#76000 From: han tun Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 2:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections corner 9. hantun1 Dear Nina, Thank you very much for your kind explanation. (1) You said: “You first summarized: This wrong view will be lessened with the development of pa~n~naa. You felt at ease with this. And it is correct.” I am happy to know that I have summarized your previous post correctly. (2) You said: “As you said before: you are so used to the idea that you have to try and so when you hear the opposite it may be confusing to you.” It is true that I have all along been used to “trying”, but in this case, I did not say I will try. I just said the wrong view will be lessened with the development of pa~n~naa. (3) You said: “But then I spoke about the eradication of wrong view by the sotapanna. He/she did not try to be aware of it or try to eradicate it.” To be frank, I am not worried about what a sotapanna does. I am far, far, away from becoming a sotapanna. I just want to know a workable solution applicable to an ordinary puthujjana. (4) You said: “As you will agree, we cannot direct awareness to be aware of wrong view or of any reality. When wrong view arises and we understand more about it, it can be object of awareness.” I did not say anything about directing awareness to be aware of wrong view or of any reality. I just said that the wrong view will be lessened with the development of pa~n~naa. For that matter, not only wrong view, but other kilesas will also be lessened with the development of pa~n~naa. (5) You said: “Understanding of whatever reality appears can be developed. It helps to let come what comes and not think too much about the future.” I never think about future. I have said that I am not result-oriented. I have no expectations. I do what I think is correct to do. The result is beyond my control. N: I hope I have straightened out a few things? H: Yes, all things have been straightened out. I now know what to do. Thank you very much. Respectfully, Han --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Han, > I am sorry to have confused you. #76001 From: "nidive" Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 5:55 pm Subject: Re: two kinds of truths. Meaning and letter. nidive Hi Nina, > "In truth and reality, here and now the Tathaagata is not to be > found [i.e. in the khandhas, apart from the khandhas > etc.]." (Yamaka Sutta) My reading of the sutta is that it is saying that in truth & reality, here & now the self known as the Tathagata is not to be found in the five aggregates. This is evident because Yamaka holds this annihilition view: 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death.' If the self of the Tathagata can't be found in the aggregates here & now, how would there be the annihilation of the self of the Tathagata after death? This is what Sariputta is telling Yamaka. But does that mean there is no phenomenon known as 'the Tathagata' that is composed collectively of the five aggregates that is apart from the notion of a self? I don't think so. That would be insanity. We have to be careful when reading & interpreting suttas. To say 'there is no self of the Tathagata to be found in the aggregates' and to say 'there is no Tathagata' can be a world of difference. Swee Boon #76002 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 5:57 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘person’" - "The controversy on ‘person’ is ended" indriyabala Hi Howard (Sarah, James, Ken and others), - I have waited for this opportunity to expand on my short reply to Sarah. So, thank you for giving me the chance. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > Hi, Tep (and Sarah, James, Swee, and Ken) - > > In a message dated 9/4/2007 3:02:15 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > indriyabala@... writes: > > Hi Sarah, - > > It has been a controversy like you said. That controversy is, > however, not seen in the Sutta-pitaka. > > S: The following is a re-quote from an earlier message with further > elaboration from the commentary to this text to clearly show there > really is no person, no being, no deva, no brahma, no Buddha!! > > T: You are right : I can see why further elaborations and comments on > the original words of the Teachings can end up in that conclusion > of "no Buddha!!". > > The controversy continues in the mind of a disbeliever. > > Tep > > ============================== I think it is hard to find Pali suttas that speak of "no person". As would James, I too would like to see some. It happens that there are loads of Mahayana sutras along these lines, especially among the perfection of wisdom suttas. (So, those core DSG-ers who think little of Mahayana might want to reconsider their evaluation a bit.) With metta Howard > .............................................. T: I agree with you about the difficulty to find even one Pali sutta that speaks of 'no person' or 'no beings'. More important, there are no suttas that speak of 'no Buddha' like Sarah has interpreted . Indeed, there is always a danger of making incorrect "further elaborations and comments on the original words of the Teachings". The following sutta, among several other suttas like it, not only affirms existence of the Buddha, but also the existence of beings in this and other worlds. MN 38 : "Bhikkhus, a Tathagata arises in the world, a worthy one, perfectly enlightened, endowed with clear knowledge and conduct, accomplished, a knower of the world, unsurpassed trainer of men to be tamed, teacher of gods and men, enlightened and exalted. Having realized by his own direct knowledge this world with its gods, its Maras, and its Brahmas, this generation with its recluses and brahmins, its rulers and people, he makes it known to others. He teaches the Dhamma that is good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end, possessing meaning and phrasing; he reveals the holy life that is fully complete and purified. " Tep ==== #76003 From: "Andrew" Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 6:16 pm Subject: Re: two kinds of truths. Meaning and letter. corvus121 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > This brings me to Andrew's second sutta about the four > patisambhidas: > http://mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/ > Anguttara2/4-catukkanipata/014-puggalavaggo-e.html > > >10. Và disutta, Arguments > > 014.10. Bhikkhus, these four are arguments. What four? > > Bhikkhus, there is an argument which concludes according to the meaning > not the letters. > > There is an argument which concludes according to the letters not the > meaning. There is an argument which concludes according to the > meaning and > the letters. There is an argument which concludes neither according > to the > meaning nor the letters. > > Bhikkhus, these four are arguments. > > Bhikkhus, it is not possible that an argument could not be concluded > according > to meanings and letters endowed with reasons, conditions, causal > relations > and intended meaning.< > PTS has: It is impossible that one possessed of the four analytical > powers should be at a loss both in the meaning and in the letter. > **** > N: This last (reasons, conditions, causal relations > and intended meaning.) refers to the four patisambhidas: knowing > attha (meaning), cause (dhamma), language or definition (nirutti) and > wisdom that knows both, pa.tibhaana. > > I looked at the Co. When asked for an exegesis he comes to a halt. He > does not know the vyanjana, the letter. > That is, the right way of expressing the meaning in language. > Those who have the distinction of the four patisambhidas know both: > the meaning and the letter and can express it in language. > The Buddha and his great disciples were endowed with four patisambhidas. > According to the Co this is not possible anymore today. Dear Nina Thank you for this wonderful research. I am beginning to see the meaning of this sutta now. I had no idea at all before. Buddhas and Ariyans, under the influence of so much panna, must have extraordinary abilities to match language to meaning at any given moment. This is why that quote from the AN is so extraordinary - the one where the Buddha says it is hard to provide a simile for how quickly the mind changes. My own experience tells me that I can often get the letter of some Dhamma point, but miss the meaning. In colloquial English, this is called "making the right noises". You give the correct answer whilst not knowing why it *is* correct! The meaning (or a deeper level of the meaning) comes later - after reflection, perhaps. Regarding this part: "Bhikkhus, it is not possible that an argument could not be concluded according to meanings and letters endowed with reasons, conditions, causal relations and intended meaning." This suggests to me that all issues are fully concluded when there is understanding of reasons, conditions, causal relations and intended meaning. So when we read a sutta, we need to comprehend alot more than just the letters of the sutta in question. Perhaps for some, the letters are enough to grasp the intended meaning. The commentary suggests that that doesn't happen today. It certainly hasn't happened in my case! Thanks again and best wishes Andrew #76004 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 6:31 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘person’" - "The controversy on ‘person’ is ended" buddhatrue Hi Sarah, Thank you for your further response. I guess you are getting tired of this discussion so I will try to make this quick. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi James, (Ken H & Howard)* > > --- buddhatrue wrote: > > >> James: The Buddha never said that there are no human beings: > <...> > > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is > > caught up1 there, tied up2 there, one is said to be 'a being.'3 > > > > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception... > > fabrications... > > > > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: > > when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.' > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn23/sn23.002.than.html > .... > S: It doesn't say 'a being' exists. It says 'one is said to be 'a being'. James: Radha asked the Buddha, "'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?" And the Buddha answers with "...one is said to be 'a being'" where there are present the five clinging aggregates. Now, this could not be any more direct. A "being" is the five clinging aggregates. If Radha asked, "When is one said to be a being?" And the Buddha answered, "Beings don't exist" then I would agree with you 100%. But the Buddha gives the definition for what is termed "a being". Now, Sarah, if you see this sutta as stating that beings don't exist then you have to also posit that the five clinging aggregates don't exist, that nama and rupa don't exist, that nothing exists! (Which, of course, would be fine with me...at least you would be consistent ;-)). > The point being made is the same as in the suttas I quoted, SN22: 151-156: > > "When there is form, bhikkhus, by clinging to form, by adhering to form, > ***view of self [identity view etc]*** arises. When there is > feeling...perception....volitional formations...consciousness, by clinging > to consciousness, by adhering to consciousness, view of self arises."... > > "Seeing thus....He understands: '...there is no more for this state of > being." James: So, again, there is a state of being! The way to escape this state of being is to surrender clinging. Anatta doesn't mean that there are no states of being, it means that all states of being are impermanent, suffering, and not worth clinging to. > ... > S: It is through clinging and wrong view that there is an idea of human > being. James: No, it is through clinging and wrong view that there exists a human being. Thinking that there are no human beings isn't right view, it is insanity. Dependent on sakkaya ditthi (identity/human being view), all other > wrong views arise. This is the first defilement which has to be > eradicated. > > [When it says 'there is no more for this state of being', it is referring > to further birth/becoming.] > ... > > S: You mentioned about a lack of compassion with an understanding of > > > anatta. > > > > James: No, I mentioned a lack of compassion with the mistaken belief > > that anatta means that no beings exist. > ... > S: Sorry. Anatta does mean no human beings exist in an ultimate sense. As > all the quotes I've given suggest, puggala (human beings) are a concept > used with or without wrong view. > > Thx for your comments and quotes. Pls keep them up, but (reluctantly), see > below* James: Okay, take it easy. > > Metta, > > Sarah Metta, James #76005 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 6:51 pm Subject: Re: "there is no ‘person?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘person?Eis ended" buddhatrue Hi Phil, Good to see you popping in. Hope everything is going well with you. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > > Hi James > > Personally, I don't have any doubt that the Buddha wants us to > eventually arrive at the knowledge that there are no people. James: Actually, I believe that the Buddha wants us to arrive at the knowledge that there are and there aren't people- when the two truths are embraced as one. But, that is getting a bit into Mahayana so I will just leave it. I like > SN 5:2-524, "'One to whom it might occur, "I'm a woman' or 'I'm a > man' or I'm anything at all' - is fit for Mara to address." ANd we > are all fit for Mara to address. That's what the "stright-to- > parmattha' folks don't appreciate - we are all in grave moral danger > and they are fiddling with anatta while mind burns with greed, > hatred and delusion. James: I believe that the Buddha gave many instructions for one to see the five aggregates as non-self, but I don't find any instructions to see other people as not existing (except contemplation of the 32 body parts to combat sensual desire). One should see other people existing in order to cultivate metta, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity. Seeing others as not existing only cultivates apathy. > > I think there are not people in ultimate terms but we are nowhere > near having the kind of insight that makes that relevant. James: Yes, people are a fabrication of the aggregates, not an aggregate. But, again, it isn't beneficial to view the world in only paramattha terms. One must purify the mind of aversion as well as attachment. For now, > there are people to be considered all the time, including ourselves. > Only Sexiness of Wisdom Syndrome could cause people to post things > like "there are only dhammas discussing." Ha! > > Just popping by, and out again. Hope all is well. James: Hope all is well with you also. > > Metta, > > Phil Metta, James #76006 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 7:19 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge kenhowardau Hi Howard and James (and Suan), -------- <. . .> J: > > Oh bother, I didn't want to get into sutta analysis. It gets too complicated and distracts from the original point. But, since you have asked, Howard, I will oblige (yes, I play favorites ;-)). Howard: ? You LOSE, Ken! ;-)) ----------------------------------------------- :-) Not really, James is already working on a project for me - tracing the history of the sangha to see if formal vipassana meditation has always been practised. There is no hurry, James, and I will understand if change your mind. It would be a difficult thing to research, I think. BTW, I am also looking forward to Suan's promised presentation on 'formal vipassana practices as recorded in the Tipitaka.' Again, no hurry, of course. ---------------- J: > > The Buddha, the Tathagata, is too vast to be comprehended or defined. That sutta is entirely about enlightened beings that cannot be traced or comprehended here on Earth or after paranibbana. ---------------- I notice, James, that you have been using more and more of Thanissaro's terminology lately. The famous Wings to Awakening tells us of when "the raft has reached the shore, and one can leave it there - free to go where one likes in a way that cannot be traced." Why is it so important that these joyous free-ranging inhabitants of nibbana cannot be traced? The answer, I think, is obvious. This is just another contortion that the author has had to go through in order to explain away anatta - the Buddha's unambiguous teaching of no self. He is saying anatta means there is a self, but we just can't see it. (Sheess!) -------------------------- J: > > I was asking about ordinary people, who are quite often defined by the Buddha as the `five clinging aggregates'. I would like a quote from the Buddha stating that the ordinary person doesn't exist. Howard: > Mmm, yes. After I sent my post I thought that might be what you'd say. That's why I wanted to see the sutta. Do you have a reference for the sutta, James. I'd still like to look it over. As for persons existing, I of course, believe there are persons - I'm not a lunatic. I'm sure Ken believes people exist as well, in the same way as you and I do, else he wouldn't be writing us. --------------------------- Not so fast! :-) If my writing is conditioned by belief in other people's existence then, IMHO, I haven't learned anything. As I keep saying, I believe in conditioned dhammas - fleeting, ineffectual, uncontrollable namas and rupas. --------------------- H: > It's not really a question, I think, of beings existing, but rather a question of what it precisely *means* for a being to exist, of *how* (i.e., in what way) a being exists. OTOH, from a *certain* perspective, I don't believe that even paramattha dhammas, i.e. khandhic elements, exist! ----------------------- The two go together. When there is belief in conditioned dhammas there is belief in anatta. When there is belief in anatta there is belief in conditioned dhammas. You can't have one without the other. Ken H #76007 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 7:23 pm Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge indriyabala Hi KenH, - Thanks to Sarah for her mediator role, and a big thank to you for re- opening the communication door wide and welcome me with an open mind. I also see a good reason for discussing the Dhamma with you or any members of the 'gang'; although I, like Victor, believe that anatta does not mean no self in the sense of no existence of a person or individual. Part II of "Some Findings About Self and Self Views" will explain this point further from the basic ideas being laid out in Part I. I agree partly with "My understanding of the suttas is different from the way they are explained in the Abhidhamma and commentaries." I do not have any disagreement with the Abhidhamma-Pitaka. I only have certain disagreements with some of the commentaries AND some of your interpretations of the Abhidhamma. KenH: Let's just accept that, according to the texts as a whole, there are only dhammas - there is nothing else (no self: nothing!). T: That is one example of your interpretations that I disagree with. Ken, it depends very much on which kind of self (atta) you are referring to. The Part I of Some Findings explains the different kinds of atta. I hope you read it first, and start our discussion from there, if you wish. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > I will be glad to resume discussions with you at any time. I'm not > sure what started this talk of head-biting-off. #76008 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 7:30 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge .. Biting My Head Off.. indriyabala Hi Sarah, - > S: Oh yes, we all have to practice together to get in sync (or > synch)...Even when we think we have the same tune and have mastered the > steps, we slip or even fall... > > Patience, courage and good cheer as you finish the dance together :-)) > T: Thank you for the mediation; it works. Tep === #76009 From: "gazita2002" Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 7:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dependent origination gazita2002 Hello Sarah, thanks for this, have printed it out so can read it carefully. Still dont have home computor, no phone line :-( in my new temporary place. Moving was quite chaotic. Still working but on casual hours so can have more control over my working life, can say yes or no to shifts offered, and no zombie shifts ie nite shift. Hope to visit Vince and Nancy in Nov. and then to Thailand again in the new year. Dont think I read your short note, unless it was one following on from Nina. Patience, courage and good cheer goes well thank you, Sarah. The three of them must become perfections, one of these aeons ;-0 Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Azita, > > --- gazita2002 wrote: > > > Hello Sarah, and others > > > > A question, Sarah. what does 'existence' really mean in D.O. > > Am reading Nidanasamyutta and wonder how clinging conditions existence > > and not just 'birth'. Thanks. > ... > S: When I've asked K.Sujin, she's stressed that bhava in D.O. refers to > present (abhi)sankhara, i.e kamma, as opposed to past (abhi) sankhara which > conditioned (present) vinnana (i.e vipaka cittas). ......snip...... #76010 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 7:42 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘person’" - "The controversy on ‘person’ is ended" indriyabala Hi Sarah, - Sorry for misleading you. > > S: The following is a re-quote from an earlier message with further elaboration from the commentary to this text to clearly show there really is no person, no being, no deva, no brahma, no Buddha!! > > > > T: You are right : I can see why further elaborations and comments on the original words of the Teachings can end up in that conclusion of "no Buddha!!". > ... > S: Good! > ... T: I meant "I can see why further (wrong) elaborations and comments ... end up in that conclusion of "no Buddha!!". Tep === #76011 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 8:17 pm Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge buddhatrue Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, James (and Ken) - > Howard: > Mmm, yes. After I sent my post I thought that might be what you'd say. > That's why I wanted to see the sutta. Do you have a reference for the sutta, > James. I'd still like to look it over. James: Sure, here is the link: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.085.than.html > As for persons existing, I of course, believe there are persons - I'm > not a lunatic. James: Well, thank goodness!! :-) I'm sure Ken believes people exist as well, in the same way as > you and I do, else he wouldn't be writing us. James: Well, you are making an assumption here. What I read is that they (Sarah and Ken H.) don't believe people exist- in any sense. Of course, I know that they know otherwise, but that isn't what they say. I was just addressing that position. It's not really a question, I > think, of beings existing, but rather a question of what it precisely *means* > for a being to exist, of *how* (i.e., in what way) a being exists. OTOH, from > a *certain* perspective, I don't believe that even paramattha dhammas, i.e. > khandhic elements, exist! James: If they said that beings exist at the conventional level, I wouldn't have any argument. But what I have been consistently reading is that there are no people, no devas, no Buddhas, etc., etc.. That is a pretty absolute statement. Now, if I misunderstood no one has yet to clear the matter up- but I am being patient. :-) > > P.S. Sending this message via my new HP 2.4 gigahertz computer with 24" > flat-screen monitor, superb Bose speakers, and new Canon photoprinter, having > finally gotten rid of my years-old, multiply-malfunctioning, infuriating > dinosaur Gateway 500 that operated at 500 megahertz. Ahh! Now I know nibbana! ;-)) James: Congratulations! (But don't you know that computers don't exist?? ;-)) Metta, James #76012 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 9:01 pm Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge indriyabala Hi Jon, - I assume that you have not yet read "Some Findings About Self and Self Views". If you had read it, then we would have been able to drop some of the questions below. ........... > Jon: In a later post (to Howard) you comment on the fact that there are truths to be understood at different levels, the conventional and the absolute, and that each can be seen as true in its own sense. I think a similar situation applies to what is 'real'. Things are real at different levels. A person is real in the sense that ghosts are not. Similarly, the khandhas are real in a sense that person is not. T: I think the khandhas are at the same level as the person who is derived from them. Since khandhas exist in each fleeting moment, the derived person is also real in the given moment when those khandhas are real. On the other hand, ghosts are derived from an imagination of one person, so they are not real (cannot be experienced by another person). The Dhamma, e.g. the Four Noble Truths, are real simply because they can be experienced by many people the same way. The Buddha was real to his disciples and non-disciples; they could ask him questions, follow and "experience" His Teachings to become ariyans. "There is the case, great king, where a Tathagata appears in the world, worthy and rightly self-awakened. He teaches the Dhamma admirable in its beginning, admirable in its middle, admirable in its end. He proclaims the holy life both in its particulars and in its essence, entirely perfect, surpassingly pure. "A householder or householder's son, hearing the Dhamma, gains conviction in the Tathagata and reflects: 'Household life is confining, a dusty path. The life gone forth is like the open air. It is not easy living at home to practice the holy life totally perfect, totally pure, like a polished shell. What if I were to shave off my hair and beard, put on the ochre robes, and go forth from the household life into homelessness?' [DN 2 Samaññaphala Sutta] >Jon: As with truths, so with realities: it is important to distinguish between the conventionally real and the real in the ultimate sense. T: Yes, it is important to distinguish one from another through wisdom, so that one may transcend the first kind of reality to experience the ultimate ones through letting go of the worldly experience. Do you agree that the "conventionally real" and the "ultimately real" exist together, but they are experienced at different levels? For example, at the molecular level the human body is nothing but atoms, molecules, and empty spaces. But you cannot experience the molecular world without using special devices. >Jon: So while it can in a sense be said that "person" is derived from the khandhas, we need to keep in mind that that derivation is always a matter of thinking and not a matter of direct experience through one of the six doorways. > T: I would say such a derivation is perception through the six doorways. Isn't the perception of an external rupa (of a person that is defined by rupa and arupa), for instance, an experience without thinking? Thanks for the tough questions, Jon. Tep === Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (328) #76013 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 9:21 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge buddhatrue Hi Ken H., --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Howard and James (and Suan), > > -------- > <. . .> > J: > > Oh bother, I didn't want to get into sutta analysis. It gets > too complicated and distracts from the original point. But, since you > have asked, Howard, I will oblige (yes, I play favorites ;-)). > > Howard: ? You LOSE, Ken! ;-)) > ----------------------------------------------- > > :-) Not really, James is already working on a project for me - > tracing the history of the sangha to see if formal vipassana > meditation has always been practised. There is no hurry, James, and I > will understand if change your mind. It would be a difficult thing to > research, I think. Now, don't go changing the goal posts on me! ;-)) What I had promised was in reference to the idea you put forth that KS rediscovered the commentaries, which you stated had been ignored since the time of Buddhaghosa. I wrote that that wasn't true and that the commentaries had been studied within the Theravada Sangha for centuries. Of course, I can't do a great deal of research on this subject as I am limited to the Internet (living in Taiwan), but there was a Theravada monk, who lived before K. Sujin, who not only studied the commentaries, he also memorized them! (Can KS say that?? ;-)): http://www.tbsa.org/articles/MingunSayadaw.html This monk lived until the age of 81. However, from my Internet research, I cannot find any writings of his on the Dhamma. Perhaps someone else will know where to find them?? Metta, James #76014 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 10:13 pm Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge kenhowardau Hi Tep, > > KenH: Let's just accept that, according to the texts as a whole, > there are only dhammas - there is nothing else (no self: nothing!). > > T: That is one example of your interpretations that I disagree with. > Ken, it depends very much on which kind of self (atta) you are > referring to. . > Sorry, Tep, but I disagree. It does not depend on which kind of atta we are referring to. The statement, "There are only dhammas," means there is nothing other than dhammas. It doesn't matter how we describe something that supposedly exists in addition to dhammas because there is no "something in addition" (of any kind). There are only dhammas. As I was saying, maybe some other understanding could be gained by selectively rejecting parts of the texts. However, if you take the texts as a whole (especially if you include the commentaries, which bring everything back to namas and rupas) there is no doubt that the universe described by the Buddha consisted entirely of dhammas - all of which bore the characteristic, anatta. Ken H #76015 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 10:13 pm Subject: Re: "there is no ‘person?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘person?Eis ended" philofillet Hi James I hope this isn't turning into a backslide on my resolution to stay off the internet. If you see me posting a lot here, please be a good Dhamma friend and remind me of that. There are times that it is important to discuss Dhamma, but it is not always important. The issues become very clear and all that matters is doing it. > Actually, I believe that the Buddha wants us to arrive at the > knowledge that there are and there aren't people- when the two truths > are embraced as one. But, that is getting a bit into Mahayana so I > will just leave it. Ph: I like the sutta about the acrobats. We take care of ourselves by taking care of others, and take care of others by taking care of ourselves. I always think this sutta gets at "two truths embraced as one" as you say. I also remember you quoting F. Scott Fitzgerald about being able to understand seemingly contrasting truths without going crazy, or something like that. Very relevant to Dhamma. > > I like > > SN 5:2-524, "'One to whom it might occur, "I'm a woman' or 'I'm a > > man' or I'm anything at all' - is fit for Mara to address." ANd we > > are all fit for Mara to address. That's what the "stright-to- > > parmattha' folks don't appreciate - we are all in grave moral danger > > and they are fiddling with anatta while mind burns with greed, > > hatred and delusion. > > James: I believe that the Buddha gave many instructions for one to see > the five aggregates as non-self, but I don't find any instructions to > see other people as not existing (except contemplation of the 32 body > parts to combat sensual desire). Ph: Well, I feel that in SN there are so many suttas that get at breaking down experience into ayatanas, dhatus and so on. "The All" is the ayatanas, for example. Much of these samyuttas in SN feel geared towards breaking down our perception of people as real, I think. But it's a very gradual process and becoming too interested in it prematurely is not wise. BTW, you were talking about the AS "cold shower" approach in another thread. I think, in fact, she *doesn't* really dispense cold showers, because there is actually comfort in believing oneself to have access to penetrative panna, and that is what she offers to her students, I think. Alas, without developing samadhi in the way prescribed by the Buddha, that promise of access is a false one, I think. Her students will say there isn't such a promise, but I think it is implicit in just about every word she says. That's why I got into her. The *real* cold shower is having the kind of insight into reality that could blow our minds if we aren't ready. I'm interested in the sutta, in the samyutta on breathing, in which the Buddha leaves his bhikkhus after having talked on contemplation of foulness. They decide to carry on on this theme, but without a proper base of samattha to help them bear the insights, to bear the heaviness of the topic, they become suicidal and about 20, I think, "use the knife" or hire others to use it. The Buddha comes back and wonders, hey, where are all the bhikkhus. Then teaches the survivors to use the breath as a balm before tackling such kind of meditation, like rain after the dry season. These days I'm interested in how samatha has great benefits even *before* jhanas, very basic tranquility. I've been into the Thai forest monks, such as Ajahn Lee, who I know you like. At some point I'd like to talk about how he and others (such as Thanissaro Bhikkhu) advocate using the breath as a kind of conceptual tool to bring a sense of well being, so the mind has some place to settle and doesn't have to run around feeding on things that are bad for it. (ie just about everything.) But not now. > One should see other people existing > in order to cultivate metta, compassion, sympathetic joy, and > equanimity. Seeing others as not existing only cultivates apathy. Ph:There are so many suttas that are impossible to apply, or understand, without consideration of people. For example, all those suttas in which we are encouraged to consider whether we often are prone to this or that defilement. Impossible to consider this without considering a narrative of our lives. The *often* is so important. Cannot be reduced to a single moment of a paramattha dhamma rising and falling away. > > > > I think there are not people in ultimate terms but we are nowhere > > near having the kind of insight that makes that relevant. > > James: Yes, people are a fabrication of the aggregates, not an > aggregate. But, again, it isn't beneficial to view the world in only > paramattha terms. One must purify the mind of aversion as well as > attachment. Above, I talked of "grave moral danger." I thought afterwards that that was a bit overstated. But there is danger, and the Buddha urged appamada (heedfulness) in his last words. In the book on perfections, AS said "there may not be many opportunities to practice Dhamma" - wrong, wrong wrong! There are opportunities with every breath, those are the terms in which the Buddha taught. OK, happy to touch bases with you. As I said above, please scold me if you see me here more than about once a week. There is a lot to be done, and discussing Dhamma is not always necessary in the practice. (WOuldn't want to practice in complere isolation, though.) Hi to your boyfriend and looking forward to meeting you guys here. Our place is too small to put you up, but I can recommend some reasonable places. Metta, Phil #76016 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 10:26 pm Subject: The Ultimate Fact! bhikkhu0@... Friends: What are the details of the First Noble Truth of Suffering? The Blessed Buddha once said this: What, now, Bhikkhus and Friends, is The Noble Truth of Suffering? Birth is Suffering; arising is Suffering; ageing is Suffering, decay is Suffering; death is Suffering! Sorrow, pain, lamentation, frustration, depression, melancholy, sadness, hopelessness, & despair are Suffering... Not to get what one wants and to get what one not wants is Suffering! All the groups of existence: The Five Cluster of Clinging are Suffering! What now is birth? The birth of the various kinds of beings, their being born, their conception & springing into existence, the manifestation of the 5 groups of existence, the appearance of the 5 clusters of clinging, the beginning of the activity of sensing: All this is called birth... And what is decay & ageing? The decay of all the various kinds of beings, their becoming aged, elderly, weak, withered, atrophic, gray, & wrinkled, the failing of their vitality, the fading away of their abilities & senses: All this is called decay & ageing... And what is death? The departing & exit of the various kinds of beings, their destruction, vanishing, disappearance, dissolution of components, ceasing of life, the casting aside of the body form: This is called death... And what is sorrow? The sorrow arising by this or that loss or calamity the worry, the distress, mental pain & affliction: This is called sorrow... And what is lamentation? Whatsoever, after any deprivation or mishap, is wailing & weeping, moaning & mourning: All this is called lamentation... And what is pain? The bodily pain & unacceptable physical displeasure, the painful, aching, and unpleasant feeling produced by bodily reaction: All this is called pain... And what is sadness? The mental pain and frustration, the dejection, grief, depression, and unpleasant feeling produced by mental reaction: All this is called sadness... And what is despair? The Distress & despair arising through this or that loss or misfortune, hopelessness, and desperation: this is called despair. And what is the Suffering of not getting what one wishes? To beings subject to birth there comes this desire: Oh, may we not be reborn and to beings subject to decay, disease, death, sadness, pain, & despair, this desire arises in them: Oh, may we only & always be happy! But this cannot be got by mere desire... To be thus naive is Suffering!!! Source: DN22 Not exactly pleasing, but absolutely true and thus freeing! More on these 4 Noble Truths (Cattari Ariya Saccani): http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Clustered_Truths.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_4_Noble_Truths.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Sour_Sense_Sources.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_1st_Noble_Truth_on_Suffering.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_2nd_Noble_Truth_on_The_Cause_of_Sufferi\ ng.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_3rd_Noble_Truth_on_The_Ceasing_of_Suffe\ ring.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_4th_Noble_Truth_on_The_Way_to_End_Suffe\ ring.htm Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka * <...> #76017 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 11:25 pm Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge kenhowardau Hi James, -------- <. . .> J: > Now, don't go changing the goal posts on me! ;-)) What I had promised was in reference to the idea you put forth that KS rediscovered the commentaries, -------- You're quite right. I remember now. However, I was right too in a way. When the commentaries are studied there can be no doubt that (according to them, at least) the world is just the present few, momentary, namas and rupas. Real vipassana practice, therefore (like anything else that is real), can only be something that takes place in a single moment. That excludes every kind of conventional activity - including formal meditation activities. So, what I am suggesting is, when the commentaries are taken into account there can be no belief in formal vipassana practice. When the commentaries are ignored that belief can assert itself (though not inevitably). --------------------------- J: > which you stated had been ignored since the time of Buddhaghosa. --------------------------- I believe they fell into obscurity at some time since Buddhaghosa. Whether it was soon after his era or comparatively recently I don't know. --------------------------------------- J: > I wrote that that wasn't true and that the commentaries had been studied within the Theravada Sangha for centuries. ---------------------------------------- Yes, and I said that not many of them were known by western monks and laypeople. Even in Thailand (the last bastion of Theravada at some stages in history), many Commentaries were never translated from the Pali, and so very few people were paying them any serious attention. And the commentaries that were translated were not well understood. I think KS more or less said, "Oh look! This is what the commentaries are saying!" And that inspired people to look more closely and to translate more of them into Thai (and eventually into English). There are other DSG people who know the story much better than I do, of course. They have told it several times, but I keep getting it mixed up.:-) Ken H #76018 From: han tun Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 11:42 pm Subject: Perfections Corner (10) hantun1 Dear All, This is the continuation of Chapter 10: The Perfection of Equanimity, taken from the book “The Perfections leading to Enlightenment” by Sujin Boriharnwanaket and translated by Nina van Gorkom. Questions, comments, or different opinions are welcome. ------------------------------ We need sati-sampajañña and we have to develop each kind of kusala with patience and endurance in order to realize the four noble Truths. We should not have expectations as to the moment when we shall realize the four noble Truths. So long as we have many defilements which arise time and again and have desire for the realization of the four noble Truths, we are very far away from the goal. Therefore, we should begin to develop all kinds of kusala so that they become supporting conditions leading to enlightenment. ------------------------------ To be continued. Metta, Han #76019 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 11:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ÁÑerson¡¦quot; - "The controversy on ÁÑerson¡¦is ended" dcwijeratna I am little confused about "true truths"? Is there any reference to it in the Sutta Pitaka? Can anybody help? With metta D. G. D. C. Wijeratna ----- Original Message ---- From: Phil To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2007 10:43:51 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: "there is no ÁÑerson¡¦quot; - "The controversy on ÁÑerson¡¦is ended" <...> Ph: I like the sutta about the acrobats. We take care of ourselves by taking care of others, and take care of others by taking care of ourselves. I always think this sutta gets at "two truths embraced as one" as you say. <...> #76020 From: "colette" Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 11:24 pm Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge ksheri3 So, we meet again, I enjoyed having Scott bounce some of his ideas off of me. If any moderators were watching the words as I typed them here, at the time I tried to answer Scott, they would've seen that I'm gettin' pretty good at this. As I tried to say to Scott, he has to work on his MEDITATION PRACTICE specifically and he should give it a lot of focus and time since that seems to be what he's lacking. I loved how he got into the MIND-ONLY school or maybe the Yogacara school but he doesn't have the confidence in himself and the teachings yet to take those chances -- he's still taking these GIGANTIC LEAPS as if WALKING ON THE MOON. Those GIGANTIC LEAPS happen to be his undoing when the real work comes into play. I found that his lack of meditational skills and practice were a detriment to his analysis i.e. mistaking what is internal for being external, et al, which brings me to this post. Well Pilgrim, lets see if I can hit that spitoon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > KenH: Let's just accept that, according to the texts as a whole, > > there are only dhammas - there is nothing else (no self: nothing!). colette: boy, I hope you're a statue or a trinket up on somebodies shelf collecting dust since that's a mighty precarious position you've gotten yourself in. "...only dhammas..." so, dhammas exist, are in a state of being. Well, if that's the case then how are you observing them? <...> All suttas seem to have a number and a category, so, since only dhammas exist then I've gotta ask where your number is located on your person? See, if I can get your number then maybe the defects occured in the packaging process where you were packaged and placed on a shelf for somebody to purchase and put on another shelf. I hope you also have that Universal Bar Code. ;) I'm playing with you here since you asked me to accept that only dhammas exist. You certainly cannot exist since only dhammas exist, those are your theories. You also have no consciousnesses of any sort since only dhammas exist. <...>and so, I figure that you, KenH (Pilgrim) are just being looney here saying that only dhammas exist. -------------------------------- > > > > T: That is one example of your interpretations that I disagree > with. > > Ken, it depends very much on which kind of self (atta) you are > > referring to. . > > colette: well, give him some credit, at least he put forth that a self exists. Where he's at with this list of seves to choose from is beyond me right now. I don't usually shop at fast food joints so menus and lists aren't much for me. ------------------------ > > > Sorry, Tep, but I disagree. It does not depend on which kind of atta > we are referring to. colette: Why Tep, are you gonna let him get away with that: 1) he says that only dhammas exist 2) now he's saying that a self exists. Ask him to clarify himself here. I get sooooo sick of Carnies, ya know, the same ole scams from the same ole sideshows where the duck just sits up on the conveyer belt and turns around when ya hit it with the gun, he's just giving us a run-a-round here. -------------------------- The statement, "There are only dhammas," means > there is nothing other than dhammas. It doesn't matter how we > describe something that supposedly exists in addition to dhammas > because there is no "something in addition" (of any kind). There are > only dhammas. colette: this is exactly where I'm at with the lunicy of the statement "there are only dhammas" I appreciate a good laugh, and I know that you, Pilgrim, can put on some good cons which I enjoy watching, SOMETIMES. Now happens to not be one of those times. -------------------------- > > As I was saying, maybe some other understanding could be gained by > selectively rejecting parts of the texts. However, if you take the > texts as a whole (especially if you include the commentaries, which > bring everything back to namas and rupas) there is no doubt that the > universe described by the Buddha consisted entirely of dhammas - all > of which bore the characteristic, anatta. colette: it's times like this that I get to a point where I say to myself: "why should I say anything at all?" I DO NOT claim to be any great knowledgable student of the dhammas, suttas, suttras, etc, as I know there are plenty floating around here and there, but when you make such a blanket statement of EVERYTHING THE BUDDHA TAUGHT as being "...entirely of dhammas" simply because they bore a characteristic of "anatta" then I'm forced to ask if you are the character called Sargeant Martin Riggs as portrayed by Mel Gibson in the Lethal Weapon series since you are definately in a straight jacket and I'm just waiting for you to dislocate your right shoulder so that you can marvel everyone with your ability to escape straight jackets. See, If you are Mel Gibson or connected to him, the we can find our good sabatuers Opus Dei lurking around somewhere close. Sorry for not addressing you specifically and personally Scott, I just had a bad time the other night when I tried and almost finished with the entire post you sent to me. Maybe I'll try some other time but right now I feel a bit leary about replying. toodles, colette #76021 From: han tun Date: Wed Sep 5, 2007 1:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge hantun1 Dear James, The most outstanding work of Venerable Mingun Saydaw U Vicittasarabhivamsa is the Great Chronicle of Buddha in Burmese language. It consists of 6 volumes (8 books). The total thickness of the 8 books is more than one foot. It describes the Life of Buddha in most minute details. Some portions of it are translated into English, and you can find it at http://www.nibbana.com/ under Section B: Theravada 1, “Dhamma” Mingun Sayadaw: The Great Chronicle of Buddhas Respectfully, Han --- buddhatrue wrote: > http://www.tbsa.org/articles/MingunSayadaw.html > This monk lived until the age of 81. However, from > my Internet > research, I cannot find any writings of his on the > Dhamma. Perhaps > someone else will know where to find them?? > Metta, > James > > #76022 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 5, 2007 1:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: two kinds of truths. Meaning and letter. nilovg Dear Swee Boon, I agree that it is very difficult to interprete texts. What about this: the Tathagatha is not to be found apart from the five khandhas? Remember that there are about seven different translations. Nina. Op 5-sep-2007, om 2:55 heeft nidive het volgende geschreven: > We have to be careful when reading & interpreting suttas. To say > 'there is no self of the Tathagata to be found in the aggregates' and > to say 'there is no Tathagata' can be a world of difference. #76023 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 5, 2007 1:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘person’" - "The controversy on ‘person’ is ended" nilovg Hi James (and Sarah), just one remark about this sutta: here there is a word play of satta, clinging or attached and satta, living being, soul. These two words satta are from different stems, but there is a word association used here to convey a meaning. This may influence our interpretation. Nina. Op 5-sep-2007, om 3:31 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is > > > caught up1 there, tied up2 there, one is said to be 'a being #76024 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Sep 5, 2007 1:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge sarahprocter... Hi Ken H & all, --- kenhowardau wrote: >> I find it a great relief to finally realise I don't have to be the > world's manager. I still lapse back into old ways quite a > lot, of course, but that's to be expected. ... S: Yes, I understand and likewise. .... > Another thing, BTW, I am very happy with is being a T-totaler. I > don't mention it to my friends unless they ask because they would get > the wrong impression. But, being free of that hankering - for a beer > or wine around dinner time - is just marvellous! .... S: Congratulations! You mentioned that relatively recently you had completely given up alcohol and I'm sure it is a great relief. I think that even a little alcohol has far more of an effect on people than they realise. The addictive quality is there. .... > As you mentioned, I was a practising Buddhist for about 26 years > before (thanks to DSG) I saw the significance of anatta. I want to > warn others away from the meditation teachers who gave me such > patently wrong advice. (Including one I saw on television who ended > his walking-meditation instructions with, "When you are making a cup > of tea, know you are making a cup of tea!") :-) ... S: Our mothers certainly could have taught us that! Whilst searching for another post, I came across this one from Mike (Nease)in DSG's early days (so add 7 yrs to the figures!), along similar lines, I think. .... #2263 >V: I was wondering if there is any reason, other than "similar tastes" > as you mention above, for one to study the Abhidhamma if everything > one needs is already in the Suttas? Mike: >I can't give you an authoritative answer, but would like to tell you what has caught my interest in abhidhamma. For nearly thirty years I've wandered around in various schools of Buddhism, the last ten or so in the Theravada. I was very glad when this meandering led me to the sutta-pitaka. I bought the PTS edition and read all of it, some more than once or even twice. Why I appreciate having had the great good fortune of discovering this group (and with it abhidhamma): MANY ideas I had developed individually, intellectually and intuitively and with the help of others, good monks among them, were simply mistaken. So much was clarified in such a short time! And all of it from the same suttas I'd read and contemplated and embraced. Maybe, if I'd had the time, I would've figured out the inconsistencies in my own understanding eventually, but I don't think so. The way this information has been carefully gleaned from the suttas and laid out, cross-referenced and so on, is incredibly helpful. So, from my point of view, why re-invent the eight-spoked wheel? I can always measure my own intuition and reasoning against the abhidhamma and the suttas and frankly, it's always the former, not the suttas or the abhidhamma (which always agree), that come up short. I hope that you won't pass up this opportunity to investigate this wonderful material for yourself. Mike< ***** Metta, Sarah ========= #76025 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Sep 5, 2007 1:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘person’" - "The controversy on ‘person’ is ended" sarahprocter... Dear BLR Han (and any other BLR's (j/k)!!), James* & all, --- han tun wrote: > Amidst serious discussions going on, can I write > something on a lighter vein, without offending you? ... S: Of course not! It's good to have 'a lighter vein' too:-)) ... > > > S: The following is a re-quote from an earlier > message with further elaboration from the commentary > to this text to clearly show there really is no > person, no being, no deva, no brahma, no Buddha!! > > Han: I will not be able to accept this. In Burma, we > use one acronym ‘BLR’ which means Beyond Local Repair. > If a vehicle is declared as BLR, it is written off the > ledger and auctioned off. So also, in this case, > kindly treat me as BLR for not accepting this and > write me off!:>) ... S: Actually, in spite of addressing you as BLR, I definitely would never accept that and would never write you off!:> Very funny, though. Do you have any difficulty with the sutta I quoted to Swee Boon (& James) here: http://www.accessto insight.org/ tipitaka/ sn/sn05/sn05. 