#77200 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Sun Oct 7, 2007 10:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. dcwijeratna Dear Tep, I am delighted to get such a prompt reply. I write it; go to sleep; get up; switch on the computer; lo and bhold, there is Tep Sastri talking to me. Here is a quick rejoinder. In this passage, you are responding to Azita:- >T: Not only that, I guess. True, Rahula only asked the Buddha a few essential questions; but the key to his success was his earnest practice according to the Teachings, i.e. "do it". DC: I quoted your reply above to relate it to the previous discussions? My interest relate to really the whole question of enlightenment and "conversion"-entry to the Buddhist path, mundane or supramundane. It also is related to ideas about truth and knowledge in the Teachings of the Buddha. Let's take a few conversions: Angulimaala, Aalavaka, Saariputta (really upatissa) and of course Rahula. Can you really draw any inferences from these things? I can't because I don't know about any of these things personally and directly. You might say: "You don't know about Angulimala ..." But that is the truth (sacca) agreed or vohara. That is all mortals are capable of? So this discussion is about the unknown. Buddha totally and unequivocally rejected such discussions. Now to another aspect: Azita says "When I read suttas about beings gaining final liberation, it reminds me just how very far away from 'me' that is." This is a view: a false view "micchaa di.t.thi". If he reads the last paragraph of the "Satipa.t.thaans-sutta", he will find confirmation of what I say. Here is a portion it: "Monks, if anyone should develop these four satipa.t.thaanas in such a way for seven years, one of two fruits could be expected for him: either final knowledge here and now, or, if there is a trace of clinging left, non-returning. Let alone seven years ... six years ... if anyone should develop these four satipa.t.thaanas in such a way for seven days, one of two fruits could be expected for him: either final knowledge here and now, or, if there is a trace of clinging left, non-returning." Dear Tep: The Buddha was the Most Compassionate One (mahaa kaaruniko). He would not teach a dhamma that would condemn beings to samsaara for aeons and aeons. Such views are adhamma, misrepresentaion of the Buddha and a great akusala. Here is a nice sutta to read "Alagadduupama sutta" of the MN. (I think it is 38-not sure of the number) Here is a teaser for you: "What do you mean by seeing anattaa?" Many thanks for a stimulating discussion. With mettaa, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77201 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Oct 7, 2007 11:27 pm Subject: Rebirth as Mad Demon! bhikkhu0 Friends: Doing much Evil & little good creates Mad Demon Rebirth! Any village-fraud who himself gives but stops others giving is reborn a kumbhanda , deformed, but doing honour. Whoever pitilessly kills animals, but gives them to be eaten by others inevitably, after death finds his various kinds of food as a rakkhasa . Those who are always into perfume and garlands, are slow to anger & are munificent are reborn after death as gandhabbas: The divine musicians furthering the delight of the devas. Whoever is angry, malicious & offers goods out of greed is reborn as a pisÄ?ca goblin, evil-minded, with deformed visage. Those who are always corrupt, fickle, causing pain to others, but constantly delighting in giving, become bhÅ«ta spirits after death. Those who are horrible, angered, but generous, and those fond of intoxicating liquors are reborn after death as yakkha demons feeding on horrible things, fond of liquor. Because of the fault, which is craving & stingy avarice, after death such beings are reborn as petas ; but they are reborn as yakkhas & so on because of some good deeds, which are later spoiled by many evil deeds. One should thus always vigorously & consistently stop all one's own wicked behaviour... Source (edited extract): PañcagatidÄ«panÄ« by Ashvaghosa & Saddhammaghosa: 11-12th century AC. Tr. by Ann A. Hazlewood. Journal of the PÄ?li Text Society. Vol. XI 1987: http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=13271 More details on the various Demon (Asura) destinations: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/ay/asura.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/n/nagaa.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/g/gandhabbaa.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/g/garudaa.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/y/yakkha.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/ku/kumbhanda.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/r/rakkhasaa.htm Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka * <...