the bhikkhus delighted and rejoiced in the venerable Saariputta's words. Then they asked him a further question: "But, friend, might there be another way in which a noble disciple is one of right view...and has arrived at this true Dhamma?' - 'There might be, friends. 10 "When, friends, a noble disciple understands nutriment, the origin of nutriment, the cessation of nutriment, and the way leading to the cessation of nutriment, in that way he is one of right view...and has arrived at this true Dhamma. 11. "And what is nutriment, what is the origin of nutriment, what is the cessation of nutriment, what is the way leading to the cessation of nutriment? There are four kinds of nutriment for the maintenance of beings that already have come to be and for the support of those seeking new existence. What four? They are: physical food as nutriment, gross or subtle; contact as the second; mental volition as the third; and consciousness as the fourth.* With the arising of craving there is the arising of nutriment. With the cessation of craving there is the cessation of nutriment. The way leading to the cessation of nutriment is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. 12. "When a noble disciple has thus understood nutriment, the origin of nutriment, the cessation of nutriment, and the way leading to the cessation of nutriment, he entirely abandons the underlying tendency to greed, he abolishes the underlying tendency to aversion, he extirpates the underlying tendency to the view and conceit 'I am,' and by abandoning ignorance and arousing true knowledge he here and now makes an end of suffering. In that way too a noble disciple is one of right view, whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence in the Dhamma, and has arrived at this true Dhamma." Saadhaavusoti kho te bhikkhuu aayasmato saariputtassa bhaasita.m abhinanditvaa anumoditvaa aayasmanta.m saariputta.m uttari.m pa~nha.m aapucchu.m: siyaa panaavuso a~n~nopi pariyaayo yathaa ariyasaavako sammaadi.t.thi hoti, ujugataassa di.t.thi, dhamme aveccappasaadena samannaagato 'aagato ima.m saddhammanti?. Siyaa aavuso yato kho aavuso ariyasaavako aahaara~nca pajaanaati, aahaarasamudaya~nca pajaanaati, aahaaranirodha~nca pajaanaati, aahaaranirodhagaamini.m pa.tipada~nca pajaanaati. Ettaavataapi kho aavuso ariyasaavako sammaadi.t.thi hoti, ujugataassa di.t.thi, dhamme aveccappasaadena samannaagato aagato ima.m saddhammanti. Katamo panaavuso aahaaro ? Katamo aahaarasamudayo ? Katamo aahaaranirodho ? Katamo aahaara nirodhagaaminii pa.tipadaati ?. Cattaaro me aavuso aahaaraa bhuutaana.m vaa sattaana.m .thitiyaa sambhavesiina.m vaa anuggahaaya. Katame cattaaro ? Kabali"nkaaro aahaaro o.laariko vaa sukhumo vaa, phasso dutiyo, manosa~ncetanaa tatiyaa, vi~n~naa.na.m catuttha.m. Ta.nhaasamudayaa aahaarasamudayo, ta.nhaanirodhaa aahaaranirodho, ayameva ariyo a.t.tha"ngiko maggo aahaara nirodhagaaminii pa.tipadaa. Seyyathiida.m: sammaadi.t.thi sammaasa"nkappo sammaavaacaa sammaakammanto sammaaaajiivo sammaavaayaamo sammaasati sammaasamaadhi. Yato kho aavuso ariyasaavako eva.m aahaara.m pajaanaati, eva.m aahaarasamudaya.m pajaanaati, eva.m aahaaranirodha.m pajaanaati, eva.m aahaaranirodhagaamini.m pa.tipada.m pajaanaati, so sababaso raagaanusaya.m pahaaya pa.tighaanusaya.m pa.tivinodetvaa asmiiti di.t.thimaanaanusaya.m samuuhanitvaa avijja.m pahaaya vijja.m uppaadetvaa di.t.theva dhamme dukkhassanta"nkaro hoti. Ettaavataapi kho aavuso ariyasaavako sammaadi.t.thi hoti. Ujugataassa di.t.thi. Dhamme aveccappasaadena samannaagato aagato ima.m saddhammanti. *Note 120. "Here I take sambhavesinam to be an instance of the (rare) future active participle in -esin...The commentators, whom I have followed in the first edition of this work, take -esin as an adjectival formation from esati, to seek, and thus explain the phrase as meaning 'those who are seeking a new existence'...Nutriment (ahaara) is to be understood here in a broad sense as a prominent condition fro the individual life-continuity. Physical food (kabalinkaara) is an important condition for the physical body, contact for feeling, mental volition for consciousness, and consciousness for mentality-materiality, the psychophysical organism in its totality. Craving is called the origin of nutriment in that craving of the previous existence is the source of the present individuality with its dependence upon and continual consumption of the four nutriments in this existence. For an annotated compilation of the canonical and commentarial texts on the nutriments, see Nyanaponika Thera, The Four Nutriments of Life." Sincerely, Scott. #72721 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon May 28, 2007 6:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Dhammas" and Impermanence (The Abhidhammikas perspective?) nilovg Hi Howard, Just a little remark, if you do not mind, Howard. I do not want to argue your post at all. Perhaps I read something from the below that you intended differently, my apologies beforehand if this is so. I was just so busy this morning with my Vis. study on rebirth and want to share what I found. I think you will also agree that rebirth is fundamental, it is the result of a cause. The Buddha showed cause and effect, kamma and vipaka. But it is very difficult to fathom kamma and vipaka, and this is so clearly explained with all the examples in our Visuddhimagga study of Ch XVII. They are very detailed, but really help to have more understanding of cause and effect. As to Petas, here is a text:< We read in the Diigha Nikaaya (Sangiiti sutta, the Recital, the fours, no 38) about four ways of generation: The Co. states that birth from moisture can be birth from rotting fish. But I gather the matter of petas is not such a difficult point for you. It is helpful for us to know about them, they can remind us of the dukkha of samsara and exhort us to develop the wisdom leading out of it. The devas and their lifespans are given in detail in the Book of Analysis, p. 540, f.f. Again: cause and effect. Nina. Op 28-mei-2007, om 14:05 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > The fundamental points of Dhamma have been becoming > increasingly clear to me. (We all know what they are, and they have > nothing to do > with rebirth, petas and devas and 80,000-year lifespans, #72722 From: "sukinder" Date: Tue May 29, 2007 2:18 am Subject: RE: My Meditation Re: Correction Re: A Bit More Re: [dsg] jhaana and superpow... sukinderpal Hi Howard and All, I can take the below to mean that I should not bother continuing this discussion. Or I can take it to mean that I can fire away without fear of hurting you or anyone else. I choose the latter. An example of how feelings condition cetana for a preferred interpretation..?;-) But seriously though, I think everyone on DSG is sincere and express themselves as they see / understand things. I admit to having very little metta arise in a day, but I can't wait for more to arise before writing an email. So I'll have to depend on any metta on your part and that of others' to compensate for some of what is lacking in me. :-) With this I go ahead with more questions and comments: ========================= > I hope you don't see this as me finding fault with your practice. ---------------------------------------- Howard: LOLOL! Why would I take seriously criticism of a my practice by a non-practitioner? Suk: First of all, who / what according to you is a practitioner / non-practitioner? Do you consider if asked, "Who amongst you meditates regularly?" those that raise their hands to be practitioners and the rest not? I have noted an unwillingness to question the validity of each other's methods as long as there is agreement that one *does* meditate and is a Buddhist. It seems almost as if each school of 'practitioners' are insecure about their own position and therefore agree not to question one another, else they themselves are put into an uncomfortable position. As far as experiences go, no one can ever adequately describe to another person what it feels like to say, experience Earl Grey tea. Yet when two people who are talking about it, they can agree that it is good or bad etc. This is however allowable, as we all have to go by agreed upon conventions where 'personal experience' rather than 'understanding' is taken into consideration. When it comes to the study of Dhamma however, the development of wisdom / insight being the goal, and characteristic of Dhammas is what is "known" in order to be detached, such kind of vagueness is not to be overlooked. And by precision I do not mean being able to identify or describe exactly, but rather being inclined to "understand" better. Meanwhile there is also some recognition of the notoriety of ignorance, one therefore feels disinclined to come to a definite conclusion about one's own experience and instead patiently and courageously turn to the Dhamma. This I feel is what we all should be doing here. You Howard, on the one hand often demand precision on the part of Abhidhammikas to make clear their use of certain terms and ideas, yet are willing to be quite vague when it comes to your own beliefs about practice. From one perspective I feel this is understandable, since you and most mediators appear to approach the Dhamma from the standpoint of 'experiencing' rather then development of 'understanding'. When still relatively new to Abhidhamma and DSG, one day I read Jon comment to the effect that when in doubt about something, he turns to the Tipitaka for guidance. It took me a little while to appreciate the significance and implication of this, but finally I agreed with it. Since then, I have learnt to recognize and hence not attach too much importance so called 'experiences'. I think Jon's statement was a result of a level of understanding which realizes in more or less the same way, this fact of the vipallasas arising over and over again. At the same time there is greater confidence in the Dhamma and this can't be had without some level of direct understanding / practice imo. Such attitude I don't see in any meditator, in fact just the opposite in most cases. There is leaning toward 'attachment' rather, to one's experience (*during meditation*) more and more, and less interest in what the Tipitaka says. When they *do* study the Texts, it is done with an eye to foster their own preconceived ideas or else to satisfy any inherent curiosity. So who really knows his own mind and who really practices? You know where my vote is. ;-) =================================== > Sukin: I think you realize that your interpretation of your own > experience does not match with the Abhidhamma description of the way > things are. ------------------------------------- Howard: Ahh! I am utterly bereft. It doesn't fall far from the sutta description. Suk: You mean the sutta description that you read into? Maybe I should have said Dhamma instead of Abhidhamma? :-) =================== Howard: But, in any case, I described for you how my meditating works. The description is based on that reality. Suk: You mean "that perception" instead of "that reality"? =========================== Howard: I presumed you wanted to hear the truth. Suk: This may sound arrogant, but I was hoping that my comments might be a proximate cause for you to reconsider that truth. ================== > Particularly object condition and all that. I'll leave out this > > and the question about how mindfulness of concept can lead to > satipatthana. I'll also not go into the fact of there being bhavanga and > other mind door processes in between any two sense door experience. ---------------------------------- Howard: Oh, boy! I hold myself in check from saying more. Suk: What *can* you say? (Trying to be as dramatic as you here ;-)) ============================== Howard: The states of calm I typically enter into are not absorptive jhanas, though they do match sutta descriptions of jhana. Hindrances are mollified, but not fully removed. At times, though, I do enter into classical absorptive jhana, and then there are no hindrances in evidence at all. I do take your point. If hindrances do not arise at all, they are not available for inspection. Of course, even the tradition of absorptive jhanas allows for inspection upon exit from such a jhana with a mind having been made a fit instrument by the jhana. Suk: Your comment here again appears to go against the Abhidhamma perspective of there being one citta experiencing one object at a time. You have yet to answer me about the relationship between 'ease' and 'clarity' and perhaps then the matter will be clear to me? ========================= > Sukin: What do you mean, the "increase" in which way and in relation > to what? Do you mean realities are observed with ever greater > precision? --------------------------------- Howard: Sukin, I cannot and will not try to explain the sound of music to a person who never listens to music. I can't do it, no more than I could describe red and green to a red/green color-blind person. To you this is all theory. Suk: As I implied earlier in this post, I do not ask to be told about any 'description of experience', I look more to any "understanding" that may arise, and to this end, I am happy if I see a willingness to discuss in light of what the Buddha taught in the Tipitaka. The above seem to me to be an instance of hiding behind vagueness. And while were at it, at this point allow me to comment on one matter more. You mentioned a few times, the fact of being *told* by your mediation teacher, Leigh Brasington, that you experienced the 1st and 5th jhanas. First, it would have been impossible to correctly describe such a state especially given that you were unsure. Secondly, he not being enlightened, could not have known exactly. Third, if indeed you experienced jhana even if it be the 1st level, you *would have known* without doubt, since this implies a very high level of panna. This panna *KNOWS*! To me this experience of yours was a case of the blind leading the blind. And yes, this is theory on my part, but not just. ;-) ============================== > Sukin: What is the significance of this? It is at this stage surely, not a > matter of experiencing nama or rupa i.e. satipatthana. Why the need to > go along with this? ------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't know what you want. It is natural to do - it requires no effort. It happens unless I stop it. And it goes along with what the Buddha taught. Suk: My point was that since you are presumably practicing to 'know' one reality at a time, yet you go along with this thought about "sensations suffusing the whole body" as if this is in any way related to the development of that kind of wisdom. ========================= > Howard: > Sometimes at this point, there is no longer any need to *apply* > attention at all. Instead, the meditating seems to "coast", to proceed > effortlessly on its own.>> > > Sukin: :-/ What does this mean? ------------------------------------ Howard: How can I tell you? It seems to match a cessation in vitakka and vicara. Now that I speak your lingo, perhaps you get it. But unless you experience it for yourself, you really cannot get it. Suk: I don't care what term is used; in fact when it comes to describing "thinking", being unsure about the mechanism, I myself refer to the citta and not any particular cetasikas. My questioning the above was in relation to your distinction between deliberateness and without. You talk as if there are some states controllable and some not. Also you appear to conclude that one *lead* to the other. Moreover you identified 'effort' in the one as if the other did not exhibit any characteristic of effort. All this seemed to go against the Buddha's teachings on conditionality on more than one level. ================= > Sukin: According to which Sutta / Suttas? Not the Satipatthana Sutta > surely? ------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, indeed! In any case, as far as I'm concerned, all your reading, from now till "kingdom come", will, without actual practice - without getting your feet wet and your hands dirty, amount to very little. No "kingdom" WILL come. Suk: If getting wet means 'formal meditation' or striving for jhana, then I'm happy to remain 'dry' or "sukha". :-)) Metta, Sukinder #72723 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon May 28, 2007 7:36 am Subject: Conditions, Ch 2, no 1. nilovg Dear friends, Chapter 2 Object-Condition (Årammana-Paccaya) Each citta which arises experiences an object and the accompanying cetasikas also experience that object. The object conditions citta and the accompanying cetasikas because they experience that object. Thus, the object is in this case the conditioning factor, paccaya dhamma, and the citta and cetasikas are the conditioned realities, paccayupanna dhammas. Rúpa is not conditioned by way of object since rúpa does not experience any object. We read in the "Patthåna" (Analytical Exposition of Conditions, 2): Visible object-base is related to eye-consciousness element and its associated states by object-condition. Visible object is also related to the other cittas of the eye-door process by way of object-condition. It is the same with sound and the other objects which can be experienced through the sense-doors and through the mind-door. They are related to the cittas concerned by way of object-condition. Everything can be an object of experience. All conditioned nåmas and rúpas, present, past or future, the unconditioned dhamma which is nibbåna and also concepts which are not real in the ultimate sense can be object. Rúpa can be experienced through sense-door and through mind-door and nåma, nibbåna and concepts can be experienced only through mind-door. Visible object which is experienced by seeing has to arise before seeing arises and when seeing experiences it it has not fallen away yet, since rúpa lasts as long as seventeen moments of citta. When visible object is experienced through the mind-door it has fallen away [1]. Also seeing can be object. Citta can through the mind-door experience another citta such as seeing which has just fallen away. It must have fallen away since only one citta at a time can arise. There may be, for example, a citta with understanding (pa~n~nå) which realizes seeing as a conditioned nåma which is impermanent. For the experiencing of an object there must be contact, phassa. Phassa is a cetasika arising together with each citta and it "contacts" the object so that citta can cognize it. Contact is nåma, it is different from what we mean in conventional language by physical contact. There is contact through the eyes, the ears, the nose, the tongue, the bodysense and the mind. Phassa is an essential condition for citta to experience an object. The rúpa which is colour can only be object when phassa contacts it. It is the same with sound and the other objects. ------------- 1. A sense-door process of cittas is followed by a mind-door process of cittas which experience the same sense object as the preceding sense-door process, but, since rúpa cannot last longer than seventeen moments of citta, that sense object has just fallen away when it is experienced by the cittas of the mind-door process which follows upon the sense-door process. Later on other mind-door processes of cittas can arise which experience concepts. See Appendix 1. ******** Nina. #72724 From: "sukinder" Date: Tue May 29, 2007 2:33 am Subject: RE: [dsg] just in case you didn't get my mail sukinderpal This is what I sent to you earlier, but apparently you did not receive it. Dear Ven. Pannabahulo, I was hoping that you would write to clarify the matter and you did. So thank you very much. I was clumsy though my intention was only to state that you had a one-to-one discussion and not so much 'being alone'. I know that the Vinaya is well worth reading and would be doing so were it not for my ADD condition. One reason I like reading posts on DSG is that letters are generally short (except my own ;-)) and therefore do not demand that much attention, unlike a book. I am far from being the academic type and I think that you might be mistaken to think that the Abhidhamma is so. I have always been attracted to the 'practical' side of any subject and I think the way A. Sujin teaches Abhidhamma, it is the most practical Dhamma teaching I've ever come across. I understand that from someone who has yet to be initiated to the particular perspective, it seems like abstract theory, but it isn't! I guess it all depends on the attitude of the listener? BTW, I have often heard A. Sujin praise the Vinaya saying that we as laypersons can benefit much from reading it. Thanks for writing Venerable Sir. Look forward to meeting you in July? With respect, Sukin #72725 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon May 28, 2007 7:43 am Subject: Perfections N, no 37 nilovg Dear friends, During this pilgrimage I appreciated the many acts of generosity and kindness of my friends. When we were in Delhi we went to the Thai Embassy because one of our friends who had been robbed of her passport needed a new one. Although it was Sunday morning, the Thai Ambassador and his wife received us all with great kindness and hospitality. When we boarded the bus again the Ambassador came into the bus to see us off and he had a kind word and a smile for everyone. His genuine kindness made me realize how much kindness can mean to other people who are traveling and who may be in need of help. Even a small gesture of kindness can give great comfort to others and when there is an opportunity to do something for someone else it is not to be overlooked. When we notice that we have hardly any mettã we should consider how we would like to be treated by others, and that will remind us to show more kindness to others. I discussed with Khun Sujin the kindness of the Thai Ambassador and she said that kings in the Buddha's time who were "men of the people" could become sotäpanna. We should be confident that it is possible to develop right understanding also when one leads a busy social life or one has to attend to the needs of many people. Are there not nãma and rupa all the time, appearing through the six doors? Also while one is sitting at a dinner party are there not sound, hearing, thinking, visible object, lobha or dosa? When boredom or aversion appears it is possible to get to know that characteristic. Even if there is only coarse awareness and not yet precise knowledge, there can be a beginning of right understanding. If there are areas of our daily life which are not object of awareness, it shows that there has not been enough development of satipatthana. The enlightenment of the Buddha and of his disciples proves that it is possible to develop right understanding in daily life. Mettã can be developed together with satipatthãna, during our work, when we have to deal with people. When one works in an office and the telephone rings is there aversion about the disturbance, or can there be mindfulness of nama and rüpa? There is sound, there is hearing, there is hardness or thinking and these characteristics present themselves one at a time, at different moments. There is thinking of a person when the telephone rings, one wonders who is ringing now. In the absolute sense there is no person, only nãma and rupa which do not stay. However, thinking of people is conditioned, thinking is a reality and it has a characteristic which can be known when it appears. We may think about someone else with aversion, with attachment or with mettå. Mettå is a conditioned reality and when it appears it can be studied with mindfulness, so that it can be known as not self, not 'my mettã . Even the telephone can become a reminder to develop mettã together with satipatthana. If we are sincere in the development of the wisdom which can eradicate the clinging to self, there will be more conditions for thinking of other people's happiness instead of thinking of our own welfare. ******* Nina. #72726 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon May 28, 2007 8:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Pseudo Dhamma: accepting the Thervada Commentaries buddhatrue Hi Herman (and Rob K), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > Dear moderators, > > RobK said I was ignorant. > > > Herman > LOL! You must be joking!! So Rob K said you were ignorant- so what? You are ignorant! So is Rob K, and the moderators, and everyone else on this list! We are all ignorant! What higher authority are you going to appeal to?? ;-)) Buddhists accept that they are ignorant, because it is the opposite of nibbana (being awake). We are all mired in ignorance. Rather than rejecting the label of "ignorant", we should embarce it with humility and dignity. As the Buddha said, it is only the truly foolish who don't know how foolish they are. Of course, Herman, Rob K. doesn't appreciate the great doubt that you have. That is no matter. There is a saying in Zen that the greatest doubt leads to the greatest wisdom. I happen to believe in that saying. Herman, you have great doubt, but that could lead to great wisdom. Additionally, I am glad that Rob K. didn't honor that silly vow he made in the past! I believe that his posts of late have been helpful to the group and very compassionate of others. Of course, Herman, when pushed into a corner, no one is very pleasant. We are all misunderstood: "Booh hooh, poor me!!" Whatever...it's boring. Move on to the important things. The Dhamma is the number one important thing. So, that's my two cents worth. Take it or leave it. In my estimation, neither one of you are worth a sh*t!! ;-)). Metta, James #72727 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon May 28, 2007 8:39 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Jhana as necessity to enlightenment... buddhatrue Hi Nina, Thank you for your extensive efforts to reply to my post. I really hope that you are not damaging your health in the process! Anyway, I am going to give some more extensive research to this issue, including the Abhidhamma and the article by B. Bodhi surrounding this issue, before I respond. Please be patient and thank you again. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi James, > Tiika, subcommentary, to the entire Visuddhimagga. > I just took the short quotes because they were short quotes. That is > all. > I translated a Pali part for Rob's forum about dry insight, nothing > to do with pleasure. It was stated that when developing insight > without samatha, there is more tiredness (kilamati). I cannot find > the text now. Perhaps Rob K can help out! Metta, James #72728 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 28, 2007 4:56 am Subject: Clarification/Nina Re: [dsg] "Dhammas" and Impermanence ... upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 5/28/07 9:46:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > Just a little remark, if you do not mind, Howard. I do not want to > argue your post at all. > Perhaps I read something from the below that you intended > differently, my apologies beforehand if this is so. I was just so > busy this morning with my Vis. study on rebirth and want to share > what I found. > > I think you will also agree that rebirth is fundamental, it is the > result of a cause. > -------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree that rebirth is fundamental. If there were no rebirth the Dhamma would be pointless. As I have said, I believe in the existence of the various realms of experience, and that implies, of course, that I believe in rebirth. In any case, I certainly do believe in it. (I even have had vague memories, but I don't want to get into that.) ------------------------------------------ The Buddha showed cause and effect, kamma and > > vipaka. But it is very difficult to fathom kamma and vipaka, and this > is so clearly explained with all the examples in our Visuddhimagga > study of Ch XVII. They are very detailed, but really help to have > more understanding of cause and effect. > As to Petas, here is a text:< We read in the Diigha Nikaaya (Sangiiti > sutta, the Recital, the fours, no 38) about four ways of generation: > matrix [N: by way of the womb], the matrix of moist places, and > rebirth as a deva.> > The Co. states that birth from moisture can be birth from rotting fish. > But I gather the matter of petas is not such a difficult point for > you. It is helpful for us to know about them, they can remind us of > the dukkha of samsara and exhort us to develop the wisdom leading out > of it. ------------------------------------------- Howard: I do believe in petas, but I don't consider that particular matter of much importance, certainly not to the issue of dukkha and its end, which is what the Buddha has said his Dhamma is about. -------------------------------------------- > The devas and their lifespans are given in detail in the Book of > Analysis, p. 540, f.f. Again: cause and effect. ------------------------------------------ Howard: I don't find aeon-long lifespans for devas problematical at all, simply irrelevant to the Dhamma. In any case, it was 80,000-year lifespans for humans that I have no belief in. But, frankly, belief and $8.00 won't even get one in to see a film these days in the U.S.! What is important is seeing what can be seen, not believing. As far as I'm concerned, we can and do believe things, but it is an atta-based deficiency to cling to our beliefs rather than holding them lightly. ------------------------------------------- > Nina. > Op 28-mei-2007, om 14:05 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > > >The fundamental points of Dhamma have been becoming > >increasingly clear to me. (We all know what they are, and they have > >nothing to do > >with rebirth, petas and devas and 80,000-year lifespans, > > ---------------------------------------- Howard: I hope that what I said above clarifies this quoted material for you, Nina. I did overstate, though, when I included 'rebirth' in that clause. (I slipped up on that probably because I've been so over-posting recently!!) For me, rebirth is even more than a fundamental point of the Dhamma. For me it is a sine qua non. ===================== With metta, Howard #72729 From: Dieter Möller Date: Mon May 28, 2007 9:46 am Subject: Psudeo Dhamma: accepting the Thervada Commentaries moellerdieter Hí Robert and friends , I stumbled upon your quotation of 'Anguttara Nikaya III.126 Gotamaka-cetiya `Monks, I proclaim Dhamma with full comprehension, not without full comprehension. I proclaim Dhamma with causal connexions, not without. I proclaim Dhamma accompanied by wonders, not without wonders. Since I do so there is good reason why I should admonish, there is good reason why I should instruct. Well may ye be glad. Well may ye be satisfied. Well may ye be pleased at the thought: Perfectly enlightened is the Exalted One. Well taught by the Exalted One is Dhamma. Well conducted is the Order.' So spake the Exalted One. And while this explanation was being given, the ten-thousand fold world-system quaked."" Comparing with a translation from a Srí Lanka: 126. At one time the Blessed One was living in the Gotamaka monument in Vesali and addressed the bhikkhus: Bhikkhus, I teach thoroughly knowing, with reasons, not without, with wonders, not without. Since I teach you thoroughly knowing, with reasons and wonders, there is a cause that I should advise you and instruct you. Bhikkhus, you should be pleased and happy. The Blessed One is rightfully enlightened.The Teaching of the Blessed One is well declared and the Community of bhikkhus have come to the right path. The Blessed One said this and those bhikkhus were pleased. When this was said, the thousandfold world element shook Looking into my German translation by Nyanatiloka.. instead of wonder , he used 'convincing' for 'sappatihariyam', refering to commentary: removing resistance, refuting . Acc. to N. the meaning of patihariya in a sense of wonder was cited by a subcommentary, concerning the wonder of instruction. Interesting as well Nyantiloka's reference to the commentary about the ' quake', describing the audience as some arrogant disciples of brahmistic background who did not agree with a teaching ( Mulapariyaya Sutta) proclaimed to them before and this time by their understanding reached holiness .. a shocking event .. ( not necessarily measured by the 'Richter scale' ;-) with Metta Dieter #72730 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 28, 2007 6:46 am Subject: Re: My Meditation Re: Correction Re: A Bit More Re: [dsg] jhaana and superpow... upasaka_howard Hi, Sukin - In a message dated 5/28/07 10:28:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sukinder@... writes: > Hi Howard and All, > > > > I can take the below to mean that I should not bother continuing this > discussion. Or I can take it to mean that I can fire away without fear of > hurting you or anyone else. I choose the latter. An example of how feelings > condition cetana for a preferred interpretation..?;-) > > But seriously though, I think everyone on DSG is sincere and express > themselves as they see / understand things. I admit to having very little > metta arise in a day, but I can't wait for more to arise before writing an > email. So I'll have to depend on any metta on your part and that of others' > to compensate for some of what is lacking in me. :-) ----------------------------------------- Howard: So, are you saying up-front that you are writing me without good will, or at least not much? Is that likely to encourage my participation? :-) ----------------------------------------- > > > > With this I go ahead with more questions and comments: > > ========================= > > >I hope you don't see this as me finding fault with your practice. > ---------------------------------------- > Howard: > LOLOL! Why would I take seriously criticism of a my practice by a > non-practitioner? > > > > Suk: First of all, who / what according to you is a practitioner / > non-practitioner? Do you consider if asked, "Who amongst you meditates > regularly?" those that raise their hands to be practitioners and the rest > not? > ------------------------------- Howard: Sukin, it is exactly meditation that you asked me about. That is what we've been discussing. In any case, I certainly do not seek a meditation critique from a non-meditator. Is that more clear? -------------------------------- I have noted an unwillingness to question the validity of each other's> > methods as long as there is agreement that one *does* meditate and is a > Buddhist. > ------------------------------- Howard: I frequently discuss meditaion issues with other meditators, though only a little on DSG. Do you find that a surprise? ------------------------------ It seems almost as if each school of 'practitioners' are insecure> > about their own position and therefore agree not to question one another, > else they themselves are put into an uncomfortable position. --------------------------------- Howard: Sukin, do you enjoy looking to criticize others? Is that *your* practice. I find it annoying. I think you would as well. Jesus once said to look not at the sliver in someone else's eye, but to look first to remove the stake in one's own. Not bad advice, IMO. -------------------------------------- > > > > As far as experiences go, no one can ever adequately describe to another > person what it feels like to say, experience Earl Grey tea. Yet when two > people who are talking about it, they can agree that it is good or bad etc. --------------------------------------- Howard: A conversation between a sighted person and an unsighted person about shades of blue would be brief and not very informative. ---------------------------------------- > This is however allowable, as we all have to go by agreed upon conventions > where 'personal experience' rather than 'understanding' is taken into > consideration. When it comes to the study of Dhamma however, the development > of wisdom / insight being the goal, and characteristic of Dhammas is what is > "known" in order to be detached, such kind of vagueness is not to be > overlooked. --------------------------------------- Howard: Sorry - I don't know what you're saying. -------------------------------------- > > And by precision I do not mean being able to identify or describe exactly, > but rather being inclined to "understand" better. Meanwhile there is also > some recognition of the notoriety of ignorance, one therefore feels > disinclined to come to a definite conclusion about one's own experience and > instead patiently and courageously turn to the Dhamma. This I feel is what > we all should be doing here. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Well, I was simply describing my meditation to you as best I could, in response to your request. ----------------------------------------- > > You Howard, on the one hand often demand precision on the part of > Abhidhammikas to make clear their use of certain terms and ideas, yet are > willing to be quite vague when it comes to your own beliefs about practice. ------------------------------------------ Howard: I was vague??? I haven't a clue then of what you want. I did the best I could. Do you find the Buddha's descriptions of meditation vague? ------------------------------------------ > From one perspective I feel this is understandable, since you and most > mediators appear to approach the Dhamma from the standpoint of > 'experiencing' rather then development of 'understanding'. -------------------------------------- Howard: Shall I now say that your notion of understanding is that of book learning? I'm really tiring of your criticisms. I'm not keen to continue like this. I do find your approach lacking in friendliness. Not pleasant, Sukin. ------------------------------------- > > > > When still relatively new to Abhidhamma and DSG, one day I read Jon comment > to the effect that when in doubt about something, he turns to the Tipitaka > for guidance. It took me a little while to appreciate the significance and > implication of this, but finally I agreed with it. > -------------------------------------- Howard: I study the suttas all the time. I also practice regularly. (If you want to know what I mean by that, read the suttas please.) --------------------------------------- Since then, I have learnt> > to recognize and hence not attach too much importance so called > 'experiences'. I think Jon's statement was a result of a level of > understanding which realizes in more or less the same way, this fact of the > vipallasas arising over and over again. At the same time there is greater > confidence in the Dhamma and this can't be had without some level of direct > understanding / practice imo. -------------------------------------- Howard: Whatever approach you find useful you should follow. Studying the Buddha's teachings is always good! --------------------------------------- > > Such attitude I don't see in any meditator, in fact just the opposite in > most cases. > -------------------------------------- Howard: I guess you don't know many, then, or not very well. Hurling more slings and arrows, Sukin? Very tiresome!!! -------------------------------- There is leaning toward 'attachment' rather, to one's experience> > (*during meditation*) more and more, and less interest in what the Tipitaka > says. When they *do* study the Texts, it is done with an eye to foster their > own preconceived ideas or else to satisfy any inherent curiosity. --------------------------------- Howard: SO unlike the non-meditators I've come across! You know: Free of ego, and never clinging to view. Practically defilement-free.WHAT an examplary bunch! If only we could ALL be like those simply great folks! Man, Sukin! So full of opinions and conceit! Simply unbelievable. Where is the humility, Sukin? Where is accepting the possibility of being in error? Clearly, it's well hidden. ----------------------------------- > > So who really knows his own mind and who really practices? You know where my > vote is. ;-) > > =================================== > > >Sukin: I think you realize that your interpretation of your own > >experience does not match with the Abhidhamma description of the way > >things are. > ------------------------------------- > Howard: > Ahh! I am utterly bereft. It doesn't fall far from the sutta > description. > > > > Suk: You mean the sutta description that you read into? Maybe I should have > said Dhamma instead of Abhidhamma? :-) > > =================== > > Howard: > > But, in any case, I described for you how my meditating works. The > description is based on that reality. > > > > Suk: You mean "that perception" instead of "that reality"? > > =========================== > > Howard: > > I presumed you wanted to hear the truth. > > > > Suk: This may sound arrogant, but I was hoping that my comments might be a > proximate cause for you to reconsider that truth. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, arrogant and conceited ... to the nth degree. --------------------------------------------- > > ================== > > >Particularly object condition and all that. I'll leave out this > > >and the question about how mindfulness of concept can lead to > >satipatthana. I'll also not go into the fact of there being bhavanga and > >other mind door processes in between any two sense door experience. > ---------------------------------- > Howard: > Oh, boy! I hold myself in check from saying more. > > > > Suk: What *can* you say? (Trying to be as dramatic as you here ;-)) > > ============================== > > Howard: > The states of calm I typically enter into are not absorptive jhanas, > though they do match sutta descriptions of jhana. Hindrances are mollified, > but > not fully removed. At times, though, I do enter into classical > absorptive jhana, and then there are no hindrances in evidence at all. I do > take your > point. If hindrances do not arise at all, they are not available for > inspection. Of course, even the tradition of absorptive jhanas allows for > inspection > upon exit from such a jhana with a mind having been made a fit instrument by > the > jhana. > > > > Suk: Your comment here again appears to go against the Abhidhamma > perspective of there being one citta experiencing one object at a time. > --------------------------------------- Howard: My comment is based not only on direct experience, but on the direct word of the Buddha in the suttas. --------------------------------------- You> > have yet to answer me about the relationship between 'ease' and 'clarity' > and perhaps then the matter will be clear to me? > > ========================= > > > >Sukin: What do you mean, the "increase" in which way and in relation > >to what? Do you mean realities are observed with ever greater > >precision? > --------------------------------- > Howard: > Sukin, I cannot and will not try to explain the sound of music to a > person who never listens to music. I can't do it, no more than I could > describe > red and green to a red/green color-blind person. To you this is all theory. > > > > Suk: As I implied earlier in this post, I do not ask to be told about any > 'description of experience', I look more to any "understanding" that may > arise, and to this end, I am happy if I see a willingness to discuss in > light of what the Buddha taught in the Tipitaka. The above seem to me to be > an instance of hiding behind vagueness. ------------------------------------------ Howard: I haven't a clue of what you are talking about. ------------------------------------------ > > And while were at it, at this point allow me to comment on one matter more. > You mentioned a few times, the fact of being *told* by your mediation > teacher, Leigh Brasington, that you experienced the 1st and 5th jhanas. -------------------------------------------- Howard: He is not my meditation teacher. I attended one very brief retreat with him. And, no, it was a shuttling between the 2nd and the 5th, and we both agreed that it was more of a "stumbling into" than any sort of mastery.What of it? ---------------------------------------- > First, it would have been impossible to correctly describe such a state > especially given that you were unsure. Secondly, he not being enlightened, > could not have known exactly. Third, if indeed you experienced jhana even if > it be the 1st level, you *would have known* without doubt, since this > implies a very high level of panna. This panna *KNOWS*! To me this > experience of yours was a case of the blind leading the blind. And yes, this > is theory on my part, but not just. ;-) ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Your authority is mind-numbing, Sukin, only outdone by your conceit. Your idea of a decent conversation is a continued arrogant critique. You must be great fun at social gatherings. -------------------------------------------- > > ============================== > > >Sukin: What is the significance of this? It is at this stage surely, not a > > >matter of experiencing nama or rupa i.e. satipatthana. Why the need to > >go along with this? > ------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I don't know what you want. It is natural to do - it requires no > effort. It happens unless I stop it. And it goes along with what the Buddha > taught. > > > > Suk: My point was that since you are presumably practicing to 'know' one > reality at a time , yet you go along with this thought about "sensations> > suffusing the whole body" as if this is in any way related to the > development of that kind of wisdom. ------------------------------------- Howard: Have you ever read the Buddha's descriptions of the jhanas, Sukin? The bathpowder reference? I quote: _________________________ Just as if a skilled bathman or bathman's apprentice would pour bath powder into a brass basin and knead it together, sprinkling it again and again with water, so that his ball of bath powder â€" saturated, moisture-laden, permeated within and without â€" would nevertheless not drip; even so, the monk permeates, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of withdrawal. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal... -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ========================= > >Howard: > >Sometimes at this point, there is no longer any need to *apply* > >attention at all. Instead, the meditating seems to "coast", to proceed > >effortlessly on its own.