010.bodh. html "Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found. Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So, when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.' It's only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering ceases." (James*, no one has ever denied that there is a convention, a conventional use, a concept of 'a being'. It would definitely be a moving of the goal-posts to suggest that! Btw, definitely not tired of the discussion, but posts in other threads waiting for replies. Somehow, yours always end up on top of the pile!) Metta, Sarah ======== #76026 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Sep 5, 2007 1:50 am Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge indriyabala Hi KenH, - I have begun to like your unshakable belief that no-self means nothing else except the dhammas. KenH: Let's just accept that, according to the texts as a whole, there are only dhammas - there is nothing else (no self: nothing!). T: Okay, Ken. Maybe it is time that I learn from you more -- by asking a few questions about 'self'. What does 'self' in the no-self mean to you? And what do you think the following three cases are about? attaa hi atatno naatho (Dhp 12.4) attakilamathaanuyoga (SN 56.11) attapa.tilabha (DN 9) Thank you very much, Ken. Tep === #76027 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Sep 5, 2007 1:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Confucian mentality insighting Namas & Rupas? sarahprocter... Hi Colette, --- colette wrote: > So, Sarah, you say: > > > Let's be very clear what namas and rupas are. > > > S: Thx for your feedback too. Again, let's be clear that it is the > namas > > and rupas (the consciousness, mental states and physical phenomena) > that > > are impermanent. Not the concepts. > > colette: Are you suggesting that Namas & Rupas are nothing more than > than incongruent, intangible, worthless "objects" of our existance > that we must transcend? I feel that if it wasn't for our existance > then Namas & Rupas wouldn't exist. ... S: Namas and rupas are worthless in an ultimate sense because they are impermanent, unsatisfactory and beyond anyone's control. It is the fully developed right understanding which transcends them by realising the unconditioned dhamma, nibbana. I'd put your last sentence the other way round to say, if it weren't for the arising and falling away of namas and rupas on and on and on, there'd be no existence, no illusion of any 'me'. .... > Watch the spin on this one: namas and Rupas are nothing more than the > conditioning that the individual mind issues externally. At this very > second I'm thinking of running down stairs and digging for the work > on Vasubandhu! <....> .... S: I don't agree with this. Namas and rupas are not mere mind-created concepts. Namas and rupas refer to the actualities that make up our lives now such as seeing consciousness, hearing, visible objects, sounds, likes, dislikes, feelings and so on. May I suggest you leave Vasubandhu aside for a little while as we continue this discussion to try and understand what namas and rupas are in the Pali canon, the Theravada teachings? ... > Now what were the conditions for existence that you put on Namas & > Rupas? ... The conditions for present existence were the past ignorance and attachment. The present ignorance and attachment is the condition for future existence, on and on and on. Only by understanding and becoming detached from such worthless, transitory namas and rupas and by seeing them as anatta, will the path to the end of continued existence be developed. Thanks for your interest, Colette. Metta, Sarah ======== #76028 From: han tun Date: Wed Sep 5, 2007 3:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘person’" - "The controversy on ‘person’ is ended" hantun1 Dear Sarah, > S: Actually, in spite of addressing you as BLR, I definitely would never accept that and would never write you off!:> Very funny, though. Han: Yes, very funny indeed. I will tell you why it is funny. You asked me whether I have any difficulty with SN 5.10 Vajira Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn05/sn05.010.bodh.html No, I do not have any difficulty. On the contrary, this sutta is one of my favourite suttas. I often recite the following Pali from this sutta. dukkhameva hi sambhoti dukkham titthati veti ca naa~n~natra dukkhaa sambhoti naa~n~nam dukkhaa nirujjhatiiti It's only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering ceases. And yet, when you said there really is no person, no being, no deva, no brahma, no Buddha!!, I cannot accept. But if you ask me why? I cannot explain. That’s why I declare myself a case of BLR :>) Respectfully, Han --- sarah abbott wrote: > Dear BLR Han (and any other BLR's (j/k)!!), James* & > all, > #76029 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed Sep 5, 2007 4:17 am Subject: [dsg] Re: "there is no �person�" - "The controversy on �person� is ended" scottduncan2 Being For The Benefit of Mister Kite, S: "It's not saying they are synonyms. It is saying that 'without self',anatta, means there is no self, no soul, no person, no human being, no thing - just 5 khandhas arising and falling away, mistakenly viewed as being a person in actuality etc." Sammohavinodanii (The Dispeller of Delusion, pp. 324-325): "1214. But as regards sukha.m vedana.m vediyamaano ('feeling a pleasant feeling'), etc., sukha.m vedana.m ('a pleasant feeling') [means that] feeling a pleasant bodily or mental feeling , he understands: 'I understand a pleasant feeling.' Herein, although certainly children lying on their backs, drinking their mother's milk and so on know: 'We feel pleasure,' nevertheless this is not said with reference to such knowing. For such knowing does not abandon the belief in a being, or abolish the perception of a being, and it is neither a meditation subject nor the development of a foundation of mindfulness. But this bhikkhu's knowing abandons the belief in a being, abolishes the perception of a being and is both a meditation subject and a foundation for mindfulness. For this is said with reference to such feeling as is accompanied by clear comprehension of [the question]: 'Who feels? Whose feeling is it? For what reason do these feelings come to be? "1215. Herein, who feels? No being or person feels. Whose feeling is it? Not the feeling of any being or person. For what reason do feelings come to be? Feeling may come to be because of the object which is its basis (vatthu). Therefore he knows accordingly that 'feeling feels by making this or that basis for pleasure and so on its object but [the words] 'I feel' are merely a conventional expression [used] with regard to the occurrence of that feeling'. In this way it should be understood that 'he knows': 'I feel a pleasant feeling' while discerning thus that 'it is feeling that feels by making the basis the object'." Sincerely, Scott. #76030 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed Sep 5, 2007 4:58 am Subject: [dsg] Re: "there is no �person�" - "The controversy on �person� is ended" scottduncan2 Being For the Benefit of Mr. Kite (part II): Sammohavinodanii (The Dispeller of Delusion, pp. 350-351): "1376. Furthermore, five things lead to the arising of the equanimity enlightenment factor: (1) the maintaining of the middle state with regard to beings, (2) the maintaining of the middle state with regard to formations, (3) avoiding persons who treasure beings and formations, (4) cultivating persons who maintain the middle state with regard to beings and formations, (5) being resolved thereon. 1377. Herein, (1) he arouses the 'middle state with regard to beings' in two ways, (a) through reviewing ownership of kamma thus: 'You have come according to your deeds and you will go according to your deeds; and t his one has come according to his deeds and will go according to his deeds; who is it that you treasure?; and (b) through reviewing the absence of any [such thing as a] being thus: 'In the ultimate sense no being exists; who is it that you treasure?' 1378. (2) He arouses the 'middle state with regard to formations' in two ways, (a) by means of reviewing ownerlessness thus: 'This robe will gradually fade and wear out; after becoming a foot-wiping cloth, it will be thrown away with the point of a stick; but if it had had an owner he would not allow it to come to ruin thus'; and (b) by means of reviewing transitoriness thus; 'This is not lasting, it is temporary.' And in the case of the robe, so should it be construed in the case of the bowl and so on. 1379. (3) Avoiding persons who treasure beings and formations': (a) a 'treasurer of beings' is a name for a person who is possessively fond, as a householder, of his own sons, daughters, etc., or as on gone forth, of his own pupils, equals, preceptor, etc.. With his own hands he does their hair-cutting, sewing, washing and dyeing of robes, bowl-baking, etc.; and if they are out of his sight for a while, he looks here and there like a lost deer, [asking] 'Where is the novice so and so, where is the young bhikkhu so and so?' And if another asks [him]: 'Send so and so for a while for hair-cutting, etc., he will not allow it, [saying:] 'We do not even make him do his own work, if you take him you will tire him.' But (b) a 'treasurer of formations' is a name for one who is possessively fond of robes, bowls, vessels, sticks, staffs, and so on. He will not allow another's hand to touch them. If asked for the temporary loan of them, he says: 'We are fond of this and do not use it, how can we give it to you?' But he who is central, neutral towards these two bases is called 'one who maintains the middle state towards beings and formations.' This equanimity enlightenment factor [arises] in one who thus avoids from afar such persons who treasure beings and formations. 1380. (4) Also in one who cultivates persons who maintain the middle state with regard to beings and formations. 1381. (5) And it arises also in one whose mind tends, inclines, and leans thereto for the purpose of arousing that [equanimity] while standing, sitting, etc. 1382. But he understands that it is through the Arahat path that there comes to be the perfection through development of that [equanimity enlightenment factor] which has arisen..." Sincerely, Scott. #76031 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Sep 5, 2007 1:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘personÂ?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘personÂ?Eis e... upasaka_howard Hi, James (and Phil, Sarah, Tep, and any folks I've forgotten) - In a message dated 9/4/2007 9:52:36 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@... writes: James: Yes, people are a fabrication of the aggregates, not an aggregate. But, again, it isn't beneficial to view the world in only paramattha terms. One must purify the mind of aversion as well as attachment. ============================= James, I think that right here you may have put an end to disagreement and possibly to the thread. It is a well founded convention to think and speak of "people" or "persons" or "beings" AS IF they were separate self-existent phenomena related to khandhic elements in some way but separate from them. So long as this is understood to be no more than a convention, there is no problem. If, however, such independence is taken seriously and the imputed (or mentally superimposed) aspect of "persons" is unrealized, that is delusion. If, as you write, one understands people to be mental fabrications upon the aggregates, there is no problem, and, from my perspective, nothing to disagree with. As I see it, it is also only a convention to think and speak of paramattha dhammas (or khandhic elements) as separate, discrete (i.e., 0-duration or static-over-a-brief-sharply-delineated-interval), self-existent entities, as opposed to interrelated, inseparable elements/objects/facets of experience. Yet, IMO, there is a big difference between "persons" (and other macroscopic entities) and paramattha dhammas. The former are based in the latter, and not vice-versa. Moreover, and this is the characteristic difference as I see it, at an instant of feeling hardness or seeing a sight or smelling an odor or hearing a sound, there is no mediation of thought, conscious or subliminal, but that is not so when "touching, seeing, smelling, or hearing a person." In that latter case, there is a complex underlying thought process involved in the cognition. With metta, Howard #76032 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Sep 5, 2007 2:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views; Part I sarahprocter... Dear Tep (& Howard), As I mentioned in another thread in passing, I liked all the quotes you gave in #75804 (and those Howard added in #75810). *Very, very useful!* Starting with: --- Tep Sastri wrote: > Nyanatiloka: "Anattaa: 'not-self', non-ego, egolessness, > impersonality, is the last of the three characteristics of existence > (ti-lakkhana, q.v.) The anattaa doctrine teaches that neither within > the bodily and mental phenomena of existence, nor outside of them, > can be found anything that in the ultimate sense could be regarded as > a self-existing real ego-entity, soul or any other abiding substance. > > Nyanatiloka: "This is the central doctrine of Buddhism, without > understanding which a real knowledge of Buddhism is altogether > impossible. It is the only really specific Buddhist doctrine, with > which the entire Structure of the Buddhist teaching stands or falls." .... S: Any comments I give are nit-picking as really your post was full of excellent quotes and beautifully put together. Still, I was a little confused by the following: > T: Ven. Nanmoli gave a very important comment about the self of > Category 3. as follows: > > Nanamoli: "The characteristic of Not-self (anatta-lakkha.na) deals > with the third, the unidentifiable entity that is conceived and > sought and made the subject of a certain class of views, namely, self- > views (attaanudi.t.thi)." > > T: Think about that! An important implication is that the Buddha, > when talked about self in the anatta-lakkha.na sutta, did not refer > to the soul or ego identity, the kind of self that the Visuddhimagga > is based on. Therefore, when you quote the Vism on no-self you should > be aware that such no-self does not relate to the not-self in the > anatta-lakkha.na sutta; it is related to self-views that are > influenced by upadana in the khandhas. .... S: Can you explain the distinction as you see it. .... Also in your last paragraph: ... > T: The Tathaagata has direct knowledges. He communicates without > misapprehending the worldly usages, worldly language, worldly terms > of communication, and worldly descriptions simply because He does not > have the wrong views and clingings of the worldlings. We should not > interpret it to mean that the conventional truth is not a truth, or > that there are no one to practice the Dhamma in the world except > illusion. .... S: Fine til we get to the last phrase! It is neither someone nor illusion that practices the Dhamma. It is right understanding and the other path factors which perform their various functions, leading to patipatti or practice. Of course, I appreciate we understand this point differently:-)) ... > To be continued ... ... S: Look forward to it. A great effort. Metta, Sarah ========== #76033 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 5, 2007 6:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no О©╫personО©╫" - "The controversy on О©╫personО©╫ is ended" nilovg Dear Scott, These quotes are excellent, enjoyed reading them. They would fit very well into the Perfection corner. Nina. Op 5-sep-2007, om 13:58 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: > (a) a > 'treasurer of beings' is a name for a person who is possessively fond, > as a householder, of his own sons, daughters, etc., or as on gone > forth, of his own pupils, equals, preceptor, etc.. With his own hands > he does their hair-cutting, sewing, washing and dyeing of robes, > bowl-baking, etc.; and if they are out of his sight for a while, he > looks here and there like a lost deer, [asking] 'Where is the novice > so and so, where is the young bhikkhu so and so?' #76034 From: han tun Date: Wed Sep 5, 2007 7:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no �person�" - "The controversy on �person� is ended" hantun1 Dear Scott (Nina), As Nina said, these quotes are very useful for the Perfections Corner, especially for the Perfection of Equanimity. Thank you very much. Respectfully, Han --- Scott Duncan wrote: > Being For the Benefit of Mr. Kite (part II): > > Sammohavinodanii (The Dispeller of Delusion, pp. > 350-351): > #76035 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 5, 2007 7:12 am Subject: pali text nilovg Dear Scott and Andrew, I had somehow on my computer a Pali Tipitaka, but not easy to handle. The Tipitaka org changed their site and it is hopeless. Just how to install VRI which I did, but no texts. I wanted to look up Andrew's sutta on the four Pa.tisambhidas. The PTS translation is correct. 40. CattÄ?rome bhikkhave vÄ?dÄ«. Katame cattÄ?ro? [PTS Page 139] [\q 139/] atthi bhikkhave vÄ?dÄ« atthato pariyÄ?dÄ?naṃ gacchati no vyañjanato. Atthi bhikkhave vÄ?dÄ« vyañjanato pariyÄ?dÄ?naṃ gacchati no atthato. Atthi bhikkhave vÄ?dÄ« atthato ca vyañjanato ca pariyÄ?dÄ?naṃ gacchati. Atthi bhikkhave vÄ?dÄ« nevatthato no byañjanato pariyÄ?dÄ?naṃ gacchati. Ime kho bhikkhave cattÄ?ro vÄ?dÄ«, a.t.thaanameta.m bhikkhave anavakaaso, yaṃ catÅ«hi pa.tisambhidÄ?hi samannÄ?gato bhikkhu atthato ca vyañjanato ca pariyÄ?dÄ?naṃ gaccheyyÄ?ti. ------- The last sentence: a.t.thaanam impossible, anavakaasonot having an opportunity. < It is unlikely, it is impossible that one possessed of the four pa.tisambhidas should be at a loss both in the meaning and the letter.> The metta transl. had in the last sentence the opposite and I changed this, since it made no sense: this is senseless: But now it is clear. Nina. #76036 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 5, 2007 6:30 am Subject: pali texts nilovg Dear Scott, where do you get the Pali sutta texts from? Maybe others would like to know too. I have difficulty with Metta net and Tipitaka org. Even when going first to Rob's web. I cannot work with them. Thank you, Nina. #76037 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 5, 2007 7:20 am Subject: Conditions, Ch 13, no 6. nilovg Dear friends, According to the “Visuddhimagga” (XVI, 128) pain makes the associated states “wither” and pleasant bodily feeling “intensifies” the associated states. When there is awareness of feelings we will understand that they “govern” or rule over dhammas arising together with them, that they are controlling faculties. As to indifferent feeling, this is quiet in comparison with the other feelings. The three mental feelings condition the citta and other cetasikas arising together with them and also mind produced rúpa by way of faculty-condition. Pleasant and painful bodily feeling accompany body- consciousness which is vipåkacitta. As we have seen, the vipåkacittas which are the five pairs of sense-cognitions (seeing, hearing, etc.) do not produce rúpa. At rebirth, feeling conditions the associated dhammas and rúpa produced by kamma by way of faculty-condition. We attach great importance to feeling, we let ourselves be carried away by the feelings which arise on account of pleasant or unpleasant objects we experience through the senses. If there would not be feelings on account of what we see, hear or experience through the other senses, there would not be so much sorrow in life. We are enslaved to our feelings, but they are only realities which arise because of the appropriate conditions and do not last. As we have seen, some of the faculties are rúpa and some are nåma. The faculties which are nåma condition other phenomena while they are conascent with them. The faculties which are the five senses have to arise prior to the nåmas they condition by way of faculty-condition. Without the faculties there could not be the experience of the different objects which impinge on the senses. Without the eye faculty visible object could not appear and without the ear faculty sound could not appear. The “world” appears through the six doorways because there are the faculties performing their functions. So long as we do not distinguish the sense faculties from each other we cling to a concept of self who can see, hear and think, all at the same time. In reality there is only one citta at a time which experiences one object. Each experience arises because of its appropriate conditions and falls away immediately, it is non-self. The following sutta stresses the importance of understanding the faculties which are the senses and the mind. They have to be understood as impermanent, dukkha and anattå. If they are not understood as they are one cannot attain enlightenment. We read in the “Kindred Sayings” (V, Mahå-vagga, Book IV, Kindred Sayings on the Faculties, Ch III, § 6, Stream-winner): Monks, there are these six sense-faculties. What are the six? The sense-faculty of eye, that of ear, of nose, tongue, body and the sense-faculty of mind. These are the six sense-faculties. When the ariyan disciple understands, as they really are, the arising and the perishing of, the satisfaction in, the misery of and the escape from these six sense-faculties, such an ariyan disciple, monks, is called “Streamwinner (sotåpanna), one not doomed to Purgatory [1], one assured, one bound for enlightenment.” ---------- 1. Hell, or hell planes. Existence in a hell plane is not eternal, therefore the translator uses “purgatory”. ********* Nina. #76038 From: "nidive" Date: Wed Sep 5, 2007 7:37 am Subject: Re: two kinds of truths. Meaning and letter. nidive Hi Nina, > What about this: the Tathagatha is not to be found apart from the > five khandhas? It's very difficult to ascertain the intended meaning of the translator without looking at the whole sutta that is translated by him/her. But I have a suggestion for what this translator might mean: The self of the Tathagata cannot be found anywhere. What can be found are only the five khandhas, and even those khandhas are devoid of anything called a self. This interpretation, I think, does not contradict with the idea that there is a phenomenon known as 'the Tathagata' that is composed collectively of the five aggregates apart from the notion of a self. The sum of all the aggregates is not less real than the individual aggregates themselves. Both are equally real. After all, 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 5. Swee Boon #76039 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 5, 2007 7:32 am Subject: Asoka, Ch 4, no 4. nilovg Dear friends, We read in Khun Santi’s lexicon about the abandoning of the perversions: “The Buddha taught the four Applications of Mindfulness as a means to abandon the four perversions, but one should not fix one’s attention on a specific perversion with the purpose to abandon it, because everybody who is not an ariyan is bound to have the four perversions. When satipatthana arises there can be awareness of a reality as anattå. Right understanding which results from listening to the Dhamma is accumulated and forms together with the other sobhana cetasikas included in sankhårakkhandha (the khandha of formations) the condition for the arising of right mindfulness. At that moment there will be mindfulness of anyone of the four ‘Applications of Mindfulness’. Right understanding of realities which arises will gradually abandon the perversions until they are completely eradicated when the ‘path-consciousness’ (magga-citta) arises [1] .” Right understanding resulting from listening is accumulated together with all the other good qualities, the sobhana cetasikas included in sankhårakkhandha (which khandha includes all cetasikas except feeling and saññå). In this way the right conditions are developed for right mindfulness which is aware of the nåma or rúpa which appears. Not only right understanding but all good qualities, such as mettå, generosity or patience are necessary to eliminate the clinging to the self. We read in the “Path of Discrimination”, in the section on the perversions, about the eradication of the perversions. The sotåpanna (streamwinner) who has attained the first stage of enlightenment, has not eradicated all the perversions. He has eradicated the perversion of saññå, citta and ditthi which take what is impermanent for permanent. He has eradicated the perversion of ditthi which sees what is dukkha as happiness, but the perversions of citta and saññå which see dukkha as happiness he has not eradicated. He has eradicated the perversions of saññå, citta and ditthi which take what is non-self as self. He has eradicated the perversion of ditthi which sees the foul as beautiful, but the perversions of citta and saññå which see the foul as beautiful he has not eradicated. ------------ 1. At the different stages of enlightenment the perversions are subsequently eradicated. **** Nina. #76040 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 5, 2007 7:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections corner, extra. nilovg Dear Han, -------- > Scott's quote: > > 'treasurer of beings' is a name for a person who is possessively > fond, > > as a householder, of his own sons, daughters, etc., or as on gone > > forth, of his own pupils, equals, preceptor, etc.. With his own > hands > > he does their hair-cutting, sewing, washing and dyeing of robes, > > bowl-baking, etc.; and if they are out of his sight for a while, he > > looks here and there like a lost deer, [asking] 'Where is the novice > > so and so, where is the young bhikkhu so and so?' ------- N: This is very human, asking: where is so and so, with attachment and longing, like a lost deer. But here we see that considering one's cittas (paramattha dhammas) helps very much to develop the perfection of equanimity. At one moment we are engaged with 'stories' or concepts, and at another moment the object is citta or the cetasika of equanimity. We do not need to blame ourselves that we think with attachment of persons, it happens because of conditions. We do not need to try to change ourselves, but understanding is beneficial for all occasions. Eventually, after a long. long time (aeons), understanding can bring about a change. I have a helper in the house who has problems and not a good temper. I tend to have aversion. But when I consider accumulated tendencies in the citta it helps to have compassion and equanimity. Understanding paramattha dhammas is of the greatest help for our 'worldly life'. Nina. #76041 From: Dieter Möller Date: Wed Sep 5, 2007 9:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: two kinds of truths. Meaning and letter. moellerdieter Hi Swee Bon ( Nina ), just a brief comment you wrote: 'The sum of all the aggregates is not less real than the individual aggregates themselves. Both are equally real. After all, 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 5.' the combination of the 5 aggregates - the living being - is not simply a sum , but a complementary . The whole is more than the sum of its parts .. likewise e.g. is light , water or a chariot.. Though , when this whole is examined, we only find the khandas ,the colours , or hydrogen and oxygen etc. , there is without doubt reality to both : the complementary and its parts, and I think that is , what you wanted to point out , right? with Metta Dieter #76042 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 5, 2007 11:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: two kinds of truths. Meaning and letter. nilovg Dear Swee Boon, Op 5-sep-2007, om 16:37 heeft nidive het volgende geschreven: > But I have a suggestion for what this translator might mean: The self > of the Tathagata cannot be found anywhere. What can be found are only > the five khandhas, and even those khandhas are devoid of anything > called a self. ------- N: Yes, that is well said. -------- > > This interpretation, I think, does not contradict with the idea that > there is a phenomenon known as 'the Tathagata' that is composed > collectively of the five aggregates apart from the notion of a self. > > The sum of all the aggregates is not less real than the individual > aggregates themselves. Both are equally real. After all, 1 + 1 + 1 + > 1 + 1 = 5. ------- N: Here it becomes more complicated. Dieter said: the combination of the 5 aggregates - the living being - is not simply a sum , but a complementary . We cannot speak of the sum of the aggregates being less real than the individual aggregates. I am not happy with the 'sum of the khandhas'. The five khandhas are citta, cetasikas and ruupa and these do not stay, they arise and fall away immediately. How could they be a sum? A person, you, I, are in reality citta, cetasika and rupa. It just seems that they last. Now, we cannot imagine what it is like when pa~n~naa directly knows the arising and falling away of citta, cetasika and rupa. Nina. #76043 From: "colette" Date: Wed Sep 5, 2007 10:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Confucian mentality insighting Namas & Rupas? ksheri3 Good Day Sarah, Interesting what you've done with the place. ;) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: <...> > S: Namas and rupas are worthless in an ultimate sense because they are > impermanent, unsatisfactory and beyond anyone's control. > colette: On a lighter note did someone make a request for THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE? So, when dealing with nama (mental constituents) and rupa (physical constitutents) where can I find the S.O.P. concerning when I apply them in an Ultimate reality basis and when I apply them in a Conventional reality basis or context? I know that from my own personal EXPERIENCE Ultimate REality is the only reality of any value -- this odd position does nothing more than anger, frustrate, confound, et al, the followers of the Caste System since they cannot teach Jealousy, Greed, Avarice, Sloth, Vanity, etc, to the children <...> "...beyond anyone's control" au contraire, I feel that it is PRECISELY the concept of control that gives rise to THE TIBETAN BOOK OF THE DEAD, to the rationale of KARMA, and so on. Don't you think that it has NOT BEEN BOTHERING ME since 1978, that I would end up a victim of my own consciousness and mind IF the concept of namas and rupas were beyond my control? A person could take an entire lifetime trying to figure out EVERY SINGLE LITTLE ASPECT OF one single nama or one single rupa, now in the form of AGGREGATES we have a better chance of retaining our sanity. But, in the form of AGGREGATES we are then forced to get off our lazy arses and EXPERIENCE things. With this as the case, THEN I contend that it is precisely the CONTROL of our own minds in unknown situations that buddhism was manifested for, and well, many other Western Theologies since "Ulitmate Meaning" is a very big sociological topic. Since I have had a taste of DEATH and have what I consider to be a good idea of what's goin on, THEN I PONDER what my next EXPERIENCE of DEATH will be like having now been armed with a vastly larger REALIZATION of what I did not have in 1978. Along with that comes the thoughts that maybe I'll be able to actually change things, no? ------------------------------ > It is the fully developed right understanding which transcends them by > realising the unconditioned dhamma, nibbana. > colette: don't you think that this "unconditioned dhamma, nibbana" is somewhat of a falsehood? I tried to say to Scott the other day that it's a function of proper translation such as a cryptographer would encounter. the two realities do not mix well. It is in the translation where the never-ending F*CK-UPS happen. Mistaking kusala for akusala is one big screw up, no? The ability to translate properly comes from EXPERIENCE, ask any U.N. linguist. ------------------ > I'd put your last sentence the other way round to say, if it weren't for > the arising and falling away of namas and rupas on and on and on, there'd > be no existence, no illusion of any 'me'. colette: now you've gone and placed yourself as being DEPENDENT ON namas and rupas, that's a stretch. ---------------------- > .... > > Watch the spin on this one: namas and Rupas are nothing more than the > > conditioning that the individual mind issues externally. At this very > > second I'm thinking of running down stairs and digging for the work > > on Vasubandhu! <....> > .... > S: I don't agree with this. Namas and rupas are not mere mind- created > concepts. colette: IMPOSIBLE, ever since at the latest 1978 I've pondered "Who named the Sun the Sun when it can be the Moon, why was I not considered when some schmuck came along and said that I am forced for my entire lifetime to say that the Sun is the Sun. How can anybody be sure that the sun is not the moon? It is only a name and through the application of the name then the form took shape, no? So, in the application of Wet Dreams people are actually interacting with hallucinations, dreams, which causes them to urinate in bed, where did the thought come from? first there is no tangible object in a person's dreams, huh? Yet the person acts, in their dreams, as if tangibility existed. How can this be true, IF IT WASN'T FOR THE STINKING REPEATITION OF BRAINWASHING, no? ------------------------------------ Namas and rupas refer to the actualities that make up our lives colette: what planet are you on? Namas strictly deal with MENTAL PHENOMINA. That which is mental phenomina in your mind is not in my mind and therefore IS NOT AN ACTUALITY, unless, you truely are the Representative of the Little Red Book issued by the People's Army and the People's Re-education camps. On the other hand, from a Western point of view, you could be playing god, which fits very nicely into the Caste system and psychology immbeded into the robots on the assembly line of those INSTITUTIONS called Ivy League, Bush are you seriously considering walking away from your delusions of granduer that we in the real world are now forced to exist with, live in? ---------------------------------- > now such as seeing consciousness, hearing, visible objects, sounds, likes, > dislikes, feelings and so on. > colette: how can you prove that these consciousnesses are not man- made manifestations of a psuedo-reality? Boy do you need a lot of work on distinguishing between real and imagined. ------------------------------ > May I suggest you leave Vasubandhu aside for a little while as we continue > this discussion to try and understand what namas and rupas are in thePali > canon, the Theravada teachings? colette: au contraire, I suggest that you pick up Vasubandhu and maybe you'll see the Theravadan teachings better than the hallucinations you've just had and dumped on me! You have some serious mental defficiencies which could use some work and, well, The People's Republican way is rather adept at training sentient beings how and what to think. <....>But, you can believe what you want to believe, no? gotta go, toodles, colette #76044 From: han tun Date: Wed Sep 5, 2007 2:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections corner, extra. hantun1 Dear Nina (Scott), Thank you very much for your further explanation on the quote provided by Scott, with examples of daily life experience. In particular, I like the following: “We do not need to blame ourselves that we think with attachment of persons, it happens because of conditions. We do not need to try to change ourselves, but understanding is beneficial for all occasions.” “We need not try to change ourselves.” Very useful advice! At times, I have the desire to change not only myself but the entire situation. When I see my children suffering due to any cause, I wish to go back in time, and not having my children in the first place. When we (my wife and I) had our children we were very happy. We thought they are ‘jewels.’ Little did we know that we were bringing in the ‘dukkha’ for us and for the children themselves. For what benefit did we have brought them to this world? For them to suffer?, and for us to worry? As you said, the understanding paramattha dhammas is of the greatest help for my impossible wishful thinking of going back in time, and the un-necessary worries. Thank you very much, Nina. I also thank Scott for providing these very useful quotes. Respectfully, Han --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Han, > -------- > > Scott's quote: > > 'treasurer of beings' is a name for a person who > > is possessively fond, as a householder, of his > > own sons, daughters, etc., #76045 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Sep 5, 2007 3:58 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views; Part I indriyabala Hi Sarah and other readers, - Thank you for the careful reading of Part I, and especially for your excellent questions. > S: Any comments I give are nit-picking as really your post was full of excellent quotes and beautifully put together. Still, I was a little confused by the following: > > T: Ven. Nanmoli gave a very important comment about the self of > > Category 3. as follows: > > > > Nanamoli: "The characteristic of Not-self (anatta-lakkha.na) deals with the third, the unidentifiable entity that is conceived and sought and made the subject of a certain class of views, namely, self- views (attaanudi.t.thi)." > > > > T: Think about that! An important implication is that the Buddha, > > when talked about self in the anatta-lakkha.na sutta, did not refer to the soul or ego identity, the kind of self that the Visuddhimagga is based on. Therefore, when you quote the Vism on no- self you should be aware that such no-self does not relate to the not- self in the anatta-lakkha.na sutta; it is related to self-views that are influenced by upadana in the khandhas. > .... > S: Can you explain the distinction as you see it. > .... T: You were very sharp to identify one of the most important findings. This third category of self ia a "subtle metaphysical entity" i.e. a mental acquisition that is formless and made of perception. For example, perceiving the "eye" as a self [MN 148]. Being a perception, this kind of self is a concept that is concocted by the mind (citta & cetasikas)of a worldling who is not free from attaanudi.t.thi (DN 15) or attavaadupaadaana (MN 11), and therefore it must be abandoned through the right view, as stated in the Anattalakkhana Sutta : 'this is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self'. The following sutta quote is an evidence that supports my explanation. "I teach the Doctrine (dhamma) for the abandoning of acquisitions of self in order that in you, who put the teaching into practice, defiling ideas may be abandoned and cleansing ideas increase, and that you, by realization yourselves here and now with direct knowledge, enter upon and abide in the fullness of understanding's perfection..." [DN 9] T: Some self views that follow the third category of self (formless and made of perception) can also be seen in the following sutta excerpt. "How does he see (say, materiality) as self?... Just as if a man saw a lighted lamp's flame and color as identical thus 'What the flame is, that the color is; what the color is that the flame is'... How does he see self as possessed of (say, materiality)?... Just as if there were a tree possessed of shade such that a man might say 'This is the tree, this is the shade; the tree is one, the shade another; but this tree is possessed of this shade in virtue of this shade'... How does he see (say, materiality) in self?... Just as if there were a scented flower such that a man might say 'This is the flower, this is the scent; the flower is one, the scent another; but the scent is in this flower'... How does he see self in (say, materiality)?... Just as if a gem were placed in a casket such that a man might say 'This is the gem, this is the casket; the gem is one, the casket another; but this gem is in this casket.'" etc. [from Ps. Ditthikathaa/vol. i, 144-5] T: More of this subject will be presented in the upcoming Part II of "Some Findings..". ............. > S: Also in your last paragraph: > ... > > T: The Tathaagata has direct knowledges. He communicates without misapprehending the worldly usages, worldly language, worldly terms of communication, and worldly descriptions simply because He does not have the wrong views and clingings of the worldlings. We should not interpret it to mean that the conventional truth is not a truth, or that there are no one to practice the Dhamma in the world except illusion. > .... > S: Fine til we get to the last phrase! It is neither someone nor illusion that practices the Dhamma. It is right understanding and the other path factors which perform their various functions, leading to patipatti or practice. Of course, I appreciate we understand this point differently:-)) > ... T: Very observant with the sharp eye of an eagle (who flies high)!! Yes, the last phrase has a problem -- but not the same "problem" as you perceive. I also appreciate your undertanding above, noting that it is a right view of the ariyans (and the abhdhammikas who are fond of high flying). There is a monk in the real world (of conventional truths) who practices the Dhamma; this "monk" is the derivation of the five khandhas that are real in the present moment (before undergoing changes which morph the monk into the future moment ...). Illusion, on the other hand, is in the mind of a beholder who is a disbeliever in the single-moment-reality of the real world of the worldlings. ........ > S: Look forward to it. A great effort. You are truly a world-famous cheerleader. Tep === > #76046 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Sep 5, 2007 4:21 pm Subject: Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views; Part II indriyabala Hi, all - [Part II: Some Findings ...] A unique property, that is not unlike that of the three vedana, of these three acquisitions of a self(atta-patilaabha),the 2nd case, i.e. a person or an individual, is that they are mutually exclusive, i.e. at a given moment only one kind of a self exists and the other two are "null and void". This property of an acquired self is illustrated in DN 9 as follows. The Buddha explained: "Citta, when there is a gross acquisition of a self, it's not classified either as a mind-made acquisition of a self or as a formless 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, it's not classified either as a gross acquisition of a self or as a formless acquisition of a self. It's classified just as 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 is classified just as a formless acquisition of a self. ........... The Buddha (asking Citta, the elephant trainer): "Suppose they were to ask you: 'Did you exist in the past? Did you not not exist? Will you exist in the future? Will you not not exist? Do you exist now? Do you not not exist?' Thus asked, how would you answer?" "... Thus asked, lord, I would answer: 'I existed in the past. I did not not exist. I will exist in the future. I will not not exist. I exist now. I do not not exist.'... That's how I would answer." "Suppose, Citta, they were to ask you: 'Whatever your past acquisition of a self: Is that alone your true acquisition of self, while the future & present ones are null & void? Whatever your future acquisition of a self: Is that alone your true acquisition of a self, while the past & present ones are null & void? Whatever your present acquisition of a self: Is that alone your true acquisition of a self, while the past & future ones are null & void?' Thus asked, how would you answer?" "...Thus asked, lord, I would answer: 'Whatever my past acquisition of a self: on that occasion, that alone was my true acquisition of a self, while future & present ones were null & void. Whatever my future acquisition of a self: on that occasion, that alone will be my true acquisition of a self, while the past & present ones will be null & void. Whatever my present acquisition of a self: on that occasion, that alone is my true acquisition of a self, while the past & future ones are null & void. "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. .............. T: And we see that Citta's view was accepted by the Buddha. Further, neither the Buddha nor Citta said there was "no self", or "no person existed". [This is important as I have repeated often so that you will not forget.] "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. "In the same way, 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. "Citta, these are the world's designations, the world's expressions, the world's ways of speaking, the world's descriptions, with which the Tathagata expresses himself but without grasping to them." ................ T: The idea of "existence" as described above has been the basis of my several posts here at DSG in 2007. It is generally agreed upon by us that there is no self that is permanent or temporarily permanent in the ayatanas, khandhas, and dhatus. Yet, a person (an "acquisition" of the five khandhas, or mind & body, seen as a person or individual) exists only in a given moment; although the person now is neither the same as a mind-and-body state in the past, nor is s/he the same as another state to arise in the future. Further, these states are related through continuity -- as explained by the "milk simile" and by the analogy of a flame in the Milinda Panha. So, please once again carefully observe that the Buddha never said a person was an illusion, or "unreal", or there was no self (only 'no self' in the permanent-soul sense). And, most importantly, the Buddha existed (real). ................. T: How may 'not-self' be seen with the right understanding of an ariyan? By discerning and letting go of the clinging (that is conditioned by tanha and associated with ditthi) in the five aggregates; s/he sees them the way they truly are -- with no assumptions. In other words, s/he does not have the the self-view (attaanuditthi) in the five aggregates. Arahant Sariputta: "Now, the well-instructed, disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. "He does not assume feeling to be the self... "He does not assume perception to be the self... "He does not assume fabrications to be the self... "He does not assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. "He discerns inconstant form, as it actually is present, as 'inconstant form.' He discerns inconstant feeling... He discerns inconstant perception... He discerns inconstant fabrications... He discerns inconstant consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'inconstant consciousness.' "He discerns stressful form, as it actually is present, as 'stressful form.' He discerns stressful feeling... He discerns stressful perception... He discerns stressful fabrications... He discerns stressful consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'stressful consciousness.' "He discerns not-self form, as it actually is present, as 'not-self form.' He discerns not-self feeling... He discerns not-self perception... He discerns not-self fabrications... He discerns not- self consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'not-self consciousness.' ... ... ... "He does not get attached to form, does not cling to form, does not determine it to be 'my self.' He does not get attached to feeling... He does not get attached to perception... He does not get attached to fabrications... He does not get attached to consciousness, does not cling to consciousness, does not determine it to be 'my self.' These five clinging-aggregates — not attached to, not clung to — lead to his long-term happiness & well-being." [SN 22.85 Yamaka Sutta] .............. T: The several self views held by non-Buddhists are found in MN 102 and DN 15. Ven. Nanamoli summarized them nicely as follows: [Note: perception, for example, is 'immaterial'.] .............. Nanamoli: Many suttas classify the conflicting notions of the nature of self held by opponents of the Buddha. It could be, and apparently was, for instance, claimed that it had materiality, or was immaterial; or both, or neither; was percipient of oneness, or of plurality, or of the limited or of the measureless; was eternal, or uneternal, or both, or neither; had only pleasure, or only pain, or both or neither; each of these theories being maintained by its propounder as "the only truth and all else wrong" (MN 102, etc.). Or else it could be described as having materiality either limited or infinite, or as immaterial and either limited or infinite. And then whichever of these four is adopted, it may be seen as such now, or due to be such (upon rebirth), or in this way "Though it is not yet real, still I shall contrive for its reality" (DN 15/vol. ii. 64). Nanamoli: All these rationalized views (ditthi) stem from uncritical acceptance or overlooking of an underlying tendency (anusaya), or fetter (samyojana) — a natural predisposition — to regard, to identify, some aspect or other, in the situation of perceiving a percept, as "this is mine" or "this is what I am" or "this is my self" (e.g. MN 22). .................. T: Up to this point it should be clear that it is the self views, or wrong perceptions of atta, that matter to Buddhists. The idea of "no self" is not the issue, because it does not connect to the self views or the elimination of self views through eradication of the underlying tendency (or the fetter) of views. .................. Nanamoli: These two levels — the self-view and the I-sense — are respectively what are called the "(lower or immediate) fetter of views" (di.t.thi-sa"myo jana) and the "(higher or remoter) fetter of conceit" (maana-sa"myo jana). Nanamoli: The first is abandoned with the attainment of the first stage of realization (the path of stream-entry) while the second is abandoned only with the fourth and final stage (the path of arahantship: see DN 33). It may be noted here in parenthesis that the rendering of maana by "pride," though not wrong, severs the semantic relationship with ma~n~nati and ma~n~nanaa, which it is most important to preserve intact for the understanding of this situation. Nanamoli: The overlooked fundamental conceit "I am" (asmi-maana) — a mirage that, in the act of perceiving, is conceived will fulfil its counterpart, the intuitive sense of lack, which is craving — in the basic ontological structure of ordinary perception provokes the ordinary man with no knowledge of the Buddha's teaching to indulge in uncritical speculation about what this may be that "I am," and consequently to build up self-theories. .................. T: All such self views stated above arise with contact as a condition. DN 1 : " ... and with contact as condition, feeling; with feeling as condition, craving (tanhaa); with craving as condition, clinging (upaadaana); with clinging as condition, being (bhava); with being as condition, birth; with birth as condition aging and death come to be, and also sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair; that is how there is an origin to this whole aggregate-mass of suffering". ... To be continued. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Hi, all - > > This thread consists of three parts. But please do not wait till I am > done if you want to comment or ask questions. I prefer having > questions and answer them now, so that I can benefit from your > feedback right away. > #76047 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed Sep 5, 2007 5:16 pm Subject: Re: pali texts scottduncan2 Dear Nina, Good request, sorry I didn't mention it sooner: N: "where do you get the Pali sutta texts from? Maybe others would like to know too. I have difficulty with Metta net and Tipitaka org. Even when going first to Rob's web. I cannot work with them." I have the download from: THE TIPITAKA The Pali is based on the Sri Lanka Buddha Jayanti Tipitaka Series. Sinhala is the A.P. de Soyza's translations. English is by various authors often downloaded from the Internet. http://www.buddhistethics.org/palicanon.html I hope it works for you. Sincerely, Scott. #76048 From: "nidive" Date: Wed Sep 5, 2007 5:50 pm Subject: Re: two kinds of truths. Meaning and letter. nidive Hi Dieter, > the combination of the 5 aggregates - the living being - is not > simply a sum , but a complementary . The whole is more than the > sum of its parts .. likewise e.g. is light , water or a chariot.. > Though , when this whole is examined, we only find the khandas > ,the colours , or hydrogen and oxygen etc. , there is without doubt > reality to both : the complementary and its parts, and I think that > is , what you wanted to point out , right? Yes, I think that is what I wanted to say: there is without doubt reality to both, the complementary & its parts. And in actual reality, we cannot separate the five aggregates into five individual parts as if each part stands independently. The separation is a pedagogical/conceptual tool taught by the Buddha to help us better understand the nature of anatta. Swee Boon #76049 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Sep 5, 2007 6:02 pm Subject: Re: "there is no ‘person?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘person?Eis ended" buddhatrue Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > > Hi James > > I hope this isn't turning into a backslide on my resolution to > stay off the internet. If you see me posting a lot here, please be a > good Dhamma friend and remind me of that. There are times that it is > important to discuss Dhamma, but it is not always important. The > issues become very clear and all that matters is doing it. James: I don't think I could do that. Sometimes you might need to post a lot to DSG- it might be part of your progress at that moment. Sometimes you might need to stay away- that could also be part of your progress. But I would never take it upon myself to police your actions in using the Internet because I could do you harm. (And DSG is a better way to spend your free time than baseball or porn sites ;-)). > > > Actually, I believe that the Buddha wants us to arrive at the > > knowledge that there are and there aren't people- when the two > truths > > are embraced as one. But, that is getting a bit into Mahayana so I > > will just leave it. > > Ph: I like the sutta about the acrobats. We take care of ourselves > by taking care of others, and take care of others by taking care of > ourselves. I always think this sutta gets at "two truths embraced as > one" as you say. James: Yes, I agree. Very few people realize that when you go into solitude to purify your mind, you are not only helping yourself but you are helping everyone. > > > BTW, you were talking about the AS "cold shower" approach in > another thread. I think, in fact, she *doesn't* really dispense cold > showers, because there is actually comfort in believing oneself to > have access to penetrative panna, and that is what she offers to her > students, James: Hmmm...I never thought of it that way. It just seems to me that she seems to be asking for a level of perfection right from the start! That is a lot of pressure and seems to make for rather joyless Dhamma practice. I think. Alas, without developing samadhi in the way > prescribed by the Buddha, that promise of access is a false one, I > think. Her students will say there isn't such a promise, but I think > it is implicit in just about every word she says. That's why I got > into her. James: Yes! With out meditation practice, Dhamma study is just scholarship. It is meditation which makes the difference between deep knowledge and just superficial knowledge. > > The *real* cold shower is having the kind of insight into reality > that could blow our minds if we aren't ready. I'm interested in the > sutta, in the samyutta on breathing, in which the Buddha leaves his > bhikkhus after having talked on contemplation of foulness. They > decide to carry on on this theme, but without a proper base of > samattha to help them bear the insights, to bear the heaviness of > the topic, they become suicidal and about 20, I think, "use the > knife" or hire others to use it. The Buddha comes back and wonders, > hey, where are all the bhikkhus. Then teaches the survivors to use > the breath as a balm before tackling such kind of meditation, like > rain after the dry season. James: Very good example. There must be balance and knowing when to practice what type of meditation at what time, to ensure that balancing of the mind. That is why, Phil, I would never police your DSG activities. There might be times when you need to participate heavily. And I don't agree with some modern meditation temples which don't allow the monks access to Dhamma materials. Even meditation monks sometimes need to study the Dhamma to balance out samadhi practice. > > These days I'm interested in how samatha has great benefits even > *before* jhanas, very basic tranquility. I've been into the Thai > forest monks, such as Ajahn Lee, who I know you like. At some point > I'd like to talk about how he and others (such as Thanissaro > Bhikkhu) advocate using the breath as a kind of conceptual tool to > bring a sense of well being, so the mind has some place to settle > and doesn't have to run around feeding on things that are bad for > it. (ie just about everything.) But not now. James: Breath meditation has the greatest immediate benefits, but becomes more difficult as one progresses. There are 40 other meditation subjects and they can each be useful at different times. Even meditation isn't a one-trick pony- regardless of what modern meditation teachers teach (IMO). > > > > One should see other people existinga > > in order to cultivate metta, compassion, sympathetic joy, and > > equanimity. Seeing others as not existing only cultivates apathy. > > Ph:There are so many suttas that are impossible to apply, or > understand, without consideration of people. For example, all those > suttas in which we are encouraged to consider whether we often are > prone to this or that defilement. Impossible to consider this > without considering a narrative of our lives. The *often* is so > important. Cannot be reduced to a single moment of a paramattha > dhamma rising and falling away. James: Yes, there is so much that is lost when you limit yourself to just understanding dhammas. Just consider- during the Buddha's enlightenment, he gained insight by recalling all of his numerous past lives and the past lives of countless other beings- he didn't gain insight by contemplating paramatha dhammas! The contemplation of dhammas isn't useful for everyone at all times. > > > > > > > I think there are not people in ultimate terms but we are > nowhere > > > near having the kind of insight that makes that relevant. > > > > James: Yes, people are a fabrication of the aggregates, not an > > aggregate. But, again, it isn't beneficial to view the world in > only > > paramattha terms. One must purify the mind of aversion as well as > > attachment. > > Above, I talked of "grave moral danger." I thought afterwards that > that was a bit overstated. But there is danger, and the Buddha urged > appamada (heedfulness) in his last words. In the book on > perfections, AS said "there may not be many opportunities to > practice Dhamma" - wrong, wrong wrong! There are opportunities with > every breath, those are the terms in which the Buddha taught. James: Yes, I really disagree with that statement also. When one has the proper mind set, everything you do is practicing the Dhamma- from visiting the temple to going to the bathroom is practicing the Dhamma. > > OK, happy to touch bases with you. As I said above, please scold > me if you see me here more than about once a week. James: Sorry, no can do. ;-)) There is a lot to > be done, and discussing Dhamma is not always necessary in the > practice. (WOuldn't want to practice in complere isolation, though.) > > Hi to your boyfriend and looking forward to meeting you guys here. > Our place is too small to put you up, but I can recommend some > reasonable places. James: Looking forward to going to Japan also; although Sebastian is grumbling about wanting to go to Thailand this year. Not sure how it will pan out. > > Metta, > > Phil > Metta, James #76050 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Sep 5, 2007 6:10 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge buddhatrue Hi Han, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear James, > > The most outstanding work of Venerable Mingun Saydaw U > Vicittasarabhivamsa is the Great Chronicle of Buddha > in Burmese language. It consists of 6 volumes (8 > books). The total thickness of the 8 books is more > than one foot. It describes the Life of Buddha in most > minute details. Some portions of it are translated > into English, and you can find it at > http://www.nibbana.com/ > under Section B: Theravada 1, "Dhamma" > Mingun Sayadaw: The Great Chronicle of Buddhas Thank you very much for this!! I will read it and post anything I find relevant. > > Respectfully, > Han Metta, James Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (334) #76051 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Sep 5, 2007 6:21 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘person’" - "The controversy on ‘person’ is ended" buddhatrue Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > (James*, no one has ever denied that there is a convention, a conventional > use, a concept of 'a being'. It would definitely be a moving of the > goal-posts to suggest that! James: I am not moving the goal-posts, a human being isn't just a "concept". A human being is a real entity. Concepts don't exist, they are mind constructions- but human beings (and devas, and Buddhas, and ghosts BTW) do exist. Btw, definitely not tired of the discussion, > but posts in other threads waiting for replies. Somehow, yours always end > up on top of the pile! James: LOL! That is just because my posts are so "in-your-face" ;-)) Feel free to ignore them and move on to something else. I don't want to monopolize your time, by any means. ) > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======== > Metta, James #76052 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed Sep 5, 2007 6:37 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Perfections corner, extra. scottduncan2 Dear Han and Nina, Yes, as I typed out the second Sammohavinodanii quote I recognised that it would fit well with this corner. H: "''We need not try to change ourselves,' (Nina). Very useful advice! At times, I have the desire to change not only myself but the entire situation." I agree with you, Han. I have this desire at times as well. I think this idea, that we need not try to change ourselves, is a rather difficult one to accept, if not downright controversial. It seems to fly in the face of so many 'common sense' notions about the world. It seems to dovetail so nicely with many of the wishes we have for a sense of control. I'm sure it seems to some to be like saying, 'there is no hope, nothing can be done'. People always want to feel as if there is something to do. This idea made great sense to me when I encountered it here a year or so back. I think that it has been immensely helpful to consider, at least intellectually for me, equanimity of this nature with regards to 'practising' the Dhamma. Questions of 'what am I supposed to do' are rampant, as are the answers available to one encountering the Dhamma for the first time. I've said before that I am very appreciative of words such as these, found nowhere else that I've seen. I think that it might just be the beginning of the development of equanimity to find myself in acceptance this idea. The Dhamma is all inter-related, right, and the idea of no need to try to change ourselves just follows from an understanding of anatta - which is also much disputed and apparently not always understood in the same way. H: "When I see my children suffering due to any cause, I wish to go back in time, and not having my children in the first place. When we (my wife and I) had our children we were very happy. We thought they are 'jewels.' Little did we know that we were bringing in the 'dukkha' for us and for the children themselves. For what benefit did we have brought them to this world? For them to suffer?, and for us to worry?" Scott: Very brave and honest words, Han. I grew up in a fundamentalist eternalist religion which idealised the bringing of children into the world. This was based on the wrong-view that there is only one lifetime and many 'souls' needing bodies. I see this in a different light now and that is why I appreciate these comments. I like that it is kamma for me and kamma for them, in the end. I see my children. They struggle. They experience joy. They are no different than me, except in terms of relative amount of time spent in the human realm. I can no more control them than I can myself. And furthermore, ultimately, they too are separate 'streams' of consciousness, separate mentality-materiality. Family is idealised. Children are idealised. I can't help having more attachment to them than to strangers. I don't mistake this for compassion. I don't try to change the way I 'love' them as this would condition sadness, confusion and hurt for 'them', and more, it would reflect the development of wrong-view for 'me'. It is still a fact that, ultimately, they can only be concepts for me. I am not them. As concepts - experience 'for me in my own stream', naama - they are ultimately beyond my control. This is very difficult to accept. Metta is extended to concepts, as I understand it, because that is all there is to do. I don't quite know why but I have a vague sense of it. Does the above fit with a discussion of equanimity? Please let me know what you think. Sincerely, Scott. #76053 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed Sep 5, 2007 6:55 pm Subject: Re: "there is no ‘person?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘person?Eis ended" rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > > Alas, without developing samadhi in the way > prescribed by the Buddha, that promise of access is a false one, _______ Dear Phil You often mention your Burmese teachers. Could you describe their way of developing samadhi for us. I'm interested in the > sutta, in the samyutta on breathing, in which the Buddha leaves his > bhikkhus after having talked on contemplation of foulness. They > decide to carry on on this theme, but without a proper base of > samattha to help them bear the insights, to bear the heaviness of > the topic, they become suicidal and about 20, I think, "use the > knife" or hire others to use it. The Buddha comes back and wonders, > hey, where are all the bhikkhus. Then teaches the survivors to use > the breath as a balm before tackling such kind of meditation, like > rain after the dry season. ______ The Ancient Commentary says the Buddha taught the contemplation on foulness to those bhikkhu to save them from hell. Those bhikkhu devloped it correctly and later when they committed suicide they went to heaven. In your previous paragraph you make a diatribe against Khun Sujin who you accuse of giving teachings too advanced for her students - yet now you run on about anapansati the most difficult of all samatha objects. Robert #76054 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed Sep 5, 2007 7:02 pm Subject: Re: pali text scottduncan2 Dear Nina, I appreciate the detective work here: N: "...The last sentence: a.t.thaanam impossible, anavakaasonot having an opportunity. "It is unlikely, it is impossible that one possessed of the four pa.tisambhidas should be at a loss both in the meaning and the letter." The metta transl. had in the last sentence the opposite and I changed this, since it made no sense: this is senseless: "Bhikkhus, it is not possible that an argument could be concluded according to meanings and letters endowed with reasons, conditions, causal relations and intended meaning" But now it is clear." Thanks, Nina. A very important difference. Now I'll go for the Paa.li even more frequently. Sincerely, Scott. #76055 From: han tun Date: Wed Sep 5, 2007 9:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections corner, extra. hantun1 Dear Scott and Nina, Thank you very much for your very useful comments. I ponder carefully on the last two paragraphs of your post. ----------------------------- “I see my children. They struggle. They experience joy. They are no different than me, except in terms of relative amount of time spent in the human realm. I can no more control them than I can myself. And furthermore, ultimately, they too are separate 'streams' of consciousness, separate mentality-materiality. “Family is idealised. Children are idealised. I can't help having more attachment to them than to strangers. I don't mistake this for compassion. I don't try to change the way I 'love' them as this would condition sadness, confusion and hurt for 'them', and more, it would reflect the development of wrong-view for 'me'. It is still a fact that, ultimately, they can only be concepts for me. I am not them. As concepts - experience 'for me in my own stream', naama - they are ultimately beyond my control. This is very difficult to accept. Metta is extended to concepts, as I understand it, because that is all there is to do. I don't quite know why but I have a vague sense of it. Does the above fit with a discussion of equanimity? Please let me know what you think.” ------------------------------ I like what you have written. I agree with your ideas and I think the above fits in with the discussion on equanimity. My only concern is that whether the equanimity developed by such contemplation is kusala upekkhaa or akusala upekkhaa? Perhaps, Nina can tell us more. Respectfully, Han --- Scott Duncan wrote: > Dear Han and Nina, > > Yes, as I typed out the second Sammohavinodanii > quote I recognised > that it would fit well with this corner. > #76056 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Sep 5, 2007 10:46 pm Subject: What is Ignorance? bhikkhu0@... Send Email Friends: When is one wrapped up in & covered by blind Ignorance? Once a certain not very well-known Bhikkhu asked the Blessed Buddha : Venerable Sir, ignorance, ignorance, is it said! What is ignorance? Venerable Sir, in what way is one wrapped up in ignorance? The Blessed Gotama Buddha then pointed out: Not Knowing Suffering is ignorance; Not Knowing The Cause of Suffering is ignorance; Not Knowing The End of Suffering is ignorance; Not Knowing The Way to end Suffering is ignorance... All this absence of understanding is ignorance & it is by that blindness, that dark state of blocked insight, that one is wrapped up in ignorance! Therefore, Bhikkhu, an effort should be made much of to understand: Such is Suffering; an effort should be made much of to comprehend: Such is the Cause of Suffering; an effort should be made so to realize: Such is the End of Suffering; An effort should be made to penetrate, recognize, & develop, Such is the Way leading to the End of Suffering... Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. [V:429] section 56: Saccasamyutta. Thread 17: Ignorance... More on these 4 Noble Truths (Cattari Ariya Saccani): http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Clustered_Truths.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/The_Ultimate_Fact.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_4_Noble_Truths.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Sour_Sense_Sources.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_1st_Noble_Truth_on_Suffering.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_2nd_Noble_Truth_on_The_Cause_of_Sufferi\ ng.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_3rd_Noble_Truth_on_The_Ceasing_of_Suffe\ ring.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_4th_Noble_Truth_on_The_Way_to_End_Suffe\ ring.htm Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka * <...> #76057 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 6, 2007 12:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘person?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘person?Eis ended" nilovg Hi James, Op 6-sep-2007, om 3:02 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > It just seems to me > that she seems to be asking for a level of perfection right from the > start! That is a lot of pressure and seems to make for rather joyless > Dhamma practice. ------- N: Ha, ha, you make me laugh. Listen to the audio and you hear lots of laughter. It is all very natural and relaxed. We do not have to try to change ourselves. LOL. But James, I do appreciate all your posts and read them with interest. You make good points. Nina. #76058 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Sep 6, 2007 1:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Summary 2007 International Congress on Women's Role in the Sangha sarahprocter... Hi Chris, Dieter & all, Thx for sharing your comments and enthusiasm on this issue. --- Christine Forsyth wrote: by Bhikkhu Bodhi: > > Oral Presentation > > The Revival of Bhikkhunî Ordination > in the Theravâda Tradition ~ Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi .... S: Some passionate comments by Ven Bodhi, (not for the first time, of course). Here are a couple of examples: .... BB: >On the other hand, by rousing > the courage to restore to women the right to lead a full religious > life, that is, by reviving the Bhikkhunî Sangha, Theravâdin elders > will show that they know how to apply the Vinaya in a way that is > appropriate to the time and circumstances, and also in a way that is > kind and embracing rather than rigid and rejecting. .... S: Does this mean that those members of the Sangha who prefer to strictly stick to the Vinaya, as handed down to us from the Buddha (and rehearsed at the First Council), see the Dhamma-Vinaya in a way that is 'inappropriate... rigid and rejecting'? ... BB: > In my opinion, in dealing with this issue, the question that should > be foremost in our minds is this: "What would the Buddha want his > elder bhikkhu-disciples to do in such a situation, now, in the > twenty-first century?" Would he want us to apply the regulations > governing ordination in a way that excludes women from the fully > ordained renunciant life, so that we present to the world a religion > in which men alone can lead the life of full renunciation? Or would > he instead want us to apply the regulations of the Vinaya in a way > that is kind, generous, and accommodating, thereby offering the > world a religion that truly embodies principles of justice and non- > discrimination? .... S: Again, there is the suggestion that a re-interpretation of the Vinaya would be the Buddha's wish and not to do so shows we are not 'kind, generous and accommodating'. Next he'll be suggesting we join the Dalai Lama in showing the world such principles and suggesting all schools be harmonised together! .... BB: >In working out a solution to our own problem, [S: whose problem?] > therefore, we have these two guidelines to follow. One is to be true > to the spirit of the Dhamma--true to both the letter and the spirit, > but above all to the spirit. The other is to be responsive to the > social, intellectual, and cultural horizons of humanity in this > particular period of history in which we live, this age in which we > forge our own future destinies and the future destiny of Buddhism. > Looked at in this light, the revival of a Theravâda Bhikkhunî Sangha > can be seen as an intrinsic good that conforms to the innermost > spirit of the Dhamma, helping to bring to fulfillment the Buddha's > own mission of opening "the doors to the Deathless" to all > humankind, to women as well as to men. ... S: All very eloquent as usual and appealing to the majority, of course. Whoever said that women (or men) had to ordain first in order to open "the doors to the Deathless"? In the commentary to the Parinibbana Sutta, we read about MahaKassapa’s concern for the preservation of the Dhamma: “ ‘In the teaching which the Blessed One established with effort, a thorn has so quickly become a major evil defect. This wicked man is indeed capable of growing and acquiring other companions like himself and so causing the teaching to disappear.........As flowers blown by the wind scatter here and there, so by the influence of people like this, as time passes, a rule of training or two will be lost from the Vinaya. A question or two will be lost from the Sutta; a difference between stages or two will be lost from the Abhidhamma, so in due course, when the root [basic text] is destroyed, we will become like demons. Therefore I will have the Dhamma and Vinaya recited. When it is done, this Dhamma and Vinaya will be immovable like the flowers tied together by strong string. It is for this reason that the Blessed One walked three leagues to meet me [see Ja 469]: gave me the ordination with three homilies [see SN11 220]; gave me his own robe from his body in exchange; talked about the path through a simile of the moon, by waving his hand in the sky, and made me realise the truth; gave the jewel of the whole teaching three times. While monks like me remain alive, let this evil man not prosper within our doctrine. I will have both the Dhamma and the Vinaya rehearsed before what is not Dhamma shines out and Dhamma is kept out, before those who speak what is not Dhamma become strong and those who speak Dhamma become feeble, before those who speak what is not Vinaya become strong and those who speak Vinaya become feeble. Then monks, each memorising what he is capable of himself, will tell what is legitimate from what is not legitimate. Then this evil man will by himself incur censure and will not be able to hold up his head again....’” ..... Earlier we read in the sutta itself (ch4), that the Buddha addresses the bhikkhus, encouraging them to check whether what they hear is in conformity with the Discourses and Discipline and about the four great references to be preserved. There is a lot of detail in the commentary, but I’ll just add one paragraph here: “But in the list [of four things] beginning with sutta, sutta means the three baskets which the three Councils recited." ***** S: Also see SN 16:13 "The Counterfeit of the True Dhamma", transl by B.Bodhi as addressed to MahaKassapa by the Buddha: "Just as, Kassapa, gold does not disappear so long as counterfeit gold has not arisen in the world, but when counterfeit gold arises then true gold disappears, so the true Dhamma does not disappear so long as a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has not arisen in the world, but when a counterfeit of the true Dhamma arises in the world, then the true Dhamma disappears. "It is not the earth element, Kassapa, that causes the true Dhamma to disappear, nor the water element, nor the heat element, nor the air element. It is the senseless people who arise right here [S:'moga puisaa ye ima.m', alternative translation quoted before: "But here in the Order itself, futile men arise"] who cause the true Dhamma to disappear." [S: From a commentary note, B.Bodhi gives a note about the two kinds of counterfeits of true Dhamma: one with regard to attainment (adhigama)and one with regard to learning (pariyatti). The latter includes the 'Secret Vinaya'.] However appealing, isn't a reapplying and rejigging of the Vinaya "in a way that is appropriate to the time and circumstances", "kind and embracing rather than rigid and rejecting" merely an eloquent counterfeit Dhamma? I believe we're extremely fortunate to still have access to the 'true gold' as preserved by the Councils today. Don't you agree? Metta, Sarah ======== #76059 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 6, 2007 1:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘person?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘person?Eis ended" nilovg Hi James, just one remark. Op 6-sep-2007, om 3:02 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > Just consider- during the Buddha's > enlightenment, he gained insight by recalling all of his numerous past > lives and the past lives of countless other beings- he didn't gain > insight by contemplating paramatha dhammas! ------- N: He realized the four noble truths and are these not related to paramattha dhammas? The noble Truth of dukkha: the falling away of paramattha dhammas. There were conditions for him to also attain the three Knowledges (Tevijja) or six abhi~n~nas, including recollecting past lives. He had accumulated conditions for the omniscience of a Buddha. Nina. #76060 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Sep 6, 2007 1:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘person?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘person?Eis ended" sarahprocter... Hi James, Nina (and anyone else!), --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > It just seems to me > > that she seems to be asking for a level of perfection right from the > > start! That is a lot of pressure and seems to make for rather joyless > > Dhamma practice. > ------- > N: Ha, ha, you make me laugh. Listen to the audio and you hear lots > of laughter. It is all very natural and relaxed. .... S: Yes, I laughed when I read about the 'joyless Dhamma practice' too! Usually the comment is that we laugh too much and are too joyful!! I have a suggestion, James. You said that Sebastian was asking for a trip to Thailand. Join many of your friends in Bangkok for the discussions at the Foundation with A.Sujin before the India trip on 9th, 10th, 11th (and probably 13th) Oct. You'll know many of us and will soon see that no one is interested in any kind of perfection or joylessness! We'd love to see you there. (Ask me off-list if you or anyone else wants details). I should mention that Nina won't be there because we'll be meeting her in India. If you could persuade Phil as well, even better:). Metta, Sarah ========= #76061 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 6, 2007 1:21 am Subject: Visuddhimagga 186, 187 and Tiika. nilovg Visuddhimagga 186, 187 Intro: Thus far the Visuddhimagga has explained how ignorance conditions formations (kusala kamma, akusala kamma and imperturbable kamma) and how formations condition vi~n~naa.na, vipaakacitta arising at rebirth and in the course of life. In the following sections it is explained how vi~n~naa.na conditions naama and ruupa. Naama referred to in this clause are the cetasikas, included in three khandhas. Section 186 is a prologue referring to the details which will be explained later on. Section 187 gives a summary of what is meant by naama in this context and what is meant by ruupa. ------------- [(iv) Mentality-Materiality] Text Vis. 186: For the clause 'With consciousness as condition, mentality-materiality': (1) By analysis of mind and matter, (2) Occurrence in becoming, et cetera, (3) Inclusion, and (4) manner of condition, The exposition should be known. Text Vis.187: 1. 'By analysis of mind and matter': here 'mind' (naama--mentality) is the three aggregates, that is, feeling, perception, and formations, because of their bending (namana) on to the object. --------- N: Here naama refers to the cetasikas that can accompany vi~n~naa.na. The Tiika explains that vi~n~naa.na also is naama, but in not mixing the conditioning dhammas and conditioned dhammas he speaks here of naama as the three khandhas which are facing an object. We read in the ‘Dispeller of Delusion’, Classification of the Structure of Conditions, 777 (p. 207) that a question is asked whether consciousness (vi~n~naa.na) is not mentality (naama). The answer is that it is also naama.The text states: In the context of the Dependent Origination: with consciousness as condition, mentality-materiality', mentality or naama is here the khandhas of feeling, of sa~n~naa and of formations. These khandhas include all cetasikas. The Tiika speaks here about nibbaana which is also naama. It mentions that it does not bend (namana), that it is unconditioned (appaccayatta). It is naama in the sense of causing to bend (naamana) not in the sense of bending; nibbaana does not bend towards an object, it does not experience any object. Nibbaana causes citta and cetasikas to bend onto itself, it is an object that can be experienced. See also the Expositor (p. 500, The Summary, Suttanta Couplets). ------- Text Vis. :Matter' (ruupa--materiality) is the four great primary elements and the materiality derived [by clinging] from the four great primaries. Their analysis is given in the Description of the Aggregates (Ch. XIV,34f. and 125f.). This, in the first place, is how the exposition of mentality- materiality should be known 'by analysis'. --------- Conclusion: This section deals with the two kinds of conditioned naamas, citta and cetasika, and the unconditioned naama which is nibbaana. The Tiika mentions that the cetasikas included in the three khandhas of feeling, sa~n~naa and formations are facing an object. They share the same object as the citta they accompany. Conditioned naamas experience an object whereas ruupa does not experience any object. Nibbaana is here called: appaccayatta, without paccaya. It is usually denoted by asa"nkhata, unconditioned, but here the term appaccayatta is used. In the context of the Dependent Origination we learn about the conditions, paccayas, that cause beings to go around in the cycle of birth and death. Nibbaana is not a link in this cycle, it is liberation from the cycle. ****** Nina. #76062 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Sep 6, 2007 1:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re Q: Some Questions Arising Out of Abhidhamma Study sarahprocter... Hi Dieter, Again, apologies for a slow response to your good Abhidhamma study and questions. I appreciate this a lot. --- Dieter Möller wrote: > S: Let's just make this clear for everyone: > > All cittas are included in vinnana khandha, > All cetasikas are included in sanna, vedana and sankhara khandhas > All rupas are included in rupa khandha. > Another way of saying the same is that all the khandhas are included in > citta, cetasika and rupa. > (D:though cetasika includes the element of quality (kusala/akusala ..) > so more or less in line with the Law of Dependent Orgination . ) ... S: Cittas and cetasikas can be kusala, akusala, vipaka or kiriya. Yes, D.O. is all about conditioned cittas, cetasikas and rupas. I'm not sure if you meant anything else by your comment? (as Tep said in effect, it takes a little time to learn to dance with a new partner and I may misunderstand some of your comments - so apologies for stepping on your toes in advance:)). .... > D: the khandas have to be understood within the framework of D.O. , > right?.. not to talk about what they present by attachment , i.e. > dukkha in brief (1st Noble Truth). > So we talk about the part (avijja-sankhara-) vinnaya -nama/rupa (- etc. > )... (?) .... S: I think it's best to understand the khandhas as arising right now first. Then we can go on to talking about them in D.O. and the 4NT perhaps. For example, whenever there isn't any dana, sila or bhavana, there is ignorance now. Even when there is dana, sila or bhavana, there is still the latent tendency of ignorance too. Ignorance is sankhara khandha - the khandha which includes all our accumulations for good and bad(except sanna and vedana). Whilst there is this tendency to ignorance, namas and rupas will continue to arise on and on. Pls let me know how we're going... I'll try to put aside those 'in-my-face posts like James's and reply at a quicker rate in future! ... > S: I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean by 'more or less in line > with the Law of D.O.'??? > > D: refering to the addition of quality ..kusala ..akusala ... S: You were asking about the khandhas. Again, let's start at the beginning with the khandhas and with avijja, the first link in D.O. Any question about this? Akusala as the condition for the entire cycle. .... > > S: (D: But by adding nibbana , the common ground is left with the > consequence of > contradiction and confusion.)... > Again, please elaborate on this contradiction and confusion as you see > it. Let's get to the bottom of this! > > D: yes, let us try.. > the addition of quality (kusala etc) is not in contradiction of the D.O. > , but the adding of nibbana is .. .... S: The realisation of nibbana is the way out of the cycle. So the lokuttara cittas (supramundane cittas) and nibbana are excluded from D.O. .... > By the D.O. the ' whole mass of suffering ' is described and its > relation to tanha , i.e. a kind of blue print in respect to the 1st and > 2nd Noble Truth.. > Understood that Abhidhamma analyses in detail vinnaya and nama- rupa , .... S: Vinnaya and nama-rupa in D.O. have particular meanings. We need to be careful. Not all cittas, namas and rupas are included here. ... > its relation with the links and so goes deeper than what is usually > mentioned by D.O. , the involvement of nibbana appears to me claiming > to exceed , to be 'higher' than D.O. . .. ... S: D.O. is about conditioned dhammas. The cycle of these. Nibbana is not part of that cycle. I haven't read that it is 'higher', but it is the unconditioned dhamma, the 'deathless' etc. Paramattha dhammas are paramattha. We don't need to think in terms of any being more paramattha than others. .... >S: The first book of the Abhidhamma Pitaka just deals with these > paramattha dhammas (realities) in detail, elaborating on all cittas, > cetasikas and rupas in detail. Nibbana is included in the relevant > sections. For example (from U Kyaw Khine's transl)..snip ' > > > D: thanks for the quotation , but the definition of the Paramattha > Dhammas as in § 2 of the Abh. Sangaha , I do not recognise .. > Tattha vutt' abhidhammattha - catudha paramatthato > Cittam cetasikam rupam - Nibbanam' iti sabbatha. > > In an ultimate sense the categories of Abhidhamma, mentioned therein, > are fourfold in all:- > > (1.) consciousness, > (2.) mental states, > (3.) matter, and > (4.) Nibbana. ... S: I gave all those examples from the Dhammasangani to indicate that these are what are referred to as paramattha, including nibbana. The Ab. Sangaha is a concise summary of all the Abhidhamma texts and commentaries. No disagreement at all. ... > S: Dieter, the Ab.Sangaha is a very reliable summary and guide to the > Abhidhamma Pitaka. It's a lot more user-friendly too, so persist!! It > has been used and memorised by the bhikkhus in Burma (and elsewhere)for > centuries as a summary of the Abhidhamma. > > > D: Sarah, without respect of this work, I would not continue with > questions. > I like to understand what Ven. Anuruddha had in mind , when he presented > his manual of the Abhidhamma. and the great attention the Burmese Sangha > is giving to this work for such a long time is certainly not unfounded. > . Hence , there is a lot of reason to have an open mind while studying > it. ... S: I agree with this and greatly appreciate your endeavour. Keep sharing any parts of it or any qus with us! .... > Being a 'Kalama by heart' I follow Digha Nikaya Sutta 26,in which the > Buddha said: "Monks, be a lamp (island,light) unto yourselves, be a > refuge unto yourselves, with no other refuge. Take the Dhamma as your > lamp, take the Dhamma as your refuge, with no other refuge." > And in case of doubt , I recall what has been said in the Pari Nibbana > Sutta in respect to the 4 Great References : judge whether something has > been said or not , is the Sutta/Vinaya Pitaka ... .... S: Actually, the 'Dhamma-Vinaya' refers to the 'three baskets'. From the commetary to this line you quote: "But in the list beginning with sutta, sutta means the three baskets which the three Councils recited...." See this post for more: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/58033 ... > S: Appreciating your efforts. Pls keep letting us know about any > difficulties/confusions in the text. We all learn from them! > > > D: Yes, we learn from them by helping eachother for better > understanding. > Please believe me , that no disrespect is meant to the third basket or > commentaries of the Tipitaka but finally- we should not forget - we are > on our own... ... S: yes, well said. No disrepsect at all. It is by careful reasoning, questioning and considering that we show the greatest respect! This is what all the suttas encourage us to do. Metta, Sarah p.s let us know if there's any chance of your being in Bangkok in October too. ======== #76063 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 6, 2007 2:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Summary 2007 International Congress on Women's Role in the Sangha nilovg Dear Sarah and Christine, Op 6-sep-2007, om 10:09 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > S: Does this mean that those members of the Sangha who prefer to > strictly > stick to the Vinaya, as handed down to us from the Buddha (and > rehearsed > at the First Council), see the Dhamma-Vinaya in a way that is > 'inappropriate... rigid and rejecting'? > ----------- Sarah, thank you for your interesting quotes. Another question is what those who would like to become an ordained bhikkhuni would gain as to opportunities for education etc.. Thus, seen from the practical side. In Thailand, as you know, there are Me Chis who observe eight precepts but they do not call themselves bhikkhunis. Rob K has on his study forum quite a discussion and I shall only quote part by Ven. Dhammanando stating that the Thai Mechis would lose if they would insist on the restoration of bhikkhunis: Nina. #76064 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Sep 6, 2007 2:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections Corner (08) sarahprocter... Dear Han & all, --- han tun wrote: > Dear Sarah, > > Thank you very much for your kind remarks. > > > When equanimity arises, we are not disturbed and we > > do not utter unsuitable speech to someone who > > commits akusala kamma. > > S: ...The problem is only > ever the disturbed citta now when we mind. > > Han: Very true. I never mind others’ akusala. > I always look for positive aspects of others. <..> > S: No metta or equanimity when there's minding! > > Han: I do not quite understand what you mean. > Could you kindly explain to me, please. ... S: The point was that when we are minding about others' akusala, being disturbed by it, wishing it were another way, instead of there being any metta or equanimity, instead there's dosa and clinging to one's own feelings. "A sage who is completely independent does not make close friends or enemies. In him sorrow and selfishness do not stay, like water on a lotus leaf." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.4.06.irel.html Metta, Sarah ====== #76065 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Sep 6, 2007 2:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Making Comparisons (... Re: Proper Training as a Co...) sarahprocter... Dear Han, (James* & all) --- han tun wrote: > Sarah asked me to write something on Aging. ... S: I did and then never properly thanked you which was remiss of me. Others appreciated your post a lot and so did I. >I have seen the divine messengers numerous > times but I failed to address myself to these > warnings, and I lived a life in “pamada” like tomorrow > would never come. Fortunately for me, just in time, > without nobody’s prompting, I changed my life-style > and started to study and practice the Buddha’s > teachings. ... S: You've told Jon and I (in person) about the interesting circumstances. We never know what will happen. Even in those "pamada" days, I'm sure there were also some wise reflections and understanding in between. Very fortunate for us that you began to turn more and more to the Buddha's teachings. ... > I remember James’s presentation on Recollection of > Death. ... *[S: Yes, James gave a very good series and he mentioned he was going to start one from Ven Saddhatissa's book....hint, hint, James!!] ... >One of the eight ways of recollecting death is > by comparison. > “Herein, death should be recollected by comparison in > seven ways, that is to say: with those of great fame, > with those of great merit, with those of great > strength, with those of great supernormal power, with > those of great understanding, with Paccekabuddhas, > with fully enlightened Buddhas.” [Vism. VIII, 16] > > It was for Recollection of Death. But I think the same > principle can be applied to the Recollection of Aging, > because aging and death are very close. So, although I > am afraid to compare myself with the Buddha, I ask > myself, even if the Buddha was subjected to aging, why > shouldn’t I? .... S: That's it. If even the Buddha couldn't control life, aging and death, how can we? We can't even control what is seen or heard right now. Metta, Sarah ======= #76066 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 6, 2007 2:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: pali texts nilovg Dear Scott, thank you for your effort. It was too complicated with other downloads of stuffit for Mac etc. so, I better keep to the one Yong Peng gave me long ago. Nina. Op 6-sep-2007, om 2:16 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: > I have the download from: > > THE TIPITAKA > The Pali is based on the Sri Lanka Buddha Jayanti Tipitaka Series. > Sinhala is the A.P. de Soyza's translations. > English is by various authors often downloaded from the Internet. > > http://www.buddhistethics.org/palicanon.html #76067 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Sep 6, 2007 2:38 am Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge jonoabb Hi Swee Boon --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > > 1. It does not concern only the "present moment" > > There can be contemplation on the past (recollection of past lives, > reflection on what has been done through bodily, verbal & mental > actions) and the future (contemplation on corpses and applying it to > one's very own body in the future), not just the present. To my understanding, what you are describing here as contemplation of the past and of the future would not be satipatthana, although it could be samatha. > > 2. It is not just a special moment of sati > > Mindfulness is useful all the time as the Buddha said. Mindfulness can arise any time. But the question we were consdidering is the question of what mindfulenss is. To my understanding, it is mindfulness of a presently arising dhamma. > > It would indeed be a daunting task if it required any input > > fromus. But the thinking here is what might conventionally be > > called subliminal thinking, i.e., it goes on without our even being > > aware it's happening. > > Did the Buddha teach about subliminal thinking in the suttas? If it > "goes on without our even being aware it's happening", I am very sure > the Buddha didn't teach it in the suttas. If the Buddha didn't teach > it in the suttas, it is irrelevant to the Dhamma. I think you are on a slightly different tack here. The topic is the mind-door 'processing' of experiences through the sense doors. This is certainly mentioned in the suttas. Jon #76068 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Sep 6, 2007 2:46 am Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge jonoabb Hi Tep --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Hi Jon (and Howard), - > > You gave two hypotheses that show "highly developed understanding of > dhammas", using the conventional speech of the illusive world of no > beings. > > (1) Jon: To my understanding, rupas cannot be directly known other > than by the consciousness that is mundane (or supramundane) insight. > > (2) Jon: And just to add a bit on a related topic. There is > conventional speech and there is speech that is adapted to reflect > the world of dhammas. Now dhammas can be spoken of using either kind > of speech. > > Jon: When 2 people who both have a highly developed understanding of > dhammas are talking, they may use conventional speech, because each > understands the other as intended, and there is no risk of one mis- > taking the other. This I think is the case in many of the suttas > where the Buddha is talking to those ready for enlightenment. > > T: Your hypotheses raise several questions. Those who are "ready for > enlightenment", do they "see" only cittas and cetasikas, > or "consciousness that is mundane (or supramundane) insight", in > every moment but no persons or individuals? In other words, are there > only ultimate realities in the emptiness that is void of beings and > concepts? If so, why do they need to use conventional sppech of the > illusive world of concepts where no beings can be found? The way I see it is that persons of highly developed understanding still conceive of people and things, but they no longer mis-take people and things as being real in the ultimate sense. Is this how you see it? > Thank you for suggesting these two very interesting hypotheses. I > hope you may open up a gateway to abhidhamma learning for me that is > far better than smelling it from the outside (like I used to do). > > Tep Thank you for all the fine discussions that you are involved in. It is useful for us all to consider the points being raised. Jon #76069 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Sep 6, 2007 2:56 am Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge jonoabb Hi Tep --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Jon and Swee (and others), - ... > > Jon: Well in a sense it could be said that "'concepts' > vs 'realities'" is a red herring, because it is only dhammas that can > be, and are to be, directly known and thus directly understood. > > > > T: It is very true that "it is only dhammas that can be, and are to > be, directly known and thus directly understood". But the "dhammas" > are only seen by ariyans who "see" emptiness and lack of substance in > all sankhra dhammas. Are you sure this is true, that only ariyans see dhammas? In that case, what was the 'insight' they developed in order to become ariyans? To my understanding, the "seeing" of dhammas, in a very tentative and immature way, begins with the development of mundane insight. > The worldings who wrote books/articles > on "'concepts' vs 'realities'", who do not have the Dhamma Eye, might > have distorted the pure Dhamma to some extent. We wouldn't be > confused if they did not make a big deal out of the issue. > ............ That's why we rely heavily on the commentaries. > > > Swee: Could the separation of experienced phenomena > into 'concepts' and 'realities' be just a mundane & useless mental > exercise carried out according to a conceptualized set of > conceptualized criteria? > > > > Jon: However, there is no separation of experienced phenomena > into 'concepts' and 'realities'. All directly experienced phenomena > are dhammas. > > > T: I think Swee meant breathing meditation and insights that spring > from the practice, for instance, are experienced phenomena. > .............. Well I still don't get what is being suggested. Would you mind explaining a little further, Tep? Thanks in advance. > > > Swee: I don't know, but as far as I know, the Buddha hadn't > expounded on "'concepts' vs 'realities'" in the suttas. > > > > Jon: I can't think of any statement of the Buddha's directly on the > point of "concepts vs. dhammas". However, he certainly did refer to > > *conceptualising*. > > > > T: The Buddha did not make such statement because He did not make a > big deal out of the "concepts" things. I agree with that. He made a big deal out of dhammas. > ........... > > Jon: > > "Concept" is not a term used to refer to a class of experenced > > phenomena. > > > > T: there you go again ! {:>)) Thanks for coming in and trying to explain Swee's perspective. Sorry to be slow at getting it ... Jon #76070 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Sep 6, 2007 3:10 am Subject: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge jonoabb Hi Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Jon - ... > Howard: > LOL! Of course, jk! ;-)) > BTW, I find it so much fun being placed in all these differing > "camps"! Seeing myself in all the ways others may think of me reminds me of the > contemplation technique of mentally disecting oneself as a butcher cuts apart a > cow! ;-) One part of the carcass lays out on the so-thought-of "spurious, > dry-as-bones Abhidhamma table", another on the so-thought-of > "attached-to-rite-and-ritual meditator table", still another on the widely-thought-of "heretical > Mahayana table" (placed outside near the trash bin by fastidious Theravadin health > inspectors), and yet another part spread out down the block on a table at a > remote and widely disliked and shunned Judaism area. (I won't even mention those > parts laid out on the > "Admirer-of-the-teachings-of-some-wandering-Hebrew-the-Greeks- called-Jesus table", because that table has been shunned by all the > others! LOL!) > Why, this body has been so finely sliced and diced that it's > practically a bloody pulp at this point! LOLOL! > -------------------------------------------------- All concepts of course, but if they do indeed represent different aspects of Howard then you must do a lot of thinking to keep all these 'Howards' going ;-)) I'll stick to being just the one boring old (dry-as-bones Abhidhamma) Jon!!! > > Anyway, welcome to the gang (not that I've ever thought of myself as > > being one). > > ------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Onward Abhidhamma soldiers, marching as to war! Comrades in arms, my > fellow gang members! LOLOL! > --------------------------------------------- I think you'll find that we are more ganged-up on than ganging together!! But do hang around.;-)) Jon #76071 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Sep 6, 2007 4:47 am Subject: [dsg] Re: "there is no �person�" - "The controversy on �person� is ended" scottduncan2 Dear James and Sarah, Out of interest I was just looking at the Paa.li for SN 23,3(2), Satta Sutta.m, and SN 22,152(2), So atta Sutta.m., which were referenced. In the former, the word translated into 'being' is 'satta', in the phrase, 'a being, a being...in what way is one called a being?' "...satto sattoti bhante, vuccati kittà vatà nu kho bhante, sattoti vuccati?" PTS PED: "Satta...living being...1. (m.) a living being, creature, a sentient & rational being, a person" Scott: The phrase '...therefore one is called a being' "...tatra satto tatra visatto tasmaa sattoti vuccati." Scott: Another meaning for 'satta' is, according to the PTS PED: "Satta...hanging, clinging or attached to..." And so there is one of those Paa.li plays on words ("Visatta [pp. of visajjati] hanging on (fig.), sticking or clinging to, entangled in") which is given in English as 'a being'. The word 'satta' seems much richer in meaning than the English 'being' does because folded into the word is the sense of entanglement, clinging, attachment - essentially the word is Dhamma-centred. In the latter (SN22,152(2), I think the phrase "...there is no more for this state of being" is" "Khii.naa jaati vusita.m brahmacariya.m." Scott: 'State of being' seems to be 'jaati'. PTS PED: "Jaati (f.) [see janati & cp.]...1. birth, rebirth, possibility of rebirth, 'future life' as disposition to be born again, 'former life' as cause of this life." [Janati...to (be able to) produce...] Scott: This, therefore, doesn't seem to refer to an entity, but rather to the possibility of further 'being' as in 'future life', and, I guess, due to clinging as James points out. Sincerely, Scott. #76072 From: han tun Date: Thu Sep 6, 2007 5:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections Corner (08) hantun1 Dear Sarah, > > > S: No metta or equanimity when there's minding! > > Han: I do not quite understand what you mean. Could you kindly explain to me, please. > S: The point was that when we are minding about others' akusala, being disturbed by it, wishing it were another way, instead of there being any metta or equanimity, instead there's dosa and clinging to one's own feelings. Han: Thank you very much for your kind explanation. It is clear now. It is so kind of you that you also provide me with the quote from [Sn 4.6 Jara Sutta] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.4.06.irel.html I have the book, but I have not yet read this sutta. Thank you for pointing it out to me. I read it now, and I like it very much. For instance, I find the following statement in the sutta. “There exist no permanent possessions but just a state of constant separation (vinaa-bhaava).” What do you say in French which means “separation is a small death”? We are suffering this small death all the time, until the “big and final” separation comes along! For this reason, as you pointed out, it is better to be completely independent, and does not make close friends or enemies. In this way, sorrow and selfishness will not stay, like water on a lotus leaf. Thank you very much. Respectfully, Han --- sarah abbott wrote: > > S: No metta or equanimity when there's minding! > > > > Han: I do not quite understand what you mean. > > Could you kindly explain to me, please. #76073 From: han tun Date: Thu Sep 6, 2007 5:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Making Comparisons (... Re: Proper Training as a Co...) hantun1 Dear Sarah, I am glad to know that you and others appreciate my post on aging. Yes, Sarah, even in those “pamada” days, I did have some wise reflections. Although I did not study the Buddha’s teachings seriously, what had been taught during my early days before the War still remains in my mind, and I believe all along in the kamma and its effect. I also believe the Newton’s Third Law of Motion. I look forward to James’ presentation from Ven Saddhatissa's book. Respectfully, Han --- sarah abbott wrote: > Dear Han, (James* & all) > --- han tun wrote: > > Sarah asked me to write something on Aging. > ... #76074 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Sep 6, 2007 5:58 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Perfections corner, extra. scottduncan2 Dear Han, Thanks for the reply: H: "I like what you have written. I agree with your ideas and I think the above fits in with the discussion on equanimity. My only concern is that whether the equanimity developed by such contemplation is kusala upekkhaa or akusala upekkhaa? Perhaps, Nina can tell us more." Scott: Yes, good question. Maybe we can explore this distinction between kusala and akusala upekkhaa. I would like to look into this further. Sincerely, Scott. #76075 From: "Phil" Date: Thu Sep 6, 2007 6:06 am Subject: Re: "there is no ‘person?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘person?Eis ended" philofillet Hi Robert > The Ancient Commentary says the Buddha taught the contemplation on > foulness to those bhikkhu to save them from hell. Those bhikkhu > devloped it correctly and later when they committed suicide they went > to heaven. Thanks. In the sutta, the Buddha is very concerned about what happened to these monks, and proceeds to teach them meditation on the breath in order to prevent more of them going to heaven in such a manner, I guess. In your previous paragraph you make a diatribe against > Khun Sujin Sorry about that. It will happen, but you'll notice it is dwindling. who you accuse of giving teachings too advanced for her > students - yet now you run on about anapansati the most difficult of > all samatha objects. Yes, Bhikkhu Bodhi also acknowledges it as a difficult samatha subject, so I know that here, at least, AS is not alone. I don't know the *right* way to develop mindfulness of breathing, but I know it is not by discussing it. It has to be experimented with, and that's what I'm doing now. Hopefully I'll have more understanding of it in a few years. If not, I know, already know, that having a meditation object that is based in the body and can be returned to easily is very effective in giving the mind something less harmful to feed on than it usually does when it goes hungering here and there for sense-door objects. The fact that there is attachment to this clumsily conceptual and pleasant meditation object is not a problem. Better to be attached to the breath - whether properly understood or not - than all kinds of sense door objects that deepen greed, hatred and delusion. (The form of delusion that I am concerned about is believing pleasant sensual objects to be good for one - I am not at this time concerned about the kind of delusion that is the subtle form of wrong view that AS and her students emphasize - the wrong view that is broken through by the ariyan.) I'm looking forward to hearing more from Kom, since he was a student of AS (and perhaps will be again) and talked very eloquently about the need to understand the textual-supported reason for whatever practice he came across, but is now practicing in the same tradition that I'm interested in, which doesn't emphasize the texts so much and praises plunging ahead with meditation without so much theoretical analysis. Anyways Robert, I needn't apologize too much for the diatribes. They only succeed in making me look foolish without really hitting any kind of substantial target. Metta, Phil p.s last word to you if you want to add anything. This little backslide of mine has been concluded. Time to clam up. #76076 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 6, 2007 7:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections corner, extra. nilovg Dear Han and Scott, I am delighted with your discussion and posts containing helpful reminders also for me personally. Op 5-sep-2007, om 23:44 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > Little > did we know that we were bringing in the ‘dukkha’ for > us and for the children themselves. For what benefit > did we have brought them to this world? For them to > suffer?, and for us to worry? As you said, the > understanding paramattha dhammas is of the greatest > help for my impossible wishful thinking of going back > in time, and the un-necessary worries. -------- N: This is a good daily life example how we worry when we are in the world of concepts and stories. I heard last night: Then we do not worry about what we did in the past or about the future, the future of your children. ------- About no need to change oneself: Scott: Questions of 'what am I supposed to do' are rampant, as are the answers available to one encountering the Dhamma for the first time. I've said before that I am very appreciative of words such as these, found nowhere else that I've seen. I think that it might just be the beginning of the development of equanimity to find myself in acceptance this idea. The Dhamma is all inter-related, right, and the idea of no need to try to change ourselves just follows from an understanding of anatta - ------ N: Yes, then we can take the words effort, intention in the right way, in the paramatthic sense. We can learn when an idea of self arises, wanting to be in this or that way. I heard last night about awareness of wrong view which is necessary so that it can eventually be eradicated. Wrong practice is included here. This means, knowing when there is the wrong kind of intention, intention (with clinging) to make progress, or the wish to have some kind of experience arise again. This could refer to vipassana ~naa.nas someone attained, because also after that clinging is bound to arise. ---------- Scott: It is still a fact that, ultimately, they [the children] can only be concepts for me. I am not them. As concepts - experience 'for me in my own stream', naama - they are ultimately beyond my control. This is very difficult to accept. ------ N: Yes, you said it. Kh Sujin said (on audio Oct oo5, 31 A c, recommended!) that this is so difficult for everyone and that is the reason she emphasizes it so much and reminds us not to neglect being aware of visible object. Some people (Lodewijk) wonder why she does this all the time. But this is the reason. Otherwise we would not know, nobody else speaks about it. As you also said. ------- Scott: Metta is extended to concepts, as I understand it, because that is all there is to do. I don't quite know why but I have a vague sense of it. Does the above fit with a discussion of equanimity? -------- N: We do not have to think: now I have metta for a concept. It can naturally arise and if there are conditions for awareness there can be awareness of metta as a dhamma, not my metta. Then we shall learn not to take metta for my metta. In this way we can see that citta has as object a person at one moment and a nama or rupa the next moment. We can avoid thinking in an abstract way of: the conventional world exists and the paramatthic world exists. It is a matter of citta that experiences now a concept then a nama or rupa. Equanimity (tatramajjhattataa) supports metta, it is indispensable. The Buddha had just as much metta to his ennemies (Devadatta) as to his son Rahula. We can learn to be impartial. -------- Han in answer to Scott: My only concern is that whether the equanimity developed by such contemplation is kusala upekkhaa or akusala upekkhaa? Perhaps, Nina can tell us more. ------ N: We should not mix the sobhana cetasika tatramajjhattataa arising with every kusala citta and unwholesome indifferent feeling, arising with akusala citta such as those rooted in lobha or moha. Ven. Narada (Abhidhammattha Sangaha) calls this hedonic indifference. There may be an attitude of: what do I care about others and one may feel indifferent about them in an unwholesome way, being selfish, thinking of one's own interest. Not wanting to help them or care for them, not wanting to be bothered. Just being indolent. That is not equanimity. -------- Han to Sarah: “There exist no permanent possessions but just a state of constant separation (vinaa-bhaava).” ... For this reason, as you pointed out, it is better to be completely independent, and does not make close friends or enemies. In this way, sorrow and selfishness will not stay, like water on a lotus leaf. ----- N: We also need the perfection of truthfulness, sincerity. What we read above refers to the arahat. But it is an exhortation to see the benefit. The monk is supposed to follow this exhortation. We, laypeople, cannot tell ourselves: do not make close friends. It is pa~n~naa that can eventually lead to detachment. First we have to learn to investigate nama as nama and rupa as rupa. That is the beginning. Nina. #76077 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 6, 2007 8:05 am Subject: Asoka Ch 4, no 5. nilovg Dear friends, The sotåpanna has eradicated wrong view, he does not take realities for permanent or for self. He has realized that realities which arise have to fall away, that they are impermanent. What arises and falls away has no beauty, but, although he has realized the impermanence of realities, the clinging to what is beautiful has been deeply accumulated, he cannot abandon it yet. He sees beauty in what is foul, and thus, he has to continue to develop right understanding of citta, cetasika and rúpa, so that the perversion of seeing beauty in what is not beautiful is eradicated. This perversion has become attenuated at the second stage of enlightenment, the stage of the once-returner, sakadågåmí, but it can only be completely eradicated at the third stage of enlightenment, the stage of the non-returner, anågåmí. We read in the “Visuddhimagga” (XXII, 68) that the perversions of saññå and citta finding beauty in the foul are eradicated at the third stage of enlightenment, the stage of the non- returner or anågåmí. He does not cling to sense objects anymore, and thus he does not see the body as beautiful. But he still clings to rebirth which he considers as happiness instead of seeing it as dukkha. The “Visuddhimagga” states that the arahat has eradicated the perversions of saññå and citta finding happiness in what is dukkha. Only the arahat does not cling to rebirth, he has no inclination to consider it as happiness. Thus we see that it is extremely difficult to eradicate the perversions. Defilements are deeply rooted and it is necessary to persevere in the development of understanding of the nåma or rúpa which appears now. The object of right understanding is the nåma and rúpa which appear in daily life, but as paññå develops, it understands more deeply their true nature. We have to follow the right Path so that realities will be understood as they are: impermanent, dukkha and not self. However, because of our defilements we are likely to deviate from the right Path, and then we shall not reach the goal. We are bound to forget that there is no one who develops right understanding. We read in Khun Santi’s lexicon, under “practice”, about the practice of vipassanå: “This is the moment when sati together with sampajaññå (paññå) arises and is aware of the characteristic of nåma or rúpa. Then the truth is known that they are only nåma dhamma and rúpa dhamma, no being, no person, no self, no thing. Moreover, it is known that there is no person who practises, but that only sati sampajaññå (sati and paññå) and the accompanying sobhana (wholesome) dhammas each perform their own function with regard to the practice. If there is right understanding of the nature of anattå of realities it will be the condition for the right practice and eventually for detachment from the clinging to the idea of self.” ******* Nina. #76078 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 6, 2007 7:51 am Subject: Conditions, Ch 13, no 7. nilovg Dear friends, Furthermore, there are five faculties which are: faith or confidence (saddhå), energy (viriya), mindfulness (sati), concentration (samådhi) and understanding (paññå). They control the accompanying dhammas and mind produced rúpa, they condition them by way of faculty- condition. Among these five cetasikas energy and concentration can be akusala or sobhana, the other three are always sobhana. The five faculties are sometimes referred to as the “spiritual faculties” but in that case they are sobhana. They are included in the “factors of enlightenment” (bodhipakkiya dhammas) which should be developed for the attaining of enlightenment. The five “spiritual faculties” condition mahå-kusala cittas, mahå-vipåkacittas and mahå-kiriyacittas and also mind produced rúpa by way of faculty-condition. The five spiritual faculties are developed in samatha and then they lead to the attainment of jhåna. When someone has accumulated skill in jhåna, different stages of rúpa-jhåna and arúpa-jhåna can be attained. The five spiritual faculties condition the rúpåvacara cittas and arúpåvacara cittas by way of faculty-condition. They also condition rúpa produced by these cittas. Arúpåvacara vipåkacitta does not produce rúpa since it arises in the arúpa-brahma planes where there is no rúpa. The five spiritual faculties are also developed in vipassanå. They overcome their opposites. Faith or confidence in wholesomeness overcomes lack of confidence. Wholesomeness cannot be developed when we do not see its benefit. We may believe that we see the disadvantage of anger, but in the different situations in daily life we are negligent. Before we realize it we have spoken angry words and at such moments we do not see the disadvantage of akusala, there is no confidence in kusala. There can be training in wholesomeness little by little, and then it can be accumulated so that there will be more conditions for its arising. Energy which is wholesome overcomes indolence. The “Book of Analysis”( Ch 5, 123, 124) states about the faculty of energy: Therein what is controlling faculty of energy? That which is the arousing of mental energy, toiling, endeavour, aspiring, effort, zeal, perseverance, vigour, stability, unfaltering endeavour, not relinquishing wish, not relinquishing the task, firm hold of the task, energy, controlling faculty of energy, power of energy. This is called controlling faculty of energy. There is no self who exerts energy, energy is a cetasika, a faculty, arising because of its appropriate conditions. ******* Nina. #76079 From: Dieter Möller Date: Thu Sep 6, 2007 9:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: two kinds of truths. Meaning and letter. moellerdieter Hi Swee Boon , you wrote: 'And in actual reality, we cannot separate the five aggregates into five individual parts as if each part stands independently.The separation is a pedagogical/conceptual tool taught by the Buddha to help us better understand the nature of anatta.' You are right the 5 (3)parts do not stand independently unlike e.g. oxygen and hydrogen , but the separation 'makes sense' and through that is available for examination (into nama ,rupa ,vinnaya )... corresponding to cetasika, rupa , citta. Your conclusion....snip .. to understand better the nature of anatta is a bit too fast for me. As we know the 5 khanda attachment is in brief dukkha , its conditioning /origin described by the D.O. , the concept aims to explain the first and second Noble Truth and show the circle of samsara ..the world of anicca.. To see the true nature , i.e. anicca dukkha anatta is - as I see it - a process of of growing understanding , insight by penetration into the Noble Truths . Anatta -in my view- is a progress of detachment .. a giving up of identification, clinging. The Self appears to be real until its last fetter (conceit ) is abolished in an advanced Ariya state, i.e. not by theory and direct but due to path practise. I have a bit difficulties with the present discussions about the person.. how about you? with Metta Dieter #76080 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Sep 6, 2007 6:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: two kinds of truths. Meaning and letter. upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter (and Swee Boon) - In a message dated 9/6/2007 12:37:23 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, moellerdieter@... writes: Hi Swee Boon , you wrote: 'And in actual reality, we cannot separate the five aggregates into five individual parts as if each part stands independently.The separation is a pedagogical/conceptual tool taught by the Buddha to help us better understand the nature of anatta.' You are right the 5 (3)parts do not stand independently unlike e.g. oxygen and hydrogen , but the separation 'makes sense' and through that is available for examination (into nama ,rupa ,vinnaya )... corresponding to cetasika, rupa , citta. ============================= I agree with you both on this, but, Dieter, I'd modify the terminology slightly. It is 'distinguishing' that makes sense rather than 'separation', I would say. The fundamental interdependence rules out separation, unless, of course, by 'separation' one means no more than "distinguishing". An example: Knowing and known are not separable, there not being one without the other, but they certainly are distinguishable. And a conventional example: For a box, inside and outside are inseparable but certainly distinguishable. I happen to believe that distinguishing between 'separate' and 'distinguishable' is important in proper grasping of the insubstantial, middle-way mode of existence implied in the Kaccayanagotta Sutta. Two dhammas related by conditiionality yet existing as separate entities is not the Buddhist perspective, nor is the view of their being the same. At the conventional level, to give a well known example, the reborn being is neither the same nor different from the prior being. Likewise for the seed and the plant. With metta, Howard #76081 From: Dieter Möller Date: Thu Sep 6, 2007 11:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: two kinds of truths. Meaning and letter. moellerdieter Hi Howard ( and Swee Boon), ' I agree with you both on this, but, Dieter, I'd modify the terminology slightly. It is 'distinguishing' that makes sense rather than 'separation', I would say.' yes, that is much better! Thanks for the feedback. with Metta Dieter p.s. : it seems that you managed the PC change without difficulties ..congratulations..! ;-) did you keep the same windows software? #76082 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 6, 2007 12:08 pm Subject: audio, a correction, to Scott nilovg Dear Scott, the audio referred to is March 2oo5, 31 A c,. I am just at March 2005 now. Nina. #76083 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Sep 6, 2007 9:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: two kinds of truths. Meaning and letter. upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter - In a message dated 9/6/2007 2:26:36 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, moellerdieter@... writes: Hi Howard ( and Swee Boon), ' I agree with you both on this, but, Dieter, I'd modify the terminology slightly. It is 'distinguishing' that makes sense rather than 'separation', I would say.' yes, that is much better! Thanks for the feedback. -------------------------------------------- Howard: :-) ---------------------------------------------- with Metta Dieter p.s. : it seems that you managed the PC change without difficulties ..congratulations..! ;-) did you keep the same windows software? ------------------------------------------- Howard: Except for a problem with the printer, it went very smoothly! Thanks!! No, for Windows the new system now has the Vista OS. (I had Windows 98 before.) ===================== With metta, Howard #76084 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Thu Sep 6, 2007 5:47 pm Subject: Re: "there is no ‘person?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘person?Eis ended" rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > > > Hi Robert > > > The Ancient Commentary says the Buddha taught the contemplation on > > foulness to those bhikkhu to save them from hell. Those bhikkhu > > devloped it correctly and later when they committed suicide they went > > to heaven. > > Thanks. In the sutta, the Buddha is very concerned about what > happened to these monks, and proceeds to teach them meditation on the > breath in order to prevent more of them going to heaven in such a > manner, I guess. > > _______ p 1951 anapanasamyutta commentary (Bodhi)SPK: ""why did he[buddha] speak thus?[saying that he was going into seclusion for 2 weeks]? In the past, it is said, five hundred men earned their living as hunters. They were reborn in hell, but later, through some good kamma , took birth as human and went forth as monks..However, a portion of their original bad kamma had gained the opportunity to ripen during this fortnight and was due to bring on their deaths both by suicide and homicide. The blessed one foresaw this and realized he could do nothing about it.....Among those monks some were wordling some were sotapanna, some sakaadgami, some anagamai The Buddha spoke of foulness to remove their attachment to the body so they would lose their fear of death and could thus be reborn in heaven. ..he went into seclusion to avoid being present when destiny took its toll.""" Robert #76085 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Sep 6, 2007 6:18 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: pali texts scottduncan2 Dear Nina, Regarding: N: "thank you for your effort. It was too complicated with other downloads of stuffit for Mac etc. so, I better keep to the one Yong Peng gave me long ago." Scott: You're welcome, Nina. I'm not too good at the download thing either. I'm actually amazed that I got this one to work, to tell you the truth. Sincerely, Scott. #76086 From: han tun Date: Thu Sep 6, 2007 6:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections corner, extra. hantun1 Dear Nina (Scott), Thank you very much for your kind explanation. > > Han in answer to Scott: My only concern is that whether the equanimity developed by such contemplation is kusala upekkhaa or akusala upekkhaa? Perhaps, Nina can tell us more. > N: We should not mix the sobhana cetasika tatramajjhattataa arising with every kusala citta and unwholesome indifferent feeling, arising with akusala citta such as those rooted in lobha or moha. Ven. Narada (Abhidhammattha Sangaha) calls this hedonic indifference. There may be an attitude of: what do I care about others and one may feel indifferent about them in an unwholesome way, being selfish, thinking of one's own interest. Not wanting to help them or care for them, not wanting to be bothered. Just being indolent. That is not equanimity. -------------------- Han: I understand the sobhana cetasika tatramajjhattataa arising with every kusala citta, and unwholesome indifferent feeling arising with akusala citta (which Ven Narada called hedonic indifference), and I know the difference between the two. But what I am looking for is, you may call it, a “grey area.” For example, if my son is suffering, I want to make him free from suffering. But I cannot do it. So I contemplate that he is the heir of his own kamma, and I cannot do much about it. Now, if equanimity (not indifference) arises out of this contemplation, is that equanimity kusala upekkhaa? I will make another similar statement. In AN 5.57 Upajjhatthana Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.057.than.html the Buddha said that there are five facts that one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained. One of them is: "I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir.” Now, if I contemplate the above on behalf of my son: "he is the owner of his actions, heir to his actions, born of his actions, related through his actions, and have his actions as his arbitrator. Whatever he does, for good or for evil, to that will he fall heir”; and if equanimity (not indifference) arises in me out of that contemplation, is that equanimity kusala upekkhaa? I know the standard formula: kusala upekkhaa arises with kusala citta, and akusala upekkhaa arises with akusal citta, and nobody can tell what citta arises in any given moment. What I am looking for is not the standard formula, but a specific answer based on the specific example of the case of my son. The answer I am looking for is: if equanimity (not indifference) arises by the above contemplation, is that equanimity kusala upekkhaa, or “the equanimity of unknowing based on the home life” (upekkhaa gehasitaa a~n~naa.nupekkhaa), which is the near enemy of Equanimity? Respectfully, Han --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Han and Scott, > I am delighted with your discussion and posts > containing helpful > reminders also for me personally. #76087 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Sep 6, 2007 6:27 pm Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge indriyabala Hi Jon, - We are perhaps the remaining few discussers who still are hanging on to the issue of conventionally real vs ultimately real . > >T: In other words, are there only ultimate realities in the emptiness that is void of beings and concepts? If so, why do they need to use conventional speech of the illusive world of concepts where no beings can be found? > Jon: > The way I see it is that persons of highly developed understanding > still conceive of people and things, but they no longer mis-take > people and things as being real in the ultimate sense. > > Is this how you see it? > T: True, in the ultimate sense there are no people and things seen with the Dhamma Eye. But IF the ariyans CAN see people and things with their ordinary eyes, then it logically follows that people and things must be real (i.e. can be sensed by eyes, ..., mind). SO, there are two levels of "seeing" the world. Seeing with the Dhamma Eye is perceiving the six external ayatanas (forms, sounds, ...) with no tanha and ditthi. Is this how you understand it, too? T: The five aggregates and sense sphere (salayatana) are real and not- self (they exist, although undergoing change in each fleeting moment). Perceiving them as "this is mine" or "this is what I am" or "this is my self" is conditioned by a fetter of view(ditthi- samyojana). Anyone who realizes that such a view is wrong, s/he then develops the right perspective of seeing people as five aggregates without clinging to them as compact or "whole". Once they've become ariyans, "they no longer mis-take people and things as being real in the ultimate sense". But people and things do not disappear or become illusion because of the Dhamma Eye. That's a one-peso comment. Tep === #76088 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Sep 6, 2007 7:22 pm Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge indriyabala Hi Jon and Swee, - Sorry to drag on the discussion issue that may be compared with a big pot of stew that has been served repeatedly for several days. Now only a few adults are left at the dinner table. > T: It is very true that "it is only dhammas that can be, and are to > be, directly known and thus directly understood". But the "dhammas" > are only seen by ariyans who "see" emptiness and lack of substance >in all sankhra dhammas. Jon (#76069): Are you sure this is true, that only ariyans see dhammas? In that case, what was the 'insight' they developed in order to become ariyans? T: Yup, only ariyans see dhammas the way they truly are with the Dhamma Eye, which is the direct knowledge of the Four Noble Truths (see MN 2). The Dhamma Eye of the Sotapanna is the first insight to be developed by virtuous Buddhists. See Nagara Sutta, SN 12.65. "I saw an ancient path, an ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self- awakened Ones of former times. And what is that ancient path, that ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right aspiration, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. That is the ancient path, the ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct knowledge of aging & death, direct knowledge of the origination of aging & death, direct knowledge of the cessation of aging & death, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of aging & death. I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct knowledge of birth... becoming... clinging... craving... feeling... contact... the six sense media... name-&-form... consciousness, direct knowledge of the origination of consciousness, direct knowledge of the cessation of consciousness, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of consciousness. I followed that path. ... " ........ Jon: To my understanding, the "seeing" of dhammas, in a very tentative and immature way, begins with the development of mundane insight. > Tep: The worldings who wrote books/articles > on "'concepts' vs 'realities'", who do not have the >Dhamma Eye, might have distorted the pure Dhamma to some >extent. We wouldn't be confused if they did not make a >big deal out of the issue. > Jon: That's why we rely heavily on the commentaries. T: That heavy leaning CAN become a bias, then it may condition "making a big deal out of the issue". ....... T: You were discussing earlier with Swee who wrote. Swee: "Could the separation of experienced phenomena into 'concepts' and 'realities' be just a mundane & useless mental exercise carried out according to a conceptualized set of conceptualized criteria?". And you replied : "However, there is no separation of experienced phenomena into 'concepts' and 'realities'. All directly experienced phenomena are dhammas." And I thought Swee meant breathing meditation and insights that spring from the practice, for instance, are experienced phenomena. .......... Jon: Well I still don't get what is being suggested. Would you mind explaining a little further, Tep? Thanks in advance. T: I can only explain why breathing meditation and insights that spring from the practice, for instance, are experienced phenomena. Indeed, all meditations the Buddha taught in the sutta, e.g. see DN 22, are to be "experienced" by the meditator. That is obvious, if you accept the fact that there are the dhammas taught by the real Buddha (who existed) and that there are practictioners who experience them. ......... Jon: Thanks for coming in and trying to explain Swee's perspective. Sorry to be slow at getting it ... T: It might as well be true that it was just Tep who made a wrong interpretation and a "big deal" of our good friend Swee's deep perspective. Only Swee can tell ... Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Tep > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep > Sastri" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon and Swee (and others), - > ... > > > Jon: Well in a sense it could be said that "'concepts' > > vs 'realities'" is a red herring, because it is only dhammas that > can > > be, and are to be, directly known and thus directly understood. > > > #76089 From: "Phil" Date: Thu Sep 6, 2007 8:41 pm Subject: Re: "there is no ‘person?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘person?Eis ended" philofillet Hi Robert (ps to all) I can't hold my tongue. I find it very interesting that different commentaries present this incident in such a different light. And this makes me wonder about the reliability of commentaries. > The blessed one foresaw this and realized he could do nothing > about it.....Among those monks some were wordling some were sotapanna, > some sakaadgami, some anagamai > The Buddha spoke of foulness to remove their attachment to the body so > they would lose their fear of death and could thus be reborn in > heaven. ..he went into seclusion to avoid being present when destiny > took its toll.""" Hmm, I guess, not surprisingly, different commentaries have different interpreations. (I don't know if this is a good reason to disregard them, but certainly blind reliance on them is not wise.) The one BB quotes, on p.1952 of his SN anthology, has the Buddha coming back and being surprised to find the bhikkhus missing. "Earlier, Ananda, many bhikkhus gahterd in the assembly, and the park seemed ablze with them. But now, after only half a month, the Snagha has become diminished, thin, scanty, like sparse foliage? What is the cause? Where have the bhikkhus gone?" A very different interpretation - obviously the Buddha did *not* predict the result in this interpretation (which admittedly sounds surprising) unless he is playing a game with Ananda's head. In the sutta text, Ananda asks him to teach a different meditation subject, so the sangha can be re-established, and the Bddha says very well, I will do so and proceeds to speak on the benefits of minfulness of breathing, on the way it is like rain after the hot season. (This is SN 54:8, by the way, if anyone is wondering.) I'm not strong on Buddhist history, so I don't know exactly when the commentaries were written, but this exchange has certainly made it clear that there is no reason to trust them for consistency. Who wrote them? When? Why? I will have to look into that at some point before I pay full attention to them. For now, there is straight forward Dhamma practice that doesn't need reliance on any commentary but my own growing sense of what contributes to the weaking of greed, hatred and delusion, and what doesn't. Later, perhaps, there will be a need for commentary to help with approaching subtler defilements, of the latent kind. Metta, Phil p.s now I've had my say. I'm outta here and back to the novel until the first draft is done. t's coming along nicely. Have a good autumn everyone!:) #76090 From: "Phil" Date: Thu Sep 6, 2007 8:44 pm Subject: Re: "there is no ‘person?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘person?Eis ended" philofillet Hi again >(This is SN 54:8, by > the way, if anyone is wondering.) ooops 54:9 #76091 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Sep 6, 2007 9:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘person?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘person?Eis ended" sarahprocter... Hi Phil & all, --- Phil wrote: >For now, there is straight > forward Dhamma practice that doesn't need reliance on any commentary .. S: No need to reply, just want to draw your attention to a fairly recent discussion I had with Herman on this same sutta & commentary - he was making a similar point to you, as I recall (don't worrry, this is a short post!): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/71629 ... > p.s now I've had my say. I'm outta here and back to the novel until > the first draft is done. t's coming along nicely. Have a good autumn > everyone!:) ... S: Glad to hear your writing's going well. Some autumn would be welcome here! Finish here, Phil if you've reached your limit:) See you when we see you. I enjoy your 'hit and runs':-)) **** All, Reminds me that a friend just sent me a copy of her first published novel, 'The Healer: one soul, three lifetimes'. She has an interest in Buddhism, but I'll have to work on the 'soul' part before her next novel! Tep, I may f'w your 'Anatta 1.' post and Howard's reply.... Incidentally, (to anyone who remembers my mentioning the death of a Thai friend's son last Xmas Day), I met the friend yesterday, as she's back working at the beach kiosk for a while. When her son died, she was in too much of a shock to hear anything useful, but yesterday we talked quietly about the Dhamma. She's still grieving of course, but we could discuss how it's really the attachment to ourselves and our own feelings which is the problem, about kamma and conditions, lack of control of a parent, the meanings of dukkha and so on. A very pleasant occasion for us both, I think. Metta, Sarah ====== #76092 From: han tun Date: Thu Sep 6, 2007 9:28 pm Subject: Perfections Corner (11) hantun1 Dear All, This is the continuation of Chapter 10: The Perfection of Equanimity, taken from the book “The Perfections leading to Enlightenment” by Sujin Boriharnwanaket and translated by Nina van Gorkom. Questions, comments, or different opinions are welcome. ------------------------------ We read in the Commentary to the “Theragaathaa”, the “Paramatthadiipanii”, in the “Nidaanakathaa”, that all perfections support and enhance each other: “The utmost patience in the accumulation of good qualities such as daana in order to attain the awakening wisdom of the ‘Solitary Buddha’ or the awakening wisdom of a disciple, is called energy, viriya. Endurance with regard to anger is called patience, khanti. Generous deeds, the undertaking of moral conduct, siila, and so on, and the abstention from speech that deviates from the truth is called truthfulness, sacca. Determination which is unshakable and firm so that one can accomplish what is beneficial in all circumstances, is called determination, adi.t.thaana. Aiming for the benefit of all beings which is the foundation of the practice of daana, siila and so on, is called loving-kindness, mettaa. Evenmindedness with regard to trying circumstances and behaviour of other beings is called equanimity, upekkhaa. Therefore, when there are daana, siila and bhaavana, mental development, or there are siila, samaadhi and pa~n~naa, it can be said that the perfections of energy and so on have reached accomplishment in those ways.” To be continued. Metta, Han #76093 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Thu Sep 6, 2007 9:43 pm Subject: Re: "there is no ‘person?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘person?Eis ended" rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > > Hi Robert (ps to all) > > I can't hold my tongue. I find it very interesting that different > commentaries present this incident in such a different light. And this > makes me wonder about the reliability of commentaries. > > > > > took its toll.""" > > > Hmm, I guess, not surprisingly, different commentaries have different > interpreations. (I don't know if this is a good reason to disregard > them, but certainly blind reliance on them is not wise.) The one BB > quotes, on p.1952 of his SN anthology, has the Buddha coming back and > being surprised to find the bhikkhus missing. "Earlier, Ananda, many > bhikkhus gahterd in the assembly, and the park seemed ablze with them. > But now, after only half a month, the Snagha has become diminished, > thin, scanty, like sparse foliage? What is the cause? Where have the > bhikkhus gone?" > > A very different interpretation - obviously the Buddha did *not* > predict the result in this interpretation (which admittedly sounds > surprising) unless he is playing a game with Ananda's head. In the > sutta text, Ananda asks him to teach a different meditation subject, so > the sangha can be re-established, and the Bddha says very well, I will > do so and proceeds to speak on the benefits of minfulness of breathing, > on the way it is like rain after the hot season. (This is SN 54:8, by > the way, if anyone is wondering.) > > I'm not strong on Buddhist history, so I don't know exactly when the > commentaries were written, but this exchange has certainly made it > clear that there is no reason to trust them for consistency. > > Who wrote them? When? Why? I will have to look into that at some > point before I pay full attention to them. For now, there is straight > forward Dhamma practice that doesn't need reliance on any commentary > but my own growing sense of what contributes to the weaking of greed, > hatred and delusion, and what doesn't. Later, perhaps, there will be a > need for commentary to help with approaching subtler defilements, of > the latent kind. > > ========== Dear Phil There is only one Commentary that Bodhi translates, by Buddhghosa. What are the different ones you are talking about? The Buddha asked Ananda, even though he knew exactly what happened, because that is what Buddha's do sometimes, it is part of the way of teaching. There is not the slightest conflict I can detect in the sutta or Commentary. Robert #76094 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Sep 6, 2007 10:54 pm Subject: Re: "there is no ‘person?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘person?Eis ended" buddhatrue Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi James, > just one remark. > Op 6-sep-2007, om 3:02 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > > > Just consider- during the Buddha's > > enlightenment, he gained insight by recalling all of his numerous past > > lives and the past lives of countless other beings- he didn't gain > > insight by contemplating paramatha dhammas! > ------- > N: He realized the four noble truths and are these not related to > paramattha dhammas? > The noble Truth of dukkha: the falling away of paramattha dhammas. > There were conditions for him to also attain the three Knowledges > (Tevijja) or six abhi~n~nas, including recollecting past lives. He > had accumulated conditions for the omniscience of a Buddha. > Nina. Just prior to the Buddha's enlightenment, the Buddha gained the three knowledges: his past lives, the past lives of others, and the Four Noble Truths. It was these knowledges, (knowledge concerning living beings), which then allowed the Buddha to become enlightened. No, these knowledges are not directly related to paramattha dhammas as presented in the Abhidhamma: "According to tradition, the essence of the Abhidhamma was formulated by the Buddha during the fourth week after his Enlightenment.1 Seven years later he is said to have spent three consecutive months preaching it in its entirety in one of the deva realms, before an audience of thousands of devas (including his late mother, the former Queen Maya), each day briefly commuting back to the human realm to convey to Ven. Sariputta the essence of what he had just taught." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/abhi/index.html Metta, James #76095 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Sep 6, 2007 10:57 pm Subject: [dsg] Making Comparisons (... Re: Proper Training as a Co...) buddhatrue Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Han, (James* & all) > ... > *[S: Yes, James gave a very good series and he mentioned he was going to > start one from Ven Saddhatissa's book....hint, hint, James!!] Yes, I have it with me and I intend to start posting it. My class load is much heavier this year and I wanted to discuss a bit before I start posting it. I will probably start posting it next week. Metta, James #76096 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Sep 7, 2007 12:17 am Subject: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘person?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘person?Eis ended" buddhatrue Hi Sarah, Phil, and Robert, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Phil & all, > > --- Phil wrote: > > >For now, there is straight > > forward Dhamma practice that doesn't need reliance on any commentary > .. > S: No need to reply, just want to draw your attention to a fairly recent > discussion I had with Herman on this same sutta & commentary - he was > making a similar point to you, as I recall (don't worrry, this is a short > post!): > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/71629 I just read this post and this is part of what you posted: However, the commentary explains details we'd have no idea about. It explains that in the past these monks had been hunters and had been reborn in hell. Past kamma was going to bring its results at this time, leading to suicide and homicide. The Buddha knew this and could not prevent it. He spoke about foulness of the body so that they would not have attachment to their bodies or fear death, so as to have rebirths in deva realms. "Therefore he spoke on foulness in order to help them, not with the intention of extolling death." (BB summary). The commentary also adds that while these monks included worldlings, sotapannas,s akadagamis, anagamis and arahants, the ariyan disciples did not kill, encourage others to kill or consent to the killing. Only the worldlings did. James: The commentary to this sutta is obviously doing a lot of back-peddling. They just don't want to accept that the Buddha made a mistake and gave the wrong meditation subject before going into seclusion. If he "knew this was going to happen" he wouldn't have asked Ananda where all the monks had gone to, and then when Ananda told him what happened he wouldn't have immediately changed the meditation subject for the remaining monks. This commentary is hogwash. The point of this sutta is to learn from that mistake. One meditation subject, carried to extremes, can have dire consequences. One must vary meditation subjects depending on the frame of mind. Metta, James #76097 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Sep 6, 2007 11:41 pm Subject: What is True Wisdom? bhikkhu0@... Send Email Friends: When has one penetrated and arrived at True Wisdom? Once, a certain not very well-known Bhikkhu asked the Blessed Buddha : Venerable Sir: True Wisdom is it said. What is really True Wisdom? Venerable Sir: When has one arrived at such true Wisdom? The Blessed Gotama Buddha then pointed out: Understanding and Knowing Suffering is True Wisdom; Understanding and Knowing The Cause of Suffering is True Wisdom; Understanding and Knowing The End of Suffering is True Wisdom; Understanding and Knowing The Way to end Suffering is True Wisdom! All this profound understanding and direct knowledge of the absolute is True Wisdom, & it is by that penetrating comprehension, that glimpse of a far-reaching ultimate reality, that one has arrived at true Wisdom! Therefore, Bhikkhu, an effort should be made much of to understand: This is Suffering; an effort should be made much of to comprehend: This is the Cause of Suffering; an effort should be made so to realize: This is the End of Suffering; An effort should be made to penetrate, recognize, & develop, This is the Way leading to the End of Suffering... Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. [V:429-30] section 56: Saccasamyutta. Thread 18: True Wisdom... More on these 4 Noble Truths (Cattari Ariya Saccani): http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Ignorance.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Clustered_Truths.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/The_Ultimate_Fact.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_4_Noble_Truths.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Sour_Sense_Sources.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_1st_Noble_Truth_on_Suffering.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_2nd_Noble_Truth_on_The_Cause_of_Sufferi\ ng.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_3rd_Noble_Truth_on_The_Ceasing_of_Suffe\ ring.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_4th_Noble_Truth_on_The_Way_to_End_Suffe\ ring.htm Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka * <....> #76098 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Sep 7, 2007 1:29 am Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge jonoabb Hi Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Jon (and Tep) - ... > > And just to add a bit on a related topic. There is conventional > > speech and there is speech that is adapted to reflect the world of > > dhammas. > > > > Now dhammas can be spoken of using either kind of speech. > > > > When 2 people who both have a highly developed understanding of > > dhammas are talking, they may use conventional speech, because each > > understands the other as intended, and there is no risk of one mis- > > taking the other. > > -------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Yes, I agree with the foregoing. > ------------------------------------------- > > > > > This I think is the case in many of the suttas where the Buddha is > > talking to those ready for enlightenment. Is this how you see it too? > > ------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I'm sure this is so, though it is not something always perfectly > evident as to which suttas are such and which are not. Some are clearly such, > others clearly not, and still others requiring study in that regard. > ----------------------------------------- A good observation. It is inevitably the case that these 'discussions bewteen experts' will take some unravelling on our part. That I think is the great value of the commentaries. Jon #76099 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Sep 7, 2007 2:09 am Subject: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge jonoabb Hi Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 9/2/07 5:39:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > jonabbott@... writes: > > > "Concept" is a term for that which is conceived by the mind, rather > > than being phenomena that are directly experienced. It is a term > > that may be used in apposition to "dhammas", but it's difficult to > > say anything more than that without giving them a reality they don't > > have (and even this sentence is doing just that ;-)). > > > > "Concept" is not a term used to refer to a class of experenced > > phenomena. > > > ====================== > I agree with this and think it is well put. Thanks Howard. I have noticed a number of your own posts drawing the same distinction in clear terms also. Jon #76100 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Sep 7, 2007 2:04 am Subject: Re: satipatthana as island .. Concepts vs Realities jonoabb Hi Tep --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Hi Jonathan (and Swee), - > > What a happy coincidence! A few minutes ago I just posted a > discussion message on concepts vs. realities. Now, in this new > message #75842 you did a thoroughly good job of summarizing your > understanding about this issue. And I appreciate this effort. Thanks, Tep. I'm glad you found it informative. > The key points made by Jonathan: ... > Tep's response/comments : > > 1. Agreed that He did not teach concepts per se. But are only > ultimate realities are to be directly known? Read the folowing quote > from the Patisambhidamagga. Treatise I, section i. Some of these ideas > (dhammas) look like concepts to me. At least they are not the 4 > ultimate realities. Dhammas are frequently described in the suttas by means of conventional terms or language. So we have to look beyond the terminology, making use of our knowledge of the whole of the Tipitaka. I believe the passage that follows is about dhammas, ultimate realites. Which particular parts or expressions did you have in mind? > How is it that knowledge of the ideas that one has heard are to be > directly known is suta-maya-nana? > One idea(dhamma) to be directly known: All beings are maintained by > nutriment(ahara). > Two ideas to be directly known: the formed(sankhata) and unformed > (nibbana). > Three ideas to be directly known: sense-desire element(kama-dhatu), > material element(rupa-dhatu), and immaterial element(arupa-dhatu). > Four ideas to be directly known: the four noble truths. > Five ideas to be directly known: five bases(ayatana) for deliverance > (vimutti). > Six ideas to be directly known: the six unsurpassables(anuttariya). > Seven ideas to be directly known: seven grounds for commendation > (i.e. the reasons why the Arahant abandons rebirth). > Eight ideas to be directly known: eight bases of mastery(abhi- > bhaayatana). > Nine ideas to be directly known: nine successive abidings. > Ten ideas to be directly known: ten grounds for decay(nijjara- vatthu) > ... > 2.2 The ultimate realities (rupa, citta, cetasika, nibbana) are not > all dhammas. > True, consciousness/cognizance knows. > Thoughts are citta-sankhara that lead to dukkha, according to the > following Dhammapada verse. Are thoughts concepts? Thinking (i.e., moments of consciousness) is a dhamma. I'm not sure about 'thoughts' as a translation of the Pali 'vitakka'. Also, the Dhammapada verses tend to be very 'compressed' in meaning. > 105. Yo caram va yo tittham va nisinno udava sayam > vitakkam samayitvana vitakkopasame rato > bhabbo so tadiso bhikkhu phutthum sambodhim uttamam. > > Whether he walks or stands > or sits or lies, a monk > should take delight in > controlling all thoughts. > Such a monk is qualified > to reach supreme enlightenment. > http://www.bps.lk/wheels_library/wh_342_344.htm#Cit > > But I do not understand your statement : "But there *are no* concepts > as such." Concepts don't 'exist'. We can say, in an absolute sense, 'There are dhammas', but we can't say 'There are concepts', because the term 'concepts' represents conceived images and the like. > 3.1 & 3.2 : It is not clear yet about your definition of concepts. Do > you mean thoughts, breaths, all formations are concepts, and only the > ultimate realities are dhammas, and dhammas are the only truths ? 'Formations' as the 4th of the 5 khandhas are dhammas. > IMHO there are holes in your arguments 3.1 & 3.2, unless I am wrong. Plenty of holes, I'm sure!! Jon #76101 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Sep 7, 2007 2:19 am Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge jonoabb Hi Swee Boon --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > > Well in a sense it could be said that "'concepts' vs 'realities'" > > is a red herring, because it is only dhammas that can be, and are > > to be, directly known and thus directly understood. > > But without knowledge of "'concepts' vs 'realities'", how do we know > which dhammas are to be directly known and thus directly understood? > > Is this knowledge soldered into our minds? I would put it this way: we need to know *about* concepts, but we need to both know about, and to directly know, dhammas. > > However, there is no separation of experienced phenomena into > > 'concepts' and 'realities'. All directly experienced phenomena are > > dhammas. > > I directly experience in-&-out breaths. I directly experience the > keyboard. I directly experience the beautiful sight of the sun > setting at sea. I think we are using 'directly experience' in different ways. In the sense in which I am using it, what we take to be the keyboard is either the experience of hardness through body sense (at the finger- tips) or visible object through the eyes, but at different moments; there is never a direct experience (through a single doorway) of a thing called a keyboard. > It is kind of funny that you agree with me that there is no > separation of experienced phenomena into 'concepts' and 'realities' > because these are all the things that I directly experience but other > people on DSG call them concepts that don't exist. > Are you sure you are not part of the 'gang'? Yes, but cleverly disguised as just a regular member ;-)) Jon #76102 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Sep 7, 2007 4:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ÁÑerson¡¦quot; - "The controversy on ÁÑerson¡¦is ended" sarahprocter... Dear DC (Wijeratna), Thank you for joining us and asking this question below: --- DC Wijeratna wrote: > I am little confused about "true truths"? > > Is there any reference to it in the Sutta Pitaka? > .... S: Here are a couple of references which are often quoted: "Though the wise one has transcended the conceived, He still might say, 'I speak,' He might say too, 'They speak to me.' Skilful, knowing the world's parlance, He uses such terms as mere expressions." SN 1:25 ..... ‘....these are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Tathagata uses without misapprehending them,’ (DN 9, Potthapada Sutta: States of consciousness, 53, Walshe trans.) The footnote (224) to M.Walshe’s translation adds: ‘...In MA (ad MN 5: Anagana Sutta). the following verse is quoted...: “Two truths the Buddha, best of all who speak, declared: Conventional and ultimate - no third can be. Terms agreed by usage of the world; Words of ultimate significance are true In terms of dhammas. Thus the Lord, a Teacher, he Who’s skilled in this world’s speech , can use it, and not lie.” .... S: Please let us know if there is still confusion or if you have any comments on these. A lot more can be found in "Useful Posts" in the files under: 'Concepts', 'Concepts & Realities', 'Conventional Teaching vs by way of Ultimate Realities'. Are you from and living in Sri Lanka? We'd be glad to hear more from you and learn about your studies and interest here. Metta, Sarah ========= #76103 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Sep 7, 2007 4:48 am Subject: Re: Perfections corner, extra. scottduncan2 Dear Nina (and Han), Thanks for the reply: N: "We do not have to think: now I have metta for a concept. It can naturally arise and if there are conditions for awareness there can be awareness of metta as a dhamma, not my metta. Then we shall learn not to take metta for my metta. In this way we can see that citta has as object a person at one moment and a nama or rupa the next moment. We can avoid thinking in an abstract way of: the conventional world exists and the paramatthic world exists. It is a matter of citta that experiences now a concept then a nama or rupa." Scott: No, no need to think 'now I have metta for a concept.' Its important to have understood that this is the case, in terms of right-view, but when metta arises it does so, I think, naturally and silently taking concept as object because that is just the way of it. N: "Equanimity (tatramajjhattataa) supports metta, it is indispensable. The Buddha had just as much metta to his enemies (Devadatta) as to his son Rahula. We can learn to be impartial." Scott: So often there are comments made regarding a stereotypic 'coldness' supposedly inherent in any Abhidhammika, as if an acceptance and beginning understanding of paramattha dhammas automatically creates conditions which preclude the arising of such dhammas as metta. It is the misunderstanding that 'a person' has metta and that, with this quality, 'a person' is kind to 'another person' who, by this kindness, is somehow effected. I think that, since persons are conceptual, so to would be ideas about the interactions of persons. To state that it is not a person who has metta seems to cause concern as ideas that one must behave thus and so when one has metta are taken as important. And yet, metta arises with concept as object. And metta develops in this way. This could appear, in the world of conventions one construes from moment to moment (and should mind create ruupa which causes speech or action,) as if one person is being kind to another. This is how it would be seen and thought about. This needn't be misunderstood. In her Epilogue, Kh. Sujin quotes (Do you know the source of this section, by the way?): "...Discriminating thoughts over the desirable and the undesirable, [are defilements] of the perfection of equanimity." Scott: I think this is important. This applies, I think, not only objects (whether 'desirable' or 'undesirable') but to all thoughts about concepts such as 'a person with metta' and 'how this person should behave towards others'. That is, to thought about 'desirable' behaviour 'with metta' and 'undesirable behaviour'. Metta is just metta. It is not to be fabricated, willed into arising, or used by someone as a tool. Any clarifications or straightening of the above? Sincerely, Scott. #76104 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 7, 2007 6:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: two kinds of truths. Meaning and letter. nilovg Hi Howard, missing your logo. Nina. Op 6-sep-2007, om 22:00 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Except for a problem with the printer, it went very smoothly! #76105 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 7, 2007 6:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections corner, extra. nilovg Dear Han (and Rob K at end), Op 7-sep-2007, om 3:28 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > > For example, if my son is suffering, I want to make > him free from suffering. But I cannot do it. So I > contemplate that he is the heir of his own kamma, and > I cannot do much about it. Now, if equanimity (not > indifference) arises out of this contemplation, is > that equanimity kusala upekkhaa? > > I will make another similar statement. In AN 5.57 > Upajjhatthana Sutta > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.057.than.html > > the Buddha said that there are five facts that one > should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a > man, lay or ordained. One of them is: "I am the owner > of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, > related through my actions, and have my actions as my > arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to > that will I fall heir.” -------- N: I am always so impressed by this sutta. You recite it every day. Please, remind me often, I need it! Lodewijk does not feel well. He will have several heart tests next week. Is your son ailing from sickness or living in difficult ciscumstances? --------- > > H: Now, if I contemplate the above on behalf of my son: > "he is the owner of his actions, heir to his actions, > born of his actions, related through his actions, and > have his actions as his arbitrator. Whatever he does, > for good or for evil, to that will he fall heir”; and > if equanimity (not indifference) arises in me out of > that contemplation, is that equanimity kusala > upekkhaa? > > I know the standard formula: kusala upekkhaa arises > with kusala citta, and akusala upekkhaa arises with > akusal citta, and nobody can tell what citta arises in > any given moment. What I am looking for is not the > standard formula, but a specific answer based on the > specific example of the case of my son. > > The answer I am looking for is: if equanimity (not > indifference) arises by the above contemplation, is > that equanimity kusala upekkhaa, or “the equanimity of > unknowing based on the home life” (upekkhaa gehasitaa > a~n~naa.nupekkhaa), which is the near enemy of > Equanimity? ------- N: When you consider your son's suffering with right understanding of kamma and vipaaka the citta is kusala citta. But when satipatthana is not being developed there is still an idea of my understanding, my equanimity. We know that akusala citta arises far more often than kusala citta, they are alternating. Based on the home life means based on clinging to sense objects as is usual for the lay person. But this kind of equanimity is not the perfection of equanimity. As to kusala upekkha this helps us not to have attachment nor aversion or sadness. Thinking in the right way is kusala and helpful. As you know it is not enough. All perfections are developed along with satipatthana, but we know that this is not developed in one day. We may wonder how to begin, when we still have the level of pariyatti. It is best not to wonder too much: is this a perfection or not yet? We see the benefit of the perfections and they all enhance each other as is said in your last quote which is very encouraging. I am very much impressed byRob's quote from the co. This is an example of perfect equanimity of the Buddha. He knew kamma and vipaaka of beings. > original bad kamma had gained the opportunity to ripen during this > fortnight and was due to bring on their deaths both by suicide and > homicide. The blessed one foresaw this and realized he could do > nothing > about it.....Among those monks some were wordling some were sotapanna, > some sakaadgami, some anagamai > The Buddha spoke of foulness to remove their attachment to the body so > they would lose their fear of death and could thus be reborn in > heaven. ..he went into seclusion to avoid being present when destiny > took its toll."""> ------- N: I also learn a lesson here. We never know the cittas of another person. He may seem not to care about others, but this may not be true. It is our own attachment that wants to hear words of concern. I discussed this with Lodewijk this morning. He sometimes wonders why is so and so not doing this or that, it seems a lack of concern for others. We cannot judge anybody else, we know nothing. We do not even know our own cittas from moment to moment. I learnt from this text. Nina. #76106 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 7, 2007 6:56 am Subject: Asoka, Ch $, no 6. nilovg Dear friends, If we forget that sati is anattå it conditions wrong practice. There are three factors which can obstruct or slow down the development of vipassanå namely: craving, tanhå, wrong view, ditthi and conceit, måna. Even when we listen to the Dhamma a great deal these three obstructions are bound to arise and slow down the practice. There are many forms and varieties of thinking of ourselves. We may think of ourselves with clinging accompanied by wrong view, ditthi, or without wrong view, or with clinging accompanied by conceit. There are eight akusala cittas rooted in attachment, lobha-múla-cittas, of which four are accompanied by ditthi and four are without ditthi. When lobha-múla-citta is accompanied by conceit, it is not accompanied by ditthi. Thus, when we think of ourselves it may be with either one of the three factors which slow down the development of insight, namely, craving, wrong view and conceit. We read in the “Middle Length Sayings” (I,”Discourse on Expunging”) that Mahå Cunda asked the Buddha a question about wrong views and that the Buddha gave him explanations. The text states: “Those various types of views, Lord, that arise in the world and are connected with theories of the self or with theories of the world, does there come to be ejection of these views, does there come to be renunciation of these views for a monk who wisely reflects from the beginning?” “Those various types of views, Cunda, that arise in the world and are connected with theories of the self or with theories of the world- wherever these views arise and wherever they obsess (the mind) and wherever they are current, it is by seeing them with perfect wisdom as they really are, thus: ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self,’ that there is ejection of these views, that there is renunciation of these views....” We read in the Commentary to this sutta, the “Papañcasúdaní”, that to think, “this is mine” (eta.m mama), is to be in the grip of craving (tanhå); to think, “I am this” (eso aham asmi), is to be in the grip of conceit (måna); to think, “this is myself” (eso me attå), is to be in the grip of wrong view. Thus we see that we may think of ourselves in many ways, not only with wrong view, but also with craving or conceit. Time and again the scriptures refer with the above quoted phrase to these three wrong ways of thinking [1]. We have deeply accumulated these tendencies and if we are ignorant of them they will prevent us from becoming freed from the cycle of birth and death. ---------- 1. The commentary refers to them as the “papañca”, which is translated as “diffuseness” or aberrations. ****** Nina. #76107 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 7, 2007 6:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘person?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘person?Eis ended" nilovg Hi James, Op 7-sep-2007, om 7:54 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > Just prior to the Buddha's enlightenment, the Buddha gained the three > knowledges: his past lives, the past lives of others, and the Four > Noble Truths. It was these knowledges, (knowledge concerning living > beings), which then allowed the Buddha to become enlightened. No, > these knowledges are not directly related to paramattha dhammas as > presented in the Abhidhamma ------ N: No James. The realization of the four noble Truths pertains to the penetration of paramattha dhammas, nothing else. All who attain enlightenment relaize the four noble Truths. I do not know why you doubt about this. Nina. #76108 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 7, 2007 6:50 am Subject: Conditions, Ch 13, no 8. nilovg Dear friends, Energy is “not relinquishing the task”. When one develops insight energy is not relinquishing the task of being mindful of nåma and rúpa, not shrinking back from considering their characteristics over and over again. When there is the faculty of energy one does not lose courage even if one does not see much result. We cannot expect spectacular results immediately. The faculty of sati overcomes negligence of kusala, including negligence of developing right understanding of nåma and rúpa. Concentration overcomes distraction. In the development of insight it conditions the citta to focus on the reality appearing at the present moment. One should not force oneself to concentrate on any reality, because then there is bound to be clinging to a concept of self who concentrates. Concentration performs its function already while it arises together with right understanding. The faculty of paññå overcomes ignorance of the four noble Truths. The five spiritual faculties have to be developed together so that the four noble Truths can be realized. These faculties will not develop merely by having faith in one’s teacher, one has to develop them oneself. We read in the “Kindred Sayings” (V, Book IV, Kindred Sayings on the Faculties, Ch V, § 4, Eastern Gatehouse) that the Buddha, while he was staying at Såvatthí, in Eastern Garehouse, asked Såriputta: “Do you believe, Såriputta, that the controlling faculty of faith... of energy... of mindfulness... of concentration... that the controlling faculty of insight, if cultivated and made much of, plunges into the Deathless, has the Deathless for its goal, the Deathless for its ending?” The “Deathless” is nibbåna. We read that Såriputta answered: “In this matter, lord, I walk not by faith in the Exalted One, to wit: that the controlling faculty of faith... of energy... of mindfulness... of concentration... that the controlling faculty of insight, if cultivated and made much of, plunges into the Deathless, has the Deathless for its goal, the Deathless for its ending. They, lord, who have not realized, not seen, not understood, not made sure of, not attained this fact by insight,-- such may well walk by faith in others (in believing) that the controlling faculty of faith... that of insight, if cultivated and made much of, may so end. But, lord, they who have realized, seen, understood, made sure of, they who have attained this fact by insight,-- such are free from doubt, free from wavering, (in believing) that the controlling faculty of faith, of energy, of mindfulness, of concentration, of insight, if cultivated and made much of... will so end. But I, lord, have realized it, I have seen, understood and made sure of it, I have attained it by insight, I am free from doubt about it, that the controlling faculty of faith, of energy, of mindfulness, of concentration, of insight, does plunge into the Deathless, has the Deathless for its goal, the Deathless for its ending.” We then read that the Buddha approved of Såriputta’s words. ******* Nina. #76109 From: Ken O Date: Fri Sep 7, 2007 7:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge ashkenn2k Hi Sarah Mike story sounds very similiar, I also wondering almost seven years also. I do not know how long I am going to wander in Samasara but who is there to care. cheers:-) Ken O #76110 From: han tun Date: Fri Sep 7, 2007 7:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections corner, extra. hantun1 Dear Nina and Lodewijk, > Nina: Lodewijk does not feel well. He will have several heart tests next week. Is your son ailing from sickness or living in difficult ciscumstances? Han: My son’s case is not important anymore. I am worried about Lodewijk. I am so sorry I had worried you at this time with my un-important question. Please forgive me. I wish most sincerely Lodewijk to be alright and doing well. And I am very much satisfied with your answer. I have noted them all with deep respect. [N: When you consider your son's suffering with right understanding of kamma and vipaaka the citta is kusala citta. But when satipatthana is not being developed there is still an idea of my understanding, my equanimity. We know that akusala citta arises far more often than kusala citta, they are alternating. Based on the home life means based on clinging to sense objects as is usual for the lay person. But this kind of equanimity is not the perfection of equanimity. As to kusala upekkha this helps us not to have attachment nor aversion or sadness. Thinking in the right way is kusala and helpful. As you know it is not enough. All perfections are developed along with satipatthana, but we know that this is not developed in one day. We may wonder how to begin, when we still have the level of pariyatti. It is best not to wonder too much: is this a perfection or not yet? We see the benefit of the perfections and they all enhance each other as is said in your last quote which is very encouraging.] I will never forget this. I will remember each and every word of it, for ever. I also know about the background of Rob's quote, and I revere the Blessed One all the more for his perfect equanimity and his mahaaa karuna. Wishing speedy recovery of Lodewijk from his heart ailment, with metta and my deepest respect to you and Lodewijk. Han --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: I am always so impressed by this sutta. You > recite it every day. > Please, remind me often, I need it! Lodewijk does > not feel well. He > will have several heart tests next week. Is your son > ailing from > sickness or living in difficult ciscumstances? > --------- #76111 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Sep 7, 2007 5:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: two kinds of truths. Meaning and letter. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 9/7/2007 9:33:16 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, missing your logo. Nina. ============================== Thanks for the reminder, Nina! I had to set it up anew for my new computer. :-) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream/ (From the Diamond Sutra) #76112 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Sep 7, 2007 5:51 am Subject: Lodewijk Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections corner, extra. upasaka_howard Hi, Han (and Nina) - In a message dated 9/7/2007 11:03:32 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hantun1@... writes: Dear Nina and Lodewijk, > Nina: Lodewijk does not feel well. He will have several heart tests next week. Is your son ailing from sickness or living in difficult ciscumstances? Han: My son’s case is not important anymore. I am worried about Lodewijk. I am so sorry I had worried you at this time with my un-important question. Please forgive me. I wish most sincerely Lodewijk to be alright and doing well. And I am very much satisfied with your answer. I have noted them all with deep respect. [N: When you consider your son's suffering with right understanding of kamma and vipaaka the citta is kusala citta. But when satipatthana is not being developed there is still an idea of my understanding, my equanimity. We know that akusala citta arises far more often than kusala citta, they are alternating. Based on the home life means based on clinging to sense objects as is usual for the lay person. But this kind of equanimity is not the perfection of equanimity. As to kusala upekkha this helps us not to have attachment nor aversion or sadness. Thinking in the right way is kusala and helpful. As you know it is not enough. All perfections are developed along with satipatthana, but we know that this is not developed in one day. We may wonder how to begin, when we still have the level of pariyatti. It is best not to wonder too much: is this a perfection or not yet? We see the benefit of the perfections and they all enhance each other as is said in your last quote which is very encouraging.] I will never forget this. I will remember each and every word of it, for ever. I also know about the background of Rob's quote, and I revere the Blessed One all the more for his perfect equanimity and his mahaaa karuna. Wishing speedy recovery of Lodewijk from his heart ailment, with metta and my deepest respect to you and Lodewijk. Han ================================== Han I am so happy you wrote this. Somehow I missed Nina writing "Lodewijk does not feel well. He will have several heart tests next week." Nina, I'm very sorry to hear this - I think you may know that Lodewijk has a very special place in my heart! I surely hope that the tests are negative or at least show no more than a minor problem that can be easily dealt with. With much metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream/ (From the Diamond Sutra) #76113 From: "m. nease" Date: Fri Sep 7, 2007 12:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Asoka, Ch $, no 6. m_nease Hi Nina, ----- Original Message ----- From: Nina van Gorkom To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 6:56 AM Subject: [dsg] Asoka, Ch $, no 6. Great stuff as always. Could you please cite the source of "There are three factors which can obstruct or slow down the development of vipassanå namely: craving, tanhå, wrong view, ditthi and conceit, måna. "? Thanks in Advance, mike p.s. Best wishes to Lodewijk. #76114 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 7, 2007 12:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Asoka, Ch $, no 6. nilovg Dear Mike, In Thai: kruang nung cha, what slows down. The papancas. It saw these in several commentaries, but now I cannot trace it. I shall think of it and warn you. Nina. Op 7-sep-2007, om 21:13 heeft m. nease het volgende geschreven: > Great stuff as always. Could you please cite the source of "There > are three factors which can obstruct or slow down the development of > vipassanå namely: craving, tanhå, wrong view, ditthi and conceit, > måna. #76115 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 7, 2007 11:39 am Subject: Re: Lodewijk Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections corner, extra. nilovg Hi Howard, Thank you for your kind wishes and concern. It is so helpful to be reminded of the fact that we are heirs to kamma, and how important equanimity is in contrarious circumstances. Thanks to Han's Corner and the correspondance with him. Our family doctor is not so worried and recommends walking, what we shall do tomorrow. Thank you again, NIna. Op 7-sep-2007, om 18:51 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Nina, I'm > very sorry to hear this - I think you may know that Lodewijk has a > very > special place in my heart! I surely hope that the tests are > negative or at least > show no more than a minor problem that can be easily dealt with. #76116 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 7, 2007 12:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections corner, extra. nilovg Dear Scott, Thank you for your considerations on metta. It should be in the perfections corner. Op 7-sep-2007, om 13:48 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: > Scott: No, no need to think 'now I have metta for a concept.' Its > important to have understood that this is the case, in terms of > right-view, but when metta arises it does so, I think, naturally and > silently taking concept as object because that is just the way of it. ------- N: Well said, that is just the way it is. It just happens. -------- > > N: "Equanimity (tatramajjhattataa) supports metta, it is > indispensable. The Buddha had just as much metta to his enemies > (Devadatta) as to his son Rahula. We can learn to be impartial." > > Scott: So often there are comments made regarding a stereotypic > 'coldness' supposedly inherent in any Abhidhammika, as if an > acceptance and beginning understanding of paramattha dhammas > automatically creates conditions which preclude the arising of such > dhammas as metta. ------ N: Yes, I have heard this! Some people ask: anatta and metta, how is it possible? Lodewijk was wondering about this in Kaeng Kracan. ------- > > Scott: It is the misunderstanding that 'a person' has metta and > that, with > this quality, 'a person' is kind to 'another person' who, by this > kindness, is somehow effected. I think that, since persons are > conceptual, so to would be ideas about the interactions of persons. > To state that it is not a person who has metta seems to cause concern > as ideas that one must behave thus and so when one has metta are taken > as important. ------- N: That reminds me of a lesson from Kh Sujin. In SriLanka one of our hostesses reported to the head monk about Kh Sujin that she taught the wrong way about Samatha. But after we were called to a session with the Nayaka this was all cleared. I remarked to Kh Sujin that she, the hostess, did not like us. Kh Sujin: It is true that metta is with the citta. Then we do not have to think much about controversial reactions from others. -------- > > Scott: And yet, metta arises with concept as object. And metta > develops in > this way. This could appear, in the world of conventions one > construes from moment to moment (and should mind create ruupa which > causes speech or action,) as if one person is being kind to another. > This is how it would be seen and thought about. This needn't be > misunderstood. ------ N: I agree that it is no problem that the object of metta is a concept. It must seem paradoxal that metta develops when we think less of this person is kind to me. But as you say, it need not be misunderstood. So often attachment is mixed in. ------- > > In her Epilogue, Kh. Sujin quotes (Do you know the source of this > section, by the way?): ------- The Co to the Caritapitaka, and if I recall correctly, in that part that is called pakinnaka, miscellaneous. --------- > > Scott: "...Discriminating thoughts over the desirable and the > undesirable, > [are defilements] of the perfection of equanimity." > > Scott: I think this is important. This applies, I think, not only > objects (whether 'desirable' or 'undesirable') but to all thoughts > about concepts such as 'a person with metta' and 'how this person > should behave towards others'. That is, to thought about 'desirable' > behaviour 'with metta' and 'undesirable behaviour'. Metta is just > metta. It is not to be fabricated, willed into arising, or used by > someone as a tool. ------ N: Here we can also think of the eight loka dhammas, worldly conditions, four of which are desirable and four undesirable. ------ Nina. #76117 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Fri Sep 7, 2007 2:52 pm Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge kenhowardau Hi Tep, Sorry for the delay in replying. You asked: -------------- > What does 'self' in the no-self mean to you? -------------- Jon made a good point the other day when he explained that we don't really need a precise definition of self. (It doesn't exist, so what definition of it could there be?) Anatta, however, does exist - as an inherent characteristic of every paramattha dhamma. So that is what we need to define. ------------------ T: > And what do you think the following three cases are about? attaa hi atatno naatho (Dhp 12.4) attakilamathaanuyoga (SN 56.11) attapa.tilabha (DN 9) -------------------- They are about conditioned dhammas. That, I can be sure of. The Buddha's teaching was to know conditioned dhammas, and every word of his teaching should be understood as a description of conditioned dhammas, their cause, their cessation and the path leading to their cessation. Which specific dhammas they describe, I cannot say. Perhaps they are three classifications of wrong view (miccha ditthi). Or perhaps they are three classifications of clinging (lobha) to wrong view. I am sure the answer will be given by someone here. Or perhaps it has been given already, and I have forgotten it - already. :-) Ken H #76118 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 7, 2007 11:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections corner, extra. nilovg Dear Han, Op 7-sep-2007, om 16:59 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > Han: My son’s case is not important anymore. I am > worried about Lodewijk. I am so sorry I had worried > you at this time with my un-important question. Please > forgive me. I wish most sincerely Lodewijk to be > alright and doing well. ------- N: On the contrary, your question was excellent and helped me to consider more about equanimity. I was really glad about your questions and sutta quote. Sometimes people may not realize that they helped me. Thank you for your kind wishes. You said: That was also my thought when reading the quote from the commentary, I was impressed. Nina. #76119 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Sep 7, 2007 11:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Tep) - In a message dated 9/7/2007 5:53:20 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Tep, Sorry for the delay in replying. You asked: -------------- > What does 'self' in the no-self mean to you? -------------- Jon made a good point the other day when he explained that we don't really need a precise definition of self. (It doesn't exist, so what definition of it could there be?) ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: WHAT is it that does not exist? Isn't there a need to know what we are talking about rather than just making sounds? Shall we start a new religion based on "not-gazingi", and when asked what "gazingi" means just answer that it doesn't matter because it doesn't exist? C'mon, Ken, this know-nothing perspective is nonsense! ----------------------------------------------------- Anatta, however, does exist - as an inherent characteristic of every paramattha dhamma. So that is what we need to define. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: It means "not self". Now what? All dhammas are anatta, because they are not self and they lack self. And to know what the Buddha or anyone means by that it is necessary to know what that person means by "self". ------------------------------------------------- Ken H ============================ With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream/ (From the Diamond Sutra) #76120 From: "m. nease" Date: Fri Sep 7, 2007 3:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Ultimate Fact! m_nease Hello, Can anyone suggest a format to filter spam from this source? I've tried: If the 'From' section contains 'bhikkhu0@...' then Delete If the 'Email Body' section contains 'Friendship is the Greatest ' then Delete If the 'Email Body' section contains 'samahita' then Delete If the 'From' section contains 'Bhikkhu Samahita' then Delete If the 'From' section contains 'samahita' then Delete If the 'From' section contains 'bhikkhu2@...' then Delete but I continue to receive these unsolicited tracts. I'd be very grateful for any advice (technical only, please). Thanks in Advance, mike ----- Original Message -----From: Bhikkhu Samahita To: 1.1A ; 1.3A ; bb ; G13 ; Vihar Buddhist Group ; 'G1' ; 'Y1' ; Y10 ; Y162 ; 'Y2' ; 'Y3' ; 'Y4' ; 'Y6' ; 'Y7' ; 'Y8' ; 'Y9' Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 10:26 PM Subject: [dsg] The Ultimate Fact! #76121 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Sep 7, 2007 4:28 pm Subject: Re: satipatthana as island .. Concepts vs Realities indriyabala Hi Jon, - The discussion, no matter how boring it might become, should continue until all "holes" are fill ! [But that day may never come.] > >Tep: Read the folowing quote from the Patisambhidamagga. Treatise I, section i. Some of these ideas (dhammas) look like concepts to me. At least they are not the 4 ultimate realities. >Jon: Dhammas are frequently described in the suttas by means of conventional terms or language. So we have to look beyond the terminology, making use of our knowledge of the whole of the Tipitaka. >Jon: I believe the passage that follows is about dhammas, ultimate realites. Which particular parts or expressions did you have in mind? T: The three, four, seven, nine, and ten ideas(dhammas) are concepts, aren't they? ........... >Jon: Concepts don't 'exist'. We can say, in an absolute sense, 'There are dhammas', but we can't say 'There are concepts', because the term 'concepts' represents conceived images and the like. >Jon: 'Formations' as the 4th of the 5 khandhas are dhammas. T: Thank you for explaining a bit on what you think "concepts" are. According to your definition, aren't "conceived images and the like" formations ? Aren't many formations (sankhara) cetasikas? I think all concepts are sankhata dhammas that arise when there are appropriate nutriments. Are sankhata dhammas ultimate reality? Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Tep > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep > Sastri" wrote: > > > > > > Hi Jonathan (and Swee), - > > ... .... > Thinking (i.e., moments of consciousness) is a dhamma. I'm not sure about 'thoughts' as a translation of the Pali 'vitakka'. Also, the Dhammapada verses tend to be very 'compressed' in meaning. > > > 105. Yo caram va yo tittham va nisinno udava sayam > > vitakkam samayitvana vitakkopasame rato > > bhabbo so tadiso bhikkhu phutthum sambodhim uttamam. > > > > Whether he walks or stands > > or sits or lies, a monk > > should take delight in > > controlling all thoughts. > > Such a monk is qualified > > to reach supreme enlightenment. > > http://www.bps.lk/wheels_library/wh_342_344.htm#Cit > > ... ... > > IMHO there are holes in your arguments 3.1 & 3.2, unless I am wrong. > > Plenty of holes, I'm sure!! > > Jon > #76122 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Sep 7, 2007 5:01 pm Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge indriyabala Hi KenH, - Thank you for replying. It is alright with me whenever you have time to answer my posted messages. > > Tep: What does 'self' in the no-self mean to you? > -------------- >KenH: > Jon made a good point the other day when he explained that we don't really need a precise definition of self. (It doesn't exist, so what definition of it could there be?) Anatta, however, does exist - as an inherent characteristic of every paramattha dhamma. So that is what we need to define. > > ------------------ > T: > And what do you think the following three cases are about? > > attaa hi atatno naatho (Dhp 12.4) > attakilamathaanuyoga (SN 56.11) > attapa.tilabha (DN 9) > -------------------- > KenH: > They are about conditioned dhammas. That, I can be sure of. The > Buddha's teaching was to know conditioned dhammas, and every word of his teaching should be understood as a description of conditioned > dhammas, their cause, their cessation and the path leading to their > cessation. > > Which specific dhammas they describe, I cannot say. Perhaps they are > three classifications of wrong view (miccha ditthi). Or perhaps they are three classifications of clinging (lobha) to wrong view. I am sure the answer will be given by someone here. Or perhaps it has been given already, and I have forgotten it - already. :-) > T: Please try messages # 75804 and 76046. Thanks. Tep === #76123 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Sep 7, 2007 5:23 pm Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge indriyabala Hi Howard and kenH, - Kenh: Anatta, however, does exist - as an inherent characteristic of every paramattha dhamma. So that is what we need to define. Howard: It means "not self". Now what? All dhammas are anatta, because they are not self and they lack self. And to know what the Buddha or anyone means by that it is necessary to know what that person means by "self". T: Howard is right, Ken. It does not make sense to argue that 'anatta'(not self) has nothing to do with 'atta'(self), because the opposite meaning is obvious. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Ken (and Tep) - > ... > Howard: > WHAT is it that does not exist? Isn't there a need to know what we are talking about rather than just making sounds? Shall we start a new religion based on "not-gazingi", and when asked what "gazingi" means just answer that it doesn't matter because it doesn't exist? C'mon, Ken, this know-nothing perspective is nonsense! > ----------------------------------------------------- #76124 From: "m. nease" Date: Fri Sep 7, 2007 5:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Asoka, Ch $, no 6. m_nease Thanks, Nina, It's just that it seems important and a little odd to me. Since vipassanå can (presumably) understand--in immediate retrospect--any dhamma, then how do these dhammas 'slow' vipassanå? By delaying the occurrence of the conditions that make vipassanå possible (or inevitable--same thing, I think)? mike ----- Original Message ----- From: Nina van Gorkom To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 12:26 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Asoka, Ch $, no 6. Dear Mike, In Thai: kruang nung cha, what slows down. The papancas. It saw these in several commentaries, but now I cannot trace it. I shall think of it and warn you. Nina. Op 7-sep-2007, om 21:13 heeft m. nease het volgende geschreven: > Great stuff as always. Could you please cite the source of "There > are three factors which can obstruct or slow down the development of > vipassanå namely: craving, tanhå, wrong view, ditthi and conceit, > måna. #76125 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Sep 7, 2007 5:46 pm Subject: Re: "there is no ‘person’" - "The controversy on ‘person’ is ended" indriyabala > Swee: > Therefore, there are 3 ideas to be reviewed: > (1) there are the five individual aggregates, > (2) there is the sum of the five individual aggregates known > conventionally as a person or living being, and > (3) there is the assuming of a self as present within the 'sum' known > conventionally as a person or living being. > T: Good analysis of the Dhamma, Swee. When these three issues/ideas and anatta-lakkhana are well understood, the controversy on 'person' is ended. Tep === #76126 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Fri Sep 7, 2007 6:54 pm Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge kenhowardau Hi Tep, KH: > > > > Which specific dhammas they describe, I cannot say. Perhaps they are > > three classifications of wrong view (miccha ditthi). Or perhaps > they are three classifications of clinging (lobha) to wrong view. I > am sure the answer will be given by someone here. Or perhaps it has > been given already, and I have forgotten it - already. :-) > > > > T: Please try messages # 75804 and 76046. Thanks. > I had already read those messages. I don't think they answered my question, did they? As far as I could see, they didn't tell me which dhamma, or dhammas, the three terms referred to. Your thread, "Some findings about self and self view," is clearly based on Ven. Thanissaro's theory that anatta does not mean no self. (He believes anatta is just a "strategy" used by viapassana meditators.) Therefore, we are talking two vastly different languages about two vastly different teachings. It is little wonder that I found those two messages incomprehensible. You have said several times that there can be no practice unless there is a person to do the practising. Ven. T says the same thing. You will not accept the explanation that it is conditioned dhammas that do the practising. Until you can accept that explanation as at least plausible you will always find my messages incomprehensible. So, who is going to blink first? :-) Am I going to concede that maybe - just maybe - the Buddha did believe in a self that went to nibbana? Or are you going to accept that maybe - just maybe - there really are only dhammas and that all dhammas are devoid of self? Ken H #76127 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Fri Sep 7, 2007 8:12 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge kenhowardau Hi Howard (and Tep), ------ KH: > > Jon made a good point the other day when he explained that we don't really need a precise definition of self. (It doesn't exist, so what definition of it could there be?) > > Howard: > WHAT is it that does not exist? ------- Are you seriously asking me that? ----------- H: > Isn't there a need to know what we are talking about rather than just making sounds? Shall we start a new religion based on "not-gazingi", and when asked what "gazingi" means just answer that it doesn't matter because it doesn't exist? ----------- It is possible (though highly unlikely) that dhammas do have a characteristic known as "not-gazingi." Even if they did, however, the Buddha would not have told us about it because it wouldn't have helped. The misconceptions we are currently caught up in relate to permanence, satisfactoriness and self. We don't need to know that dhammas bear the characteristic, not-gazingi. --------------------- H: > C'mon, Ken, this know-nothing perspective is nonsense! ---------------------- It is not a know-nothing perspective. No two ideas of self are identical, and the Buddha did not need to describe every possible way in which we might have an idea of self. Whatever self is - whichever way we might imagine it - it does not really exist. There are only dhammas. -------------------------------- Howard: >It means "not self". Now what? All dhammas are anatta, because they are not self and they lack self. And to know what the Buddha or anyone means by that it is necessary to know what that person means by "self". --------------------------------- In the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta we are told that if dhammas were self it would be possible to say, 'Let consciousness be thus (permanent and satisfactory): let the body be thus" and so on. That seems a sufficient definition for me. Any thought along those lines (no matter how subtle or refined it may be) is a thought of self. Ken H #76128 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Fri Sep 7, 2007 8:47 pm Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (66) nichiconn Dear Friends, Break is over! We continue with our combined extracts of: RD: http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/davids/psalms/psalms.html Pruitt: PTS 1999 - The Commentary on the Verses of the Theriis txt: vri taking them up now with: 13. Viisatinipaato XIII. The Section of the Groups of Twenty [Verses]* *This section actually has nineteen verses. 