> #77202 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 12:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions dcwijeratna Dear Alex, Here's my response to your post: Before I proceed may I say that it was simple and beautiful. ==================================== > A:1) How many pages is Sutta Pitaka in Pali? DC: It is difficult to answer this question in this form a number of reason: i. Pali doesn't have a character set on its own. It uses many character sets: sanskrit, sinhalese, Burmese, Thai Roma and so on. However, this information is given in the Cha.t.tha sa.ngaayanaa CD of Vipassanaa Research Institute. They distribute the CD and you can refer to it at their website. ii. The standard way is to say that the Sutta Pi.taka consists of so many Nikaayas and then enumerate the "books" in each Nikaaya. There are five nikaayas: Diigha, Majjhima, Sa.nyutta, A.nguttara and Khuddhaka. The number of books of the first four nikaayas are generally agreed. However, the number of books in the Khuddhaka varies according to the tradition. "Guide to Tipitaka--U Ko Lay is a good introduction. This is also avaialable in the internet. ================================================================= >A: 2) Where in the suttas is Abhidhamma Pitaka mentioned? DC: Nowhere!!! in the Sutta Pi.taka. The reason is simple. It is a later development. ================================================================= >A: 3) Is there sutta which says that "On the 4th week after enlightment) Buddha taught Abhidhamma, and when he spoke patthana his body emitted rays?" DC: There is no such sutta in the Sutta Pi.taka. It is in Atthasaalinii, the commentary to Dhammasa.ngani (First book of the Abhidhamma Pi.taka) by Buddhaghosa. [Ref: Asl. 13] ================================================================= >A: 4) How many pages is Abhidhamma Pitaka in Pali? DC: Almost the same answer as the first. ================================================================= >A: 5) Who memorized 7 books of Abhidhamma Pitaka? DC: Innumerable monks. Until they were written down in Sri Lankaa, they were orally transmitted. ================================================================= >: 6) What are the commentaries to Abhidhamma Pitaka and how many pages are they? DC: According to Hinuber (A Handbook of Pali Literature): Atthasaalinii, Sammohavinodinii, Pancappakara.na.t.thakathaa. =================================================================== >: 7) Where is there first mention of khanikavada (radical momentariness) ? Can an advance meditator perceive the billions of mind moments happening per second during meditation? DC: (1) khanikavaada--Here is what Bhikkhu Bodhi says regarding this matter. "Bearing this in mind, we might briefly note a few of the Abhidhammic conceptions that are characteristics of the Commentaries but either unknown or recessive in the Abhidhamma Pi.taka itself. ... The term kha.na, "moment," replaces the canonincal samaya, "occassion," as the basic unit of delimiting the occurrence of events, and the duration of a material phenomenon is determined to be seventeen moments of mental phenomena. The division of a moment into three sub-moments--arising, presence, and dissolution--also seems to be new to the Commentaries." So it is in the commentaries. It is tempting to attribute this to Buddhaghosa, but it is more reasonable to say it is a Sri Lankan invention. DC: (2) Billions of Mind Moments: This is how I understand the matter. When a meditator is in an advance state of concentration, then he has only a single object (aarammana) in his mind. But when he is outside that state he is like any one of us. And has no chance of observing any mind moments. If we forget about the Abhidhamma Commentary analysis and look at it this way the Buddha, and therefore the arahants have perfect control over their mind or sati. So they are aware. ========================================================== >A: Anyone read Ajahn Sujato's writings re: Abhidhamma? Any opinions? DC: Sorry, I have not read. So no opinions. =========================================================== I hope you will find something in the information I have given above. And if you need any further details regarding what I have written above, please do come back. It would be a great pleasure for me. With mettaa, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77203 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 12:23 am Subject: Q. re:Asoka, Ch 7, no 5. nilovg Dear Elaine, ------ E:Personally, I find it difficult not to get angry or jealous when the conditions arises. It is difficult to watch the "feelings" from a "detached" view. I always get absorbed in it and think that those feelings belong to "me" and "I" am hurting. Sometimes I repeat in my head, "feelings are not-self, anger is not-self, greed is not-self" etc, etc, but then I would still feel sad and cry. No matter how hard I convince myself that there is no-self, these feelings still felt so real and it hurts. It is difficult to stay calm and watch these