>> > > > >Sukin: :-/ What does this mean? > ------------------------------------ > Howard: > How can I tell you? It seems to match a cessation in vitakka and > vicara. Now that I speak your lingo, perhaps you get it. But unless you > experience > it for yourself, you really cannot get it. > > > > Suk: I don't care what term is used; in fact when it comes to describing > "thinking", being unsure about the mechanism, I myself refer to the citta > and not any particular cetasikas. > -------------------------------------- Howard: It is even more evident now that you haven't read the Buddha's desciptions of the jhanas. Vittaka and vicara cease on entry to the 2nd jhana. BTW, I had thought that when you asked about my meditating, it might have been because of some genuine interest. It is clear, now, however,that your purpose was to afford yourself an opportunity to attack meditating, to criticize a fellow list member, and to reinforce your so-tightly-clung-to beliefs. I sincerely regret ever having given you a serious reply. ------------------------------------ My questioning the above was in relation> > to your distinction between deliberateness and without. You talk as if there > are some states controllable and some not. Also you appear to conclude that > one *lead* to the other. Moreover you identified 'effort' in the one as if > the other did not exhibit any characteristic of effort. All this seemed to > go against the Buddha's teachings on conditionality on more than one level. ----------------------------------- Howard: Having fun? ------------------------------------ > > > ================= > >Sukin: According to which Sutta / Suttas? Not the Satipatthana Sutta > >surely? > ------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Yes, indeed! In any case, as far as I'm concerned, all your reading, > from now till "kingdom come", will, without actual practice - without > getting > your feet wet and your hands dirty, amount to very little. No "kingdom" WILL > > come. > > > > Suk: If getting wet means 'formal meditation' or striving for jhana, then > I'm happy to remain 'dry' or "sukha". :-)) > > > > Metta, > > Sukinder > ======================== Over and out, Sukin. Definitely over and done with. With metta, Howard #72731 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon May 28, 2007 11:08 am Subject: Re: Clarification/Nina Re: [dsg] "Dhammas" and Impermanence ... nilovg Hi Howard, good, good. Clear. Yes, too many posts nowadays. Nina. Op 28-mei-2007, om 17:56 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > For > me, rebirth is even more than a fundamental point of the Dhamma. > For me it is > a sine qua non. #72732 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon May 28, 2007 11:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] just in case you didn't get my mail nilovg Venerable Bhikkhu Pannabahulo, I would be very grateful if you could tell us a little about your talk with Khun Sujin. We can all profit from this. Thanking you, with respect, Nina. Op 28-mei-2007, om 14:21 heeft pannabahulo het volgende geschreven: > I will be down for the 3 days that Sarah and Jonathan are in Bangkok. #72733 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon May 28, 2007 11:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Jhana as necessity to enlightenment... nilovg Hi James, I appreciate it that you will do more research. I also feel for myself that I need more research, never enough. I try to post less, my fall was the consequence of tiredness, looking late for a text for Phil. Thanks for your concern. I also appreciate it what you wrote about Robert's posts out of compassion and his posts being helpful for the group. And indeed, who is without ignorance. Nice post to Herman. Nina. Op 28-mei-2007, om 17:39 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > Anyway, I > am going to give some more extensive research to this issue, including > the Abhidhamma and the article by B. Bodhi surrounding this issue, > before I respond. #72734 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon May 28, 2007 7:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Dhammas" and Impermanence (The Abhidhammikas perspective?) TGrand458@... Hi Nina In a message dated 5/28/2007 2:38:08 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi T. G. Vis. Ch XX deals with the stages of insight. The third stage of tender insight, sammasana ~naa.na, comprehension by groups. Seeing rise and fall in two ways: by way of instant and by way of condition. XX, 97: < He sees the rise of the material aggregate in the sense of conditioned thus: With the arising of ignorance there is the arising of materiality.of materiality... with the arising of craving...with kamma... ..................................................... NEW TG: Lets put this into context with the Suttas overview... “…just as heat is generated and fire is produced from the conjunction and friction of two fire-sticks, but when the sticks are separated and laid aside the resultant heat ceases and subsides; so too, these three feelings [pleasant, painful, neutral] are born of contact, rooted in contact, with contact as their source and condition. In dependence on the appropriate contacts the corresponding feelings arise; with the cessation of the appropriate contacts the corresponding feelings cease.â€? (The Buddha . . . CDB, vol. 2, pg. 1270) “ . . . each feeling arises in dependence upon its corresponding condition, and with the cessation of its corresponding condition, the feeling ceases.â€? (Ven. Nandaka instructing nuns at the request of the Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 1122, Advice from Nandaka, Nandakovada Sutta, #146) “By reason of a cause it came to be By rupture of a cause it dies awayâ€? (Ven. Sela . . . KS, vol. 1, pg. 169) “Thus, monks, one state just causes another state to swell, one state just causes the fulfillment of another state…â€? (The Buddha . . . GS, vol. 5, pg. 4) NEW TG CONTINUED... In the above passages, the Buddha is pointing out how things rise and fall according to condition. Not according to "their own nature." ................................................................. He sees the fall of the materiality aggregate in the sense of conditioned cessation thus: with the cessation of ignorance there is the cessation of materiality.th XX, 100: So when he sees rise and fall in the two ways, according to condition and according to instant thus, the Truth of Origination becomes evident... ...................................................... NEW TG: So far, I don't have a problem with this way of phrasing the Buddha's teaching. ................................................... ------- N: All this does not pertain to arahatship yet, but to insight. Insight is not thinking. ........................................................ NEW TG: Now I have a problem. Your quote from Vis. would indicate that there is contemplation, which is thinking, going on in insight investigation. Now, for some reason, you arbitrarily claim "insight is not thinking." I think that's what you want to believe to fit your personal way of approaching the teachings. But I have quoted many passages, including from the Satipatthana Sutta, which clearly indicate thinking involved as part of insight development. Your own quote above included. In fact, I think it would be much harder to find a Sutta that did not indicate that thinking was involved in insight development! So I am saying that both direct experience and thinking are involved in insight development. And IMO, whatever mental efforts are involved in the process of insight development are to be considered part of insight. But insight in "as singular a way as it could be considered" is a vision/insight into impermanence, affliction, and no-self...both in terms of direct experiencing, and seeing it in principle. And this vision/insight prevents the mind from attaching onto phenomena in the pursuit of pleasure, among other things. BTW, I found this in the Vis. thumbing through it... Chapter XX -- INSIGHT: COMPREHENSION BY GROUPS "How is it that understanding of defining past, future, and present states by summarization is knowledge of comprehension? Any materiality whatever, whether past, future or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near -- he defines all materiality as impermanent: this is one kind of comprehension. He defines it as painful: this is one kind of comprehension. He defines it as not self: this is one kind of comprehension." NEW TG CONTINUED: Wouldn't you find there to be thinking involved in this process? .................................................................. I find the above quoted texts difficult to understand. ....................................................... NEW TG: I think you find it difficult to understand because it doesn't fit in with your schemata of the teachings. ..................................................... But the reason is that first the first stage of insight has to be realized: discerning the difference between nama and rupa, and this in daily life, now. ...................................................... NEW TG: I think this is just one of many stages and aspects of the teachings. Its the one you seem to focus on most intently. I think this is an initial approach from getting away from gross levels of delusion and in that sense very important. And its also a good development tool. But I think you've turned it into the "Holy Grail" of Buddhism and that IMO has taken it way out of proportion, given it too much credence, and its "realities" aspect has given it way too much substantiality. TG OUT Nina. #72735 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon May 28, 2007 12:15 pm Subject: "Dhammas" and Impermanence (The Abhidhammikas perspective?) nilovg Hi TG (and Sarah), Thank you for your informative post. you raise many points, I try my best. ------- TG: BTW, I found this in the Vis. thumbing through it... Chapter XX -- INSIGHT: COMPREHENSION BY GROUPS "How is it that understanding of defining past, future, and present states by summarization is knowledge of comprehension? Any materiality whatever, whether past, future or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near -- he defines all materiality as impermanent: this is one kind of comprehension. He defines it as painful: this is one kind of comprehension. He defines it as not self: this is one kind of comprehension." NEW TG CONTINUED: Wouldn't you find there to be thinking involved in this process? ------- N: At the level of pariyatti, yes. But at the level of patipatti, no thinking, but direct understanding. That is insight. What you refer to above is the third stage of tender insight. In between these stages there is, in the beginning, still thinking, but even that thinking is directly understood as a type of nama. To me this is a very essential point. N: I find the above quoted texts difficult to understand. ....................................................... NEW TG: I think you find it difficult to understand because it doesn't fit in with your schemata of the teachings. ..................................................... N: I do not need to fit anything into a scheme, I really feel no need to this. Sarah, if there is a right moment, perhaps this is good to discuss in Bgk? But I feel it has to fit in with the other discussions. ---------- N: But the reason is that first the first stage of insight has to be realized: discerning the difference between nama and rupa, and this in daily life, now. ...................................................... NEW TG: I think this is just one of many stages and aspects of the teachings. Its the one you seem to focus on most intently. I think this is an initial approach from getting away from gross levels of delusion and in that sense very important. And its also a good development tool. But I think you've turned it into the "Holy Grail" of Buddhism and that IMO has taken it way out of proportion, given it too much credence, and its "realities" aspect has given it way too much substantiality. ------- N: Goodness me, Holy Grail? LOLOL. I think: first things have to come first. How can impermanence of dhammas be directly known if one does not even know what is dhamma. My question to you: what is dhamma? Realities aspect: yes here I recognize something from the TG collection I made of unloved expressions (;-)) I wanted to return to, but did not find time yet. You like Howard's actualities better? Just choose another term, that won't hurt. Nina. #72736 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon May 28, 2007 4:15 pm Subject: Re: Virtue kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Htoo Naing" wrote: > > Dear Ken H, Rob K and all, > > The discussions here are interesting. Just to add some points > for more discussions. > > There are 5 facts as bala or indriya ( 5 faculties). > > 2 in one side and 2 in the other and sati or mindfulness involves in both side. > > A. 1. viiriya B. 2. samaadhi > A. 1. saddhaa B. 2. pa~n~naa > > A and B have to be in balance. > > Sati does not need balance and so sati have to be in both > sides. > > The more viiriya the less samaadhi, the more saddhaa the less pannaa. > > Am I right? > > Dear Htoo, I am sure you are right, but that won't stop me from arguing. :-) An increase in viriya and saddha might cause an imbalance, but it won't cause a decrease in samadhi and panna, will it? If we add an extra weight to one side of a set of scales it won't cause the weight on the other side to diminish. Can we say that an imbalance can stop cetasikas from performing their functions? There is a story somewhere in the texts (sorry, no reference) in which an elderly monk was close to death. He told an attendant that he would not attain arahantship in this lifetime because he wanted to meet, and pay homage to, the next Buddha (aeons in the future). It seems to me that the monk's great saddha and viriya were preventing panna and samadhi from performing their functions. The attendant said, "That's a pity because there are some laymen waiting outside who would love to pay homage to an arahant." With that, the monk immediately attained arahantship. So, I would say that immense panna was present all along. It was not diminished by saddha, just suppressed (or inconvenienced). :-) Nice to have you back, Htoo; I hope you enjoyed the break. Ken H #72737 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon May 28, 2007 4:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Pseudo Dhamma: accepting the Thervada Commentaries egberdina Hi James, On 29/05/07, buddhatrue wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" > wrote: > > > Dear moderators, > > > > RobK said I was ignorant. > > > > > > Herman > > > > LOL! You must be joking!! Yes, I was. > So Rob K said you were ignorant- so what? Precisely, so what? I've got an uncle with a PhD who thinks that anyone who doesn't believe that God created the Universe around 5000 years ago will burn in hell. Thanks for your note. Herman #72738 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon May 28, 2007 4:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sammaadi.t.thi study corner egberdina Hi Scott, On 28/05/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > > > For me, the experiential/phenomenal aspect, that is the way you and I > see things now, is a function of ignorance. That is, ignorance being: > > "...lack of knowledge, of vision...the lack of co-ordination, of > judgement, of enlightenment, of pentetration; the inability to grasp > thoroughly; the inability to compare, to consider, to demonstrate..." > (Dhammasa"nga.ni, p.94). > > > Scott: You are conflating form with function here, I think; or, in > other words, you seem to consider experience to be the ulitmate > arbitrator of what there is. I think experience is a function of the > constituents of the moment of consciousness and when ignorance colours > experience that experience is not what it seems. The function of > analysis is that of one or some particular mental factors. A moment > of consciousness arises and, due to the many mental factors > constituting it, is complex and functions complexly. This moment > conditions the next, equally complex, and the experiential overlay > differs phenomenologically according to the constituent mental > factors. What role do you see ignorance playing in experience? > None, actually. You rightly describe ignorance above as a lack of various qualities. It flies against the principles of DO that a lack of something is a condition for something to arise. Also, there is no mention of ignorance in the seminal statement of DO as found in DN15. > H: "It remains a fact, that a chariot broken down into components > cannot be used to transport one to town for the hockey game. > Similarly, there will be no panna arising in a person who has had all > their blood and juice removed for analysis :-) Analysis is destructive > of function, because function depends on synthesis /aggregation of > elements." > > Scott: We always differ on the meaning of the chariot simile, and will > continue to do so, I guess. Again, how do you understand 'analysis'? > I see it as a function and you suggest it is 'destructive of > function'. What is it then? Yes, agreed, analysis is a function of the mind, but what I meant was that when analysing x, analysis destroys the functionality of x. X is no longer x once it is analysed. A pile of chariot bits is not a chariot. It can't get you to town. > Function, as I understand it, is that which is done or accomplished by > a particular dhamma. Analysis is a function of pa~n~na. One can > think too much, or over-intellectualise or whatever, but the mental > factor pa~n~na has analysis as one of its functions. As I have said elsewhere before, the notion of disembodied consciousness would contradict the Suttas. Free-floating panna, is an analytical thought in the mind of a functioning human body. From MN121 "And there is only this modicum of disturbance: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition. " Anything you will ever experience is dependent on your living body. In the absence of a living body there is no possibility of panna. Conceiving of "particular dhammas" is one of many possibilities of this living body. That in no way means that "particular dhammas" exist individually. Herman #72739 From: "Phil" Date: Mon May 28, 2007 5:06 pm Subject: Re: Jhana as necessity to enlightenment... philofillet Hi Nina >I try to post less, > my fall was the consequence of tiredness, looking late for a text for > Phil. Thanks for your concern. I'm sorry to hear about your fall, Nina. But I suppose if you had died in the fall, or had a fatal heart attack, everyone would say "Nina was doing what she loved, and what is the most important thing a person can do, sharing the Dhamma." And there would be cause for celebration of your gift of sharing Dhamma, and condition for gratitude to the Buddha. I wonder whether it's better to encourage you to cut down on your posting or, on the other hand, encourage you to post as often as possible, and with as much energy as possible? Probably the latter, if we really believe that nothing is more important than Dhamma - nothing, including Lodewijk's and all of our concern for your health. Ah, but our concern is Dhamma too! Interesting! :) Metta, Phil p.s sorry that I am being so lazy intellectually these days and professing disinterest in the deep teachings of Abhidhamma. Just a phase, I'm sure. All the things I've learned from you - they are still in there and will perhaps bear fruit someday! #72740 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon May 28, 2007 6:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Dhammas" and Impermanence (The Abhidhammikas perspective?) egberdina Hi Larry, On 28/05/07, LBIDD@... wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > I would like to clarify my opinionated opinion on why you can't claim to > not believe in any 'entity' separate from thought. From that point of > view there is no my thought or your thought. There is an implicit > dualistic separation in any view we cling to, even if we later say, > 'it's all just thought'. 'No dhamma separate from experience' seems all > very reasonable, but what we think and what we believe are sometimes at > odds. To really not believe in a separate entity would entail the > complete eradication of self view. I think only an arahant can truly say > 'I don't believe in any entity separate from thought'. As you have said > many times, we have to begin where we are. Where we are is in the > trenches of duality. > I thought these were interesting and insightful comments. When consciousness and object co-incide there is no consciousness [of that]. Just being nitpicky here, but to me an arahant who says 'I don't believe in any entity separate from thought', is not an arahant. Because they would be conceiving of an "I" that was other than their thought. :-) Herman #72741 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon May 28, 2007 3:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Dhammas" and Impermanence (The Abhidhammikas perspective?) TGrand458@... Hi Nina In a message dated 5/28/2007 1:17:14 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi TG (and Sarah), Thank you for your informative post. you raise many points, I try my best. ------- TG: BTW, I found this in the Vis. thumbing through it... Chapter XX -- INSIGHT: COMPREHENSION BY GROUPS "How is it that understanding of defining past, future, and present states by summarization is knowledge of comprehension? Any materiality whatever, whether past, future or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near -- he defines all materiality as impermanent: this is one kind of comprehension. He defines it as painful: this is one kind of comprehension. He defines it as not self: this is one kind of comprehension.c NEW TG CONTINUED: Wouldn't you find there to be thinking involved in this process? ------- N: At the level of pariyatti, yes. But at the level of patipatti, no thinking, but direct understanding. That is insight. What you refer to above is the third stage of tender insight. In between these stages there is, in the beginning, still thinking, but even that thinking is directly understood as a type of nama. To me this is a very essential point. .............................................. NEWER TG: Intuitive insight is developed from both direct experience and analysis. They both build in relation to the cultivation of each. ............................................. N: I find the above quoted texts difficult to understand. ....................................................... NEW TG: I think you find it difficult to understand because it doesn't fit in with your schemata of the teachings. ..................................................... N: I do not need to fit anything into a scheme, I really feel no need to this. ......................................... NEWER TG: I beg to differ. Your posts and comments indicate you follow Abhidhamma commentarial views by rote. Your answers and teaching seem to be mere quotes. You have often admitted not to knowing the things you post directly yourself. You explain everything simply as the books teach them. Therefore, to me, its seems you are very locked into a schemata. The Abhidhamma and Abhidhamma Commentaries schemata. This doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing. If the schemata is the truth and the Path, that's cool. But it is what it is. .................................................. Sarah, if there is a right moment, perhaps this is good to discuss in Bgk? But I feel it has to fit in with the other discussions. ---------- N: But the reason is that first the first stage of insight has to be realized: discerning the difference between nama and rupa, and this in daily life, now. ...................................................... NEW TG: I think this is just one of many stages and aspects of the teachings. Its the one you seem to focus on most intently. I think this is an initial approach from getting away from gross levels of delusion and in that sense very important. And its also a good development tool. But I think you've turned it into the "Holy Grail" of Buddhism and that IMO has taken it way out of proportion, given it too much credence, and its "realities" aspect has given it way too much substantiality. ------- N: Goodness me, Holy Grail? LOLOL. I think: first things have to come first. How can impermanence of dhammas be directly known if one does not even know what is dhamma. My question to you: what is dhamma? Realities aspect: yes here I recognize something from the TG collection I made of unloved expressions (;-)) I wanted to return to, but did not find time yet. You like Howard's actualities better? Just choose another term, that won't hurt. Nina. ................................................ NEWER TG: Its not the term. Its what's "read into" the term. And what's "read into" the term has a corresponding "resultant mentality/outlook." If "dhammas" is being mistakenly interpreted/seen to begin with, well, what follows will follow the mistake. I continue to pound Suttas into the argument to make my case; they continue to remain unanswered as to why they don't correspond to your teachings. For example, in your last post you said "insight is not thinking." In this post you say that its "tender insight." But no contradiction is admitted to. (The Buddha certainly didn't teach contemplative insight as some second class level of insight. In fact there are places where he indicates it as a primary factor in the path to arahantship.) I think it depends on the Sutta and the individual as to what works the best for detaching the mind. To me it doesn't matter so much how things are classified. What matters is what works. And what works the best for me is the sensibilities imparted in the Suttas. So far no one has even come close to showing that the Buddha, in the Suttas, taught to see "dhammas as realities." He taught so many different things to help detach the mind....but "teaching individual states as realities," I don't see it. "Daily Life" is a nice "catch phrase." All the Buddha's teachings should be applied "in daily Life." In fact, is there some other kind of life than "daily life"??? But to me the point is not to decipher namas from rupas. That's just an exercise and the Suttas have dozens of exercises: some of less importance perhaps, some of equal importance, and some of more importance, from my point of view. So Yes, the Holy Grail comment stands...in the sense of being some panacea of the practice. TG #72742 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon May 28, 2007 8:32 pm Subject: Mindfulness of Death- 10 buddhatrue Hi All, MINDFULNESS OF DEATH CONCLUSION: So while he does his recollecting by means of one or other of these eight ways, his consciousness acquires [the support of] repetition owing to the reiterated attention, mindfulness settles down with death as its object, the hindrances are suppressed, and the jhana factors make their appearance. But since the object is states with individual essences, and since it awakes a sense of urgency, the jhana does not reach absorption and is only access. Now with special development the supramundane jhana and the second with the four immaterial jhanas reach absorption even with respect to states with individual essences. For the supramundane reaches absorption by means of progressive development of the Purifications and the immaterial jhanas do so by means of development consisting in the surmounting of the object since there [in those two immaterial jhanas] there is merely the surmounting of the object of jhana that had already reached absorption. But here [in mundane mindfulness of death] there is neither, so the jhana only reaches access. And that access is known as `mindfulness of death' too since it arises through its means. A bhikkhu devoted to mindfulness of death is constantly diligent. He acquires perception of disenchantment with all kinds of becoming (existence). He conquers attachment to life. He condemns evil. He avoids much storing. He has no stain of avarice about requisites. Perception of impermanence grows in him, following upon which there appear the perceptions of pain and non-self. But while beings who have not developed [mindfulness of] death fall victims to fear, horror and confusion at the time of death as though suddenly seized by wild beasts, spirits, snakes, robbers, or murderers, he dies undeluded and fearless without falling into any such state. And if he does not attain the deathless here and now, he is at least headed for a happy destiny on the break up of the body. Now when a man is truly wise, His constant task will surely be This recollection about death Blessed with such mighty potency. This is the section dealing with the recollection of death in the detailed explanation. The End. :-) Metta, James #72743 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon May 28, 2007 8:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Dhammas" and Impermanence (The Abhidhammikas perspective?) rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > P.S. Robert, have you seen Toni Packer's most recent book, The Silent > Question? There's much in it I like, especially in the 3rd and 4th chapters so far. > > ====== Dear Howard Thanks for the tip, I'm ordering it today.;) Robert #72744 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon May 28, 2007 8:48 pm Subject: The 4 great reference"Dhammas" and Impermanenc?) rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > Hi Nina > > NEWER TG: Your posts and comments indicate you follow > Abhidhamma commentarial views by rote. Your answers and teaching seem to be > mere quotes. You have often admitted not to knowing the things you post > directly yourself. You explain everything simply as the books teach them. > Therefore, to me, its seems you are very locked into a schemata. The Abhidhamma and > Abhidhamma Commentaries schemata. ======== Dear TG Sarah posted this a while back From the Commentary to the Parinibbana Sutta: "But in the list [of four things] beginning with sutta, sutta means the three baskets [Suttanta, Vinaya, Abhidhamma] which the three Councils recited. `Accordance with sutta' means legitimate by being in accord [with what is explicitly legitimate]. `The word of a teacher' means the commentary. `One's own opinion' means one's own illumination through grasping an analogy or one's consequent understanding. Of these, sutta should not be rejected, for he who rejects that rejects the Buddha himself. If what is legitimate by being in accord agrees with the sutta, it should be accepted, but otherwise not. If the word of a teacher agrees with the sutta, it should be accepted, but otherwise not. One's OWN OPINION is WEAKEST of all, but if it agrees with the sutta, it should be accepted, but otherwise not. And venerable Dhammanando wrote: 1) The "well-said" (sutta), defined as the whole of the Tipi?aka. 2) The "conforming to the well-said" (suttanuloma), meaning utterances than can be shown to be Dhamma or Vinaya by using either of the two sets of four great standards. 3) The "disquisition on meaning", "commentary" (atthakatha), meaning the works preserved in Sinhalese that the Mahavihara commentators used as their source texts. The contents of these were held to date from the First Council, and so were viewed as authoritative unless contradicted by sutta or suttanuloma. 4) The "personal opinion [of an acariya]" (attanomati), said to be the weakest source of authority. ---- Where does Buddhaghosafit on the scale? ------ His commentaries contain samples of all four classes. When he is quoting the Tipitaka it is sutta. When he is drawing an inference from the Tipi?aka it is suttanuloma provided there is no flaw in his reasoning. When he is giving a straight translation from the Maha- atthakatha, Maha-paccari or Kuru??i (his main Sinhalese source texts) then it's atthakatha. When he offers a personal opinion it is attanomati. In a typical Buddhaghosa Sutta commentary I would estimate the proportions to be something like: sutta 15% suttanuloma 15% atthakatha 70% attanomati less than 0.5% Best wishes, Dhammanando Bhikkhu endquote ======== It may be that ones own opinion about what texts mean is preferable to the ancient Sangha, but isn't there a danger that one is looking for ideas that confirm inherenat wrong view. I think there were good reasons why Buddhaghosa thought his own opinion was the weakest. And there were good reasons why the bhikhus entrusted him with the task of editing the Commentaries. While it may feel nice to decide that we are wiser then the monks of millenia ago, it might also be we are wrong. Robert #72745 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon May 28, 2007 9:35 pm Subject: New Series: Recollection of the Buddha buddhatrue Hi All (Especially Howard), I have enjoyed posting Mindfulness of Death from the Visuddhimagga, and I hope that it has been of benefit to the members (as it was a benefit to myself). In the past, I had a disagreement with Howard about Recollection of the Buddha. I stated that Recollection of the Buddha was a meditation, and Howard stated that it was not since it involved discursive thought. I will begin posting the section from the Visuddhimagga giving the details of the practice of Recollection of the Buddha. It is one of the six recollections that the Buddha prescribed to lay followers (the others being dhamma, sangha, morality, generosity, and devas) AN VI. Therefore, I won't have to argue with Jon about this practice being appropriate for lay people. ;-)) Metta, James #72746 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon May 28, 2007 9:44 pm Subject: Recollection of the Buddha- 1 buddhatrue Hi All, RECOLLECTION OF THE BUDDHA Now a meditator with absolute confidence who wants to develop firstly the recollection of the Enlightened One among these ten should go into solitary retreat in a favourable abode and recollect the special qualities of the Enlightened One, the Blessed One, as follows: `That Blessed One is such since he is accomplished, fully enlightened, endowed with [clear] vision and [virtuous] conduct, sublime, the knower of worlds, the incomparable leader of men to be tamed, the teacher of gods and men, enlightened and blessed'. Here is the way he recollects: `That Blessed One is such since he is accomplished, he is such since he is fully enlightened….he is such since he is blessed'-he is so for these several reasons, is what is meant. Metta, James #72747 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon May 28, 2007 5:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The 4 great reference"Dhammas" and Impermanenc?) TGrand458@... Hi Robert In a message dated 5/28/2007 9:50:58 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, rjkjp1@... writes: Of these, sutta should not be rejected, for he who rejects that rejects the Buddha himself. If what is legitimate by being in accord agrees with the sutta, it should be accepted, but otherwise not. If the word of a teacher agrees with the sutta, it should be accepted, but otherwise not. ............................................ TG: Within reason, I agree with this very much. That's why I cringe at some commentaries that do not seem to agree with Sutta. ........................................ One's OWN OPINION is WEAKEST of all, but if it agrees with the sutta, it should be accepted, but otherwise not. ........................................... TG: Sort of a departure from the Buddha's saying ... test it yourself and see if its right. I'm not comfortable with the conceitedness of this statement. Even though the gist of it is something I agree with. ........................................ And venerable Dhammanando wrote: 1) The "well-said" (sutta), defined as the whole of the Tipi?aka. 2) The "conforming to the well-said" (suttanuloma)2) The utterances than can be shown to be Dhamma or Vinaya by using either of the two sets of four great standards. 3) The "disquisition on meaning", "commentary" (atthakatha)3) The "di the works preserved in Sinhalese that the Mahavihara commentators used as their source texts. The contents of these were held to date from the First Council, and so were viewed as authoritative unless contradicted by sutta or suttanuloma. 4) The "personal opinion [of an acariya]" (attanomati)4) The "p the weakest source of authority. ---- Where does Buddhaghosafit on the scale? ------ His commentaries contain samples of all four classes. When he is quoting the Tipitaka it is sutta. When he is drawing an inference from the Tipi?aka it is suttanuloma provided there is no flaw in his reasoning. When he is giving a straight translation from the Maha- atthakatha, Maha-paccari or Kuru??i (his main Sinhalese source texts) then it's atthakatha. When he offers a personal opinion it is attanomati. In a typical Buddhaghosa Sutta commentary I would estimate the proportions to be something like: sutta 15% suttanuloma 15% atthakatha 70% attanomati less than 0.5% Best wishes, Dhammanando Bhikkhu endquote ======== It may be that ones own opinion about what texts mean is preferable to the ancient Sangha, but isn't there a danger that one is looking for ideas that confirm inherenat wrong view. I think there were good reasons why Buddhaghosa thought his own opinion was the weakest. And there were good reasons why the bhikhus entrusted him with the task of editing the Commentaries. While it may feel nice to decide that we are wiser then the monks of millenia ago, it might also be we are wrong. ................................................. TG: Since the best authority, according to this input, is the Suttas; I feel in good company that I also view it as the best authority. Since the commentaries rank third on the list, I would find that a less reliable source to entrust wouldn't you? Now, if you are trying to say that my points are merely my opinion (even though I back them with Suttas), that would apply to everyone here wouldn't it; i.e., regarding opinion? Or if you are saying that merely copying the texts is somehow superior than trying to see it for oneself, I would say anyone with zero insight can still be a scholar. What's special about that? No, I think its important to try to develop insight for oneself, and use primarily the Suttas in conjunction with experiences and observations of nature as the guide. If the commentaries are reliably expressing the gist of the Suttas, then I feel their guidance would be useful too. When they go beyond the bounds of what the Suttas indicate, then I am suspicious as to their reliability. "Seeing Dhammas as Realities" is one such instance of going beyond the bounds. In neither detail or gist do I find this in the Suttas. It also happens to be a crucial and central point of Nina's and Sarah's presentations. And they regularly, over and over again, attribute that teaching directly to the Buddha. Please show me the Suttas that say this. If you cannot, whose opinions are overriding the Suttas may I ask? TG #72748 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon May 28, 2007 10:01 pm Subject: Re: The 4 great reference"Dhammas" and Impermanenc?) buddhatrue Hi Robert, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > Sarah posted this a while back > From the Commentary to the Parinibbana Sutta: > > "But in the list [of four things] beginning with sutta, sutta means > the three baskets [Suttanta, Vinaya, Abhidhamma] which the three > Councils recited. > > `Accordance with sutta' means legitimate by being in accord [with > what is explicitly legitimate]. > > `The word of a teacher' means the commentary. > > `One's own opinion' means one's own illumination through grasping an > analogy or one's consequent understanding. > > Of these, sutta should not be rejected, for he who rejects that > rejects the Buddha himself. If what is legitimate by being in accord > agrees with the sutta, it should be accepted, but otherwise not. If > the word of a teacher agrees with the sutta, it should be accepted, > but otherwise not. > > One's OWN OPINION is WEAKEST of all, but if it agrees with the > sutta, it should be accepted, but otherwise not. > > This paradigm doesn't make any sense because "the word of a teacher" (commentary) doesn't agree or disagree with a sutta, it explains or interprets a sutta. It would be up to the reader to determine if the explanation or interpretation is correct or not. However, according to this paradigm, that is impossible because the commentary automatically comes before the opinion of the reader. This paradigm is only good for unthinking sheep ;-)). Metta, James #72749 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon May 28, 2007 9:36 pm Subject: Divine Hearing! bhikkhu5 Friends: Divine Hearing is gained by Establishing Awareness! Once when the Venerable Anuruddha was dwelling at Savatthi in Jeta's Grove , in AnÄ?thapindika 's Park, a number of Bhikkhus went to the Venerable Anuruddha & exchanged polite greetings with him. Then they sat down & asked the Ven. Anuruddha : Venerable Sir: What has the Venerable Anuruddha developed & cultivated so that he has attained to his famous greatness of direct knowledge? It is, friends, because I have developed and cultivated these four Foundations of Awareness that I have won great direct knowledge. What four? Here, friends, I dwell constantly contemplating upon: The Body only as a formed group, neither as I, me, mine, nor a self... The Feelings only as passing responses, neither as I, mine, nor self... The Mind only as temporary mentalities, neither as I, nor any self... All Phenomena only as constructed mental states not as any real... while eager, clearly comprehending, & fully aware , thereby removing all desire & frustration rooted in this world! It is, friends, because I have developed & cultivated these Four Foundations of Awareness that I have become empowered with suprahuman forces: With the divine ear element, which is purified, refined, subtle and surpasses the human, I hear both divine and human sounds, both those that are far away as well as those that are near. Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. [V:304] section 52: Anuruddha. Thread 13: The Divine Ear! Details and references for further study: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/One_and_only_Way.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Four_Foundations_of_Awareness.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/sa/saavatthi.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/j/jetavana.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Sati_Studies.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/a/abhinna.htm The Divine Ear! Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <....> #72750 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon May 28, 2007 10:16 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Sammaadi.t.thi study corner scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Thanks for your comments: H: "...You rightly describe ignorance above as a lack of various qualities. It flies against the principles of DO that a lack of something is a condition for something to arise. Also, there is no mention of ignorance in the seminal statement of DO as found in DN15." Scott: I don't accept the above, I'm afraid. Ignorance is mentioned as a part of DO in many places. I don't know why it is left out of the sutta you mention. Are you saying there is no 'ignorance'? Ignorance, first of all, is moha; (Nyanatiloka: "Moha: 'confusion', is one of the 3 disadvantageous roots (muula). The best known synonym is avijjaa"). 'Avijjaa' is ignorance. Moha, being a mental factor, has functions as I have stated when quoting Dhammasa"nga.ni. It is not 'nothing'. What is ignorance, in your opinion? And furthermore, to argue from within the 'material' realm, a lack of cones in the structure of the eye, for example, causes colour blindness; the lack of cones causing vision devoid of a capacity to respond to certain wavelengths of light - absence of something is a cause. (I don't think, however, that ignorance is 'nothing', but just to make the point...) See, for example, SN 45,1(1), Bh. Bodhi: "Ignorance "...Bhikkhus, ignorance is the forerunner in the entry upon unwholesome states, with shamelessness and fearlessness of wrongdoing following along. * For an unwise person immersed in ignorance, wrong view springs up ...wrong intention springs up ...wrong speech springs up ...wrong action springs up ...wrong livelihood springs up ...wrong effort springs up ...wrong mindfulness springs up ...wrong concentration springs up. "Bhikkhus, true knowledge is the forerunner in the entry upon wholesome states, with a sense of shame and fear of wrongdoing following along. ** For a wise person who has arrived at true knowledge, right view springs up ...right concentration springs up." * Note 1 "Spk: Ignorance is the forerunner (pubba"ngama) in two modes, as a conascent condition (sahajaatavasena, a condition for simultaneously arisen states) and as a decisive-support condition (upanissayavesena, a strong causal condition for subsequently arisen states). Spk-p.t: It is a forerunner by way of conascence when it makes associated states conform to its own mode of confusion about the object, so that they grasp impermanent phenomena as permanent, etc.; it is a forerunner by way of both conascence and decisive-support when a person overcome by delusion engages in immoral actions..." ** Note 2 "Spk: True knowledge (vijjaa) is knowledge of one's responsibility for one's own action (kammassakataa~na.na). Here, too, it is a forerunner by way of both conascence and decisive-support..." H: "Yes, agreed, analysis is a function of the mind, but what I meant was that when analysing x, analysis destroys the functionality of x. X is no longer x once it is analysed. A pile of chariot bits is not a chariot. It can't get you to town." Scott: Analysis is a function of pa~n~na. You seem to mean that analysis is a cognitive function. I was not saying that. This does not refer to thinking, which I think you do. Pa~n~na is not 'thinking'. H: "As I have said elsewhere before, the notion of disembodied consciousness would contradict the Suttas. Free-floating panna, is an analytical thought in the mind of a functioning human body." From MN121 'And there is only this modicum of disturbance: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.'" Scott: Here, the phrase is pulled from a discussion on the 'signless concentration of the mind' (animitta cetosamaadhi), after the aruupa jhaanas are discussed. I don't know what you think its about, but the commentary (~Naa.namoli/Bodhi) says: Note 1142 "Animitta cetosamaadhi. MA: This is the concentration of the mind in insight; it is called 'signless' because it is devoid of the signs of permanence, etc." The sutta also states, just prior to the portion given above: "...This signless concentration of mind is conditioned and volitionally produced. But whatever is conditioned and volitionally produced is impermanent, subject to cessation..." Note 1143 "MA calls this the 'counter-insight' (pa.tivipassanaa), i.e., the application of the principles of insight to the act of consciousness that exercises the function of insight. On the basis of this he attains arahantship." H: "Anything you will ever experience is dependent on your living body. In the absence of a living body there is no possibility of panna. Conceiving of 'particular dhammas' is one of many possibilities of this living body. That in no way means that 'particular dhammas' exist individually." Scott: You seem to misunderstand the idea of variegated citta. Pa~n~na is not 'disembodied', it arises with citta conascently. It cannot arise alone. I don't find that materialistic arguments hold much sway for me, I'm afraid. What about beings in realms where there is mentality but no materiality? I suppose these don't exist? More on which we constantly disagree. Have we no common ground? Over... Sincerely, Scott. #72751 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon May 28, 2007 10:43 pm Subject: Curiousity Corner 1 egberdina We are sometimes admonished by otherwise well-meaning folks at dsg to refrain from using one's critical faculties in relation to the received wisdom of the Theravadan tradition. IMO, this is a very anti-Buddhist requirment to foist on to others. The purpose of this curiousity corner is to demonstrate the need for critical reading and evaluation of any of the texts, including the Suttas, and any practices that such texts may prescribe. All constructive comments are welcome. Samyutta Nikàya Division III Khandhaka Book 31 Valàhaka Samyutta 31.1.53 1. I heard thus. At one time the Blessed One was living in the monastery offered by Anàthapindaka in Jeta's grove in Sàvatthi. 