1. Ambapaaliitheriigaathaava.n.nanaa 1. The commentary on the verses of Therii Ambapaalii part 1 of 13 Txt: Viisatinipaate kaa.lakaa bhamarava.n.nasaadisaati-aadikaa ambapaaliyaa theriyaa gaathaa. Ayampi purimabuddhesu kataadhikaaraa tattha tattha bhave viva.t.tuupanissaya.m kusala.m upacinantii sikhissa bhagavato saasane pabbajitvaa upasampannaa hutvaa bhikkhunisikkhaapada.m samaadaaya viharantii, ekadivasa.m sambahulaahi bhikkhuniihi saddhi.m cetiya.m vanditvaa padakkhi.na.m karontii puretara.m gacchantiyaa khii.naasavattheriyaa khipantiyaa sahasaa khe.lapi.n.da.m cetiya"nga.ne patita.m, khii.naasavattheriyaa apassitvaa gataaya aya.m pacchato gacchantii ta.m khe.lapi.n.da.m disvaa "kaa naama ga.nikaa imasmi.m thaane khe.lapi.n.da.m paatesii"ti akkosi. Pruitt: In the section of [groups] of twenty verses, the verses beginning [My hair was] black, like the colour of bees are Therii Ambapaaliis's. She too performed meritorious deeds under previous Buddhas and accumulated good [actions] in various lives as [her] basis for release. She went forth in the teaching of the Blessed One Sikhii. She was ordained and lvied [there] undertaking the training precept of the bhikkhuniis. One day, she paid homage to a shrine with many bhikkhunis. A therii who had destroyed all her taints was going ahead of the others, keeping [the shrine] on her right side. She sneezed suddenly and a lump of phlegm fell in the courtyard of the shrine, but the therii who had destroyed all her taints did not see it and went on. Coming behind her and seeing the lump of phlegm, [the former Ambapaali] said, "What prostitute dropped this lump of phlegm in this place?" RD: SHE, too, having made her resolve under former Buddhas, and heaping up good of age-enduring efficacy in this or that rebirth, entered the Order when Sikhi was Buddha. And one day, while yet a novice, she was walking in procession with Bhikkhuniis, doing homage at a shrine, when an Arahant Therii in front of her hastily spat in the court of the shrine. Coming after her, but not having noticed the Therii's action, she said in reproof: 'What prostitute has been spitting in this place?' txt: Saa bhikkhunikaale siila.m rakkhantii gabbhavaasa.m jigucchitvaa opapaatikattabhaave citta.m .thapesi. Tena carimattabhaave vesaaliya.m raajuyyaane ambarukkhamuule opapaatikaa hutvaa nibbatti. Ta.m disvaa uyyaanapaalo nagara.m upanesi. Ambarukkhamuule nibbattataaya saa ambapaaliitveva vohariiyittha. Atha na.m abhiruupa.m dassaniiya.m paasaadika.m vilaasakantataadigu.navisesasamudita.m disvaa sambahulaa raajakumaaraa attano attano pariggaha.m kaatukaamaa a~n~nama~n~na.m kalaha.m aka.msu. Tesa.m kalahavuupasamattha.m tassaa kammasa~ncoditaa vohaarikaa "sabbesa.m hotuu"ti ga.nikaa.t.thaane .thapesu.m. Pruitt: She observed virtuous conduct while she was a bhikkhunii, and being disgusted with the condition of being an embryo, she fixed her mind on becoming an individual of spontaneous birth. Then in her final existence, she was born spontaneously at the foot of a mango tree in the royal garden in Vesaali. Seeing her, the keeper of the royal garden took her to the town. Because she was born at the foot of a mango tree (amba-rukkha-muule), she was caled Ambapaalii. Then, seeing she was beautiful, fair to behold, lovely, with a variety of characteristics and qualities such as charm and pleasantness, many princes who wanted to make her their own wife quarrelled among themselves. Then in order to resolve the quarrel, judges who were motivated by their [evil past] deeds placed her in the position of a prostitute, saying, "Let her belong to everyone." RD: As a Bhikkhunii, observing the Precepts, she felt repugnance for rebirth by parentage, and set her mind intently on spontaneous re-generation. So in her last birth she came into being spontaneously at Vesaalii, in the King's gardens, at the foot of a mango-tree. The gardener found her, and brought her to the city. She was known as the Mango-guardian's girl. And such was her beauty, grace, and charm that many young Princes strove with each other to possess her, till, in order to end their strife, and because the power of karma impelled them, they agreed to appoint her courtezan. ===thanks for your patience, connie. #76129 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Sep 7, 2007 10:54 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections corner, extra. sarahprocter... Dear Nina, Scott, Han & all, --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Scott: So often there are comments made regarding a stereotypic > > 'coldness' supposedly inherent in any Abhidhammika, as if an > > acceptance and beginning understanding of paramattha dhammas > > automatically creates conditions which preclude the arising of such > > dhammas as metta. > ------ > N: Yes, I have heard this! Some people ask: anatta and metta, how is > it possible? Lodewijk was wondering about this in Kaeng Kracan. ... S: The point (which K.Sujin always stresses) is that without an understanding of anatta, the metta is always very limited - just to this or that person. It is the understanding of anatta which is the condition for all the paramis to grow. When people ask what are the conditions for the development of satipatthana, we may feel inclined to suggest that it is the listening and careful considering of namas and rupas AND the development of the paramis. However, in a recent discussion, K.Sujin was stressing that it is just the first: the listening and careful considering of namas and rupas. It is the understanding which is the condition for the paramis to develop with panna. On equanimity, I heard her talking about its characteristic of being 'stable with understanding of kamma.....not swayed by lobha or dosa', no matter anyone's good or bad fortune, as Jon commented. When we wonder 'why so and so is not doing this or that' and so on, we are being swayed by lobha and dosa. Of course any 'not caring', 'not being bothered' is ignorance with upekkha (indifferent feeling) which can easily 'cheat' for equanimity. As you said, we have to know our own cittas - not the others'! As you also rightly said, "equanimity (tatramajjhattataa) supports metta, it is indispensable. The Buddha had just as much metta to his enemies (Devadatta) as to his son Rahula. We can learn to be impartial." Thanks for all the good discussions. Nina, please extend our very best wishes to Lodewijk. I hope you have a good walk today! Han, as usual, very best wishes for your family. You always do your best to help them and that's all we can do. Metta, Sarah ========= #76130 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Sep 7, 2007 10:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge sarahprocter... Hi Ken O, --- Ken O wrote: > Mike story sounds very similiar, I also wondering almost seven years > also. ... S: It would be helpful for others if you'd elaborate on how an understanding of paramattha dhammas has helped you so much. ... I do not know how long I am going to wander in Samasara but > who is there to care. cheers:-) ... S: No one at all! It's all up to conditions, so just wander on, developing understanding!! Metta Sarah ========= #76131 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Sep 7, 2007 11:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Another Observation about Mindfulness sarahprocter... Hi Tep & Jon, >Tep: For example, Kimsuka Sutta clearly says that insight & samatha >comes > in a pair in order to issue into nibbana, but you interpret it as > insight with jhana as basis for enlightenment. ... S: Kimsuka Sutta, SN 35:245 (Bodhi transl): "....'The swift pair of messengers': this is a designation for serenity and insight. 'The lord of the city': this is designation for consciousness*...." [*BB note: Spk identifies this as the insight-mind (vipassanaacitta), which is the prince to be coronated with the coronation of arahantship by the two messengers, serenity and insight."] S: Serenity and insight, samatha (calm) and vipassana, I take to be referring to the 'yoked' qualities of samatha and panna at moments of vipassana nanas. I don't take it to necessarily be referring to jhana. Happy to hear any corrections from the commentary. Metta, Sarah ============ #76132 From: han tun Date: Fri Sep 7, 2007 11:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections corner, extra. hantun1 Dear Sarah, > Sarah: Han, as usual, very best wishes for your family. You always do your best to help them and that's all we can do. Han: Thank you very much for your best wishes. I always do my best to help them. (1) You have quoted Khun Sujin on equanimity: “I heard her talking about its characteristic of being 'stable with understanding of kamma, and not swayed by lobha or dosa', no matter anyone's good or bad fortune.” Theoretically, it is true. But when I am only a puthujjana and when the party concerned is my loved ones, it is difficult (for me) to have real kusala upekkhaa. It is easier towards neutral persons, but if loved ones are involved, it tends to become “the equanimity of unknowing based on the home life” (upekkhaa gehasitaa a~n~naa.nupekkhaa), which is the near enemy of Equanimity. Perhaps, one day I may be able to have real kusala upekkhaa towards everybody including my loved ones. (2) You have also quoted that equanimity (tatramajjhattataa) supports metta, it is indispensable. I believe that the perfection of upekkhaa supports not only the perfection of mettaa but also all other perfections. That’s why I started off with the perfection of upekkhaa in Perfections Corner. (3) You have also quoted Khun Sujin that without an understanding of anattaa, the mettaa is always very limited. Here again, I believe that the understanding of anattaa is necessary for all perfections, because anattaa and upekkhaa are closely inter-twined. But my understanding of atta and anattaa are very confusing. I am still trying to sort it out. Respectfully, Han --- sarah abbott wrote: Han, as usual, very best wishes for your family. You > always do your best to help them and that's all we > can do. > Metta, > Sarah > ========= > #76133 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Sep 8, 2007 12:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Conditions, Ch 13, no 8. sarahprocter... Dear Nina & all, This is a good sutta. I'm very glad to read it again. I just checked BB's translation which is very similar. --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: ?We read in the “Kindred > Sayings” (V, Book IV, Kindred Sayings on the Faculties, Ch V, § 4, > Eastern Gatehouse) that the Buddha, while he was staying at Såvatthí, > in Eastern Garehouse, asked Såriputta: > > “Do you believe, Såriputta, that the controlling faculty of faith... > of energy... of mindfulness... of concentration... that the > controlling faculty of insight, if cultivated and made much of, > plunges into the Deathless, has the Deathless for its goal, the > Deathless for its ending?” > > The “Deathless” is nibbåna. We read that Såriputta answered: > > “In this matter, lord, I walk not by faith in the Exalted One, .... S: "Na khvaaha.m ettha bhante bhagavato saddhaaya gacchaami." ... >,to > wit: that the controlling faculty of faith... of energy... of > mindfulness... of concentration... that the controlling faculty of > insight, if cultivated and made much of, plunges into the Deathless, > has the Deathless for its goal, the Deathless for its ending. > They, lord, who have not realized, not seen, not understood, not made > sure of, not attained this fact by insight, ... S: pa~n~naa ..... >-- such may well walk by > faith in others (in believing) that the controlling faculty of > faith... that of insight, if cultivated and made much of, may so end. > But, lord, they who have realized, seen, understood, made sure of, > they who have attained this fact by insight,-- such are free from > doubt, free from wavering, (in believing) that the controlling > faculty of faith, of energy, of mindfulness, of concentration, of > insight, if cultivated and made much of... will so end. > But I, lord, have realized it, I have seen, understood and made sure > of it, I have attained it by insight, .... S: Pa~n~naa ... >I am free from doubt about it, > that the controlling faculty of faith, of energy, of mindfulness, of > concentration, of insight, does plunge into the Deathless, has the > Deathless for its goal, the Deathless for its ending.” > > We then read that the Buddha approved of Såriputta’s words. ... S: So only by the development of insight (pa~n~naa) will doubts be removed about the development of these indriya leads to enlightenment and the eradication of defilements. Otherwise, again, they will all be taken for Self's faculties. Metta, Sarah ========= #76134 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Sep 8, 2007 1:09 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views jonoabb Hi Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Jon - ... > Howard: > I think you are incorrect on this, Jon. Anatta is absence of atta. To > have any understanding of the meaning of 'anatta', it must be understood > exactly what it denies existence to. And to be mindful/watchful of the arising of > atta-view, there is the need to know what it is. To understand the meaning of a > term that refers to something not actually existent, it is particularly > urgent to know what that alleged fantasy item is understood to be. > --------------------------------------------- Well I understand the logic you are employing here, but I don't recognise it as anything I've come across in the texts, especially the proposition that "Anatta is the absence of atta". I do agree as regards the value of knowing more about the wrong view of self. If you have any textual support for the urgency of knowing more about the 'alleged fantasy item' I'd be interested to see it. > > So while an intellectual understanding of anatta is no doubt helpful, > > I have doubts about the value of atta as a subject of study. > > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: > No. We need to know what we are denying. If we do not, the denial is > worthless. In fact, it is harmful, giving us the false sense of actually > knowing something. > ----------------------------------------------- But understanding more about the characteristic of not-self is not a matter of any kind of denial, to my understanding. The characteristic of not-self is something that becomes apparent as awareness and understanding of presently arising dhammas is developed. No denial involved. That sounds rather like trying to impute 'not- self' into one's life/experiences. > > As regards atta view, these are all discussed in the Brahmajala Sutta. > > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: > With regard to anything that does not actually exist, all that there > is of it is its definition. But that definition is essential. Where is the importance of the definition of 'self' mentioned in the suttas? Before physicists > could determine the non-existence of "the ether", for example, they had to > know what that term meant. See, for example, the following Wikipedia link: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment But the characteristic of 'not-self' becomes apparent if and when awareness of dhammas is developed. It is the lack of developed understadnig of dhammas that impedes our understanding of not-self, not a lack of understanding of 'atta'. My 2 (Fijian) cents' worth. Jon #76135 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Sep 8, 2007 1:21 am Subject: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘person?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘person?Eis ended" buddhatrue Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: No James. The realization of the four noble Truths pertains to the > penetration of paramattha dhammas, nothing else. All who attain > enlightenment relaize the four noble Truths. > I do not know why you doubt about this. Well, I don't know why you give the Abhidhamma a position is doesn't deserve- so I guess we're even. :-) Metta, James #76136 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Sep 8, 2007 1:55 am Subject: Re: Another Observation about Mindfulness jonoabb Hi Swee Boon --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > > Hi Jon, ... > Then prima facie, it proves that you have an aversed bias towards > samatha since Kimsuka Sutta says both insight & samatha are needed to > issue in the accurate report of nibbana. > > Do I have a case? If you mean a case for bias on my part against samatha, I can only say I can think of more useful topics to discuss ;-)) Seriously, though, is it your understanding that the Kimsuka Sutta says that insight can only be developed if preceded by the development of mundane samatha (or something to that effect)? If so, what particular part(s) of the sutta do you see as saying that? If not, then I'm afraid I've lost the thread ;-)) > I have pointed it out. It says that the sutta can be interpreted in 7 > *different* ways and (d) is one of them and I have said that (d) is > insufficient for crossing over the floods. I'm afraid I don't follow what you mean by "(d) is insufficient for crossing over the floods". Each of these paragraphs explains ways that do *not* lead to the crossing over of the flood. > Also, (d) & (b) contradict each other. Annihilation is wrong view. > (b) says annihilation causes one to sink, but (d) says annihilation > causes one to be swept away. It is clearly a deliberate choice rather than an accidental slip. In (d) there is wrong view in both the sink part and the swept away part. In (c) there is wrong view ('ditthi') in the swept away part So although I don't feel capable of explaining what it's all about, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it contains unintentional errors. > If you are not convinced of the inadequacy of the commentary, I can > only say that you have not given much thought to it. You just > accepted what the commentary says on blind faith, which is what I > don't do. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Jon b) Because of attachment and wrong view, one sinks. Because of the rest of kilesa and abhi-sankhara, one is swept away. c) Because of attachment, one sinks. Because of ditthi, one is swept away. d) Because of the wrong view of eternalism, one sinks. Because of the wrong views of annihilation, one is swept away. This is because bhava-dithi is attached to the self [???], but vibhava-dithi is attached to what is unknown [speculative?]. #76137 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Sep 8, 2007 12:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 9/8/2007 4:11:21 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Jon - ... > Howard: > I think you are incorrect on this, Jon. Anatta is absence of atta. To > have any understanding of the meaning of 'anatta', it must be understood > exactly what it denies existence to. And to be mindful/watchful of the arising of > atta-view, there is the need to know what it is. To understand the meaning of a > term that refers to something not actually existent, it is particularly > urgent to know what that alleged fantasy item is understood to be. > --------------------------------------------- Well I understand the logic you are employing here, but I don't recognise it as anything I've come across in the texts, especially the proposition that "Anatta is the absence of atta". ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Jon, please. The texts also don't tell you that you need special technology to participate on DSG. As for what 'anatta' means, well, the 'a' is a linguistic negation prefix in Pali as it often is in English, for example in 'asymmetric'. the word 'anatta' means either "no self" or "not self" depending on context, but is most certainly based on 'atta'. ---------------------------------------------------------- I do agree as regards the value of knowing more about the wrong view of self. If you have any textual support for the urgency of knowing more about the 'alleged fantasy item' I'd be interested to see it. ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't know what you would look for more than understanding our own language. What is this "textual support" business, Jon? You need a text to tell you that knowing what you are talking about is important? I* find this discussion utterly crazy! --------------------------------------------------------- > > So while an intellectual understanding of anatta is no doubt helpful, > > I have doubts about the value of atta as a subject of study. > > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: > No. We need to know what we are denying. If we do not, the denial is > worthless. In fact, it is harmful, giving us the false sense of actually > knowing something. > ----------------------------------------------- But understanding more about the characteristic of not-self is not a matter of any kind of denial, to my understanding. The characteristic of not-self is something that becomes apparent as awareness and understanding of presently arising dhammas is developed. No denial involved. That sounds rather like trying to impute 'not- self' into one's life/experiences. > > As regards atta view, these are all discussed in the Brahmajala Sutta. > > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: > With regard to anything that does not actually exist, all that there > is of it is its definition. But that definition is essential. Where is the importance of the definition of 'self' mentioned in the suttas? Before physicists > could determine the non-existence of "the ether", for example, they had to > know what that term meant. See, for example, the following Wikipedia link: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment But the characteristic of 'not-self' becomes apparent if and when awareness of dhammas is developed. It is the lack of developed understadnig of dhammas that impedes our understanding of not-self, not a lack of understanding of 'atta'. My 2 (Fijian) cents' worth. Jon =============================== Jon I truly find this discussion very odd. I'm afraid I have nothing further to offer on it. (Sorry) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream/ (From the Diamond Sutra) #76138 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Sep 8, 2007 5:30 am Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge indriyabala Hi Kenh, - It is nice to see you back so quickly. That shows the spirit of a world policeman/manager who is eager to catch a wrong doer/thinker. > > > > T: Please try messages # 75804 and 76046. Thanks. > > > > KenH: I had already read those messages. I don't think they answered my question, did they? As far as I could see, they didn't tell me which dhamma, or dhammas, the three terms referred to. > T: Can you repeat the "three terms" one more time, please? ............. > KenH: Your thread, "Some findings about self and self view," is clearly based on Ven. Thanissaro's theory that anatta does not mean no self. (He believes anatta is just a "strategy" used by viapassana > meditators.) Therefore, we are talking two vastly different > languages about two vastly different teachings. It is little wonder > that I found those two messages incomprehensible. > T: No, the thread is heavily based on Ven. Nanamoli's article AND several suttas. Did you misspell the Venerable's name? Or maybe you just glanced at the thread and missed the key ideas? ........ > KenH: You have said several times that there can be no practice unless there is a person to do the practising. Ven. T says the same thing. You will not accept the explanation that it is conditioned dhammas that do the practising. Until you can accept that explanation as at least plausible you will always find my messages incomprehensible. > T: He and I say the same thing because it is based on the same right view. On the other hand, congratulations, you say it correctly that I will always find your message "incomprehensible" (which I choose to interpret to mean "not making the right sense"), until I accept that (wrong) explanation. It is a dilemma -- in order to debate your view I have to accept it first; but how can I accept a false view as truth, and then let you win despite being wrong? ........ > KenH: So, who is going to blink first? :-) Am I going to concede that maybe - just maybe - the Buddha did believe in a self that went to nibbana? Or are you going to accept that maybe - just maybe - there really are only dhammas and that all dhammas are devoid of self? > T: With the craving to win a debate, of course you will be too busy watching who is going to blink first (instead of focusing on the issues) ! Your questions show that you don't have a clue about the different kinds of atta (self). So, go back to read "Some Findings about Self and Self Views" again, please. Tep === #76139 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Sep 8, 2007 5:51 am Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge .. Kenh's Defenseless Self .. indriyabala Hi KenH (and Howard), - I enjoy your tactic of "beating around the issue" the same way I enjoy watching silly TV commercials (sometimes, when I had nothing to do). I am putting your points together below, so you can see for yourself how your "no self" defense is defenseless. -- Howard: "WHAT is it that does not exist?" KenH : "Are you seriously asking me that?" -- "It is possible (though highly unlikely) that dhammas do have a characteristic known as "not-gazingi." Even if they did, however, the Buddha would not have told us about it because it wouldn't have helped." -- "In the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta we are told that if dhammas were self it would be possible to say, 'Let consciousness be thus (permanent and satisfactory): let the body be thus" and so on. That seems a sufficient definition for me. Any thought along those lines (no matter how subtle or refined it may be) is a thought of self." .......... These senseless, defenseless self explanations are self explanatory. Your friend, Tep === ==== ==== == #76140 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 8, 2007 6:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Ultimate Fact! nilovg Hi Mike and Sarah, Sometimes I like to copy a sutta from him but it is impossible because of all these blue links in the text. Perhaps others have the same trouble? Nina Op 8-sep-2007, om 0:41 heeft m. nease het volgende geschreven: > Can anyone suggest a format to filter spam from this source? I've > tried: > > If the 'From' section contains 'bhikkhu0@...' then Delete > If the 'Email Body' section contains 'Friendship is the Greatest ' > then Delete #76141 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Sep 8, 2007 7:37 am Subject: Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views; Part III indriyabala Hi, all - [Part III: Conclusions] So far we have discussed the 4 categories of atta in the Sutta-Pitaka reviewed by Ven. Nanamoli. They are important because 'atta' (self) is the basis of the Buddhist Anatta Doctrine. The objective of this concluding message is to show how these 4 categories underlie the not- self explanation in the Suttas. The Four Self Categories ------------------------ 1. As "one-self" (colloquial sense) 2. As "one's own person" , or individual. There are three sub- categories: 2.1 Gross acquisition of a self (possessed of form, feeding on food) 2.2 Mind-made acquisition of a self (possessed of form, made from citta and cetasika) 2.3 Formless acquisition of a self (a percept of perception) 3 Unidentifiable entity that is conceived by self-views and clinging to the khandhas (attanuditthi, attavadupadana) 4. Ego-entity, soul or any other abiding substance All four categories of self are not free from craving(tanha), view (ditthi), and conceit(mana). Therefore, they should be reflected as 'This is not mine', 'This I am not', and 'this is not my self'. The 'self' in 'this is not my self' is any of the four categories, depending on a given situation. For example, 'form is not self' corresponds to Category 2.1 in case of a body. With this right view the body is not perceived as mine (with tanha), as 'I am' (with mana), or as 'my body' that I can manipulate it to do exactly and stay exactly as I wish. Therefore, although the body continues as it is, there is no clinging(due to the four vipallasas) that feeds into endless arisings of dukkha. Another example, 'eye is not self' corresponds to Category 4. With this view the eye is not perceived as an abiding substance. More Examples ------------- 1. SN 22.85 Yamaka Sutta: "He does not get attached to form, does not cling to form, does not determine it to be 'my self.' He does not get attached to feeling... He does not get attached to perception... He does not get attached to fabrications... He does not get attached to consciousness, does not cling to consciousness, does not determine it to be 'my self.' T: This self is in the Category 4; i.e. any ego-identity or abiding substance that is permanent & controllable. .............. 2. MN 63: 'The cosmos is eternal';'The cosmos is not eternal';'The cosmos is finite';'The cosmos is infinite';'The soul & the body are the same,';'The soul is one thing and the body another,';'The soul & the body are the same,';'After death a Tathagata exists';'After death a Tathagata does not exist';'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist';'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,'... T: These various kinds of the 62 views conceive the metaphysical attas of the Category 3. ............. 3. DN 2: From this body he creates another body, endowed with form, made of the mind, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties. Just as if a man were to draw a reed from its sheath. The thought would occur to him: 'This is the sheath, this is the reed. The sheath is one thing, the reed another, but the reed has been drawn out from the sheath.' T: This self is in Category 2.2. ............. 4. AN 5.28: Just as if a man were sitting wrapped from head to foot with a white cloth so that there would be no part of his body to which the white cloth did not extend; even so, the monk sits, permeating his body with a pure, bright awareness. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by pure, bright awareness. This is the fourth development of the five-factored noble right concentration. T: This pure bright awareness is possibly the perception-made self of the Category 2.3. ........... 5. SN 22.59: "Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.' T: This my self is the self of Category 3 that is conceived by attanuditthi. The perspective that is free from craving(tanha), view (ditthi), and conceit(mana) in the five khandhas is as follows: "Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?" .. "Now is what is impermanent pleasant or painful?" ... "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? [To repeat for the other four khandhas.] ........... T: I would lie to conclude Part III by Ven. Nanamoli's remark on how yoniso-manasikara is to be used to abandon attanuditthi & mana according to the Anatta Doctrine. Nanamoli: So long as a man leaves intact this fundamental tendency to conceive in the very act of perceiving, accompanied by the tendency to formulate views, he will look for answers to the questions that these two tendencies together prompt him to ask, and he will invent them and try to prove them: "This is how he gives unreasoned attention (ayoniso- manasikaara): 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is doubtful in himself about the presently arisen extent thus: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Whence will this creature have come? Whither will it be bound?' "When he gives unreasoned attention in this way one of the six kinds of view arises in him: the view 'A self exists for me' arises as true and established, or the view 'No self exists for me'... or the view 'I perceive self with self'... or the view 'I perceive not-self with self'... or the view 'I perceive self with not-self" arises in him as true and established; or else he has some such view as 'It is this my self that speaks and feels and that experiences here and there the ripening of good and bad actions; but this my self is permanent, ever lasting, eternal, not subject to change, and it will endure as long as eternity.' This field of views is called the thicket of views, the wilderness of views, the vacillation of views, the fetter of views. No untaught ordinary man bound by the fetter of views is freed from birth, aging and death, from sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief, and despair: he is not freed from suffering, I say." [MN 2] ........... T: I hope this 3-part discussion at least provides a useful review of self, self views, and the Anatta Doctrine. Another benefit that can be expected is : it shows how the four categories of self may be advantageously applied to get a clearer understanding of not-self and no-self. If any thing good is found in this discussion, you should thank Ven. Nanamoli. On the other hand, anything you don't like, I will gladly accept it as my fault. Your friend, Tep === ===== ====== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Hi, all - > > [Part II: Some Findings ...] > > A unique property, that is not unlike that of the three vedana, of > these three acquisitions of a self(atta-patilaabha),the 2nd case, > i.e. a person or an individual, is that they are mutually exclusive, #76142 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 8, 2007 7:37 am Subject: Asoka, Ch 4, no 6 nilovg Dear friends, The “Book of Analysis” (Ch 17, “Analysis of Small Items”, in the Exposition of the Occurrences of Craving) gives an exposition of the different ways of craving in connection with “oneself”. One thinks, for example, “I am”, “I am such an one”, “I am also”, “I am otherwise”. We read about these different ways of conceiving: .... one gets the wish, “I am”; one gets the conceit, “I am”; one gets the wrong view, “I am”; when this happens there are these obsessions, “I am such an one” or “I am also” or “I am otherwise”. And how is there, “I am such an one? “I am a ruler” or “I am a Brahmin” or “I am a merchant” or “I am an artisan” or “I am a householder” or “I am an ascetic”.... The Commentary to the “Book of Analysis”, the “Dispeller of Delusion” (under Behaviour of Craving) explains that there comes to be the thought “I am” depending on this internal pentad of khandhas (the five khandhas), due to taking it as a unit through craving, conceit and wrong view... The Commentary explains that if one takes the five khandhas as a unit and thinks “such am I”, this may be done without comparison or with comparison. We read in the Commentary: Herein, as to without comparison there comes to be the thought: “Such am I” by making only one’s own state the object without reference to any other aspect; among Khattiyas [1] and the like there comes to be the thought through craving, conceit and wrong view thus: “I am of this kind” is the meaning. This in the first place is the taking of it without comparison. But the taking of it by comparison is of two kinds, as the same and as not the same.... All these ways of thinking occur time and again in our daily life. -------- 1. The Khattiyas belonged to the warrior caste, the highest social rank. Kings belonged to this caste. ******** Nina. #76143 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 8, 2007 7:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections corner, extra. nilovg Dear Sarah, It is good you stressed understanding as the condition for the paramis. And this begins with listening. We have to know what the paramis are and have more understanding of them and how they are conditions leading to the other shore. We have to know in what ways they can be medicines strengthening us on our long journey. Thank you for your kind wishes to Lodewijk. Our walk was very good, like a medicine for physical needs! Nina. Op 8-sep-2007, om 7:54 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > K.Sujin was > stressing that it is just the first: the listening and careful > considering > of namas and rupas. It is the understanding which is the condition > for the > paramis to develop with panna. #76144 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 8, 2007 7:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Asoka, Ch $, no 6. nilovg Dear Mike, I am glad you asked. BTW your old post Sarah quoted is very appropriate (sorry, I know you do not like people saying: that post is very good). Op 8-sep-2007, om 2:31 heeft m. nease het volgende geschreven: > It's just that it seems important and a little odd to me. Since > vipassanå can (presumably) understand--in immediate retrospect--any > dhamma, then how do these dhammas 'slow' vipassanå? By delaying the > occurrence of the conditions that make vipassanå possible (or > inevitable--same thing, I think)? ---------- N: I found the Co. and there are more texts on this matter. But this one is to 'The venerable Anuruddha', IV, 228, On Householders. Anuruddha reflected on seven thoughts of a great man, mahaapurisa. The Buddha taught him an eighth thought: Papa~ncaaraama: diffuseness. The Co. speaks about the dhammas that are the means of slowing down: tanhaa, maana and di.t.thi. Nibbaana is freedom from these: it is papa~nca nirodha. ------- Now your question: Since vipassanå can (presumably) understand--in immediate retrospect--any dhamma, then how do these dhammas 'slow' vipassanå? ------- N: The papa~nca may arise and no awareness and understanding of them. It is possible to get stuck, even after stages of insight have arisen. We could think of the vipassana defilements, when one clings to the assurance or calm that goes together with insight. There will be occasions for clinging and if this is not realized by pa~n~naa it obstructs further progress. There may be this akusala thinking with conceit: I know already, I do not need to listen, I know better than others. Then there is an obstruction to further development. Nina. #76145 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 8, 2007 7:28 am Subject: Conditions, Ch 13, no 9 nilovg Dear friends, We read in the same section of the “Kindred Sayings” (§ 10, Faith) that the Buddha, while staying among the Angas at Market, asked Såriputta: “Tell me, Såriputta, could an ariyan disciple who is utterly devoted to, who has perfect faith in the Tathågata,-- could an ariyan disciple have any doubt or wavering as to the Tathågata or the Tathågata’s teaching?” Såriputta said that the ariyan disciple who has perfect faith in the Tathågata could have no doubt as to the Tathågata or his teaching and that he develops the controlling faculties of faith, energy, mindfulness, concentration and insight. We read that he said about the controlling faculty of insight: “Again, lord, of a faithful ariyan disciple who is established in mindfulness, whose thought is tranquillized, this may be expected: he will fully understand ‘A world without end is the round of rebirth. No beginning can be seen of beings hindered by ignorance, bound by craving, who run on, who fare on through the round of rebirth. The utter passionless ceasing of ignorance, of this body of darkness, is this blissful state, this excellent state, to wit:- the calming down of all the activities, the giving up of all bases (for rebirth), the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, nibbåna.’ His insight, lord, is the controlling faculty of insight. Lord, that faithful ariyan disciple, thus striving and striving again, thus recollecting again and again, thus again and again composing his mind, thus clearly discerning again and again, gains utter confidence, when he considers: ‘As to those things which formerly I had only heard tell of, now I dwell having experienced them in my own person: now by insight have I pierced them through and see them plain.’ Herein, lord, his confidence is the controlling faculty of confidence.” We then read that the Buddha approved of Såriputta’s words. ******* Nina. #76146 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 8, 2007 7:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘person?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘person?Eis ended" nilovg Hi James, I quote a sutta, perhaps this makes it clearer? Many suttas can clarify this point.This one was given by Ven. Samahita: Once, a certain not very well-known Bhikkhu asked the Blessed Buddha Venerable Sir: True Wisdom is it said. What is really True Wisdom? Venerable Sir: When has one arrived at such true Wisdom? The Blessed Gotama Buddha then pointed out: Understanding and Knowing Suffering is True Wisdom; Understanding and Knowing The Cause of Suffering is True Wisdom; Understanding and Knowing The End of Suffering is True Wisdom; Understanding and Knowing The Way to end Suffering is True Wisdom! All this profound understanding and direct knowledge of the absolute is True Wisdom, & it is by that penetrating comprehension, that glimpse of a far-reaching ultimate reality, that one has arrived at true Wisdom! Therefore, Bhikkhu, an effort should be made much of to understand: This is Suffering; an effort should be made much of to comprehend: This is the Cause of Suffering; an effort should be made so to realize: This is the End of Suffering; An effort should be made to penetrate, recognize, & develop, This is the Way leading to the End of Suffering... Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. [V:429-30] section 56: Saccasamyutta. Thread 18: True Wisdom... ------ N: See especially: . Direct knowledge: that is not of concepts like people. The five khandhas are dukkha as we read in another sutta. The five khandhas are nama and rupa. Dukkha is the arising and falling away of realities. Insight is direct understanding of realities. That is explained also in many suttas. Nina. Op 8-sep-2007, om 10:21 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > > N: No James. The realization of the four noble Truths pertains to > the > > penetration of paramattha dhammas, nothing else. All who attain > > enlightenment relaize the four noble Truths. > > I do not know why you doubt about this. > > Well, I don't know why you give the Abhidhamma a position is doesn't > deserve- so I guess we're even. :-) #76147 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Sat Sep 8, 2007 7:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ÁÑerson¡¦quot; - "The controversy on ÁÑerson¡¦is ended" dcwijeratna Dear Sarah, Many thanks for taking the trouble to come forward to assist me. Before I get on to the "Confusion," I'll introduce myself. Yes, I am from Sri Lanka, born, bred and living here. I am now retired and since my retirement about 4 years ago I have been trying to understand Buddhism. Of course I am a "traditional" Buddhist in the sense that my parents were Buddhists. I spend quite a lot of time on this matter--almost full-time. I also follow classes in the nearby University-the postgarduate Institute of Pali and Buddhist Studies, University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka. I don't want to bore you with many details. But if there is anything else you wish to know, please let me know. By the way, I was an electrical engineer before my retirement. Now with regard to the two references you gave, I have a few comments. 1. I couldn't locate the first reference: SN I.25 2. Second reference [Po.t.thapaada] is a little complex. I read the whole paragraph. It reads: "So too, whenever the gross acquired self is present, we do not speak of the mind-made or formless acquired sefl; ... But, Citta, these are merely names, ..., designations in common use in the world, which the Tathaagata uses without misapprehending them." So the word used is present. Previous paragraph gives the example of cow, milk, curds and so on. So I understand the "atta" that way. I have a bigger problem here. I cannot understand the three different "attas." The word "sammuti" does not occur in the Sutta Pi.taka. But you get it in the Vinaya Pi.taka in the sense of agreed or agreement. It is not connected with truth. It is in the commentaries. But they are later compositions. Moreover, only the Theravadins have it. Word paramattha is also like the above. Attha is used in the canon mainly to indicate: benefit, meaning, welfare and so on. Paramttha can be interpreted as ultimate benefit, which is Nibbana. These are some of the difficulties I am having. Hope I am not troubling you by pouring out all these difficulties With Metta D. G. D. C. Wijeratna ----- Original Message ---- From: sarah abbott To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, September 7, 2007 4:45:28 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ÁÑerson¡¦quot; - "The controversy on ÁÑerson¡¦is ended" Dear DC (Wijeratna), Thank you for joining us and asking this question below: --- DC Wijeratna wrote: > I am little confused about "true truths"? > > Is there any reference to it in the Sutta Pitaka? > .... S: Here are a couple of references which are often quoted: "Though the wise one has transcended the conceived, He still might say, 'I speak,' He might say too, 'They speak to me.' Skilful, knowing the world's parlance, He uses such terms as mere expressions. " SN 1:25 ..... ‘....these are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Tathagata uses without misapprehending them,’ (DN 9, Potthapada Sutta: States of consciousness, 53, Walshe trans.) The footnote (224) to M.Walshe’s translation adds: ‘...In MA (ad MN 5: Anagana Sutta). the following verse is quoted...: “Two truths the Buddha, best of all who speak, declared: Conventional and ultimate - no third can be. Terms agreed by usage of the world; Words of ultimate significance are true In terms of dhammas. Thus the Lord, a Teacher, he Who’s skilled in this world’s speech , can use it, and not lie.” .... S: Please let us know if there is still confusion or if you have any comments on these. A lot more can be found in "Useful Posts" in the files under: 'Concepts', 'Concepts & Realities', 'Conventional Teaching vs by way of Ultimate Realities'. Are you from and living in Sri Lanka? We'd be glad to hear more from you and learn about your studies and interest here. Metta, Sarah ========= #76148 From: "colette" Date: Sat Sep 8, 2007 10:59 am Subject: "The sun will come out tomorrow" ksheri3 Good Day Group, What's up with that subject line, huh? Why isn't the sun out today? Is it possible for the sun to be either out or in or neither out or in? C'mon, lighten up, it's a good day. Last night I finally got to speak with my long time friend, old friend, here in Chicago who went on vacation to the West coast a few weeks ago and I had arranged her to meet with a special friend I met in these forums. I only got a few details but the picture in my mind, of this woman, is now taking better shape. And wouldn't ya know it, I've been trying to get a hold of a book for more than a year and today the library finally allowed me to check it out. Something like Wild Awakening by some nobody named Dzogchen Ponlop with forewards by the Dalai Lama and the Karmapa. Now is this gonna be fun or what? Unfortunately I was sent a CD with some files on it that I'd like to read, however, on my computer a "dialogue box is open" and it simply will not allow me to open the disc. Any thoughts? toodles, colette #76149 From: "colette" Date: Sat Sep 8, 2007 11:11 am Subject: Casting Dies ksheri3 Good Day Group, Sarah, I'm gonna have to play off you since you were, at one time, cast in the mold of a "little red book representative", here since the humor is way beyond some of my best stuff I think the portable library that most homes come equipped with would be the correct location to properly enjoy this utterly redundant and rediculous act of insanity by those "little red devils" called Chinese. ... Enjoy: China Bans Reincarnation Without Government Permission By Matthew Philips Source: Newsweek In one of history's more absurd acts of totalitarianism, China has banned Buddhist monks in Tibet from reincarnating without government permission. According to a statement issued by the State Administration for Religious Affairs, the law, which goes into effect next month and strictly stipulates the procedures by which one is to reincarnate, is "an important move to institutionalize management of reincarnation." But beyond the irony lies China's true motive: to cut off the influence of the Dalai Lama, Tibet's exiled spiritual and political leader, and to quell the region's Buddhist religious establishment more than 50 years after China invaded the small Himalayan country. By barring any Buddhist monk living outside China from seeking reincarnation, the law effectively gives Chinese authorities the power to choose the next Dalai Lama, whose soul, by tradition, is reborn as a new human to continue the work of relieving suffering. At 72, the Dalai Lama, who has lived in India since 1959, is beginning to plan his succession, saying that he refuses to be reborn in Tibet so long as it's under Chinese control. Assuming he's able to master the feat of controlling his rebirth, as Dalai Lamas supposedly have for the last 600 years, the situation is shaping up in which there could be two Dalai Lamas: one picked by the Chinese government, the other by Buddhist monks. "It will be a very hot issue," says Paul Harrison, a Buddhism scholar at Stanford. "The Dalai Lama has been the prime symbol of unity and national identity in Tibet, and so it's quite likely the battle for his incarnation will be a lot more important than the others." So where in the world will the next Dalai Lama be born? Harrison and other Buddhism scholars agree that it will likely be from within the 130,000 Tibetan exiles spread throughout India, Europe and North America. With an estimated 8,000 Tibetans living in the United States, could the next Dalai Lama be American- born? "You'll have to ask him," says Harrison. If so, he'll likely be welcomed into a culture that has increasingly embraced reincarnation over the years. According to a 2005 Gallup poll, 20 percent of all U.S. adults believe in reincarnation. Recent surveys by the Barna Group, a Christian research nonprofit, have found that a quarter of U.S. Christians, including 10 percent of all born-again Christians, embrace it as their favored end-of-life view. A non-Tibetan Dalai Lama, experts say, is probably out of the question. So, Sarah, what's up with your party out there in the Land of Nod? I've been trying to dig my own grave since they tell me that if I keep digging I'm gonna end up in China but it's not working too well, esspecially after getting this book Wild Awakening. toodles, colette #76150 From: Dieter Möller Date: Sat Sep 8, 2007 11:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re Q: Some Questions Arising Out of Abhidhamma Study moellerdieter Hi Sarah, thanks for your answer.. you wrote: ' Again, apologies for a slow response to your good Abhidhamma study and questions. I appreciate this a lot.' D: no need to apologize , Sarah .. there is a lot of list activity going on . I still do not manage to read all postings and imagine how busy you must be S: (D:though cetasika includes the element of quality (kusala/akusala ..) so more or less in line with the Law of Dependent Orgination . ) Cittas and cetasikas can be kusala, akusala, vipaka or kiriya. Yes, D.O. is all about conditioned cittas, cetasikas and rupas. I'm not sure if you meant anything else by your comment? D: what I mean is, that in D.O. kamma is stated by the fact of action (body, speech ,thought) only whereas Abhidhamma adds the quality (kusala, akusala, vipaka or kiriya ) . I cannot remember a sutta source - in which the different links are specified - mentioning it . S:(as Tep said in effect, it takes a little time to learn to dance with a new partner and I may misunderstand some of your comments - so apologies for stepping on your toes in advance:)). D: this is very nicely said .. please accept my apologies likewise in advance .. thinking :should I ask for a waltz ..? ;-)) S: : I think it's best to understand the khandhas as arising right now first. Then we can go on to talking about them in D.O. and the 4NT perhaps. For example, whenever there isn't any dana, sila or bhavana, there is ignorance now. Even when there is dana, sila or bhavana, there is still the latent tendency of ignorance too. Ignorance is sankhara khandha - the khandha which includes all our accumulations for good and bad(except sanna and vedana). Whilst there is this tendency to ignorance, namas and rupas will continue to arise on and on. D: Our approach to the teaching is different due to individual (previous) kamma... e.g.first contact, teachers, friends, motivation etc.. and I believe it is best to agree on common ground first , otherwise we may already engage in the discussion, whether the khandas should not be understood to present the aggregates/function for the process of arising and ceasing dhammas, i.e. mental and bodily phenomena. .. or talking about sankhara khanda, you mention to be ignorance. Sankhara Khanda is conditioned by ignorance ( avijja-sankhara - vinnaya-nama/ rupa. etc., i.e. part of nama ... (recently Nina called S.K: the habitual tendencies.. I think a very interesting translation ) . I found in many years of study that it is most useful to keep the relation with the 4NT in mind when considering the finer details of the Dhamma , to avoid getting lost in the ' thickicht' .. so you may not be surprised about my base of understanding involving a sequence of mundane understanding of the N.T. , then D.O. and then Abh. ... leading to supramundane N.T. understanding. I believe this is in line with the gradual approach the Buddha told us to penetrate the teaching but I am not sure whether you or other members see that likewise.. S: Pls let me know how we're going... I'll try to put aside those 'in-my-face posts like James's and reply at a quicker rate in future! D: fine ..perhaps we should try the slow waltz before the quick one ;-) and please reply any way convenient for you ... S: The realisation of nibbana is the way out of the cycle. So the lokuttara cittas (supramundane cittas) and nibbana are excluded from D.O. D: hence Abh. likely to be a kind of manual for the advanced noble ones ( Sariputta and those close to him ) S: Vinnaya and nama-rupa in D.O. have particular meanings. We need to be careful. Not all cittas, namas and rupas are included here. D: you said before: S: Let's just make this clear for everyone: All cittas are included in vinnana khandha, All cetasikas are included in sanna, vedana and sankhara khandhas All rupas are included in rupa khandha. Another way of saying the same is that all the khandhas are included in citta, cetasika and rupa. the qualities of action are not included in D.O. as mentioned already ..but what do you mean by 'Not all cittas, namas and rupas are included here' ? S: : I gave all those examples from the Dhammasangani to indicate that these are what are referred to as paramattha, including nibbana. The Ab. Sangaha is a concise summary of all the Abhidhamma texts and commentaries. No disagreement at all. D: my question is whether in the Abh.pitaka we can find the exact grouping of the 4 categories defined as Paramattha Dhamma like in § 2 by Ven. Anuruddha .. i.e. though seemingly not in contradiction but still the Venerabble's interpretation ..? S: Actually, the 'Dhamma-Vinaya' refers to the 'three baskets'. >From the commetary to this line you quote: "But in the list beginning with sutta, sutta means the three baskets which the three Councils recited...." See this post for more: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/58033 D: this issue has been discussed several times before .. the commentary can not overcome D.N. 16 in which the Buddha refered to suttas and vinaya.. ( the third basket not yet in existence) .. but we may compare the arguments. and over to you ;-) with Metta Dieter P.S.: (p.s let us know if there's any chance of your being in Bangkok in October too) very unlikely (unless winning in the lottery ) but thank you for thinking of me ;-) #76151 From: "colette" Date: Sat Sep 8, 2007 11:48 am Subject: [dsg] Re: "there is no ÁÑerson¡¦quot; - "The controversy on ÁÑerson¡¦is ended" ksheri3 Dear D.G.D.C., Hi, glad to have you here with all that experience behind you and that access to info. you've got in those Buddhist univesities. Only time for one comment: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, DC Wijeratna wrote: > > The word "sammuti" does not occur in the Sutta Pi.taka. But you get it in the Vinaya Pi.taka in the sense of agreed or agreement. It is not connected with truth. > colette: if two or more people are in agreement of the definition of a word, phrase, act, action, etc, then there is collusion, a conspiracy of sorts since it is more than a single person. It is however a shared belief in something "other" and it is mind generated. With this said, THEN, isn't evereything concerning this word that is said to be "sammuti" nothing less than "Truth" or "Pravda"? You believe what you want to believe,no. toodles, colette > It is in the commentaries. But they are later compositions. Moreover, only the Theravadins have it. > > Word paramattha is also like the above. > > Attha is used in the canon mainly to indicate: benefit, meaning, welfare and so on. Paramttha can be interpreted as ultimate benefit, which is Nibbana. > > These are some of the difficulties I am having. Hope I am not troubling you by pouring out all these difficulties > > With Metta > > D. G. D. C. Wijeratna <...