feelings. It will take time to train the mind and learn mindfulness and hopefully I'm improving day by day. :)) ------- N: We all have such experiences but we can learn from them: the fact that they come up, no matter we repeat that they are anatta shows that they are anatta, beyond control. They have already arisen before we realise it. We do not like to be angry or jealous, we do not like the unhappy feeling that goes together with these experiences. If we tell ourselves that we should stay calm, there is an idea of self who wants to be calm and this does not help. Actually, it is not a matter of watching feelings that would help but understanding them as dhammas that arise because of conditions. Also formerly we had such experiences which arose again and again and were thus accumulated. Habits in the past are stubborn and operate also in the present. Training the mind is actually having more understanding of dhammas that arise anyway, without trying to change them, we cannot. This intellectual understanding can condition the arising of awareness, but also awareness is anattaa. Just like seeing now that arises because there are the right condiitons for seeing (eyesense, colour, contact), evenso sati arises when there are the right conditions for it. Nina. #77204 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 12:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Re: Conditions, Ch 15, no 9. nilovg Dear Tep, Op 6-okt-2007, om 21:48 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > T: Do you mean the investigation (pariyatti) of the naama and ruupa > all by itself (as explained in your earlier post), when it is > repeated over several long years, will be sufficient to eventually > realize the 'direct knowing' of sensed objects in the present moment? > It sounds like an over-simplification of the Teachings to me. Or, > maybe I have missed something important here. Please advise. -------- N: Pariyatti is investigation of the dhammas that appear at this moment. Pa~n~naa is still weak, but it can grow. We learn that what appears through the eyes is only what appears through the eyes and that nobody can change it. The fact that nobody can change what appears now teaches us about anattaa. Even on the intellectual level some of the wrong view of self is wearing away. To understand realities as only nama, only rupa means: they are nama, not a person; they are rupa, not a person. Coming back to your sutta quote: <"Bhikkhus, when one knows and sees the eye, forms, eye- consciousness, eye-contact, and feelings that arises with eye-contact as condition, as they actually are (jaanam passam yathaabhuutam), then one is not inflamed by lust (na saarajjati) for them.[MN 149]> This sutta we should consider deeply. The Buddha speaks, as in many suttas about eyesense, seeing, colour, eye-contact, feelings. We are reminded of this moment. Seeing them as they are: first as non-self. The sotaapanna has eradicated wrong view, but not yet clinging to objects, as you know. But it is important to see the amount of clinging, even now, after seeing has fallen away. Clinging, this is the second noble Truth and we have to understand this more an more in daily life. Clinging at this moment, even when it is subtle and we do not think of getting things for ourselves. After seeing we think of what is seen: a person, a thing. Thinking is always done either with kusala citta or with akusala citta. Mostly with clinging. We like to perceive persons and things all around us. We like to see, hear, think, go on living. The second noble Truth. The first noble Truth is the fact that seeing and all other realities fall away immediately. They cannot be any refuge, they are dukkha. The third noble truth is also shown in this sutta; the end of clinging. And then, when we read this sutta we are exhorted to go on developing the way leading to the end of clinging to objects. Each sutta is very compact, not easy to understand all implications. Nina. #77205 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 1:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. dcwijeratna Dear Azita, Thank you for your response. Here is a part of your post. ======================================== > Dear DC and Sukin, - > But I have two comments below. No intention to interrupt your fast- > moving & fun dialogue, so don't worry about replying. DC: You are not interrupting at all. My attitude to the teachings of the Buddha is: I am a puthujjana. I could have misunderstood it. And it is always possible for others to understand it differently. So I accept any comment on what I write in that spirit, and am grateful for it. ============================================ > Azita: this passage caught my i, and I may be out of order here, in that I have not been following all of these posts. However, it seems to me that you think that Rahula became an Arahant by just asking a few questions? DC: Raahula did not