2. Then a certain monk approached the Blessed One, worshipped, and sat on a side. 3. Sitting, that monk said to the Blessed One: Venerable sir, why is it cold on a certain day? 4. Monk, there are gods named cold clouds. On a certain day it occurs to them: `What if we delight as much as we like?' According to their intention it becomes cold. 5. Monks, as a result a certain day becomes cold. Herman #72752 From: "Andrew" Date: Tue May 29, 2007 1:09 am Subject: Re: Sila Corner: Sila as struggle corvus121 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > I suppose I'm misunderstanding, but this says to me that for some > people it is painful to abstain. If this isn't the case, well, I'll > still benefit from this sutta because it inspires me to keep on > abstaining. I'm sure a proper understanding of abhidhamma would > steer me away from taking inspiration in this kind of shallow man's > approach to Dhamma, and perhaps it will someday, but for now I am > being very well served by an increasingly simple approach to Dhamma, > with conceptual objects of meditation and reflection in daily life. Hi Phil My final post on this topic. I'm sure you're right when you say that it is painful for some people to abstain. I was focussing on the question of whether it was easy. If I have given the impression that, by studying this sutta in this fashion, my intent was to dissuade you from abstaining or getting inspiration from the suttas or to paint you as taking a "shallow man's approach to Dhamma", that impression is completely wrong. I'm very comfortable with what you are doing and thinking. In my own life, I do not avoid abstaining by reason of thoughts that my abstaining may not be genuine but lobha-tainted. As I understand it, the mind works far too quickly for that sort of reasoning to have any real validity. So, chill out, man. You ain't being judged! Over and out. Best wishes Andrew #72753 From: "Phil" Date: Tue May 29, 2007 1:36 am Subject: Re: Sila Corner: Sila as struggle philofillet HI Andrew > So, chill out, man. You ain't being judged! Over and out. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't feeling judged by you Andrew. Not at all! I always get a thoroughly friendly vibe from you. And I know you weren't trying to dissuade me from anything. My current unwillingness to apply hard, critical thinking to Dhamma has nothing to do with you or anyone else here. Well maybe it does, who knows. Anyways, not to worry. Metta, Phil #72754 From: "Andrew" Date: Tue May 29, 2007 1:39 am Subject: Re: Curiousity Corner 1 corvus121 Hi Herman I really don't know why I jump into pots that are being stirred? Perhaps I was an ingredient in a past life? A cinnamon stick? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > We are sometimes admonished by otherwise well-meaning folks at dsg to > refrain from using one's critical faculties in relation to the > received wisdom of the Theravadan tradition. Oh, you must mean the folks who think that there is no control over the arising of doubt/faith/critical faculties? Or is that a piece of the jigsaw that fell down the back of the sofa awaiting the spring clean? > IMO, this is a very anti-Buddhist requirment to foist on to others. It's only anti-2/3 Buddhist when it's foisted on you, don't forget! :) > The purpose of this curiousity corner is to demonstrate the need for > critical reading and evaluation of any of the texts, including the > Suttas, and any practices that such texts may prescribe. I've snipped the quote but have to admit it sounded very strange and unscientific to me. Which would be unforgivable if I were reading it in a science book. I read a science book recently. It argued that there are 11 dimensions (time being one) in the universe - most of which we don't experience. There are infinite universes, all shaped like a cylinder. I'd be lying if I denied that that sounded very strange to me. It could well be true ... So what? Dhamma must = Science must not = your tub-thumping uncle? Curiouser and curiouser ... consider your pot stirred! :-) Andrew #72755 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 29, 2007 1:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Posts to Siila Corner (1) to Phil sarahprocter... Dear Andrew (& Phil), I just remembered Andrew raised a question before: --- Andrew wrote: > > > "Easy to do are things that are bad and harmful to oneself. But > > > exceedingly difficult to do are things that are good and > beneficial." > > .... > > S: This was said by the Buddha on hearing that Devadatta was > causing a > > schism in the Sangha. <...> >>".....For a virtuous person, it is easy to do good > deeds > > and difficult to do evil; but for an evil one, it is easy to do > evil and > > difficult to do good deeds. Indeed, in life it is easy to do > something > > which is not beneficial, but it is very difficult to do something > which is > > good and beneficial.'" > > > > Then the Buddha spoke the verse above. > > Hi Sarah (& Phil) > A:> Thanks for this info. Do you therefore think that Dhammapada verse > 163 is an across-the-board statement of the Buddha or does it need to > be prefaced with the words "for such evil ones as Devadatta, in life > it is easy to do ..."? .... S: I think it's generally true except for the 'virtuous'. Who are the virtuous? Perhaps we could say the ariyan disciples, for whom sila has been perfected and for whom there is no more tendency towards the gross akusala kamma patha which can result in rebirth in hell, for example. AN, 8s, vii (7) Devadatta (PTS transl): "Monks, mastered by eight wrong states (asaddhammehi), Devadatta, with his mind out of control, became one doomed to suffer in hell, in perdition, dwelling there a kalpa, irreprievable. What eight? Mastered by gain....by loss....by fame.....by obscurity...by honour.....by lack of honour.....by evil intentions...by evil friendship......" **** S: Whenever we are 'mastered' by any of these, perhaps we can say that we too find it "Easy to do are things that are bad and harmful to oneself. But exceedingly difficult to do are things that are good and beneficial." How does that sound? Glad to read your further discussion with Phil. Metta, Sarah ========== #72756 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Tue May 29, 2007 1:47 am Subject: Re: Curiousity Corner 1 christine_fo... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > We are sometimes admonished by otherwise well-meaning folks at dsg to > refrain from using one's critical faculties in relation to the > received wisdom of the Theravadan tradition. > > IMO, this is a very anti-Buddhist requirment to foist on to others. > > The purpose of this curiousity corner is to demonstrate the need for > critical reading and evaluation of any of the texts, including the > Suttas, and any practices that such texts may prescribe. > > All constructive comments are welcome. > > Samyutta Nikàya > Division III Khandhaka > Book 31 Valàhaka Samyutta > > 31.1.53 > > 1. I heard thus. At one time the Blessed One was living in the > monastery offered by Anàthapindaka in Jeta's grove in Sàvatthi. > > 2. Then a certain monk approached the Blessed One, worshipped, and sat > on a side. > > 3. Sitting, that monk said to the Blessed One: Venerable sir, why is > it cold on a certain day? > > 4. Monk, there are gods named cold clouds. On a certain day it occurs > to them: `What if we delight as much as we like?' According to their > intention it becomes cold. > > 5. Monks, as a result a certain day becomes cold. > > > > Herman > Dear Herman - have a care - Aussies have already offended these great Beings - Brisbane Dams are down to 13 to 27% of capacity, fines are being levied for misusing water by watering the garden, hoses are not allowed to be used, swimming pools cannot be topped up, and councils are paying subsidies to those who buy rainwater tanks. Water Storage Status Table as at 29/05/07 Item Wivenhoe Somerset North Pine SEQWater Percentage in Storage 16.38% 27.39% 13.66% 18.43% Change since yesterday -0.021% -0.108% -0.011% -0.038% Rainfall at dam site 24 hours to 9am (mm) 0 1 4 1 http://www.seqwater.com.au/content/standard.asp? name=DamOperationsAndMaintenance Don't you just love this: "When it occurs to them, 'Let us revel in our own kind of delight,' then, in accordance with their wish, it becomes cool.'" "Spk explains that cool weather during the rainy season or winter is a natural coolness caused by the chage of seasons, but when it becomes extremely cold during the cool season, or cold during the summer, that is caused by the power of these devas. Similar explanations are given for the other cases." And not only are there cool cloud devas ... there are warm-cloud, storm-cloud, wind-cloud, and rain-cloud dwelling devas. I don't mind them reveling at all ~ as a matter of fact, let all the Storm-Cloud Devas come and revel over my place and put some water in my water tanks and dam. Please. metta Chris --- The trouble is that you think you have time --- #72757 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue May 29, 2007 2:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Dhammas" and Impermanence (The Abhidhammikas perspective?) nilovg Hi TG, I agree that the factor of considering what one heard is very important. Holy Grail: not so bad after all. The Dhamma is the most precious and should be carefully protected. As to your other remarks, I am not a teacher, but a lifelong student. The Dhamma is subtle, deep, hard to understand as we read. How could we understand everything? The coming weeks I have physio because of an injury and this takes up time. I give the baton to Rob K and others. I will not be able to post much. Nina. Op 29-mei-2007, om 4:18 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende geschreven: > Intuitive insight is developed from both direct experience and > analysis. They both build > in relation to the cultivation of each. #72758 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 29, 2007 12:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] New Series: Recollection of the Buddha upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 5/29/07 12:37:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > Hi All (Especially Howard), > > I have enjoyed posting Mindfulness of Death from the Visuddhimagga, > and I hope that it has been of benefit to the members (as it was a > benefit to myself). In the past, I had a disagreement with Howard > about Recollection of the Buddha. I stated that Recollection of the > Buddha was a meditation, and Howard stated that it was not since it > involved discursive thought. > > I will begin posting the section from the Visuddhimagga giving the > details of the practice of Recollection of the Buddha. It is one of > the six recollections that the Buddha prescribed to lay followers (the > others being dhamma, sangha, morality, generosity, and devas) AN VI. > Therefore, I won't have to argue with Jon about this practice being > appropriate for lay people. ;-)) > > Metta, > James > > =============================== Funny - I don't recall the discussing of this at all with you! (I don't doubt you - I just don't recall it.) It surprises me that I would say outright that it is "not a meditation," for I know that it is presented as such. In any case, at the moment, I don't think I'd say outright that it is not. I think it is a complex activity. Most fundamentally, I think of it as a contemplation that instills confidence, and calm, and even joy, but I also certainly can see how, when immersed in that contemplation, if attention turns towards the bodily and mental peace and happiness arising from it, the contemplation can turn into a state of rapt attention that becomes samatha meditation and can even lead into jhana. With metta, Howard #72759 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 29, 2007 1:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Curiousity Corner 1 upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 5/29/07 1:43:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > We are sometimes admonished by otherwise well-meaning folks at dsg to > refrain from using one's critical faculties in relation to the > received wisdom of the Theravadan tradition. > > IMO, this is a very anti-Buddhist requirment to foist on to others. > > The purpose of this curiousity corner is to demonstrate the need for > critical reading and evaluation of any of the texts, including the > Suttas, and any practices that such texts may prescribe. > > All constructive comments are welcome. -------------------------------------------- Howard: Herman, my friend, here's a "constructive comment" that I'm afraid you won't find much to your liking: I've looked over the example below of the sort of material you are looking to examine. It certainly does express a notion that I find silly on the face of it. There are other notions presented elsewhere that also are likely to strike us that way, and with justification. Whether such writings are instances of the Buddha simply speaking to people in terms that they can grasp, for example by personifying natural forces (a possible perspective on the example you give below), or whether such writings are corruptions of the record, or whether there are hidden matters involved that we are unaware of, for example, in the following material, that there are lesser devas, nature spirits similar to those said to be associated with trees, whose lives are bound up with the ordinary forces of nature, who sense changes in the environment and participate in them on their own plane, we just don't know. The fact could be one of these or a combination of these, or yet something else. But I am uncomfortable with intentionally trotting out a series of suttas of this sort for the purpose of their disparagement. I think it is clear that a number of such can be found, but an emphasis on them is not something that I would view as useful. I think that presenting occasional examples pointing out the importance of using judgement and not slavishly accepting any and all things that appear in suttas is useful and important and a remedy for mindless acceptance, but making such into a project that displays amusement at sutta content in a whole series of suttas would tend to inculcate an unhealthy degree of cynicism and scepticism as regards the Buddha and his teachings. The thing is, you see, that folks who read such suttas and think that nothing in them requires any further explanation, but that they should be literally accepted on faith as is, are typically "true believers" with a felt psychological "need to believe," and thousands of good examples will still give no pause for them. So all that a series of "problematical" examples will accomplish is, IMO, a casting of doubt on the Buddha and his Dhamma. So, the bottom line is that I think that such an approach can be more harmful than helpful. I'm sorry, Herman, but I'm afraid I'm less than enthusiastic about this Curiosity Corner. --------------------------------------------------- > > Samyutta Nikàya > Division III Khandhaka > Book 31 Valàhaka Samyutta > > 31.1.53 > > 1. I heard thus. At one time the Blessed One was living in the > monastery offered by Anàthapindaka in Jeta's grove in Sàvatthi. > > 2. Then a certain monk approached the Blessed One, worshipped, and sat > on a side. > > 3. Sitting, that monk said to the Blessed One: Venerable sir, why is > it cold on a certain day? > > 4. Monk, there are gods named cold clouds. On a certain day it occurs > to them: `What if we delight as much as we like?' According to their > intention it becomes cold. > > 5. Monks, as a result a certain day becomes cold. > > > > Herman > > ======================= With metta, Howard #72760 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue May 29, 2007 5:06 am Subject: Re: Curiousity Corner 1 scottduncan2 Dear Herman, H: "We are sometimes admonished by otherwise well-meaning folks at dsg to refrain from using one's critical faculties in relation to the received wisdom of the Theravadan tradition. "IMO, this is a very anti-Buddhist requirment to foist on to others. The purpose of this curiousity corner is to demonstrate the need for critical reading and evaluation of any of the texts, including the Suttas, and any practices that such texts may prescribe." Scott: This is certainly at the heart of the inability you and I have to see things the same way. We understand differently the use of 'critical faculties'. I think that at the base of it, 'critical faculties' are ill-defined. To me, this seems to mean ordinary thinking, or 'my thinking'. I'd say that, using 'my thinking', in relation to the world and compared to that which is taught by a Buddha, I haven't gotten very far. Using 'own thinking' has not gotten anyone very far, for that matter. I don't mean in an ordinary sense. For example, take this statement: http://msc.phys.rug.nl/quantummechanics/ "Quantum mechanics is a mathematical theory that can describe the behavior of objects that are roughly 10,000,000,000 times smaller than a typical human being. Quantum particles move from one point to another as if they are waves. However, at a detector they always appear as discrete lumps of matter. There is no counterpart to this behavior in the world that we perceive with our own senses. One cannot rely on every-day experience to form some kind of 'intuition' of how these objects move. The intuition or 'understanding' formed by the study of basic elements of quantum mechanics is essential to grasp the behavior of more complicated quantum systems." Scott: At the face of it, this statement is no more fantastic than: "...Monk, there are gods named cold clouds. On a certain day it occurs to them: `What if we delight as much as we like?' According to their intention it becomes cold. Monks, as a result a certain day becomes cold." Scott: I have no problem with the notions of particle physics. I haven't seen quantum particles. I haven't seen a particle detector (except in movies). I certainly don't deny the existence of either of these things simply because I haven't seen them. These notions have been, and will continue to be refined as theoreticians deepen their thinking, calculating, and investigation of such phenomena. I will never likely be privvy to the experience of such things. The 'critical faculties' relevant from the point of view of the Buddha's teachings seem to be, according 'to the received wisdom of the Theravadan tradition', are (from Nyanatiloka): "Indriya: 'abilities', is a name for 22, partly physical, partly mental, phenomena often treated in the Suttas as well as in the Abhidhamma. They are: 6 Bases aayatana : 1. eye: cakkhu 2. ear: sota 3. nose: ghaana 4. tongue: jivhaa 5. body: kaaya 6. mind: mano Gender bhava : 7. femininity: itthi 8. masculinity: purisa 9. vitality: jiivita 5 Feelings vedanaa q. v. 10. bodily pleasant feeling: sukha 11. bodily pain: dukkha 12. gladness: somanassa 13. sadness: domanassa 14. indifference: upekkhaa 5 Spiritual Abilities see: bala 15. faith: saddhaa 16. energy: viriya 17. awareness or mindfulness:sati 18. concentration:samaadhi 19. understanding: pa~n~naa 3 supra-mundane Abilities 20. the assurance: 'I shall know what I did not yet know!': a~n~naata~n-~nassaamiit' indriya 21. the ability of highest knowledge: a~n~nindriya 22. the ability of him who knows: a~n~naataavindriya" Scott: These are the relevant faculties as far as I'm concerned. There is definitely more to things than meets the eye. And I mean that the way we think it is, by our own reckoning, is not the way it is. If mundane and non-essential theoretical physics can postulate the presence of particles of such an infinitessimally small size that we cannot see them, and we take it at face value (and I see no reason not to), why must this so-called 'critical faculty' not be appropriate when applied to things within the teachings that don't seem to make sense to our modern sensibilities? To say, "If I don't see it, it doesn't exist," is no more sophisticated than the three year old who, upon covering her eyes with her hands, believes that no one can see her anymore. Sincerely, Scott. #72761 From: "wisdomcompassion" Date: Tue May 29, 2007 5:58 am Subject: Re: Curiousity Corner 1 wisdomcompas... Hi Herman, > The purpose of this curiousity corner is to demonstrate the need for > critical reading and evaluation of any of the texts, including the > Suttas, and any practices that such texts may prescribe. The human life is very short and there are a lots of things which need critical examination, which i think is very constructive if one does with one's own mind, and its processes. As long as texts are concerned, if you find something reasonable, then adopt and take what is reasonable; in your life, and discard what is unreasonable. verse 12 and verse 11 of dhammapada are very relevant here for good guidance. i m sure u would certainly find a lots of reasonable things in tipitaka. at least this helps me a lot. i wish u use your critical faculties with wise judgement. with metta nidhi #72762 From: "wisdomcompassion" Date: Tue May 29, 2007 6:26 am Subject: Re: Perfections N, no 37 wisdomcompas... Dear Nina, i liked your post very much. i find nothing wrong with it. its nice thing to do indeed. in this particular post i m not sure about the following statement. I think when it is true metta self is absent at that moment. the same is for other four brahmviharas. As per my understanding, the good qualities like brahmviharas, bojjhangas etc. arise when the defilements are eradicated. so when ill will is absent metta is there. Hence illwill is conditioned reality, metta is not. the person who is enlightened have infinite metta, how can metta be a conditioned reality. anyways i found your message to be an original thought, and liked it very much. Thanks again for posting it. with metta nidhi *********** >Mettå is a conditioned reality and when it > appears it can be studied with mindfulness, so that it can be known > as not self, not `my mettã #72763 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue May 29, 2007 7:38 am Subject: Conditions, Ch 2, no 2. nilovg Dear friends, What kind of objects does phassa contact? In order to have more understanding of the reasons why we have to experience particular objects we should consider the object-condition and other conditions. We may be in the company of a good friend in Dhamma so that we can hear the right Dhamma and are able to develop right understanding. Or we may be in the company of bad friends who are negligent of what is wholesome. In these different situations it is phassa which contacts different objects. We may be inclined to think that we can choose the objects we experience. Even when it seems that we can choose, the experience of objects is still conditioned. When the conditions are not right we cannot experience a particular object we wish to experience. For example, we may long for the flavour of apple and we start to eat it, but the inside may be spoilt and instead of a delicious flavour we taste a bitter flavour. Or we turn on the radio in order to hear music, but then we cannot hear it because the radio is out of order or the noise outside is too loud. Several conditions work together for the experience of a particular object. For example, when there is hearing-consciousness, it is kamma which produces the vipåkacitta which is hearing, as well as the earsense which is the doorway and the physical base of hearing. If kamma had not produced earsense one could not hear. Sound which impinges on the earsense is experienced not only by hearing- consciousness but also by other cittas arising in a process which each have their own function while they experience sound. In each process of cittas there are javana-cittas which are, in the case of non-arahats, either kusala cittas or akusala cittas. Cittas which experience objects are accompanied by different feelings. Seeing, hearing, smelling and tasting which are vipåkacittas experiencing a pleasant or unpleasant object, are always accompanied by indifferent feeling. Often it is not known whether the object experienced by these cittas was pleasant or unpleasant, they fall away immediately. When a pleasant or unpleasant tangible object is experienced through the bodysense, the body-consciousness, which is vipåkacitta, is not accompanied by indifferent feeling but by pleasant bodily feeling or by painful bodily feeling. The impact of tangible object on the bodysense is more intense than the impact of the other sense objects on the corresponding senses. After the vipåkacittas have fallen away javana-cittas arise. When these are kusala cittas they are accompanied by pleasant feeling or by indifferent feeling, and when these are akusala cittas they are accompanied by pleasant feeling, unpleasant feeling or indifferent feeling. ******* Nina. #72764 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue May 29, 2007 7:37 am Subject: Perfections N, no 38 nilovg Dear friends, Chapter 10 THE PERFECTION OF EQUANIMITY Equanimity, upekkhã, is another perfection the Bodhisatta fulfilled. Upekkhå is in this case not neutral feeling but the sobhana cetasika which is tatramajjhattata, evenmindedness or equanimity. The commentary to the Cariyapitaka 1) gives the following definition of equanimity: "Equanimity has the characteristic of promoting the aspect of neutrality; its function is to see things impartially; its manifestation is the subsiding of attraction and repulsion; reflection upon the fact that all beings inherit the results of their own kamma is its proximate cause." The Bodhisatta developed the perfection of equanimity together with right understanding. Through equanimity he was imperturbable in the face of abusive speech and wrong done to him. He was impartial even to those who wished him well and he did not expect any reward. The same commentary 2) states that equanimity is indispensable to the practice of the other perfections. We read: "For without equanimity, the aspirant cannot relinquish something without making false discriminations over gifts and recipients. When there is no equanimity, he cannot purify his virtue without always thinking about the obstacles to his life and to his vital needs. Equanimity perfects the power of renunciation for by its means he overcomes discontent and delight. It perfects the functions of all the requisites (by enabling wisdom) to examine them according to their origin. When energy is aroused to excess because it hasn't been examined with equanimity, it cannot perform its proper function of striving. Forbearance and reflective acquiescence (the modes of patience) are possible only in one possessed of equanimity. Because of this quality, he does not speak deceptively about beings or formations. By looking upon the vicissitudes of worldly events with an equal mind, his determination to fulfil the practices he has undertaken becomes completely unshakable. And because he is unconcerned over the wrongs done by others, he perfects the abiding in lovingkindness. Thus equanimity is indispensable to the practice of all the other perfections. We need equanimity with the other perfections. While we are generous we should also be impartial. We should not think that we should only give to this person and not to that person. Equanimity helps us not to be disturbed when we lose dear people or when other people hurt or harm us. We can remember that what-ever happens has to happen because it has been conditioned already. When we see others suffer and we cannot do anything for them, we can remember that we all are heirs to our own kamma, that we receive the results of our own deeds. Then there can be kusala citta with equanimity instead of aversion. ---------- 1) Ven. Bodhi, p. 261. 