> #76152 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Sat Sep 8, 2007 3:13 pm Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (66) nichiconn Dear Friends, 13. Viisatinipaato XIII. The Section of the Groups of Twenty [Verses] 1. Ambapaaliitheriigaathaava.n.nanaa part 2 txt: Saa satthari pa.tiladdhasaddhaa attano uyyaane vihaara.m katvaa buddhappamukhassa bhikkhusa"nghassa niyyaadetvaa pacchaa attano puttassa vimalako.n.da~n~nattherassa santike dhamma.m sutvaa pabbajitvaa vipassanaaya kamma.m karontii attano sariirassa jaraaji.n.nabhaava.m nissaaya sa.mvegajaataa sa"nkhaaraana.m aniccata.m vibhaaventii- 252. "Kaa.lakaa bhamarava.n.nasaadisaa, vellitaggaa mama muddhajaa ahu.m; te jaraaya saa.navaakasaadisaa, saccavaadivacana.m ana~n~nathaa. 253. "Vaasitova surabhii kara.n.dako, pupphapuura mama uttama"ngajo; ta.m jaraayatha salomagandhika.m, saccavaadivacana.m ana~n~nathaa. 254. "Kaanana.mva sahita.m suropita.m, kocchasuucivicitaggasobhita.m; ta.m jaraaya virala.m tahi.m tahi.m, saccavaadivacana.m ana~n~nathaa. 255. "Ka.nhakhandhakasuva.n.nama.n.dita.m, sobhate suve.niihila"nkata.m; ta.m jaraaya khalita.m sira.m kata.m, saccavaadivacana.m ana~n~nathaa. RD: Later on, out of faith in the Master, she built a Vihaara *337 in her own gardens, and handed it over to him and the Order. And when she had heard her own son, the Elder Vimala-Konda~n~na, preach the Norm, she worked for insight, and studying the law of impermanence as illustrated in her own ageing body, she uttered the following verses: Glossy and black as the down of the bee my curls once clustered. They with the waste of the years are liker to hempen or bark cloth. Such and not otherwise runneth the rune, the word of the Soothsayer. *338 (252) Fragrant as casket of perfumes, as full of sweet blossoms the hair of me. All with the waste of the years now rank as the odour of hare's fur. Such and not otherwise runneth the rune, the word of the Soothsayer. (253) Dense as a grove well planted, and comely with comb, pin, and parting. All with the waste of the years dishevelled the fair plaits and fallen. Such and not otherwise runneth the rune, the word of the Soothsayer. (254) Glittered the swarthy plaits in head-dresses jewelled and golden. All with the waste of the years broken, and shorn are the tresses. Such and not otherwise runneth the rune, the word of the Soothsayer. (255) *337 See Rhys Davids, Buddhist Suttas (S.B.E., xi.), pp. 30-33. *338 Used in its first intention, Truth-speaker. On this, and on the metre, see Introduction. The 'rune' is the Impermanence of everything. Cf. Ps lxiii. PRUITT: She gained faith in the Teacher, made a monastery in her own garden, and presented it to the Order of Bhikkhus with the Buddha at its head. Afterwards, she heard the Doctrine in the presence of her own son, Thera Vimala-Ko.n.da~n~na. She went forth and devoted herself to the gaining of insight. A profound stirring arose because of the decrepit state of old age of her own body, and explaining the impermanence of the formations, she spoke these verse: 252. My hair was black, like the colour of bees, with curly ends. Because of old age, it is like bark fibres of hemp. The utterance of the Speaker of Truth is not false. 253. Covered with flowers, my hair was fragrant like a perfumed box. Now, because of old age, it smells like a dog's fur. The utterance of the Speaker of Truth is not false. 254. Thick as a well-planted grove, made beautiful, having the ends parted by comb and pin, because of old age, it is thin here and there. The utterance of the Speaker of Truth is not false. 255. A mass of black [hair] decorated with gold, adorned with plaits, it looked beautiful. Because of old age, that head has been made bald. The utterance of the Speaker of Truth is not false. ===to be continued, connie #76153 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sat Sep 8, 2007 5:16 pm Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > >> > KenH: You have said several times that there can be no practice > unless there is a person to do the practising. Ven. T says the same > thing. > You will not accept the explanation that it is conditioned dhammas > that do the practising. Until you can accept that explanation as at > least plausible you will always find my messages incomprehensible. > > ______________________ > T: He and I say the same thing because it is based on the same right > view. how can I accept a false view as > truth, and then let you win despite being wrong? > ........ ! > Your questions show that you don't have a clue about the different > kinds of atta (self). So, go back to read "Some Findings about Self > and Self Views" again, please. > Dear Tep Is your position that there is a person who practices? This would be in conflict with what is taught in the Visuddhimagga: QUOTE "There is no doer of a deed, or one who reaps the result. Phenomena alone flow on, no other view than this right." Visuddhimagga XIX19 QUOTE "This is mere mentality-materiality, there is no being, no person" XVIII24 QUOTE "The mental and material (nama rupa) are really here But here is no human being to be found, for it is void and merely fashioned like a doll" XVII31 Robert #76154 From: han tun Date: Sat Sep 8, 2007 5:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views; Parts I, II, III hantun1 Dear Tep, I thank you and congratulate you for your excellent presentation of Self and Self Views in three parts. I have, in particular, noted the following points. ------------------------------ So far we have discussed the 4 categories of atta in the Sutta-Pitaka reviewed by Ven. Nanamoli. They are important because 'atta' (self) is the basis of the Buddhist Anatta Doctrine. The objective of this concluding message is to show how these 4 categories underlie the “not-self” explanation in the Suttas. The Four Self Categories are: 1. As "one-self" (colloquial sense) 2. As "one's own person" , or individual. There are three sub-categories: 2.1 Gross acquisition of a self (possessed of form, feeding on food) 2.2 Mind-made acquisition of a self (possessed of form, made from citta and cetasika) 2.3 Formless acquisition of a self (a percept of perception) 3 Unidentifiable entity that is conceived by self-views and clinging to the khandhas (attanuditthi, attavadupadana) 4. Ego-entity, soul or any other abiding substance All four categories of self are not free from craving (tanha), view (ditthi), and conceit (mana). Therefore, they should be reflected as 'This is not mine', 'This I am not', and 'this is not my self'. The 'self' in 'this is not my self' is any of the four categories, depending on a given situation. ------------------------------ I have also noted the six kinds of views that may arise with ayonisomanasikaara, as mentioned in MN 2. (1) the view ‘self exists for me’(atthi me attaa) (2) the view ‘no self exists for me' (natthi me attaa) (3) the view 'I perceive self with self' (attanaava attaanam sa~njaanaamii) (4) the view 'I perceive not-self with self (attanaava anattaanam sa~njaanaamii) (5) the view 'I perceive self with not-self" (anattanaava attaanam sa~njaanaamii) (6) some such view as 'It is this self of mine that speaks and feels and that experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions; but this self of mine is permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and it will endure as long as eternity.' [Pali words are inserted by me.] ------------------------------ I have also noted your comments (in Part II): T: And we see that Citta's view was accepted by the Buddha. Further, neither the Buddha nor Citta said there was "no self", or "no person existed". [This is important as I have repeated often so that you will not forget.] T: Up to this point it should be clear that it is the self views, or wrong perceptions of atta, that matter to Buddhists. The idea of "no self" is not the issue, because it does not connect to the self views or the elimination of self views through eradication of the underlying tendency (or the fetter) of views. ------------------------------ Han: On the whole, I have no difficulty in accepting your presentation, Tep. Respectfully, Han #76155 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sat Sep 8, 2007 6:49 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,188 Vism.XVII,189 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII 188. 2. 'By occurrence in becoming, et cetera': excepting one abode of beings, [that is, non-percipient,] mentality occurs in all the kinds of becoming, generation, destiny, and station of consciousness, and in the remaining abodes of beings. Materiality occurs in two kinds of becoming, four kinds of generation, five destinies, the first four stations of consciousness, and the first five abodes of beings. 189. Now when this mentality-materiality occurs thus, then in the case of sexless embryos and the egg-born, at the moment of their rebirth-linking there are manifested as materiality two organic continuities, that is, the two decads of physical basis and body, and also the three immaterial aggregates. So in their case there are in detail these twenty-three states, namely, twenty states as concrete matter and three immaterial aggregates, which should be understood as 'mentality-materiality with consciousness as condition'. But omitting repetitions,35 and so cancelling nine material instances (see Ch. XI,88) from one of the organic continuities, fourteen states remain. By adding the sex decad for those possessed of sex [before making the above cancellation] there are thirty-three. And omitting repetitions and so cancelling eighteen material instances [nine each] from two of the organic continuities, in this case fifteen states remain. ---------------------- Note 35. Resolve compound agahitagaha.nena as gahitassa a-gaha.nna, not as a-gahitassa gaha.nena; i.e. it is 'by not taking what is taken', not 'by taking what has not been taken'; cf. Ch. IV,75. ********************** 188. bhavaadiisu pavattitoti ettha ca naama.m eka.m sattaavaasa.m .thapetvaa sabbabhavayonigativi~n~naa.na.t.thitisesasattaavaasesu pavattati, ruupa.m dviisu bhavesu, catuusu yoniisu, pa~ncasu gatiisu, purimaasu catuusu vi~n~naa.na.t.thitiisu, pa~ncasu sattaavaasesu pavattati. 189. eva.m pavattamaane ca etasmi.m naamaruupe yasmaa abhaavakagabbhaseyyakaana.m a.n.dajaana~nca pa.tisandhikkha.ne vatthukaayadasakavasena ruupato dvesantatisiisaani, tayo ca aruupino khandhaa paatubhavanti, tasmaa tesa.m vitthaarena ruuparuupato viisati dhammaa, tayo ca aruupino khandhaati ete teviisati dhammaa vi~n~naa.napaccayaa naamaruupanti veditabbaa. aggahitaggaha.nena pana ekasantatisiisato nava ruupadhamme apanetvaa cuddasa. sabhaavakaana.m bhaavadasaka.m pakkhipitvaa tetti.msa, tesampi aggahitaggaha.nena santatisiisadvayato a.t.thaarasa ruupadhamme apanetvaa pa.n.narasa. #76156 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Sat Sep 8, 2007 7:01 pm Subject: Re: Vism.XVII,188 Vism.XVII,189 nichiconn Path of Purity, p.670: "Procedure in existence and so forth" - "name" proceeds in all worlds, matrices, courses, conscious durations and sentient abodes, excepting one sentient abode {i.e. the perception-less sentient abode}. Matter proceeds in two worlds, in four matrices, in five courses, in the first four conscious durations, in five sentient abodes. And when name-and-form proceeds thus, because, [559] at the moment of the conception of beings in the womb which are without specific nature, and of those born from eggs, two heads in the continuity from the material and three non-material aggregates are manifested by way of the decads of the physical basis and the bodily frame, therefore in detail twenty-three states should be understood as name and form conditioned by consciousness, namely twenty from matter and three aggregates which are non-material. Now if what has not been mentioned is taken into account, fourteen (states) are obtained by leaving out nine material states from one head of continuity; and thirty-three states are obtained by adding the nature-decad of those endowed with nature. And if what has not been mentioned from among these is taken into account, fifteen states are obtained by leaving out eighteen material states from the two heads of continuity. #76157 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Sep 8, 2007 7:42 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views; Parts I, II, III indriyabala --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > I thank you and congratulate you for your excellent > presentation of Self and Self Views in three parts. > I have, in particular, noted the following points. > ....... ... etc. > > Han: On the whole, I have no difficulty in accepting > your presentation, Tep. > T: Thank you very much for your kind feedback; it feels like a cool breeze in a hot summer. Tep === #76158 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Sep 8, 2007 7:59 pm Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge indriyabala Hi RobK, - I truly appreciate your question & comment below. > > > Dear Tep > Is your position that there is a person who practices? > This would be in conflict with what is taught in the Visuddhimagga: > QUOTE > "There is no doer of a deed, or one who reaps the result. Phenomena > alone flow on, no other view than this right." > Visuddhimagga XIX19 > > > QUOTE > "This is mere mentality-materiality, there is no being, no person" > XVIII24 > > > QUOTE > "The mental and material (nama rupa) are really here > But here is no human being to be found, for it is void and merely > fashioned like a doll" > XVII31 > Robert > T: Yes, you're right that it is my position, namely "there is a person who practices", given that "a person" is defined as a self in the Category 2.1 (see Part III of "Some Findings .."). However, I respectfully disagree that this position is in conflict with the Vism. quotes that you gave above. Why? Because the Ven. Buddhaghosa used the Abhidhammic perspective, not the real world perspective of worldlings like you and me. Tep === #76159 From: "nidive" Date: Sat Sep 8, 2007 8:06 pm Subject: Re: Another Observation about Mindfulness nidive Hi Jon, > Seriously, though, is it your understanding that the Kimsuka Sutta > says that insight can only be developed if preceded by the > development of mundane samatha (or something to that effect)? Do you actually understand English? The sutta says that both insight & samatha are required to issue in accurate report of nibbana. It never mentions samatha precedes insight (or vice versa) anywhere. This is not the issue in Kimsuka. > If so, what particular part(s) of the sutta do you see as saying > that? If not, then I'm afraid I've lost the thread ;-)) Let's hope that you are not lost in Fiji! > I'm afraid I don't follow what you mean by "(d) is insufficient for > crossing over the floods". Each of these paragraphs explains ways > that do *not* lead to the crossing over of the flood. Never mind. I don't expect you to follow me behind. I can't be responsible if you get lost. > It is clearly a deliberate choice rather than an accidental slip. > In (d) there is wrong view in both the sink part and the swept away > part. In (c) there is wrong view ('ditthi') in the swept away part > So although I don't feel capable of explaining what it's all about, > I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it contains unintentional > errors. I take it that you prefer to believe in something that clearly doesn't make any sense. And to me, that is no different than Christians believing whatever the Bible says, or Muslims believing whatever the Quran says. Swee Boon #76160 From: "nidive" Date: Sat Sep 8, 2007 8:27 pm Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge nidive Hi Tep, > T: With the craving to win a debate, of course you will be too busy > watching who is going to blink first (instead of focusing on the > issues) ! It is funny how both of us can come to the same conclusion about a person! Swee Boon #76161 From: "nidive" Date: Sat Sep 8, 2007 8:55 pm Subject: Re: "there is no ‘person’" - "The controversy on ‘person’ is ended" nidive Hi Tep, > > Therefore, there are 3 ideas to be reviewed: > > (1) there are the five individual aggregates, > > (2) there is the sum of the five individual aggregates known > > conventionally as a person or living being, and > > (3) there is the assuming of a self as present within the 'sum' > > known conventionally as a person or living being. > > T: Good analysis of the Dhamma, Swee. When these three issues/ideas > and anatta-lakkhana are well understood, the controversy on > 'person' is ended. It is heartening to know that you agree with what I said. For the Abhidhammikas, I think there is a confusion about point (2). Because they take only the aggregates to be real (paramattha dhammas) and any other things as unreal (concepts), they take the 'person' to be a concept that doesn't exist, which is why they say there is no person, no devas, no brahmas and no buddhas. However, if they had said that there is no self of a person/deva/ brahma/buddha to be found in the aggregates, I would agree with them because that self is an assumption, a fabrication of the mind. Swee Boon #76162 From: "nidive" Date: Sat Sep 8, 2007 9:20 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: two kinds of truths. Meaning and letter. nidive Hi Dieter, > Anatta -in my view- is a progress of detachment .. a giving up of > identification, clinging. The Self appears to be real until its > last fetter (conceit ) is abolished in an advanced Ariya state, Maybe I can complement your understanding with a sutta quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.001.than.html He should develop the perception of inconstancy so as to uproot the conceit, 'I am.' For a monk perceiving inconstancy, the perception of not-self is made firm. One perceiving not-self attains the uprooting of the conceit, 'I am' — Unbinding in the here & now." ------------------------------------------------------------------- > I have a bit difficulties with the present discussions about the > person.. how about you? Not really. I am not into the Abhidhammic concept of 'concepts being unreal & not existing'. It's just pure conceptual nonsense. Swee Boon #76163 From: "nidive" Date: Sat Sep 8, 2007 11:22 pm Subject: Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views nidive Hi Howard, > Jon I truly find this discussion very odd. I'm afraid I have > nothing further to offer on it. (Sorry) I speculate the underlying reason you find it odd is because Jon maintains that the atta is a concept that doesn't exist, and thus we should not discuss about a concept in such detail as Tep is doing, because doing so would be akin to giving 'life' or 'status' to something that doesn't deserve it due to its being non-existent. In other words, the 'insides & internals' of a concept should not be discussed. Likewise, the 'insides & internals' of persons (whatever you think of this to be) such as Sarah, Nina, Scott and Jon should not be discussed, since in reality, persons such as Sarah, Nina, Scott and Jon do not exist. Remember, there are only rupas, cittas & cetasikas, and we should only discuss about the 'insides & internals' of these three things. If you can do this and fall in line with the rest, I think that will make you a true blue DSG Abhidhammika. Swee Boon #76164 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 12:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views; Parts I, II, III nilovg Dear Tep and Han, thank you Tep for your research. There is a problem with the word form. Sometimes it stands for ruupa as visible object, and it can also refer to ruupajhaanas. Is it possible perhaps that 2 refers to ruupa-jhaana and 3 to aruupa- jhaana? In that case it could refer to ruupa-jhaanacitta one takes for self and to aruupa-jhaanacitta one takes for self. no 1 could refer to kaamaavacara citta. I have no time to look again at the sutta and co, this is just a suggestion. Nina. Op 9-sep-2007, om 2:52 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > 2.1 Gross acquisition of a self (possessed of form, > feeding on food) > 2.2 Mind-made acquisition of a self (possessed of > form, made from citta and cetasika) > 2.3 Formless acquisition of a self (a percept of > perception) #76165 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 12:09 am Subject: Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views jonoabb Hi Swee Boon (and all 'Abhidhammikas') --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > > Jon I truly find this discussion very odd. I'm afraid I have > > nothing further to offer on it. (Sorry) > > I speculate the underlying reason you find it odd is because Jon > maintains that the atta is a concept that doesn't exist, and thus we > should not discuss about a concept in such detail as Tep is doing, > because doing so would be akin to giving 'life' or 'status' to > something that doesn't deserve it due to its being non-existent. > > In other words, the 'insides & internals' of a concept should not be > discussed. Likewise, the 'insides & internals' of persons (whatever > you think of this to be) such as Sarah, Nina, Scott and Jon should > not be discussed, since in reality, persons such as Sarah, Nina, > Scott and Jon do not exist. > > Remember, there are only rupas, cittas & cetasikas, and we should > only discuss about the 'insides & internals' of these three things. > > If you can do this and fall in line with the rest, I think that will > make you a true blue DSG Abhidhammika. Well spoken! On the strenght of this I'd be happy to move your admission as a probationary member of the gang of Abhidhammikas (but only if, of course, you'd be prepared to accept the nimination ;-)) Do I have a seconder? Jon #76166 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 12:36 am Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge jonoabb Hi Tep --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Jon, - ... > T: True, in the ultimate sense there are no people and things seen > with the Dhamma Eye. And the same applies as regards the 'ordinary eye'. For both the ariyan and the non-ariyan, the moment of seeing consciousness arising at the eye-base experiences (i.e., "sees") only visible object, and the hearing consciousness arising at the ear-base experiences (i.e., "hears") only audible object. This refers of course to the actual moments of sense-door consciousness, and not to the moments of javana consciousness that follow them. The difference between the ariyan and the non-ariyan lies in how the objects that are experienced through the eye/ear base at moments of seeing and hearing are perceived during the ensuing javana moments. > But IF the ariyans CAN see people and things > with their ordinary eyes, then it logically follows that people and > things must be real (i.e. can be sensed by eyes, ..., mind). SO, > there are two levels of "seeing" the world. As explained above, not two levels of actual experiencing through the sense-doors, but 2 levels of perceiving what has been so experienced - with insight, and without insight. > Seeing with the Dhamma Eye is perceiving the six external ayatanas > (forms, sounds, ...) with no tanha and ditthi. Is this how you > understand it, too? I understand the 'Dhamma Eye' to refer to the panna that accompanies the javana consciousness at moments of insight or in the ariyan. Yes, no tanha and no ditthi. But that is not peculiar to the Dhamma Eye; the non-ariyan also has moments of javana that are without tanha and ditthi (even some kinds of akusala cittas may fit this description). However, the ariyan has eradicated all latent tendencies of wrong view (and the arahant those of tanha in addition), so there is a difference in perception occurring by virtue of this, I believe. > T: The five aggregates and sense sphere (salayatana) are real and not- > self (they exist, although undergoing change in each fleeting > moment). Perceiving them as "this is mine" or "this is what I am" > or "this is my self" is conditioned by a fetter of view(ditthi- > samyojana). Anyone who realizes that such a view is wrong, s/he then > develops the right perspective of seeing people as five aggregates > without clinging to them as compact or "whole". If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that the person who realises that seeing the world as truly consisting of people and things is not right view can somehow develop the perspective of seeing them as the five aggregates. That would not be my understanding of satipatthana/insight development. To my understanding, it is by virtue of any presently arising dhamma being seen with panna as it really is that an understanding of the five aggregates is developed in due course. > Once they've become > ariyans, "they no longer mis-take people and things as being real in > the ultimate sense". But people and things do not disappear or become > illusion because of the Dhamma Eye. Agreed. Otherwise ariyans would not be able to live in the world. > That's a one-peso comment. If it's got my agreement, it can't be worth that much ;-)). Jon #76167 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 12:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections corner, extra. nilovg Dear Han, you made a some remarks worth considering. Op 8-sep-2007, om 8:51 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > You have also quoted that equanimity > (tatramajjhattataa) supports metta, it is > indispensable. I believe that the perfection of > upekkhaa supports not only the perfection of mettaa > but also all other perfections. That’s why I started > off with the perfection of upekkhaa in Perfections > Corner. ------- N: This is very good. The perfection of upekkhaa supports all the other perfections. Sometimes one point is emphasized, sometimes another one and this is not contradictory. All perfections support one another and also the perfection of wisdom is indispensable. I read (not in Kh Sujin's book but in B.B.'s translation of the Co, p. 279) about pa~n~naa: --------- > > Han: (3) You have also quoted Khun Sujin that without an > understanding of anattaa, the mettaa is always very > limited. Here again, I believe that the understanding > of anattaa is necessary for all perfections, because > anattaa and upekkhaa are closely inter-twined. But my > understanding of atta and anattaa are very confusing. > I am still trying to sort it out. -------- N: You are not alone, it is difficult for all of us so long as we are not sotaapannas. When it is said that understanding is necessary for the development of the paramis, we have to consider what that means, what level. We, as beginners, cannot be expected to have complete understanding of anatta. But by listening we acquire a basic understanding of nama and rupa and also that the idea of self is deeply rooted. So much so that we take kusala and akusala for self. We come to understand the benefit of having less defilements and that that is the aim of the development of the paramis. Here is a quote from the Ch on Energy, showing that understanding the disadvantage of akusala and the benefit of kusala is important: < In daily life everybody has come into contact with undesirable objects: for some people these are extremely undesirable, whereas for others these are only slightly so. This may happen when one meets another person on account of whom one is disturbed or feels displeasure. If sati-sampajañña (sati and paññå) does not arise, one does not know that there is akusala dhamma at such a moment and hence kusala viriya has no opportunity to arise and akusala viriya arises instead. There are bound to be conditions for desire and attachment so that akusala continues to arise. However, if someone has listened to the Dhamma and develops satipaììhåna, sati-sampajañña can arise and be aware of akusala when he is irritated or displeased. We should consider more deeply the meaning of sati-sampajañña. When akusala dhamma arises, sati- sampajañña may consider the Dhamma and realize the disadvantage of the continuation of akusala. At that moment, it may be known that it is not proper to be irritated in whatever respect, be it on account of the action or speech of someone else, or be it because we have noticed something wrong. When, for example, akusala citta with anger arises and sati-sampajaññå can be aware of its characteristic, we can see whether there is effort for giving up anger; if one continues being angry it means that akusala viriya is still strong. When kusala viriya has been further developed and awareness can arise, there are conditions for the decrease of displeasure and for mettå. Thus, instead of anger which is an impure dhamma there can immediately be a change to kusala dhamma, dhamma which is pure.> Instead of anger mentioned in this text we can also think of sadness or aversion, since these are all dosa cetasika. Han, you realize when there is upekkhaa of the householder, which is not wholesome, and this is a level of understanding already. If you had not listened to the Dhamma you would not have known. Nina. #76168 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 12:53 am Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge jonoabb Hi Tep --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Hi Jon and Swee, - > > Sorry to drag on the discussion issue that may be compared with a big > pot of stew that has been served repeatedly for several days. And gets tastier every day ;-)) > Now only a few adults are left at the dinner table. Yes, we can take our time. No need to worry about the kids eating the pot bare. ... > T: Yup, only ariyans see dhammas the way they truly are with the > Dhamma Eye, which is the direct knowledge of the Four Noble Truths > (see MN 2). The Dhamma Eye of the Sotapanna is the first insight to > be developed by virtuous Buddhists. See Nagara Sutta, SN 12.65. > > "I saw an ancient path, an ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self- > awakened Ones of former times. And what is that ancient path, that > ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former > times? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right aspiration, > right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right > mindfulness, right concentration. ... No argument from me on this. But as I understand it, while only the ariyan's direct knowledge is fully developed, direct knowledge of a lesser degree (but nevertheless, still direct knowledge, which can only arise after hearing the dhamma) is also developed by the sekhaa. > Jon: That's why we rely heavily on the commentaries. > > T: That heavy leaning CAN become a bias, then it may > condition "making a big deal out of the issue". Yes, any part of the teachings can be misunderstood and/or misapplied. But that doesn't affect its true value. > T: You were discussing earlier with Swee who wrote. ... > > T: I can only explain why breathing meditation and insights that > spring from the practice, for instance, are experienced phenomena. > Indeed, all meditations the Buddha taught in the sutta, e.g. see DN > 22, are to be "experienced" by the meditator. That is obvious, if you > accept the fact that there are the dhammas taught by the real Buddha > (who existed) and that there are practictioners who experience them. > ......... You say "the real Buddha (who existed)". Isn't there a sutta where the Buddha deals with the question of whether the Tathaagatha can be said to exist or not? > T: It might as well be true that it was just Tep who made a wrong > interpretation and a "big deal" of our good friend Swee's deep > perspective. Only Swee can tell ... But Swee's not taking the hint ... Jon #76169 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 1:24 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Another Observation about Mindfulness jonoabb Hi Sarah and Tep (and Swee Boon) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Tep & Jon, > > > >Tep: For example, Kimsuka Sutta clearly says that insight & samatha > >comes > > in a pair in order to issue into nibbana, but you interpret it as > > insight with jhana as basis for enlightenment. > ... > S: Kimsuka Sutta, SN 35:245 (Bodhi transl): > > "....'The swift pair of messengers': this is a designation for serenity > and insight. 'The lord of the city': this is designation for > consciousness*...." > > [*BB note: Spk identifies this as the insight-mind (vipassanaacitta), > which is the prince to be coronated with the coronation of arahantship by > the two messengers, serenity and insight."] > > S: Serenity and insight, samatha (calm) and vipassana, I take to be > referring to the 'yoked' qualities of samatha and panna at moments of > vipassana nanas. I don't take it to necessarily be referring to jhana. > > Happy to hear any corrections from the commentary. Thanks for this. I stand corrected (based on the commentary passage quoted by BB). This 'yoked' samatha, as I understand it, is the samadhi of the mundane insight consciousness, rather than samatha bhavana leading to mundane jhana. Jon #76170 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 1:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views nilovg Dear Swee Boon, Perhaps it helps when reading texts that there are two methods; the Suttanta method and the Abhidhamma method. Also in the Abhidhamma books, such as the Vibhanga, there is mention of two methods. These are not in conflict at all. We can distinguish the stream of cittas including accumulated kusala and akusala, plus rupas, of this individual and of that individual. Nina. Op 9-sep-2007, om 8:22 heeft nidive het volgende geschreven: > Likewise, the 'insides & internals' of persons (whatever > you think of this to be) such as Sarah, Nina, Scott and Jon should > not be discussed, since in reality, persons such as Sarah, Nina, > Scott and Jon do not exist. > > Remember, there are only rupas, cittas & cetasikas, and we should > only discuss about the 'insides & internals' of these three things. #76171 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 1:50 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views jonoabb Hi Howard (and Swee Boon) I'd like to adopt Swee Boon's answer as my own ;-)) (I do realise Swee was speaking for Jon rather expressing his own thoughts). I have one or two comments of my own to add. It's--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Jon - ... > Howard: > Jon, please. The texts also don't tell you that you need special > technology to participate on DSG. As for what 'anatta' means, well, the 'a' is a > linguistic negation prefix in Pali as it often is in English, for example in > 'asymmetric'. the word 'anatta' means either "no self" or "not self" depending > on context, but is most certainly based on 'atta'. > ---------------------------------------------------------- It's of course true that the word "anatta" is based on the word "atta". But I do think that if the *meaning* of "anatta" was based on the *meaning* of "atta", that's something that would be in the texts. ... > If you have any textual support for the urgency of knowing more about > the 'alleged fantasy item' I'd be interested to see it. > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I don't know what you would look for more than understanding our own > language. What is this "textual support" business, Jon? You need a text to tell > you that knowing what you are talking about is important? Whatever happened to the favoured Howard retort, "If it's not in the suttas, Jon, then it wasn't in the leaves held in the Buddha's hand"? ;-)) > I* find this discussion utterly crazy! Now I must explain that your Abhidhammika status is only probationary at this stage, and I may have to refer this post to the next meeting of the membership sub-committee ;-)) > Jon I truly find this discussion very odd. I'm afraid I have nothing > further to offer on it. (Sorry) Actually, the texts do have quite a lot to say about "atta", except that it is atta in the context of "clinging to self" (attanaupadana) or "wrong view of self" (sakaya ditthi). In fact, the term "ditthi" (= miccha ditthi) in its usual sense includes wrong view of self. Then there's the Brahmajala Sutta which deals exhaustively with the diffent kinds of ditthi. So there is much in the texts (but not perhaps in the terms you have been arguing for). Jon #76172 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 1:56 am Subject: Re: Another Observation about Mindfulness jonoabb Hi Swee Boon --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > > Seriously, though, is it your understanding that the Kimsuka Sutta > > says that insight can only be developed if preceded by the > > development of mundane samatha (or something to that effect)? > > Do you actually understand English? The sutta says that both insight > & samatha are required to issue in accurate report of nibbana. It > never mentions samatha precedes insight (or vice versa) anywhere. > This is not the issue in Kimsuka. There is some relevant commentary on this. See Sarah's post and my reply to it of a short time ago. > > If so, what particular part(s) of the sutta do you see as saying > > that? If not, then I'm afraid I've lost the thread ;-)) > > Let's hope that you are not lost in Fiji! I could think of worse places to be lost! > > I'm afraid I don't follow what you mean by "(d) is insufficient for > > crossing over the floods". Each of these paragraphs explains ways > > that do *not* lead to the crossing over of the flood. > > Never mind. I don't expect you to follow me behind. I can't be > responsible if you get lost. Now it's Uncle Swee to little Jon! .. > I take it that you prefer to believe in something that clearly > doesn't make any sense. And to me, that is no different than > Christians believing whatever the Bible says, or Muslims believing > whatever the Quran says. Again, you mean it doesn't make sense *to you*!! Jon #76173 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 2:38 am Subject: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘person’" - "The controversy on ‘person’ is ended" sarahprocter... Hi Tep (& Howard), .... > H: I think it is hard to find Pali suttas that speak of "no person". As would > James, I too would like to see some. <....> .... > T: I agree with you about the difficulty to find even one Pali sutta that > speaks of 'no person' or 'no beings'. .... S: Does "Here no being is found" not suffice as given in the sutta I quoted from recently?: http://www.accessto insight.org/ tipitaka/ sn/sn05/sn05. 010.bodh. html "Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found. Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So, when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.' It's only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering ceases." ... >T: More important, there are no > suttas that speak of 'no Buddha' like Sarah has interpreted . .... S: Does "In truth and reality, here and now the Tathaagata is not to be found" not suffice as often quoted from the Yamaka Sutta, SN 22:85 B.Bodhi transl: " 'What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard from as the Tathaagata.......feeling...perception...volitional formations...consciousness as the Tathaagata?' - 'No, friend.' 'What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard the Tathaagata as in form?....apart from form... apart from consciousness?' - 'No, friend.' 'What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard form.....consciousness [taken together] as the Tathaagata?' - 'No, friend.' 'What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard the Tathaagata as one who is without form.....consciousness?' - 'No, friend.' 'But, friend, when the Tathaagata is not apprehended by you as real and actual here in this very life, is it fitting for you to declare: 'As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death'?'" S: Yamaka says he did hold that pernicious view but not if he were to answer what happens to arahants at the end of life, he'd answer: " 'Friends, form is impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering; what is suffering has ceased and passed away. Feeling....Perception...Volitional formations...Consciousness is impermanent......passed away." S: In other words, after speaking to Sariputta he was now completely clear that there was no person, no being, no Sariputta, no Buddha. Only the aggregates which are impermanent and dukkha. No being in form, apart from form, as form, without form or as a combination of form and other khandhas. ... >T: Indeed, > there is always a danger of making incorrect "further elaborations and > comments on the original words of the Teachings". ... S: We all agree on this! ... >T: The following sutta, among several other suttas like it, not only affirms > existence of the Buddha, but also the existence of beings in this and > other worlds. > > MN 38 : "Bhikkhus, a Tathagata arises in the world <....> .... S: How do you understand this in the light of the Yamaka sutta and the entire Abhidhamma Pitaka? Metta, Sarah p.s Thank you very much for your helpful series on atta/anatta. Can we simply say that when it is not visible object which appears, it is atta? When it is not sound which appears, it is atta (and so on for the other senses)?. Likewise, can we say that when there's no understanding that it is seeing consciousness which experiences/is the experiencing of visible object, it is atta (and so on for the other senses)? ======================= ======== #76174 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 2:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘person’" - "The controversy on ‘person’ is ended" sarahprocter... Hi James, (& Scott), [Scott, thank you for your helpful notes on satta] --- buddhatrue wrote: > James: Radha asked the Buddha, "'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. > To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?" And the Buddha answers > with "...one is said to be 'a being'" where there are present the five > clinging aggregates. Now, this could not be any more direct. A > "being" is the five clinging aggregates. If Radha asked, "When is one > said to be a being?" And the Buddha answered, "Beings don't exist" > then I would agree with you 100%. But the Buddha gives the definition > for what is termed "a being". .... S: As Scott and I both mentioned, the term for being here is satta. This is exactly the same term as used in the other sutta I quoted which clearly says "there is no being". http://www.accessto insight.org/ tipitaka/ sn/sn05/sn05. 010.bodh. html "Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found. ***** As we've also both pointed out, in the other context about 'a state of being', it is not satta that is being referred to but continued samsara, continued rebirth. No more of such when there is the eradication of all wrong views. Metta, Sarah ======== #76175 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 3:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Another Observation about Mindfulness (old post of Suan) sarahprocter... Hi Mike, (Excuse me butting in on a couple of older messages of yours) --- m_nease wrote: > > N: Yes, for these (conventional) things we can tell, but as for the > > latent tendencies, that is hard to tell. Kh Sujin said re different > > temperaments (for the choosing of a meditation subject) that only the > > person who develops satipatthana knows. > > Sure, hence the need for a kalyaa.namitta (which I take to refer to an > ariyapuggala in this context) for this sort of thing "(for the > choosing of a meditation subject)". ... S: I think when it comes to really understanding another's accumulations and what is suitable, it takes the wisdom of a Buddha to know. As we read, even Sariputta and other great arahants did not always know. And then, of course, so much depends on conditions as to what will be understood or reflected on wisely at any given time. Selecting an object for reflection is fraught with ideas of selection, control and atta for most of us, I think. .... >....was there a point pertinent to our discussion of going forth and > the propriety of jhaanabhaavanaa for bhikkhus that I've missed? ... S: In recent discussions, I mentioned some details and posts in which people had referred to suitable conditions, like those quoted in the Vism, such as solitude, the right place and so on. KS was shaking her head and just emphasising the importance of right understanding. Otherwise akusala attachment will always be taken for kusala calm and concentration. So it all begins with understanding now: what is samatha, what is calm? Let me know if you have any further comments - always good to hear them, Mike. Metta, Sarah ========= #76176 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 3:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘person’" - "The controversy on ‘person’ is ended" sarahprocter... Hi Swee Boon, --- nidive wrote: > I think there is a difference between 'no self' and 'no person'. > > Take the Vajira Sutta which you quoted in another post (which I will > reply on another day): > > What? Do you assume a 'living being,' Mara? > Do you take a position? > This is purely a pile of fabrications. > Here no living being > can be pinned down. > > Here "assume a 'living being'" means that one assumes a self view. > This is evident when the question is posed: Do you take a position? .... S: Yes, it is sakkaya ditthi - self view, personality view, being view. S: "Mara, have you grasped a view?" This is referring to di.t.thi (wrong view), yes, self view .... > This is further proven to be correct by Mara's questions: > By whom was this living being created? > Where is the living being's maker? > Where has the living being originated? > Where does the living being cease? > > So, Sister Vajira is telling Mara not to assume a self to be within > the five aggregates. A self cannot be identified among the five > aggregates. ... S: Yes. ... > But is there 'a person'? Yes, conventionally speaking as Sister > Vajira attests to. > > Just as when, with an assemblage of parts, > there's the word, chariot, > even so when aggregates are present, > there's the convention of living being. ... S: Yes conventionally speaking only. .... > Therefore, there are 3 ideas to be reviewed: > (1) there are the five individual aggregates, ... S: Yes. ... > (2) there is the sum of the five individual aggregates known > conventionally as a person or living being, and ... S: Yes. As discussed before, there can be the use of such a convention with or without wrong view. .... > (3) there is the assuming of a self as present within the 'sum' known > conventionally as a person or living being. ... S: Yes, this is the wrong view referred to. Likewise, if the person or living being is seen as anything other than a convention, it's wrong. Thanks for you helpful comments. Metta, Sarah p.s As for Jon being lost in Fiji - not such a joke! They had a State of Emergency the other day and he was right in the thick of things from what I gather.... somehow he still manages to post to us! ========== #76177 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 3:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to E-card from Bangkok 3 (1) - Vipallaasas sarahprocter... Hi Mike, --- "m. nease" wrote: > S: Would you like to say any more on your comment about 'even more > important'? I'd be glad to hear your reflections. > > M: If you like--it's really just that if they attend ALL akusala > cittas then they're nearly all-important. I just hadn't realized they > were quite that ubiquitous (since we seldom experience any other kind of > (waking) citta, I think). ... S: Yes, I agree! VERY ubiquitous indeed. .... > > M: I've been somewhat preoccuped with sa~n~naa for the last year > or so because it seems to me that most pleasant and unpleasant feeling > (and of course attachment and aversion arising with them) occur more > with regard to those (perverse) perceptions arising with pa.n.natti > rather than those arising with dhammas, don't you think? ... S: I think the reason that the sense doors are stressed so much is because without seeing of visible object, hearing of sound and so on, there would not be the perverse perceptions of pa.n.natti on account of them. So this is why the suttas stress the 'not attending to the signs and details'. Of course, it doesn't mean, no thinking about these (even an arahat thinks), but developing awareness and understanding of seeing, of visible object, of thinking and not being lost in the world of pa.n.natti, taking the perverse for the good. ... >It isn't the > instantaneous scintillae of colour or sound that are the raw material > for 'the hummingbird' that condition the most attachment, in other > words--it's the subsequently assembled 'whole', I think (though of > course there can be instantaneous attachment to a moment of color or > sound too). ... S: Yes, the whole package. But, there's be no 'whole' if there weren't the numerous colours and sounds and accumulated perversions to condition the attachment. ... > S: p.s You'd appreciate all the bird-life here on Sydney beaches - > herons, > shags, colourful parrots, kukkaburrahs....lots I don't know...So many > opportunities of sa~n~naa vipallaasa in a day! > > M: Ain't it the truth--Lilliwaup Bay's pretty delightful this time > of year too. Naturally, I will opt for the pleasant perversions when I > can get them... ... S: :-)) And if thought to try and avoid them by going into solitude, that would be a kind of wrong view too. It always comes back to the understanding of the 'all', no matter how perverted much of that 'all' is! Thanks for sharing all your helpful reflections on sa~n~na, Mike. Metta, Sarah ====== #76178 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 3:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Memory like a Sieve . . . [Found, not Lost] sarahprocter... Hi Colette, (Apologies for the delay in response to this one) --- colette wrote: > Good Day Sarah, > > Boy, you seem to be aiming for something that does not exist (see > Larry, Howard, and I indiscussing the principles of Sunyata or > Shunyata. .... S: I forget what I said. Atta does not exist. Sabbe dhamma anatta. All dhammas are anatta/sunyata. .... > colette: I'm sure that Hong Kong harbour is still a wonderful place > to observe but now you've got Hong Kong Airport built on a manmade > island and all those aircraft landing/taking off in that tight > airspace with all those skyscrappers. That must be interesting to > watch. ... S: You certainly keep a close tab on everyting, everywhere, Colette! ... >YET, > > S:Let's get back to namas and rupas, Colette! What are the realities > at this > > moment as you read now? All these stories and dreams won't bring us > closer > > to the truths, will they? > > colette: and what is it that brings us closer to the truth or to a > truth? is it not the ACTUAL EXPERIENCE that one has stored in the > alaya-vijnana, their memory, their conditioning, which causes us to > actually visualize the RETRIBUTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS (see Ngongdro)? ... S: I think it's the growth of wisdom. Everyone has lots of actual experience - it doesn't get us anywhere. It's the understanding of the present experience that counts. .... >But > don't we recall that this truth, whatever it may be at this very > second, is sunya or empty, thus making it valueless for the simple > reason that your truth is not the same as my truth or any other > person's truth? ... S: Visible object is visible object. Sound is sound. Feeling is feeling. These are dhammas that can be known. No 'mine', 'yours' or anyone else's involved. The truth is the truth and that is that dhammas are empty of self. ... >I think to contemplate the nature of value or the > truth of value, no? ... S: So this is why I keep coming back to namas and rupas which can be known now. This is the truth. .... > thanx for the dialogue and the interaction. I enjoyed this post! ... S: Kind of you to say so! ... > but now I've just gotta go mess around with those WEstern esoteric > traditions since they are a part of this, in my case, as well, and I > am personally getting a lot of satisfaction from having my decades of > work with the kaballah, blending so well with my new study in > buddhism. ... S: Glad you're finding it satisfactory and useful. Just excuse us for skipping the other parts and highlighting the Buddhist parts! Best wishes, Colette. Metta, Sarah ======= #76179 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 4:49 am Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge indriyabala Hi, Swee, - Thank you for sharing a thought with me. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > > T: With the craving to win a debate, of course you will be too busy > > watching who is going to blink first (instead of focusing on the > > issues) ! > > It is funny how both of us can come to the same conclusion about a > person! > > Swee Boon > T: I think as long as we find it funny and can let it go, then we can "debate" with anyone about anything with no problems. Tep === #76180 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 4:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What is Concentration? sarahprocter... Hi Howard, I don't remember anyone responding to this post. Thx for sharing your reflections. --- upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, all - > > Concentration is said to be one-pointedness of mind/attention. > What > can that mean? At any time, there is but one object of consciousness - > exactly > one. Does that mean that concentration is always maximal? Clearly not. > There > are degrees of concentration. So, how is this to be understood? ... S: Yes, as you suggested, it is one-pointed on one object at a time, but the quality of concentration depends on the citta and other cetasikas which it accompanies. ... >The > following is > my thinking: > A given phenomenon may persist for up to 17 mind-moments it is > said. > That is, as many as 17 moments of change (arisings and cessations) in > cetasikas > may occur while the same phenomenon is object of awareness. But change > of > object may occur more frequently than once each 17-moment interval. I > see > concentration as the operation that supports continuation of the object > of > consciousness. Put another way, it resists the adverting of attention > elsewhere. Thought > anyone? .... S: Let's take the sense-door process. As you say, there are usually 17 cittas experiencing the sense object. We read about the various complex conditions which determine this order and sequence, but nowhwere is concentration (ekaggata cetasika) given as one of the determining causes (or one of the causes of an object not running for 17 cittas), as far as I know. It's function is to focus on the object being experienced regardless of what that object is at any moment. This refers also to unwholesome cittas, of course, even when attention is distracted. Let me know if I've misunderstood and if this is the point before I say more! Metta, Sarah ========= #76181 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 4:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge sarahprocter... Hi Tep, --- Tep Sastri wrote: > > Hi Sarah (and James, Howard), - > > I am interested in your quote and commentary below. > > S (quoting B.Bodhi's note): > "The puggalavaada or "personalist" schools of Buddhism appealed to > this passage as proof for the existence of the person (puggala) as a > real entity, neither identical with the five aggregates nor different > from them. It is the puggala, they claimed, that persists through > change, undergoes rebirth, and eventually attains Nibbaana. This > tenet was bluntly rejected by the other Buddhist schools, who saw in > it a camourflaged version of the aatman, the self of the non-Buddhist > systems.....The mainstream Buddhist schools held that the person was > a mere convention (vohaara) or concept (pa~n~natti) derivative upon > (upaadaaya) the five aggregates, not a substantial reality in its own > right." > > T: I think there are several meanings of "self" (atta). The > personalist view above is just one of them. For example, another > meaning of "self" is of a permanent ego identity, or a soul. I > believe you prefer the mainstream Buddhist view of self as > a "person" , i.e. it is derived from the five aggregates. Am I > correct? .... S: In this context, it is 'person' being referred to. This I see as being sakkaya ditthi. As I've discussed before with Han, I believe that attanuditthi is broader and as I just mentioned at the end of a message to you, whenever what is seen, for example, is thought to be something other than visible object, I believe this is attanuditthi. So it's not a case of preferring one to the other. .... > Are the five aggregates real? If they are, then why is their > derivative not real (does not exist), or not a "substantial reality > in its own right" ? ... S: Yes, visible object is khandha and it's real. So too for other rupas. Perceptions, feelings, other cetasikas and cittas are real. They are khandhas. Person, computer and telephone are not khandhas. They are concepts thought about as a result of the experience of the khandhas. .......... > > "Spk [S: the commentary to the sutta]: Thus, by the expression 'the > carrier of the burden,' he shows the person to be a mere convention. > For the person is called the carrier of the burden because it 'picks > up' the burden of the aggregates at the moment of rebirth, maintains > the burden by bathing, feeding, seating, and laying them down during > the course of life, and then discards them at the moment of death, > only to take up another burden of aggregates at the moment of > rebirth." > > T: I only see that this commentary supports existence of a person, .... S: *he shows the person to be a mere convention*. This means, no existence of a person, just a 'mere convention'. ... > the "carrier" of the burden of the five aggregates, like you, me, and > Howard. The carrier's life exists, since s/he is defined by birth at > the beginning of a whole life that is nothing but dukkha. ... S: This is a convention. What arises at birth is a citta, cetasikas and rupas only. ... > What do you think? I hope you are not going to reply that the > commentary just used the "conventional speech", and then jump to the > familiar conclusion that a person is a mere "convention", not real. > That reply would put us back at the square zero again. {:-) .... S: Sorry, can't help it! At least you know my answers :-) ... > Please see my other post about the Buddha's approved definitions of > atta from DN 9. ... S: Thanks for all your work, Tep. Please don't mind if you receive various kinds of responses. Just the 8 worldly conditions. Always, praise and blame:). Metta, Sarah ========= #76182 From: han tun Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 5:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections corner, extra. hantun1 Dear Nina, Thank you ever so much for your kind explanation and kind advice. I have noted them with respect. * The perfection of upekkhaa supports all the other perfections. Sometimes one point is emphasized, sometimes another one and this is not contradictory. All perfections support one another and also the perfection of wisdom is indispensable. Wisdom is the chief cause for the practice of the other paramis. By means of wisdom, the act of relinquishing, exercised with skilful means and practised for the welfare of others, attains the status of a parami. Energy devoid of wisdom does not accomplish the purpose desired since it is wrongly aroused, and it is better not to arouse energy at all than to arouse it in the wrong way. But when energy is conjoined with wisdom, there is nothing it cannot accomplish, if equipped with the proper means. --------- * When it is said that understanding is necessary for the development of the paramis, we have to consider what that means, what level. We, as beginners, cannot be expected to have complete understanding of anatta. But by listening we acquire a basic understanding of nama and rupa and also that the idea of self is deeply rooted. So much so that we take kusala and akusala for self. We come to understand the benefit of having less defilements and that that is the aim of the development of the paramis. ---------- * In daily life everybody has come into contact with undesirable objects: for some people these are extremely undesirable, whereas for others these are only slightly so. This may happen when one meets another person on account of whom one is disturbed or feels displeasure. If sati-sampajañña (sati and paññå) does not arise, one does not know that there is akusala dhamma at such a moment and hence kusala viriya has no opportunity to arise and akusala viriya arises instead. There are bound to be conditions for desire and attachment so that akusala continues to arise. ---------- * However, if someone has listened to the Dhamma and develops satipaììhåna, sati-sampajañña can arise and be aware of akusala when he is irritated or displeased. When, for example, akusala citta with anger arises and sati-sampajaññå can be aware of its characteristic, we can see whether there is effort for giving up anger; if one continues being angry it means that akusala viriya is still strong. When kusala viriya has been further developed and awareness can arise, there are conditions for the decrease of displeasure and for mettå. Thus, instead of anger which is an impure dhamma there can immediately be a change to kusala dhamma, dhamma which is pure. Instead of anger mentioned in this text we can also think of sadness or aversion, since these are all dosa cetasika. ---------- * Han, you realize when there is upekkhaa of the householder, which is not wholesome, and this is a level of understanding already. If you had not listened to the Dhamma you would not have known. Han: Very true, Nina. Thank you very much. It is also very encouraging for me. Respectfully, Han --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Han, > you made a some remarks worth considering. #76183 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 5:08 am Subject: Re: "there is no ‘person’" - "The controversy on ‘person’ is ended" indriyabala Hi Swee (and all others)- Thank you very much for the important remarks below on the issue of no-self and not-self. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > > > Therefore, there are 3 ideas to be reviewed: > > > (1) there are the five individual aggregates, > > > (2) there is the sum of the five individual aggregates known > > > conventionally as a person or living being, and > > > (3) there is the assuming of a self as present within the 'sum' > > > known conventionally as a person or living being. > > > > T: Good analysis of the Dhamma, Swee. When these three issues/ideas and anatta-lakkhana are well understood, the controversy on 'person' is ended. > > It is heartening to know that you agree with what I said. > > For the Abhidhammikas, I think there is a confusion about point (2). > > Because they take only the aggregates to be real (paramattha dhammas) and any other things as unreal (concepts), they take the 'person' to be a concept that doesn't exist, which is why they say there is no person, no devas, no brahmas and no buddhas. > T: Yes, I think so. By heavily leaning toward the paramattha-dhamma perspective, "they take the 'person' to be a concept that doesn't exist". ............ Swee: > However, if they had said that there is no self of a person/deva/ > brahma/buddha to be found in the aggregates, I would agree with them because that self is an assumption, a fabrication of the mind. > T: Yes, I also would agree with them too ! The fabrication of the mind, or mental formations, known as attanuditthi or self views. You summarized the key issue very cleanly. Of course, the Abhidhammika gang will jump up and down madly in disagreement. Tep === #76184 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 5:45 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views; Parts I, II, III indriyabala Dear Nina (and Han), - I always benefit a lot from your inputs. N: Is it possible perhaps that 2 refers to ruupa-jhaana and 3 to aruupa-jhaana? In that case it could refer to ruupa-jhaanacitta one takes for self and to aruupa-jhaanacitta one takes for self. no 1 could refer to kaamaavacara citta. T: Let's go back to the DN 9 on the category 2. "Potthapada, there are these three acquisitions of a self: the gross acquisition of a self, the mind-made acquisition of a self, and the formless acquisition of a self. And what is the gross acquisition of a self? Possessed of form, made up of the four great existents, feeding on physical food: this is the gross acquisition of a self. And what is the mind-made acquisition of a self? Possessed of form, mind-made, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties: this is the mind-made acquisition of a self. And what is the formless acquisition of a self? Formless and made of perception: this is the formless acquisition of a self." 2.1 Gross acquisition of a self (possessed of form, feeding on food) 2.2 Mind-made acquisition of a self (possessed of form, made from citta and cetasika) 2.3 Formless acquisition of a self (a percept of perception) ........... T: You suggested that 2.1 "could refer to kaamaavacara citta', but how can such a citta possess of the four great elements and feed on food? Concerning "mind-made acquisition of a self", 2.2, I have a sutta evidence that indicates that it is acquired by supernormal power. DN 2: From this body he creates another body, endowed with form, made of the mind, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties. Just as if a man were to draw a reed from its sheath. The thought would occur to him: 'This is the sheath, this is the reed. The sheath is one thing, the reed another, but the reed has been drawn out from the sheath.' T: I also incline to believe that 2.3 could refer to arupa-jhana citta like you said. Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu's comment below might be helpful in this regard. Translator's NOte: Of particular interest here is the Buddha's treatment of the three "acquisitions of a self." The first — the gross self — refers to the ordinary, everyday sense of identifying with one's body. The latter two — the mind-made acquisition and the formless acquisition — refer to the sense of self that can be developed in meditation. The mind-made acquisition can result from an experience of the mind-made body — the "astral body" — that constitutes one of the powers that can be developed through concentration practice. The formless acquisition can result from any of the formless states of concentration — such as an experience of infinite space, infinite consciousness, or nothingness. Although meditators, on experiencing these states, might assume that they have encountered their "true self," the Buddha is careful to note that these are acquisitions, and that they are no more one's true self than the body is. They are one's acquisition of a self only for the time that one identifies with them. The Buddha goes on to say that he teaches the Dhamma for the sake of abandoning every acquisition of a self "such that, when you practice it, defiling mental qualities will be abandoned, bright mental qualities will grow, and you will enter & remain in the culmination & abundance of discernment, having known & realized it for yourself in the here & now." ........ Thank you very much for the comment. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Tep and Han, > thank you Tep for your research. > There is a problem with the word form. Sometimes it stands for ruupa > as visible object, and it can also refer to ruupajhaanas. Is it > possible perhaps that 2 refers to ruupa-jhaana and 3 to aruupa- > jhaana? In that case it could refer to ruupa-jhaanacitta one takes > for self and to aruupa-jhaanacitta one takes for self. no 1 could > refer to kaamaavacara citta. > I have no time to look again at the sutta and co, this is just a > suggestion. > Nina. #76185 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 5:52 am Subject: Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views scottduncan2 Dear Jon, Parapraxic analysis: J: "...nimination..." Scott: nimitta + nomination = nimination Wherein 'nimitta' is "...outward appearance, mark, characteristic, attribute, phenomenon.." and, of course, refers to pa~n~natti. J: "Do I have a seconder?" Scott: (Visualise the concept of ruupa made to move in a sequence of iterations which look to the eye as if 'someone' has raised 'a hand'). Sincerely, Scott. #76186 From: han tun Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 6:35 am Subject: Perfections Corner (12) hantun1 Dear All, This is the continuation of Chapter 10: The Perfection of Equanimity, taken from the book “The Perfections leading to Enlightenment” by Sujin Boriharnwanaket and translated by Nina van Gorkom. Questions, comments, or different opinions are welcome. ------------------------------ We need the greatest patience for the accumulation of generosity. We need energy, we need to be unshakable and firm in order to accomplish what is beneficial in all circumstances. The perfections are referred to in different ways, in slightly different wordings, although the meaning is the same. Seeing different aspects of the perfections will remind us to apply them. For example, we read in the Commentary to the “Theragaathaa”: “Aiming for the benefit of all beings which is the foundation of the practice of daana, siila and so on, is called loving-kindness, mettaa.” Thus, this is another aspect of mettaa. People who perform generous deeds may not investigate their cittas at such moments, they may not realize that they give because of mettaa. It is their nature to give and therefore, they perform generous deeds, they give things away for the benefit and happiness of others. If they consider their kusala citta they will know that mettaa is the foundation of their generosity. When they abstain from ill deeds through body and speech the foundation of their kusala is also mettaa. They do not want to cause suffering and distress to others by their actions or speech. ------------------------------ To be continued. Metta, Han #76187 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 7:25 am Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge indriyabala Hi Jon, - I can see and thus appreciate the time and thought you invested in writing this reply. Congratulations, you have shown the true blue color of an abhidhammika gang member. But, alas, there is no way back -- going, going, gone! Yes, there is a real disadvantage of going, going, gone! It seems to me that too heavy a leaning on the Abhidhamma, that goes deep down to the nitty-gritty details, can condition a bias in an Abhidhammika's mind toward unnecessary detail(anubyañjana)-- instead of helping him see the whole picture of the truth. The Abhidhamma itself, wonderful as it is, has nothing to do with such illusion in the abhidhammika's mind. Yours is not unlike the perspective of a physicist with a training in the molecular theories. He is so absorbed in his knowledge that he may see the whole world as nothing but atoms and empty spaces. That way-too-far perspective is indeed a disadvantage; it can even lead to a disaster. .......... Jon: For both the ariyan and the non-ariyan, the moment of seeing consciousness arising at the eye-base experiences (i.e., "sees") only visible object, and the hearing consciousness arising at the ear-base experiences (i.e., "hears") only audible object. This refers of course to the actual moments of sense-door consciousness, and not to the moments of javana consciousness that follow them. The difference between the ariyan and the non-ariyan lies in how the objects that are experienced through the eye/ear base at moments of seeing and hearing are perceived during the ensuing javana moments. ........... T: If I understand your nitty-gritty details of the seeing & hearing processes correctly, I think the citta-vithi is the same in any person, ariyan or not. The only difference between them, therefore, is that an ariyan does not conceive an atta because of a wrong self view(attanuditthi), i.e. the fetter of view. The important point is about the wrong view and how to eradicate it: it is not about 'no person', 'no-self', or "nothing can be found except the paramattha dhammas". ........... > Tep: But IF the ariyans CAN see people and things with their ordinary eyes, then it logically follows that people and things must be real (i.e. can be sensed by eyes, ..., mind). SO, there are two levels of "seeing" the world. Jon: As explained above, not two levels of actual experiencing through the sense-doors, but 2 levels of perceiving what has been so experienced - with insight, and without insight. T: The seeing in quotations means wisdom seeing. ........... > Tep: Seeing with the Dhamma Eye is perceiving the six external ayatanas (forms, sounds, ...) with no tanha and ditthi. Is this how you understand it, too? Jon: I understand the 'Dhamma Eye' to refer to the panna that accompanies the javana consciousness at moments of insight or in the ariyan. Yes, no tanha and no ditthi. But that is not peculiar to the Dhamma Eye; the non-ariyan also has moments of javana that are without tanha and ditthi (even some kinds of akusala cittas may fit this description). However, the ariyan has eradicated all latent tendencies of wrong view (and the arahant those of tanha in addition), so there is a difference in perception occurring by virtue of this, I believe. Tep: By definition Dhamma Eye is the insight of a Sotapanna, who has no fetter of views(attanuditthi). S/he still has mana-samyojana, though. ........... > Tep: The five aggregates and sense sphere (salayatana) are real and not-self (they exist, although undergoing change in each fleeting moment). Perceiving them as "this is mine" or "this is what I am" or "this is my self" is conditioned by a fetter of view(ditthi- samyojana). Anyone who realizes that such a view is wrong, s/he then develops the right perspective of seeing people as five aggregates without clinging to them as compact or "whole". Jon: If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that the person who realises that seeing the world as truly consisting of people and things is not right view can somehow develop the perspective of seeing them as the five aggregates. T: I am suggesting that wrong perception of the world(loka) or the five aggreagtes of clinging is due to the following view: "this is mine" or "this is what I am" or "this is my self" ......... Jon: If it's got my agreement, it can't be worth that much ;-)). T: A mexican Peso is about 8.97 US cents One Indian Rupee is about 2.46 US cents. But the Japanese Yen is cheapest! 1.00 JPY = 0.0088 USD. Is your opinion cheaper than 1 JPY? Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Tep > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep > Sastri" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon, - > ... > > T: True, in the ultimate sense there are no people and things seen > > with the Dhamma Eye. > #76188 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 8:15 am Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge indriyabala Hi Jon, - >Jon: > You say "the real Buddha (who existed)". Isn't there a sutta where > the Buddha deals with the question of whether the Tathaagatha can >be said to exist or not? > T: Can you quote the part you want to discuss, so we can start with that in the next message? I wonder why doubt whether the Buddha existed!! How can anyone call himself/herself a Buddhist without the faith that the Buddha existed and that He taught the Dhamma that is "lovely at the beginning, lovely in the middle, lovely at the ending, with the spirit and the letters" ? Of course, He existed. But who can confirm the truth that the Buddha existed more convincingly than the Buddha himself? "Even so, Aggivessana, does a Tathagata arise here in the world, a perfected one, fully Self-Awakened One, endowed with right knowledge and conduct, well-farer, knower of the worlds, the matchless charioteer of men to be tamed, the Awakened One, the Lord. He makes known this world with the devas, with Mara, with Brahma, the creation with its recluses and brahmans, its devas and men, having realized them by his own super-knowledge. He teaches dhamma which is lovely at the beginning, lovely in the middle, lovely at the ending, with the spirit and the letters; he proclaims the Brahma-faring, wholly fulfilled, quite purified. A householder or a householder's son or one born in another family hears that dhamma. Having heard that dhamma he gains faith in the Tathagata." [MN 125] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.125.horn.html T: If the Tathagata did not exist, then who discovered the Dhamma and how could the Dhamma be made known to this world with the devas, Mara, Brahma, and men? Tep === #76189 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 8:55 am Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Who could resist such an obviously Darwinian challenge?: T: "Sorry to drag on the discussion issue that may be compared with a big pot of stew that has been served repeatedly for several days. Now only a few adults are left at the dinner table..." It is suggested that: T: "It is very true that 'it is only dhammas that can be, and are to be, directly known and thus directly understood'. But the 'dhammas' are only seen by ariyans who 'see' emptiness and lack of substance in all sankhra dhammas...only ariyans see dhammas the way they truly are with the Dhamma Eye, which is the direct knowledge of the Four Noble Truths (see MN 2). The Dhamma Eye of the Sotapanna is the first insight to be developed by virtuous Buddhists..." Scott: I've yet to get a clear response to questions such as: 1) Why this insistence on Dhamma Eye? 2) Does the above mean that dhammas only exist when 'seen by ariyans'? 3) Do you posit a separate reality for non-ariyans? 4) If so, of what does this consist? 5) In what way would this separate reality be 'real'? 6) And how might it differ from another reality for ariyans? Thanks very much for your consideration. Sincerely, Scott. #76190 From: "m. nease" Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 10:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no 'person'" - "The controversy on 'person' is ended" m_nease Hi Sarah, ----- Original Message ----- From: sarah abbott To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 3:03 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no 'person'" - "The controversy on 'person' is ended" p.s As for Jon being lost in Fiji - not such a joke! They had a State of Emergency the other day and he was right in the thick of things from what I gather.... somehow he still manages to post to us! > I hope Jon can be of some help in settling Commodore Bainimarama's differences with Prime > Minister Qarase. Rose was there (across the island from Suva) a few years ago during another coup > (attempt?). It was bloodless like the one in 2006 and I hope things will remain so as they are sorted out. mike #76191 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 8:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘person’" - "The controversy on ‘person’ is ended" upasaka_howard Hi, Swee Boon (and Tep, and all) - In a message dated 9/8/2007 11:59:38 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, nidive@... writes: Hi Tep, > > Therefore, there are 3 ideas to be reviewed: > > (1) there are the five individual aggregates, > > (2) there is the sum of the five individual aggregates known > > conventionally as a person or living being, and > > (3) there is the assuming of a self as present within the 'sum' > > known conventionally as a person or living being. > > T: Good analysis of the Dhamma, Swee. When these three issues/ideas > and anatta-lakkhana are well understood, the controversy on > 'person' is ended. It is heartening to know that you agree with what I said. For the Abhidhammikas, I think there is a confusion about point (2). Because they take only the aggregates to be real (paramattha dhammas) and any other things as unreal (concepts), they take the 'person' to be a concept that doesn't exist, which is why they say there is no person, no devas, no brahmas and no buddhas. However, if they had said that there is no self of a person/deva/ brahma/buddha to be found in the aggregates, I would agree with them because that self is an assumption, a fabrication of the mind. Swee Boon =================================== Item 2 says "there is the sum of the five individual aggregates known conventionally as a person or living being." There are the phenomena comprising the 5 aggregates, interrelated in manifold complex ways. There also is the sum of these, but only in a sense. Where is that sum? My answer: In "the mind of the beholder," and nowhere else. The "summing" is done by thought. All there is to be found independent of thought are the interrelated dhammas - the namas and rupas. There is no person, per se, independent of conceptualization. With metta, Howard P.S. We were out of state for the last 24 hours and have a lot of posts to catch up on. So i will be slow to reply to any posts directed my way. #76192 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 8:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 9/9/2007 4:50:58 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Now I must explain that your Abhidhammika status is only probationary at this stage, and I may have to refer this post to the next meeting of the membership sub-committee ;-)) =============================== LOLOL! ;-)) I envisage myself as a poor waif, caught outside in a fierce winter storm with nose pressed up against the window of a warm, inviting restaurant, with blazing fireplace - a poor beggar enviously watching a happy family within, enjoying the warmth, conviviality, and sharing a wonderful repast. Ah, how that beggar prays for the miracle that he might be let in! (Well, maybe not!! ;-))) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream/ (From the Diamond Sutra) #76193 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 8:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What is Concentration? upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 9/9/2007 7:51:48 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: S: Let's take the sense-door process. As you say, there are usually 17 cittas experiencing the sense object. We read about the various complex conditions which determine this order and sequence, but nowhwere is concentration (ekaggata cetasika) given as one of the determining causes (or one of the causes of an object not running for 17 cittas), as far as I know. It's function is to focus on the object being experienced regardless of what that object is at any moment. This refers also to unwholesome cittas, of course, even when attention is distracted. Let me know if I've misunderstood and if this is the point before I say ============================== :-) You understood me. I'd like to hear more. With metta, Howard #76194 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 1:01 pm Subject: Re: "there is no ‘person’" - "The controversy on ‘person’ is ended" indriyabala Hi Sarah (Swee and Howard), Howard and I think that it is not easy to find a sutta that supports "no person" view. > T (talking to Howard): I agree with you about the difficulty to find even one Pali sutta that speaks of 'no person' or 'no beings'. ........... T: And you have found one sutta that is a dialogue, not a Teaching: S: Does "Here no being is found" not suffice as given in the sutta I quoted from recently?: http://www.accessto insight.org/ tipitaka/ sn/sn05/sn05. 010.bodh.html [T: Vajira Bhikkhuni's conversation with Mara] "Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found. Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So, when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.' It's only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering ceases." T: If you look at the words (anubyañjana) only, yes, this is one sutta with the words "no being". It is so obvious that the chariot exists, but when the beholder's perspective is on the disassembled parts (i.e. breaking down the whole into components), then there is no chariot. Just two opposite perspectives -- assembled/disassembled. It reminds me of the Patisambhidamagga that talks about the pairs of opposites, one is dukkha and the opposite is Nibbana. For example : arising/non-arising, occurrence/non-occurrence, birth.non-birth, etc. Indeed, these opposite dhammas exist. When assembled, there is chariot arisen. When disassembled, the components arise. In the same token the five aggregates exist; based on the ggregates, there is a perception of a real living person (who cannot avoid ageing and death, dukkha-domanasas, etc.) Detaching/unclinging in the khandhas results in the right view of seeing 'no person' in the person. The opposites are both real, but not at the same time. .............. T: You already had your conversation with Swee (#76176) about the above quote. Swee has got the right idea, I believe. Let me summarize his key ideas for discussion purpose. >Swee: Here "assume a 'living being'" means that one assumes a self view. This is evident when the question is posed: Do you take a position? Sarah: Yes, it is sakkaya ditthi - self view, personality view, being view. "Mara, have you grasped a view?" This is referring to di.t.thi (wrong view), yes, self view >Swee: So, Sister Vajira is telling Mara not to assume a self to be within the five aggregates. A self cannot be identified among the five aggregates. Sarah: Yes. T: I also understand it the same way; dukkha is due to taking attanuditthi on "a pile of fabrications" as a "living being" or a "self". It is wrong simply because such a self view in the five aggreagtes only leads to dukkha. The right view does not assume an ego-entity, a self, in Vajira Bhikkhuni. The right view based on "not- self" therefore avoids dukkha by dropping the ditthi-samyojana (fetter of view). However, the thinking that there is no self, no being, no Buddha, is not a right view that can abandon ditthi- samyojana; it can only cause confusion. .............. S: Does "In truth and reality, here and now the Tathaagata is not to be found" not suffice as often quoted from the Yamaka Sutta, SN 22:85 T: I understand "the Tathaagata is not to be found" means not to be found as a permanent ego-identity, a self Category 4, or Category 3 that is derived from attanuditthi. This understanding is supported by the next quote you gave : 'What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard the Tathaagata as one who is without form.....consciousness?' - 'No, friend.'. This is clear to me that the Tathaagata is derived from the five aggregates that are impermanent, and therefore He cannot be assumed to be a permanent self that is conceived from attanuditthi. ............... S: In other words, after speaking to Sariputta he was now completely clear that there was no person, no being, no Sariputta, no Buddha. Only the aggregates which are impermanent and dukkha. No being in form, apart from form, as form, without form or as a combination of form and other khandhas. T: Not so fast, Sarah. I see a serious contradiction: if he spoke to Sariputta, then how could he claim 'no Sariputta' ? Further, if there was no Buddha, then who taught them the Dhamma? I think the Tathagata existed and He was beyond the five aggregates of clinging that are aniccam, dukkham, anatta. "Beyond" the aggregates means the khandhas, when taken together or individually, could not completely define Him. He was not annihilated with the breakup of the body, yet He did not exist after death. He could not be apprehended by Yamaka as real and actual in the life even while he was living, because He was beyond ordinary people's grasping. That is my humble opinion. ............... >T: The following sutta, among several other suttas like it, not only affirms > existence of the Buddha, but also the existence of beings in this and > other worlds. > > MN 38 : "Bhikkhus, a Tathagata arises in the world <....> .... S: How do you understand this in the light of the Yamaka sutta and the entire Abhidhamma Pitaka? T: The entire Abhidhamma Pitaka?? Thank you very much ! I am not that smart, Sarah. I only understand that MN 38 does not contradict the Yamaka sutta; they concern two separate issues. The Buddha talked about his existence as the Greatest Teacher of men, devas, and brahmas, etc. That is clear. We have His Teachings in the Tipitaka as a solid proof of His existence. He existed but people could not grasp His existence enough to have an opinion about it. Beyond his passing away, Yamaka had no idea because He was beyond ordinary people's grasp while He was living or after death. ........... S: Can we simply say that when it is not visible object which appears, it is atta? When it is not sound which appears, it is atta (and so on for the other senses)?. Likewise, can we say that when there's no understanding that it is seeing consciousness which experiences/is the experiencing of visible object, it is atta (and so on for the other senses)? T: I do not understand your motivation. Why do you think of these two cases of non-visible object and seeing consciousness as atta? Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarahprocterabbott" wrote: > > Hi Tep (& Howard), > .... > > H: I think it is hard to find Pali suttas that speak of "no > person". As would > > James, I too would like to see some. <....> > .... > > T: I agree with you about the difficulty to find even one Pali > sutta that > > speaks of 'no person' or 'no beings'. > .... #76195 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 3:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Summary 2007 International Congress on Women's Role in the Sangha kenhowardau Hi Sarah (Chris, Dieter & all), -------- <. . .> BB: > On the other hand, by rousing > the courage to restore to women the right to lead a full religious > life, that is, by reviving the Bhikkhunî Sangha, Theravâdin elders > will show that they know how to apply the Vinaya in a way that is > appropriate to the time and circumstances, and also in a way that is > kind and embracing rather than rigid and rejecting. .... S: Does this mean that those members of the Sangha who prefer to strictly stick to the Vinaya, as handed down to us from the Buddha (and rehearsed at the First Council), see the Dhamma-Vinaya in a way that is 'inappropriate... rigid and rejecting'? -------- Well said, Sarah! This has reminded me of a long-ago DSG discussion. It was about some extraordinary Vinaya rules that specifically prohibited the most unlikely sexual perversions (involving decomposing decapitated corpses and the like). Apparently those rules became necessary because a small minority of monks were constantly looking for a form of sexual activity that had not been specifically banned. Every time they found one a new rule had to be created. At the time my thoughts were, "Dirty devils! Why would people like that want to be monks anyway?" But now I see a much more noble message in the story. Those monks (who must have been extremely addicted to sex) were absolutely determined not to break the Vinaya - even though [for them] it meant going to those horrible extremes. Ken H #76196 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 4:35 pm Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (66) nichiconn Dear Friends, 13. Viisatinipaato XIII. The Section of the Groups of Twenty [Verses] 1. Ambapaaliitheriigaathaava.n.nanaa part 3 256. "Cittakaarasukataava lekhikaa, sobhare su bhamukaa pure mama; taa jaraaya valibhippalambitaa, saccavaadivacana.m ana~n~nathaa. 257. "Bhassaraa suruciraa yathaa ma.nii, nettahesumabhiniilamaayataa; te jaraayabhihataa na sobhare, saccavaadivacana.m ana~n~nathaa. 258. "Sa.nhatu"ngasadisii ca naasikaa, sobhate su abhiyobbana.m pati; saa jaraaya upakuulitaa viya, saccavaadivacana.m ana~n~nathaa. 259. "Ka"nka.na.mva sukata.m suni.t.thita.m, sobhare su mama ka.n.napaa.liyo; taa jaraaya valibhippalambitaa, saccavaadivacana.m ana~n~nathaa. 260. "Pattaliimakulava.n.nasaadisaa sobhare su dantaa pure mama; te jaraaya kha.n.ditaa caasitaa, saccavaadivacana.m ana~n~nathaa. RD: Wrought as by sculptor's craft the brows of me shone, finely pencilled. They with the waste of the years are seame'd with wrinkles, o'erhanging. Such and not otherwise runneth the rune, the word of the Soothsayer. (256) Flashing and brilliant as jewels, dark-blue and long-lidded the eyes of me. They with the waste of the years spoilt utterly, radiant no longer. Such and not otherwise runneth the rune, the word of the Soothsayer. (257) Dainty and smooth the curve of the nostrils e'en as in children. Now with the waste of the years seare'd *339 the nose is and shrivelled. Such and not otherwise runneth the rune, the word of the Soothsayer. (258) Lovely the lines of my ears as the delicate work of the goldsmith. *340 They with the waste of the years are seame'd with wrinkles and pendent. Such and not otherwise runneth the rune, the word of the Soothsayer. (259) Gleamed as I smiled my teeth like the opening buds of the plantain. They with the waste of the years are broken and yellow as barley. So and not otherwise runneth the rune, the word of the Soothsayer. (260) *339 Upakuulitaa, not yet found elsewhere, may be from the root kuul, to burn. *340 It is interesting that the Commentary speaks of the goldsmith's work of past ages, as if conscious of living (himself) in a decadent period of such arts. PRUITT: 256. Formerly my eyebrows looked beautiful, like cresents well-painted by artists. Because of old age, they droop down with wrinkles. The utterance of the Speaker of Truth is not false. 257. My eyes were shining, very brilliant like jewels, very black and long. Overwhelmed by old age, they do not look beautiful. The utterance of the Speaker of Truth is not false. 258. In the bloom of my youth, my nose looked beautiful like a delicate peak. Because of old age, it is like something that is shrivelled up. The utterance of the Speaker of Truth is not false. 259. My earlobes looked beautiful, like well-fashioned and well-finished bracelets. Because of old age, they droop down with wrinkles. The utterance of the Speaker of Truth is not false. 260. Formerly my teeth looked beautiful, like the colour of the bud of the plantain. Because of old age, they are broken indeed and black. The utterance of the Speaker of Truth is not false. ===tbc, connie #76197 From: "gazita2002" Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 6:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dependent origination gazita2002 Hello Sarah, followed the links you recommended - thanks again, and here's my short summary. Clinging conditions becoming. There is clinging in this current existence [for example]. Depending on what is clung to, or more specific the tendancies for sense-sphere, form-sphere of formless sphere objects, this will be the condition for becoming/bhava, which in turn, conditions birth. Maybe oversimplfied, what do you think? Patience, courage and good cheer, azita > > Hello Sarah, and others > > > > A question, Sarah. what does 'existence' really mean in D.O. > > Am reading Nidanasamyutta and wonder how clinging conditions existence > > and not just 'birth'. Thanks. > ... > Sarah: When I've asked K.Sujin, she's stressed that bhava in D.O. refers to > present (abhi)sankhara, i.e kamma, as opposed to past (abhi) sankhara which > conditioned (present) vinnana (i.e vipaka cittas). > > In the commentary to the Mahanidana Sutta, it says that literally it > refers to kamma-bhava "since clinging is a condition for rebirth- existence > through its nature as a condition for kamma-existence, not otherwise, it > is directly a condition for kamma-existence." > > Further (in the sub-commentary, all B.Bodhi translations in 'The Great > Discourse on Causation'): > > " "Under the heading of conascence": clinging is a condition of the > unwholesome kamma conascent with itself under the heading of conascence; > it is a condition for other (unwholesome kamma) under the heading of > decisive support, by way of being a proximate decisive support condition, > etc. But it is a condition for wholesome kamma only under the heading of > decisive support...." > > For more detail, see also these past posts in U.P.: > > >Bhava (Becoming, Kamma) 55628, 60689, 71769, 73628< > > Metta, > > Sarah #76198 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 6:34 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘person’" - "The controversy on ‘person’ is ended" indriyabala Hi Howard (Swee and Sarah), - The discussion is now near the end, it seems. > >Swee: > >Because they take only the aggregates to be real (paramattha dhammas) and any other things as unreal (concepts), they take the 'person' to be a concept that doesn't exist, which is why they say there is no person, no devas, no brahmas and no buddhas. > > >However, if they had said that there is no self of a person/deva/ brahma/buddha to be found in the aggregates, I would agree with them because that self is an assumption, a fabrication of the mind. > .......... > > Howard: > Item 2 says "there is the sum of the five individual aggregates known conventionally as a person or living being." There are the phenomena comprising the 5 aggregates, interrelated in manifold complex ways. There also is the sum of these, but only in a sense. Where is that sum? My answer: In "the mind of the beholder," and nowhere else. The "summing" is done by thought. > T: Swee found the three right components; he performed the synthesis to make a valid statement about no-self, i.e. "self is an assumption, a fabrication of the mind" (i.e. the acquisition of self in the Category 3). And so I agree with you about the summing that concocts a person is in "the mind of the beholder" and nowhere else. That's how the person is conceived by the self view(attanuditthi) and that's why it is not real. Are we in agreement up to this point? I think we are. >Howard: All there is to be found independent of thought are the interrelated dhammas - the namas and rupas. There is no person, per se, independent of conceptualization. T: Now I am not sure anymore. Are you saying that besides the conceptualized/conceived person in the mind of the beholder, there is "no person" to be found anywhere outside the beholder's mind as well? If the answer is yes, then your view about "no person, no Buddha" is not different from Sarah's view. But if you say that there is a real person outside in a given moment (that is real only in that moment) and it of the Case 2.1 (gross acquisition of a self, feeding on food), then I agree with you. Forgive me if I have misunderstood you. Tep === #76199 From: "gazita2002" Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 6:58 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Response to E-card from Bangkok 3 (1) - Vipallaasas gazita2002 hello Mike and Sarah, > --- "m. nease" wrote: > > M: I've been somewhat preoccuped with sa~n~naa for the last year > > or so because it seems to me that most pleasant and unpleasant feeling > > (and of course attachment and aversion arising with them) occur more > > with regard to those (perverse) perceptions arising with pa.n.natti > > rather than those arising with dhammas, don't you think? > ... Azita: I've been preoccupied with sanna for the last few aeons or so :-) and I couldn't agree with you more Mike. I've tried to imagine what it would be like without sanna and altho some of the unpleasant 'memories' would disappear, we just would not be able to operate in any way. In fact, I decided it was a useless bit of imagery! The more amazing thing is that sanna is arising, marking its object and falling away now; and conditioning the pleasant/unpleasant/indifferent feelings now. Wasn't the Buddha the most wonderful being to have given us this gift of the Dhamma? > Sarah: I think the reason that the sense doors are stressed so much is because > without seeing of visible object, hearing of sound and so on, there would > not be the perverse perceptions of pa.n.natti on account of them. So this > is why the suttas stress the 'not attending to the signs and details'. Of > course, it doesn't mean, no thinking about these (even an arahat thinks), > but developing awareness and understanding of seeing, of visible object, > of thinking and not being lost in the world of pa.n.natti, taking the > perverse for the good.