2) Ibidem, p. 285. ********* Nina. #72765 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue May 29, 2007 4:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Dhammas" and Impermanence (The Abhidhammikas perspective?) TGrand458@... In a message dated 5/29/2007 3:52:03 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: I am not a teacher, but a lifelong student. The Dhamma is subtle, deep, hard to understand as we read. How could we understand everything? The coming weeks I have physio because of an injury and this takes up time. I give the baton to Rob K and others. I will not be able to post much. Nina. Hi Nina Most teachers, if they're good, are also lifelong students. You can't be writing books about what Buddhism consists of, presenting the teachings, as you understand them, for others to learn from, and then deny being a teacher. You're a huge teacher. (Don't take that the wrong way. I don't have any idea what you look like.) The Dhamma is difficult. We just need to understand enough to overcome attachment. Easier said then done. Sorry about your injury. Best wishes for your best health. TG #72766 From: "sukinder" Date: Wed May 30, 2007 5:12 am Subject: RE: My Meditation Re: Correction Re: A Bit More Re: [dsg] jhaana and superpow... sukinderpal Hi Howard, This is my last post in this thread. ===================== > But seriously though, I think everyone on DSG is sincere and express > themselves as they see / understand things. I admit to having very little > metta arise in a day, but I can't wait for more to arise before writing an > email. So I'll have to depend on any metta on your part and that of others' > to compensate for some of what is lacking in me. :-) ----------------------------------------- Howard: So, are you saying up-front that you are writing me without good will, or at least not much? Is that likely to encourage my participation? :-) S: No. After having considered everyone's sincerity, I was reflecting on my own mental state. Realizing that I don't have the required level of wisdom, I thought that I should at least write with metta. But metta too seems to arise very little and far between, therefore there was going to be much, much more akusala compared. It was with this that I then asked for 'some' metta from you and others. =========================== > Suk: First of all, who / what according to you is a practitioner / > non-practitioner? Do you consider if asked, "Who amongst you meditates > regularly?" those that raise their hands to be practitioners and the rest > not? ------------------------------- Howard: Sukin, it is exactly meditation that you asked me about. That is what we've been discussing. In any case, I certainly do not seek a meditation critique from a non-meditator. Is that more clear? S: No Howard, I didn't ask to hear about your experience in meditation. As far as experiences go, I am not interested in anyone's even an ariyan's. What I am interested in is views / understandings gained from no matter during what experience and when. If you went back to post 72564, you will see that I asked about the "relationship between 'calm' and 'clarity'". It was a Dhamma question. When you wrote back and described your experience in meditation, I was a little surprised and in fact felt that it was sincere of you to be doing this for me, a non-meditator. I however also took that as a response though not directly to my question, but nevertheless as something I could comment on in general. ======================= > I have noted an unwillingness to question the validity of each other's> > methods as long as there is agreement that one *does* meditate and is a > Buddhist. ------------------------------- Howard: I frequently discuss meditaion issues with other meditators, though only a little on DSG. Do you find that a surprise? S: Perhaps you do. However what I like to see discussed is not so much any fine tuning of techniques, but rather the fundamentals of each approach. That of Goenka, Mahasi, Buddhadasa, the Thai Forest Monks or even Ven. V, how is it possible that they could all lead to the same goal? I don't believe that the Buddha's Teachings on the law of causation and conditionality is arbitrary that these different approaches (some would even include Zen and Mahayana into the fold) could be seen as more or less equally valid. From my perspective, there are yet other basic problems, but I expect of you and others some questioning at this level at least..? ================= > It seems almost as if each school of 'practitioners' are insecure > about their own position and therefore agree not to question one another, > else they themselves are put into an uncomfortable position. --------------------------------- Howard: Sukin, do you enjoy looking to criticize others? Is that *your* practice. I find it annoying. I think you would as well. Jesus once said to look not at the sliver in someone else's eye, but to look first to remove the stake in one's own. Not bad advice, IMO. S: I do admit to limitless akusala; however there are also intentions towards helping. This you may consider arrogant of me. I doubt however, that I do enjoy criticizing others. I see no good in putting anyone in an embarrassing position, if it happens however, I can't help it. But my intention always has been to discuss and promote better understanding of Dhamma. Besides you can be sure that typing these posts is physically very demanding of me, I never do it with any ease. =================== > And by precision I do not mean being able to identify or describe exactly, > but rather being inclined to "understand" better. Meanwhile there is also > some recognition of the notoriety of ignorance, one therefore feels > disinclined to come to a definite conclusion about one's own experience and > instead patiently and courageously turn to the Dhamma. This I feel is what > we all should be doing here. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Well, I was simply describing my meditation to you as best I could, in response to your request. S: And like I said, I appreciated it. ==================== > You Howard, on the one hand often demand precision on the part of > Abhidhammikas to make clear their use of certain terms and ideas, yet are > willing to be quite vague when it comes to your own beliefs about practice. ------------------------------------------ Howard: I was vague??? I haven't a clue then of what you want. I did the best I could. Do you find the Buddha's descriptions of meditation vague? S: Perhaps it is because you thought that I was asking for a description of your meditation experience, but I was in fact enquiring about the 'understanding' behind the very decision to do so. Do you now see why what you said could be considered vague to me? When you refer to the "Buddha's description of meditation", I think you mean those part in the Suttas where the jhanas are described. I don't think the Buddha intended for his audience to see those descriptions as "milestones", but simply described them as a matter of fact, his aim being for his disciples to 'insight' at any stage the experience of jhana. The kind of descriptions that I'm interested in is for example the various vipassana nanas. These tell me more about the development of wisdom and are useful even now. Moreover this kind of thing does not arouse any fascination or curiosity about "experience", but does condition some corresponding level of detachment. ================== > From one perspective I feel this is understandable, since you and most > mediators appear to approach the Dhamma from the standpoint of > 'experiencing' rather then development of 'understanding'. -------------------------------------- Howard: Shall I now say that your notion of understanding is that of book learning? I'm really tiring of your criticisms. I'm not keen to continue like this. I do find your approach lacking in friendliness. Not pleasant, Sukin. ------------------------------------- S: Please accept my apology. I know that I can be quite annoying, but blame it on the accumulations :-). Yes let's not continue with this after I'm done with this post. So please take all my questions to you as being merely rhetorical. And yes you could say that the understanding is only intellectual (though not 'book knowledge'). ============================ > Such attitude I don't see in any meditator, in fact just the opposite in > most cases. -------------------------------------- Howard: I guess you don't know many, then, or not very well. Hurling more slings and arrows, Sukin? Very tiresome!!! S: Sorry again, but I still stand by what I said. ======================== > There is leaning toward 'attachment' rather, to one's experience> > (*during meditation*) more and more, and less interest in what the Tipitaka > says. When they *do* study the Texts, it is done with an eye to foster their > own preconceived ideas or else to satisfy any inherent curiosity. --------------------------------- Howard: SO unlike the non-meditators I've come across! You know: Free of ego, and never clinging to view. Practically defilement-free.WHAT an examplary bunch! If only we could ALL be like those simply great folks! Man, Sukin! So full of opinions and conceit! Simply unbelievable. Where is the humility, Sukin? Where is accepting the possibility of being in error? Clearly, it's well hidden. S: Indeed I have quite a big ego, this is the Truth. However I am not burdened by "experience" got from any kind of formal practice. The experience got from a self prescribed activity does invariably condition clinging when after all 'understanding' is not the driving force. I can't see it any other way. Regarding "humility", it is there when I recognize any akusala in me, and this happens very rarely. You are right, any kusala is quite well hidden. :-( ================== > Suk: This may sound arrogant, but I was hoping that my comments might be a > proximate cause for you to reconsider that truth. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, arrogant and conceited ... to the nth degree. S: I don't know about this. But is my arrogance much more than others in this group? What about those who come into here and criticize the Abhidhamma, the commentaries and A. Sujin? Am I more arrogant and conceited than these people? ==================== > And while were at it, at this point allow me to comment on one matter more. > You mentioned a few times, the fact of being *told* by your mediation > teacher, Leigh Brasington, that you experienced the 1st and 5th jhanas. -------------------------------------------- Howard: He is not my meditation teacher. I attended one very brief retreat with him. And, no, it was a shuttling between the 2nd and the 5th, and we both agreed that it was more of a "stumbling into" than any sort of mastery.What of it? S: No need to get more into this, I have said enough. As far as I'm concerned, it is now up to you to take from it what you will. But maybe I'll add one more comment: I think this whole business about 'meditation' is based on the idea that one needs to try and "experience" the reality directly. I think this is very misleading and a wrong footing unlikely capable of leading to insight. I think the right attitude should be that one needs to "develop understanding"; this at once can cause a firm footing and if conditions are maintained, lead to insight. And for this reason, I don't think there is place for such reasoning as you make that because one is not a meditator, he or she is not in a position to discuss a meditators experience. Dhammas can be reduced to the khandas, nama/rupa, dhatu and so on, and so imo can be discussed by anyone interested in the subject. =================== > First, it would have been impossible to correctly describe such a state > especially given that you were unsure. Secondly, he not being enlightened, > could not have known exactly. Third, if indeed you experienced jhana even if > it be the 1st level, you *would have known* without doubt, since this > implies a very high level of panna. This panna *KNOWS*! To me this > experience of yours was a case of the blind leading the blind. And yes, this > is theory on my part, but not just. ;-) ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Your authority is mind-numbing, Sukin, only outdone by your conceit. Your idea of a decent conversation is a continued arrogant critique. You must be great fun at social gatherings. S: :-) You guessed right. I am *no fun* at any social gathering. But what can I do? So I accept myself as I am. However, I don't believe my criticizing any meditation teacher, and I do *all* of them, is necessarily due to conceit or arrogance.. ============================== > Suk: My point was that since you are presumably practicing to 'know' one > reality at a time, yet you go along with this thought about "sensations > suffusing the whole body" as if this is in any way related to the > development of that kind of wisdom. ------------------------------------- Howard: Have you ever read the Buddha's descriptions of the jhanas, Sukin? The bathpowder reference? I quote: _________________________ Just as if a skilled bathman or bathman's apprentice would pour bath powder into a brass basin and knead it together, sprinkling it again and again with water, so that his ball of bath powder - saturated, moisture-laden, permeated within and without - would nevertheless not drip; even so, the monk permeates, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of withdrawal. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal... S: One can experience similar sensations even in a Goenka retreat and I believe several other techniques will also do it. So should I take this seriously? And as I said earlier, I don't think the Buddha described such in order that others evaluate their own "experiences". He taught "insight"!! ========================= > Suk: I don't care what term is used; in fact when it comes to describing > "thinking", being unsure about the mechanism, I myself refer to the citta > and not any particular cetasikas. > -------------------------------------- Howard: It is even more evident now that you haven't read the Buddha's desciptions of the jhanas. Vittaka and vicara cease on entry to the 2nd jhana. BTW, I had thought that when you asked about my meditating, it might have been because of some genuine interest. It is clear, now, however,that your purpose was to afford yourself an opportunity to attack meditating, to criticize a fellow list member, and to reinforce your so-tightly-clung-to beliefs. I sincerely regret ever having given you a serious reply. S: I hope what I've written so far has given you a clearer picture of my intentions? Though I'll admit at this point that I do quite often feel irritated by what you write on the list...sorry. ================= My questioning the above was in relation> > to your distinction between deliberateness and without. You talk as if there > are some states controllable and some not. Also you appear to conclude that > one *lead* to the other. Moreover you identified 'effort' in the one as if > the other did not exhibit any characteristic of effort. All this seemed to > go against the Buddha's teachings on conditionality on more than one level. ----------------------------------- Howard: Having fun? S: Certainly not when I read the first few paragraphs of your response. I stopped reading at that point feeling quite infuriated. But then I remembered something the Buddha said, and I cooled down. :-) ======================== Over and out, Sukin. Definitely over and done with. With metta, Howard S: Hope you don't mind that I went ahead and responded? Metta, Sukinder PS: I am deadly sleepy right now. So if anything I've said in this post has offended you, blame it on the possibility of lapse of attention. ;-) #72767 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue May 29, 2007 6:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] New Series: Recollection of the Buddha TGrand458@... Hi Howard and James In a message dated 5/29/2007 5:05:57 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: > Hi All (Especially Howard), > > I have enjoyed posting Mindfulness of Death from the Visuddhimagga, > and I hope that it has been of benefit to the members (as it was a > benefit to myself). In the past, I had a disagreement with Howard > about Recollection of the Buddha. I stated that Recollection of the > Buddha was a meditation, and Howard stated that it was not since it > involved discursive thought. > > I will begin posting the section from the Visuddhimagga giving the > details of the practice of Recollection of the Buddha. It is one of > the six recollections that the Buddha prescribed to lay followers (the > others being dhamma, sangha, morality, generosity, and devas) AN VI. > Therefore, I won't have to argue with Jon about this practice being > appropriate for lay people. ;-)) > > Metta, > James > > =============================== Funny - I don't recall the discussing of this at all with you! (I don't doubt you - I just don't recall it.) It surprises me that I would say outright that it is "not a meditation," for I know that it is presented as such. In any case, at the moment, I don't think I'd say outright that it is not. I think it is a complex activity. Most fundamentally, I think of it as a contemplation that instills confidence, and calm, and even joy, but I also certainly can see how, when immersed in that contemplation, if attention turns towards the bodily and mental peace and happiness arising from it, the contemplation can turn into a state of rapt attention that becomes samatha meditation and can even lead into jhana. With metta, Howard I think this sounds right on Howard. And its also stated in the Suttas how one reflects about various meditative stages...as either impermanent or as to their content. It seems that such reflection occurs from within the meditative state but I'm not sure if it is meant to imply that one has left that stage to reflect. At any rate, reasoning/thinking, and direct experiences alternate back and forth to as if climbing a "ladder of insight" (as a left and right leg would climb a ladder.) Each gets the other to a potentially higher level. TG #72768 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue May 29, 2007 6:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Curiousity Corner 1 TGrand458@... In a message dated 5/28/2007 11:43:26 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: We are sometimes admonished by otherwise well-meaning folks at dsg to refrain from using one's critical faculties in relation to the received wisdom of the Theravadan tradition. Hi Herman That's only when our ideas don't suit their ideas. ;-) It seems to me that the Suttas comprise some 10,000 pages of material attributed to the Buddha. Out of that, yes, there's maybe a handful of pages that seem ridiculously silly and another handful that seems just plain silly. I basically disregard them as they do not accord with the teachings in any manner that I can figure. Perhaps the person the Buddha was speaking to was mentally retarded. Perhaps someone interjected such things into the Suttas. Hell, I don't know. Other issues, involving kamma, might be silly to some and logical to others. I tacitly accept those teachings but I'm not attached to them...nor would I make a big deal about defending them. Because I just don't know for sure. For me, its best to focus on what I see is the consistent issues and aspects of the Suttas (which is the overriding majority) that lead to the development of wholesome and insightful states...leading to detachment and away from affliction. Whatever the mind often thinks and ponders on becomes the inclination of the mind. TG #72769 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue May 29, 2007 11:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Dhammas" and Impermanence (The Abhidhammikas perspective?) nilovg Hi T.G. Thank you for your kind words and concern. To overcome attachment, that is the big question. By the development of right understanding, as you also suggests. Nina. Op 29-mei-2007, om 17:52 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende geschreven: > The Dhamma is difficult. We just need to understand enough to overcome > attachment. Easier said then done. #72770 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue May 29, 2007 11:27 am Subject: Q. re Perfections N, 37 nilovg Dear Nidhi, Thank you for your kind post. ---------- Nidhi: I think when it is true metta self is absent at that moment. the same is for other four brahmviharas. ------ Nina: In this sense, that you do not think of your own benefit at such moments. But so long as wrong view is not eradicated it conditions many moments in between your acts and thoughts of metta that are not wholesome. We may find ourselves such a good person, have conceit, or think that metta is ours. There are many more akusala cittas than kusala cittas. -------- Nidhi: As per my understanding, the good qualities like brahmviharas, bojjhangas etc. arise when the defilements are eradicated. -------- Nina: Defilements are eradicated in stages, at the different stages of enlightenment. But we do not have to wait to develop metta and other good qualities now, they can arise also for non-ariyans who have not eradicated defilements. They can arise in daily life, you do not have to temporarily subdue defilements by samatha. ---------- Nidhi: so when ill will is absent metta is there. Hence illwill is conditioned reality, metta is not. the person who is enlightened have infinite metta, how can metta be a conditioned reality. -------- Nina: We can turn it around: when there is metta there is no dosa, that is the opposite of metta. Dosa, metta, they are cetasikas that are conditioned dhammas. Attachment and ignorance are conditions for dosa, good deeds done in the past and wise attention to the object conditions metta. It arises when you see the benefit of kusala and the danger of akusala. Understanding this, is a condition, is it not? The ariyan has purer metta, conditioned by right understanding. All cetasikas, cittas, rupas are conditioned dhammas, sa'nkhaara dhammas. They arise because of conditioning factors, and they fall away again. Whatever appears, metta, seeing or any other reality, does so because it has arisen, and what has arisen falls away again. This is the meaning of dhamma. We can say: everything in our life is dhamma. Nina. #72771 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue May 29, 2007 11:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Jhana as necessity to enlightenment... nilovg Hi Phil, thank you for your kind words. I especially like your words: our concern is Dhamma too! Interesting! It shows that you understand what is dhamma. We can spend our whole life learning this. I appreciate your post, Nina. Op 29-mei-2007, om 2:06 heeft Phil het volgende geschreven: > Probably the latter, > if we really believe that nothing is more important than Dhamma - > nothing, including Lodewijk's and all of our concern for your > health. Ah, but our concern is Dhamma too! Interesting! :) #72772 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue May 29, 2007 3:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Curiousity Corner 1 egberdina Hi All, On 30/05/07, TGrand458@... wrote: > > > We are sometimes admonished by otherwise well-meaning folks at dsg to > refrain from using one's critical faculties in relation to the > received wisdom of the Theravadan tradition. > > Hi Herman > > That's only when our ideas don't suit their ideas. ;-) > I was very pleased with all the responses to this thread. It is clear that all of you who responded have no problems with using your critical faculties. I will reply in more detail later, but first I'm off to see my friendly dentist to have some root canal therapy. Cheers Herman #72773 From: "Phil" Date: Tue May 29, 2007 4:16 pm Subject: Consciousness at the center philofillet Hi all This morning in a notebook I came across this sutta passage and the accompanying commentarial notes by Bhikkhu Bodhi that I had jotted down, unfortunately without a specific reference. "The volitional forms element is the home of consciousness. One whose consciousness is shackled by lust for the vollitional forms element is called one who roams about a home." BB- "consciousness is at the center of this because the other 4 khandas as objects or bases are said to be "the stations for the kamically generated cosciousness. The passage confirms the priviliged statuse of consciousness among the 5 aggregates. While all the aggregates are marked by the three 3 characteristics, consciousness serves as the connecting thread of personal coninuity through the sequence of rebirth." I was happy to be intrigued by this, because it's a little "knottier" than most things that catch my interest in Dhamma these days. I have a feeling it could help reconnect me a bit to my Abhidhamma studies to discuss this. First of all, could anyone provide the sutta reference for the above passage? Nina, please don't go looking for it on a wobbly ladder! Metta, Phil #72774 From: "Phil" Date: Tue May 29, 2007 4:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Curiousity Corner 1 philofillet Hi TG, Herman and all > For me, its best to focus on what I see is the consistent issues and aspects > of the Suttas (which is the overriding majority) that lead to the > development of wholesome and insightful states...leading to detachment and away from > affliction. Whatever the mind often thinks and ponders on becomes the > inclination of the mind. This is very well said TG. Herman, keeping the above is mind as you pursue your hunt for teachings that you consider silly would be a very good idea in my opinion. Metta, Phil This needs to be said again and again for all of our benefit: "Whatever the mind often thinks and ponders on becomes the inclination of the mind." I think this is found MN 19 or 20 ( forget which) the very important sutta that urges us to sort out wholesome from unwholesome patterns of thinking. #72775 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue May 29, 2007 5:04 pm Subject: Re: Curiousity Corner 1 buddhatrue Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > All constructive comments are welcome. > > Samyutta Nikàya > Division III Khandhaka > Book 31 Valàhaka Samyutta > > 31.1.53 > > 1. I heard thus. At one time the Blessed One was living in the > monastery offered by Anàthapindaka in Jeta's grove in Sàvatthi. > > 2. Then a certain monk approached the Blessed One, worshipped, and sat > on a side. > > 3. Sitting, that monk said to the Blessed One: Venerable sir, why is > it cold on a certain day? > > 4. Monk, there are gods named cold clouds. On a certain day it occurs > to them: `What if we delight as much as we like?' According to their > intention it becomes cold. > > 5. Monks, as a result a certain day becomes cold. What a bizarre sutta. Why would a monk ask the Buddha why it gets cold on a certain day? It sounds like a question a five-year-old would ask. That has nothing to do with the Dhamma. And why would the Buddha answer that monk in such a stange way? Of the thirty two realms of existence, I haven't heard of gods which are called "cold clouds". The Buddha only taught suffering and the path leading to the ending of that suffering. I question if this sutta is authentic. However, even if it is completely authentic, it can't be read by today's standards. If it suddenly gets cold on a certain day (and it isn't winter) then that usually means a cold front has moved in. in the Buddha's time, they referred to weather phenomenon in terms of "gods". Even if the Buddha knew better, why would he want to teach the true cause of weather? It would become a big mess which would detract from the Dhamma. Since there is no harm in letting people believe that gods are in control of the weather, why contradict that belief? There would be no reason. So, a cold front moving in could be seen in terms as the gods "cold clouds" becoming agitated or delightful. Metta, James ps. I am glad Herman that you have started this corner. For those of us who take certain things within Buddhism for granted, it could make us look at things with fresh eyes. #72776 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue May 29, 2007 5:22 pm Subject: Re: New Series: Recollection of the Buddha buddhatrue Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Funny - I don't recall the discussing of this at all with you! (I > don't doubt you - I just don't recall it.) It surprises me that I would say > outright that it is "not a meditation," for I know that it is presented as such. In > any case, at the moment, I don't think I'd say outright that it is not. I > think it is a complex activity. Oh, sorry, didn't mean to put you on the spot. I thought that you would remember that, as it was the only time you and I significantly disagreed on the subject of meditation. As I recall, you were discussing with Nina the meaning of "meditation" and its importance to the Buddha's path (which happens so rarely!! ;-)). Nina posted that she agreed that meditation was important, for example thinking about the qualities of the Buddha. You replied that that wasn't meditation; I jumped in a disagreed. We had a few posts about the subject and then it was dropped. The exchange delighted the non-meditators in the group (since the confirmed meditators couldn't agree on what meditation exactly is ;-)) and Sarah and Ken H. referred to this disagreement a few times to justify a non-meditation approach to the Dhamma. Does that jog your memory? Maybe Nina remembers. Anyway, I think that what you were disagreeing with is how Nina was using the idea of `Recollection of the Buddha". To Nina, this can be done during everyday life, like going to the grocery store and thinking, "Wow, the Buddha was really great….I wonder if pork chops are on sale??....The Buddha was supreme!...I can't forget to buy crackers…etc…..". This is not `Recollection of the Buddha', this is just a bunch of thinking. I hope you enjoy the series. It can be very helpful to people to practice Recollection of the Buddha. Metta, James #72777 From: LBIDD@... Date: Tue May 29, 2007 6:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Consciousness at the center lbidd2 Hi Phil (and Nina at the end), You made a few transcription errors: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Phil: " "The volitional forms element is the home of consciousness. One whose consciousness is shackled by lust for the vollitional forms element is called one who roams about a home." BB- "consciousness is at the center of this because the other 4 khandas as objects or bases are said to be "the stations for the kamically generated cosciousness. The passage confirms the priviliged statuse of consciousness among the 5 aggregates. While all the aggregates are marked by the three 3 characteristics, consciousness serves as the connecting thread of personal coninuity through the sequence of rebirth." " XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX SN22,3 p.860: "The form element, householder, is the home of consciousness; one whose consciousness is shackled by lust for the form element is called one who roams about in a home.18 The feeling element is the home of consciousness... The perception element is the home of consciousness... The volitional formations element is the home of consciousness; one whose consciousness is shackled by lust for the volitional formations element is called one who roams about in a home. It is in such a way that one roams about in a home.19 "And how, householder, does one roam about homeless? The desire, lust, delight, and craving, the engagement and clinging, the mental standpoints, adherences, and underlying tendencies regarding the form element: these have been abandoned by the Tathaagata, cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, obliterated so that they are no more subject to future arising. 20 Therefore the Tathaagata is called one who roams about homeless. [same for feeling, perception, volitional formations and] ... the consciousness element.21 --------------------- Note 18. ...The use of dhaatu as a synonym for khandha is unusual; more often the two are treated as headings for different schemes of classification. ... Spk resolves the compound, ruupadhaatumi raagena vinibaddham, and explains this consciousness as the kammic consciousness (kammavi~n~naa.na). The passage confirms the privileged status of consciousness among the five aggregates. While all the aggregates are conditioned phenomena marked by the three characteristics, consciousness serves as the connecting thread of personal continuity through the sequence of births. This ties up with the idea expressed at 12:38-40 that consciousness is the persisting element in experience that links together the old existence with the new one. The other four aggregates serve as the "stations of consciousness" (vi~n~naa.na.t.thitiyo, see 22:53-54). Even consciousness, however, is not a self-identical entity but a sequence of dependently arisen occasions of cognizing; see MN I 256-60. 19. Spk: Why isn't the consciousness element mentioned here (as a "home for consciousness")? To avoid confusion, for "home" is here spoken of in the sense of a condition (paccaya). An earlier kammic consciousness is a condition for both a later kammic consciousness and a resultant consciousness, and an (earlier) resultant consciousness for both a (later) resultant consciousness and a (later) kammic consciousness. Therefore the confusion could arise: "What kind of consciousness is intended here?" To avoid such confusion, consciousness is not included, and the teaching is expressed without disorder. Further, the other four aggregates, as objects (or bases: aaramma.navasena), are said to be "stations for the kammically generative consciousness" (abhisa.nkhaaravi~n~naa.na.t.thitiyo), and to show them thus consciousness is not mentioned here. 20. "Engagement and clinging": Spk explains that although all arahants abandon these, the Tathaagata, the Perfectly Enlighened One, is mentioned as the supreme example because his status as an arahant is most evident to all the world. 21. Spk: Why is consciousness mentioned here? To show the abandoning of defilements. For defilements are not fully abandoned in relation to the other four aggregates only, but in relation to all five. Larry: The sense is that the form element (rupa), etc., is the home of (object and presence condition for) volitional consciousness ("kammic consciousness"). Using "presence condition" to cover the physical "base" (vatthu) relationship. Need clarification from NINA here. See note 19 above. Larry ps: "Spk" refers to the commentary. #72778 From: "Phil" Date: Tue May 29, 2007 6:29 pm Subject: Re: Curiousity Corner 1 philofillet Hi again Herman I wrote: > This needs to be said again and again for all of our > benefit: "Whatever the mind often thinks and ponders on becomes the > inclination of the mind." I think this is found MN 19 or 20 ( forget > which) the very important sutta that urges us to sort out wholesome > from unwholesome patterns of thinking. Just want to add that this wasn't to say that I think you are demonstrating a shortcoming on this point, just that it is an example of a simple teaching of the Buddha that is so powerful in immediate import that it absolutely dwarves (dwarfs?) obscure and possibly silly sounding suttas in importance. And we have to find these teachings that have immediate importance and devote our lives to practicing in their light - that's what I meant. So I would wonder what's the point of looking for possible faults in the Buddha's teaching when there is so much of value. To tailor a perfect Dhamma that suits one's tastes to a T? To Find the Truth? I am not interested in Finding the Truth. The mind is burning with greed, hatred and anger and there is first aid treatment that must be applied. Metta, Phil #72779 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue May 29, 2007 6:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Curiousity Corner 1 buddhatrue Hi Howard (and Herman), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: So all that a series of "problematical" examples will > accomplish is, IMO, a casting of doubt on the Buddha and his Dhamma. So, the bottom > line is that I think that such an approach can be more harmful than helpful. > I'm sorry, Herman, but I'm afraid I'm less than enthusiastic about this > Curiosity Corner. I strongly disagree with what you have written here. Critical inquiry is the cornerstone of the Buddha's teaching, and it should be able to withstand any type of critical inquiry or it isn't worth a hill of beans. Also, it isn't appropriate to conjecture about Herman's "true intentions" for wanting to start such a series. As for myself, I don't believe that he want so mock the suttas as much as he wants to determine what is fit to believe and what is not. I say onward and forward with the Curiosity Corner! If I still had my Nikayas, I would contribute a sutta or two which make me scratch my head in wonder. Metta, James #72780 From: "Phil" Date: Tue May 29, 2007 6:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Consciousness at the center philofillet Hi Larry Thanks! Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > > Hi Phil (and Nina at the end), > > You made a few transcription errors: > > #72781 From: "shiau_in_lin" Date: Tue May 29, 2007 6:54 pm Subject: Buddha's relic shiau_in_lin Dear Dhamma Friends, Hello. I am an old student with Ajhan Sujin. And the posting of this message might displease many of you because it is not about the Sutta or the Abhidhamma. BUT it is about the teaching of the Buddha and his relic that was not treated with respect in India. Well, today I am writing to you because I would like to ask some opinions from all our Dhamma friends. There is a ThanYing who is a student of Goenkaji. Now Goenkaji had built a very big stupa near Mumbai. You can read the information in www.globalpagoda.org. Goenkaji had asked to Indian government for the permission to move the relic of the Buddha in the Musuem to be placed in this globalpagoda because the Buddha's relic in the musuem, was not treated respectfully in the musuem.The teaching of the Buddha and the Dhamma is the Ultimate Truth but it was not placed and respected properly. But the Indian Government ignored him and rejected him because Goenkaji was an Hindu and now a Buddhist. At this moment, there are so many Indians who are coming to study the Dhamma and practicing it,so the Indian Government is afraid. Goenkaji had came to Thailand 2 times to talk to the Sangharaja of the Thailand, to ask them for help, but they could not do anything because no connection. If any of you have any suggestions, pls kindly contact me at shinaariya@... or shiau_in_lin@.... Your kind effort and suggestion is greatly appreciated. Looking forward to your kind reply. Thankyou. with respect and metta, Shin P.S. Sarah. I hope this message will not cause the arising of your dosa. If it does, I am sincerely sorry. Pls forgive me. #72782 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue May 29, 2007 7:32 pm Subject: Recollection of the Buddha- 2 buddhatrue Hi All, RECOLLECTION OF THE BUDDHA AS ACCOMPLISHED: Herein, what he recollects firstly is that the Blessed One is accomplished for the following reasons: (i) because of remoteness, and (ii) because of his enemies and (iii) the spokes having been destroyed, and (iv) because of his worthiness of requisites, etc., and (v) because of absence of secret evil-doing. (i) He stands utterly remote and far away from all defilements because he has expunged all trace of defilement by means of the path-because of such remoteness he is accomplished. A man remote indeed we call From something he has not all all; The Savior too that has no stain May well the name `accomplished' gain. (ii) And these enemies, these defilements, are destroyed by the path-because the enemies are thus destroyed he is accomplished also. The enemies that were deployed, Greed and the rest, have been destroyed By His, the Helper's, Wisdom's sword, So he is `accomplished', all accord. (iii) Now this wheel of the round of rebirths with its hub made of ignorance and of craving for becoming, with its spokes consisting of formations of merit and the rest, with its rim of ageing and death, which is joined to the chariot of the triple becoming by piercing it with the axle made of the origin of cankers, has been revolving throughout time that has no beginning. All this wheel's spokes were destroyed by him at the Place of Enlightenment, as he stood firm with the feet of energy on the ground of virtue, wielding with the hand of faith the axe of knowledge that destroys kamma-because the spokes are thus destroyed he is accomplished also. Or alternatively, it is the beginningless round of rebirths that is called the `Wheel of the round of rebirths'. Ignornace is its hub because it is its root. Ageing-and-death is its rim because it terminates it. The remaining ten states [of the dependent origination] are its spokes because ignorance is their root and aging-and-death their termination. Herein, ignorance is unknowing about suffering and the rest. And ignorance in sensual becoming is a condition for formations in sensual becoming; ignorance in fine-material becoming is a condition for formations in fine-material becoming. Ignorance in immaterial becoming is a condition for formations in immaterial becoming. (Further explanation of dependent origination as it applies to sensual, fine-material, and immaterial becoming). Now the Blessed One knew, saw, understood and penetrated in all aspects this dependent origination with its four summarizations its three times, its twenty aspects, and its three links. `Knowledge is in the sense of that being known and understanding is in the sense of the act of understanding that. Hence it was said: "Understanding of discernment of conditions is knowledge of the causal relationship of states"' Thus when the Blessed One, by correctly knowing these states with knowledge of relations of states, became dispassionate towards them, when his greed faded away, when he was liberated, then he destroyed, quite destroyed, abolished, the spokes of this Wheel of the round of rebirths of the kind just described. Because the spokes are thus destroyed he is accomplished also. The spokes of Rebirth's Wheel have been Destroyed with wisdom's weapon keen By Him, the Helper of the world, And so `accomplished' he is called. (iv) And he is worthy of the requisites of robes, etc., and of the distinction of being accorded homage because it is he who is most worthy of offerings. For when a Perfect One has arisen, important deities and human beings pay homage to none else; for Brahma Sahampati paid homage to the Perfect One with a jeweled garland as big as Sineru, and other deities did so according to their means, as well as such human being as kind Bimbisara [of Magadha] and the king of Kosala. And after the Blessed One had finally attained nibbana king Asoka renounced wealth to the amount of ninety-six million for his sake and founded eighty-four thousand monasteries throughout all Jambudipa (India). And so, with all these, what need to speak of others?-Because of worthiness of requisites he is accomplished also. So he is worthy, the Helper of the world, Of homage paid with requisites; the word `Accomplished' has this meaning in the world, Hence the Victor is worthy of that word. (v) And he does not act like those fools in the world who vaunt their cleverness and yet do evil, but in secret for fear of getting a bad name.-Because of absence of secret evil-doing he is accomplished also. No secret evil deed may claim An author so august; the name `Accomplished' is his deservedly By absence of such secrecy. So in all ways, The Sage of remoteness unalloyed, Vanguished defiling foes deployed, The spokes of rebirth's wheel destroyed, Worthy of requisites employed, Secret evil he does avoid: For these five reasons he may claim This word `accomplished' for his name. To be continued…RECOLLECTION OF THE BUDDHA AS FULLY ENLIGHTENED. Metta, James #72783 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 29, 2007 4:04 pm Subject: Re: My Meditation Re: Correction Re: A Bit More Re: [dsg] jhaana and superpow... upasaka_howard Dear Sukin - Though I'm not inserting comments below, I'm including your entire post below for reference and as a matter of fairness. I find the tenor of this post of yours to be entirely different from that of your previous post to me. Here I see humility, gentleness, and friendliness. Though I should regret it anyway, this particularly makes me regret the harshness expressed in my prior post (to which you respond below). Evidently, I was mistaken in thinking that you wished me to describe my meditation experience.Instead, it seems you wanted some sort of evaluation of it or some sort of intellectual interpretation of it. That Iwouldn;t have had much interest in responding to. In terms of evaluation, I'd simply say that I find it personally very useful. Near the end of your post you say "... I do quite often feel irritated by what you write on the list...sorry." That's okay. :-) We are what we are. This just shows that "turn-about is fair play"! ;-)) Again, Sukin, thank you for your temperate and friendly post, which is oped below without further comment from me. With metta, Howard (cut) #72784 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue May 29, 2007 4:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Curiousity Corner 1 TGrand458@... In a message dated 5/29/2007 6:04:48 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, buddhatrue@... writes: Even if the Buddha knew better, why would he want to teach the true cause of weather? It would become a big mess which would detract from the Dhamma. Hi James This is a great point and I sometimes wonder is this accounts for some of the "Indian lore" found in the Suttas. If the Buddha was "distracted enough" (I thought that sounded better than stupid) to get into weather science, he would lose focus on what he wanted to teach and end up engaging in nonsense like we do all the time. LOL And you're right, the answer does seem to fit the mentality of the questioner. TG #72785 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 29, 2007 5:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Curiousity Corner 1 upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 5/29/07 6:56:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > I was very pleased with all the responses to this thread. It is clear > that all of you who responded have no problems with using your > critical faculties. I will reply in more detail later, but first I'm > off to see my friendly dentist to have some root canal therapy. > ======================= Mmm, mmm, mmm! Root canal ... always fun!! Good luck. :-) With metta, Howard #72786 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue May 29, 2007 10:09 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Jhana as necessity to enlightenment... buddhatrue Hi Nina (and Jon), > > What is the sense of it that in the Abhidhamma cittas are classified > as 89 (including eight lokuttara cittas) and as is said, for the > wise, as 121 (including 40 lokuttara cittas)? > The last ones include lokuttara cittas accompanied by the > jhanafactors of the four stages of jhana. This difference is > meaningful, I think. > The term jhanafactors can also be used in a wider sense and this is > done in the Patthana. When you steal there have to be jhanafactors > with the citta, otherwise you could not make one step in front of the > other (as quoted once by Scott). Your objections to this are not > warranted, I believe. > See also Abh Studies by Nyanaponika, it is on line. do you like a link? Well, I have completed my research on this issue of the jhanas and the arahant and I still come to the same conclusion: There is no such thing as an arahant who hasn't achieved a jhana. But, the reasoning behind this gets kinda complicated: The suttas define jhana one way, the Vism. defines jhana a second and different way, and the Abhidhamma/Commentaries define jhana a third and different way from the other two. According to the suttas, the jhanas are mental absorptions. According to the Vism., the jhanas are also mental absorptions but lesser types of concentration called Access Concentration and Momentary Concentration (not to be confused with concentration cetasika!) are also included in the First Jhana. According to the Abhidhamma/Commentaries, there are type types of jhana: Mundane and Supramundane. Mundane jhana corresponds to the sutta and Vism. definition, but supramundane jhana occurs at each level of enlightenment, the moment that certain defilements are eradicated. Anyway, the question of whether there can be an arahant without jhana, the answer is again: no. Even though a bare-insight worker has achieved only Momentary or Access Concentration, it is still considered the First Jhana (according to the Vism. where that path is described). Additionally, at the moment of enlightenment, the arahant would have achieved Supramundane Jhana according to the Abhidhamma/Commentaries. And, of course, the suttas don't contain any descriptions of arahants who didn't achieve jhanas (including the Susima Sutta ;-)). No matter what text you use, there can't exist an arahant who hasn't achieved a jhana. What is very important to keep in mind here is that Momentary Concentration and Access Concentration are still very high levels of concentration that only come about through deliberate practice, i.e. meditation. The teaching of KS that Momentary Concentration, as taught in the Vism., is equal to the concentration cetasika inherent to every citta is just plain FALSE! Deliberate concentration practice (i.e. meditation) is crucial to the Buddha's teaching, according to the suttas, Vism., and Abhidhamma/Commentaries. Glad that you are taking it easy from posting. Don't feel the need to reply if you need the rest. Metta, James #72787 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 29, 2007 6:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: New Series: Recollection of the Buddha upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 5/29/07 8:23:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > Funny - I don't recall the discussing of this at all with > you! (I > >don't doubt you - I just don't recall it.) It surprises me that I > would say > >outright that it is "not a meditation," for I know that it is > presented as such. In > >any case, at the moment, I don't think I'd say outright that it is > not. I > >think it is a complex activity. > > Oh, sorry, didn't mean to put you on the spot. I thought that you > would remember that, as it was the only time you and I significantly > disagreed on the subject of meditation. As I recall, you were > discussing with Nina the meaning of "meditation" and its importance to > the Buddha's path (which happens so rarely!! ;-)). Nina posted that > she agreed that meditation was important, for example thinking about > the qualities of the Buddha. You replied that that wasn't meditation; > I jumped in a disagreed. We had a few posts about the subject and > then it was dropped. The exchange delighted the non-meditators in the > group (since the confirmed meditators couldn't agree on what > meditation exactly is ;-)) and Sarah and Ken H. referred to this > disagreement a few times to justify a non-meditation approach to the > Dhamma. > > Does that jog your memory? --------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, thanks, it does. Well, I suppose I'd still say that thinking about the Buddha per se, is just contemplation, and not yet meditation, but I do see how it could grow into what I would consider meditation as the discursive thinking starts to slip away and jhana and enlightenment factors develop. ---------------------------------------- > Maybe Nina remembers. Anyway, I think > that what you were disagreeing with is how Nina was using the idea of > `Recollection of the Buddha". To Nina, this can be done during > everyday life, like going to the grocery store and thinking, "Wow, the > Buddha was really great….I wonder if pork chops are on sale??....The > Buddha was supreme!...I can't forget to buy crackers…etc…..". This is > not `Recollection of the Buddha', this is just a bunch of thinking. > > I hope you enjoy the series. It can be very helpful to people to > practice Recollection of the Buddha. > > Metta, > James > ====================== With metta, Howard #72788 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue May 29, 2007 10:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sammaadi.t.thi study corner egberdina Hi Scott, On 29/05/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > > > H: "...You rightly describe ignorance above as a lack of various > qualities. It flies against the principles of DO that a lack of > something is a condition for something to arise. Also, there is no > mention of ignorance in the seminal statement of DO as found in DN15." > > Scott: I don't accept the above, I'm afraid. That's fine, of course. But let's see if we are rightly understanding each other. Ignorance is mentioned > as a part of DO in many places. I don't know why it is left out of > the sutta you mention. Are you saying there is no 'ignorance'? Sure, there is ignorance. But it exists as a relation between things, not as a thing in itself. I am ignorant in relation to someone who isn't ignorant. In myself, absolutely so to speak, I am just what I am. > Ignorance, first of all, is moha; (Nyanatiloka: "Moha: 'confusion', > is one of the 3 disadvantageous roots (muula). The best known synonym > is avijjaa"). 'Avijjaa' is ignorance. Moha, being a mental factor, > has functions as I have stated when quoting Dhammasa"nga.ni. It is > not 'nothing'. What is ignorance, in your opinion? I think it is useful to work this out, because there seem to be two uses that are acceptable, but they are not at all alike. There is not-knowing, and there is delusion, and they are both referred to as ignorance. Not knowing is a relation between what is possible to know and what is actually known. In this sense, everyone who is not a Buddha is ignorant. Ignorance is relative to omniscience. The other usage, delusion, is not seeing what is there, or seeing what is not there. Again, this is in relation to an absolute standard. My problem with ignorance in our discussion is that it is said to be a condition for the arising of other states, while a lack of ignorance would be a condition for the non-arising of states. My view is that Ignorance is not a thing, it is a measurement, and measurements don't condition anything. > And furthermore, to argue from within the 'material' realm, a lack of > cones in the structure of the eye, for example, causes colour > blindness; the lack of cones causing vision devoid of a capacity to > respond to certain wavelengths of light - absence of something is a > cause. (I don't think, however, that ignorance is 'nothing', but just > to make the point...) What you are arguing above is that an absence of x causes an absence of y (no cones, no colour vision). Which I have no problem with. That is also in line with DO. But the formulation that the absence of knowing (ignorance) causes the presence of formations etc is not in line with DO. In DO, presence =>other presence, and absence => other absence. I'll reply to the remainder of your post later. Herman #72789 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue May 29, 2007 10:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Curiousity Corner 1 egberdina Hi Andrew, On 29/05/07, Andrew wrote: > > > I read a science book recently. It argued that there are 11 > dimensions (time being one) in the universe - most of which we don't > experience. There are infinite universes, all shaped like a > cylinder. I'd be lying if I denied that that sounded very strange to > me. It could well be true ... > If I came across anyone who admonished folks to be non-critically accepting of all the claims of science, I would argue there as well that such suggestions are anti-scientific. :-) I am not trying to debunk Buddhism, I am trying to demonstrate the sillyness of a non-critical acceptance of everything one is told. Herman #72790 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue May 29, 2007 10:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Curiousity Corner 1 egberdina Hi Christine, On 29/05/07, Christine Forsyth wrote: > > > I don't mind them reveling at all ~ as a matter of fact, let all the > Storm-Cloud Devas come and revel over my place and put some water in > my water tanks and dam. Please. > Amen to that. When the government of a country can do no better than to suggest we all pray for rain, we may as well humour them devas :-) Herman #72791 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 29, 2007 6:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Curiousity Corner 1 upasaka_howard Hi, James (and Herman) - In a message dated 5/29/07 9:33:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > Also, it isn't appropriate to conjecture about Herman's "true > intentions" for wanting to start such a series. > > ========================= I didn't. I said "all that a series of 'problematical' examples will accomplish is, IMO, a casting of doubt on the Buddha and his Dhamma." I didn't say that it was Herman's intention to cast doubt on the Buddha and his Dhamma, but that a project that consists entirely of putting forward a series of suttas of that sort for what would be easy negative criticism would have the result of undermining confidence in the Buddha and his teaching. I still think so. When others put forward such suttas as containing literal truth, I think it is well and good to take exception. I'm simply uncomfortable with purposely seeking out such apparent silliness as part of a series of postings, because I think that this would not be for the good. This has nothing to do with second guessing Herman's intention. I completely take him at his word when he says that he is pursuing this to emphasize the importance of using our critical faculties. With metta, Howard #72792 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue May 29, 2007 9:04 pm Subject: Making Mental Light! bhikkhu5 Friends: How does one gain the Divine All-Seeing Eye? The Blessed Buddha once said: Which concentration, Bhikkhus, when practised & developed often, will lead to gaining the eye of understanding (dibba-cakkhu )? When the Bhikkhu reflects on experiencing light, fixes his mind on this perception of daylight, always both at day-time & also at night! In this way, with wakeful and stainless mind, he develops a state of luminous consciousness accompanied by a bright radiant inner light. This concentration, developed and often practised indeed leads to the attainment of the eye of understanding (dibba-cakkhu )... Visuddhimagga XIII, 95 says that this luminous state of mind is a prerequisite condition for reaching the knowledge of the divine eye. This enlightening training also evaporates all lethargy & Laziness. More on the divine eye (dibba-cakkhu): http://what-buddha-said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/b_f/dibba_cakkhu.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/The_Divine_Eye.htm http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=771100 Making Mental Light! Friendship is the Greatest :-) <....> #72793 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue May 29, 2007 10:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Curiousity Corner 1 egberdina Hi Howard and Phil, On 29/05/07, upasaka@... wrote: > > But I am uncomfortable with intentionally trotting out a series of > suttas of this sort for the purpose of their disparagement. I'm afraid you have misread my intentions. I think it is clear > that a number of such can be found, but an emphasis on them is not something > that I would view as useful. Exactly so. I think that presenting occasional examples > pointing out the importance of using judgement and not slavishly accepting any and > all things that appear in suttas is useful and important and a remedy for > mindless acceptance, but making such into a project that displays amusement at sutta > content in a whole series of suttas would tend to inculcate an unhealthy > degree of cynicism and scepticism as regards the Buddha and his teachings. This is where you have both misread me. I tried to make it clear that I was posting in order to show how stupid, if not plain silly, it would be to dispense with one's critical faculties, and just accept the wholesale literal truth of everything Theravadan. > The thing is, you see, that folks who read such suttas and think that > nothing in them requires any further explanation, but that they should be > literally accepted on faith as is, are typically "true believers" with a felt > psychological "need to believe," and thousands of good examples will still give no > pause for them. So all that a series of "problematical" examples will > accomplish is, IMO, a casting of doubt on the Buddha and his Dhamma. So, the bottom > line is that I think that such an approach can be more harmful than helpful. > I'm sorry, Herman, but I'm afraid I'm less than enthusiastic about this > Curiosity Corner. I have posted only one, 1, uno, ein, eun, een :-) problematical sutta. And you may just have to take my word for it, there are hundreds of little gems of nonsense in the commentaries. It is my sincere hope that this curiousity corner has already done it's job, but if there are any more urgings and manipulations with regards to the infallibility of all "the ancients", I will post another gem. And in so doing, I am merely providing a balance so that the readers can critically decide what is relevant to the Buddhist path. BTW, I think the practice of equating the Tipitaka and it's multiple layers of commentary with Dhamma, is grossly misleading. Casting doubt on the worth of some texts can in no way be construed as casting doubt on Dhamma. Herman #72794 From: "wisdomcompassion" Date: Tue May 29, 2007 10:46 pm Subject: Re: Q. re Perfections N, 37 wisdomcompas... Dear Nina, thanks for ur response. i agree with u in total, however my only disagreement is that, metta is not a conditioned reality/dhamma. For i think it cannot be so. As enlightened persons have infinite metta, karuna, mudita, upekkha. So i do not consider all these as conditioned dhamma. AS the person grows on the path these sign begin to manifest, so whenever such signs are present they should not be regarded as conditioned dhamma. and contemplation of sammappadhana must be done. That was the reason i raised this point. I think it is very important to understand what is conditioned dhamma and what is not. Only conditioned dhamma need purification, unconditioned dhammas are result of such purification. Though one must not get attached to such good signs (brahm viharas)and must contemplate, anatta. I read in another post of yours something to the effect that you are not feeling well and visiting physio. I wish you the best. It really takes courage to work so hard. with metta and best wishes nidhi *********** > Nidhi: so when ill will is absent metta is there. > Hence illwill is conditioned reality, metta is not. the person who is > enlightened have infinite metta, how can metta be a conditioned reality. > -------- > Nina: We can turn it around: when there is metta there is no dosa, > that is the opposite of metta. Dosa, metta, they are cetasikas that > are conditioned dhammas. Attachment and ignorance are conditions for > dosa, good deeds done in the past and wise attention to the object > conditions metta. It arises when you see the benefit of kusala and > the danger of akusala. Understanding this, is a condition, is it not? > The ariyan has purer metta, conditioned by right understanding. All > cetasikas, cittas, rupas are conditioned dhammas, sa'nkhaara dhammas. > They arise because of conditioning factors, and they fall away again. > Whatever appears, metta, seeing or any other reality, does so because > it has arisen, and what has arisen falls away again. This is the > meaning of dhamma. We can say: everything in our life is dhamma. > Nina. > #72795 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue May 29, 2007 10:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Curiousity Corner 1 buddhatrue Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, James (and Herman) - > > In a message dated 5/29/07 9:33:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > buddhatrue@... writes: > > > Also, it isn't appropriate to conjecture about Herman's "true > > intentions" for wanting to start such a series. > > > > > ========================= > I didn't. I said "all that a series of 'problematical' examples will > accomplish is, IMO, a casting of doubt on the Buddha and his Dhamma." I didn't > say that it was Herman's intention to cast doubt on the Buddha and his Dhamma, I was referring to this line you wrote: "But I am uncomfortable with intentionally trotting out a series of suttas of this sort for the purpose of their disparagement…" Which points to an unwholesome intention rather than a possible unwholesome result. But, I'm glad I read you wrong. :-) Metta, James #72796 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 29, 2007 10:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddha's relic sarahprocter... Dear Shin, Lovely to hear from you! Of course not a condition for dosa (for me personally or the mods):-) Why should it be? Pls tell us what you've been up to with regards your study/practice of the Dhamma. I'm sure all your old friends will be glad to hear from you and newcomers will appreciate another brief (or long!)introduction from you. It must be a few years since you last wrote here. I don't have any practical suggestions to help with the question of the relic you mention. However, I think that whatever we are able to do, we do, but at the same time, we have to appreciate that conditions and outcomes are out of our hands. It can be a reminder then and there of the teachings and the development of equanimity. The only real refuge is in the Dhamma and the development of understanding of what is conditioned now, wouldn't you agree? Meanwhile, I hope there is a satisfactory solution to your question and wish you and your husband very well. Hope we hear more from you, Shin! (Jonothan would also be sending his regards if he knew I was writing to you.) Metta, Sarah ======== --- shiau_in_lin wrote: > Dear Dhamma Friends, > Hello. I am an old student with Ajhan Sujin. And the posting of this > message might displease many of you because it is not about the Sutta > or the Abhidhamma. BUT it is about the teaching of the Buddha and his > relic that was not treated with respect in India. #72797 From: "wisdomcompassion" Date: Tue May 29, 2007 11:03 pm Subject: Re: Recollection of the Buddha- 2 wisdomcompas... Hi James, very nice series ! keep it up. metta nidhi #72798 From: "wisdomcompassion" Date: Tue May 29, 2007 11:15 pm Subject: Re: Recollection of the Buddha- 2 wisdomcompas... Hi again, may i know the source of the text. it sounds interesting, i haven't come across any such thing in suttas yet. with metta nidhi ****** --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi All, > > RECOLLECTION OF THE BUDDHA AS ACCOMPLISHED: > #72799 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Tue May 29, 2007 11:24 pm Subject: Re: New Series: Recollection of the Buddha rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Maybe Nina remembers. Anyway, I think > that what you were disagreeing with is how Nina was using the idea of > `Recollection of the Buddha". To Nina, this can be done during > everyday life, like going to the grocery store and thinking, "Wow, the > Buddha was really great?EI wonder if pork chops are on sale??....The > Buddha was supreme!...I can't forget to buy crackers?Etc?E.". This is > not `Recollection of the Buddha', this is just a bunch of thinking. > > I hope you enjoy the series. It can be very helpful to people to > practice Recollection of the Buddha. > > ======= Dear James, Today I had to wait at the bakery. I started getting irriated and thought "why don't they open another till". Then I remembered how the Bodisatta, in one life, was a baby. He was ordered executed by his father, and in the time between the executioner throwing him in the air and being impaled on the spear he thought "now is not the time to have thoughts of illwill to my father or the executioner, nor to have thoughts of attachment to my mother (who was crying)" and so he went to a higher world. Thinking about how even a baby can be detached in severe circumstances lifted the aversion I was feeling. I know you think such reflections are mere thinking and shouldn't be considered real Dhamma. But sometimes simple reflections like this are helpful, not everyone is aiming for jhana. Robert