become an arahant by "just asking a few questions." He became an arahant by the eradication of 'aasavaas' (cankers, taints and so on). Rest of the comments follow your assumption. >Azita: When I read suttas about beings gaining final liberation, it reminds me just how very far away from 'me' that is. That journey can start now this very moment, it cant start anywhere else than right here right now. DC: You don't know "how very far away from 'me' that is". Not only you, nobody knows about it, except an arahant. That too when he is liberated not before that. Your statement is micchaadi.tthi or wrong view. So cheer up. You are "In the presence of Nibbaana." This is the title of Bodhi leaves No. 148 by Ajahn Brahmava.mso. But of course that is for people who get to sammaadi.t.thi. So the first thing you need to do is to get over that hurdle--micchaadi.t.thi. =================================================== >: Azita: the arising & passing away of dhammas - do we really know just how difficult that is??? DC: What is the difficulty? If you don't know who knows? What do you mean by dhamma? It has many meanings in the Teachings of the Buddha. But the one relevant here is a phenomenon or a unit of experience. When you are angry you know that you are angry. Only you can know. Similarly, if you want to give a daana, you know that is in your mind. That is all there to it. All you need to do is to develop your sati-mindfulness or awareness. See Satipa.t.thaana Sutta or the "Heart of Buddhist Meditation" by Ven. Nyanaponika. Dear Azita: Buddha's dhamma during the last 2500 years had more adherents than all the other religions put together during that period. You think they led there lives according to Abhidhamma and anattaa? The Buddha's teaching is about leading a happy and peaceful life if you are a householder and if you are disgusted with household life to find a perfect everlasting happiness and peace, Nibbaana. And both those are immediately visible here and now and not any where else. "svaakkhaato bhagavato dhammo sa.ndi.t.thikho akaaliko ehipassiko opanaiko paccatta.m veditabbo vi~n~nuuhiiti." I am sure you know this and will not bother to translate. If you want to understand what dhamma is this is the definition. With mettaa, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77206 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 2:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] dhamma questions, no 9. nilovg Dear Dr. Manash, This should be a joint effort. Thus far, Q. 4, 12, 28 are answered. If everybody mentions what has been answered it is easier for the next person to answer. I shall react to your Q. 9 and 11, since you refer to me personally. I shall snip some parts to make the post shorter. Op 7-okt-2007, om 3:19 heeft vipassana_infonet het volgende geschreven: > 9) questions about nibbana experience > (particularly FOR SOTAPATTI MAGGA citta-vithi) > respected - nina van gorkom mentions is her GREAT book that nibbana is > a unconditioned object that is sensed by the mind door. > = so am I right if I understand that nibbana is still within the > sphere of mind-matter, still within the sphere of anicca as although > the 5 senses are not working but, the mano vithi is still on (and even > if lokuttara - the lokuttara citta and cetasika are all anicca - as > nina says in a post and in her book)? ------- N: It cannot be said that nibbaana is still within the sphere of mind-matter. We learnt that nibbaana is an absolute reality, and that it is anattaa (all dhammas are anattaa). We also know that lokuttara pa~n~naa can experience this unconditioned dhamma. Nibbaana is unconditioned, it does not arise and fall away. Lokuttara citta is a conditioned dhamma, it arises and falls away. When the conditions are present, that is, pa~n~naa has matured to that stage, it is possible for lokuttara citta to experience the unconditioned element. The right conditions can be developed from now on: gradually consider and investigate whatever dhamma appears now through one of the five senses or the mind-door. I refer to seeing at this moment, since there is seeing at this moment while you read posts. There is also thinking on account what is seen, the letters and the sentences and their meaning. Colour is all the time 'translated' into meaning. ---------- > M: or when some dhamma teacher > mentions that nibbana is beyond mind-matter - should I understand that > he is referring just to nibbana - which is an unconditioned paramattha > object and thus not part of nama-rupa - and that the teacher is not > referring to the experience of nibbana in the mano citta vithi? ------ N: It is more precise to state that nibbaana is unconditioned, different from all the conditioned dhammas we experience at this moment, the seeing or hearing that arise and fall away. -------- > M: = can the 5 senses and their processes be said to be in nirodha > state > in nibbana for sotapanna? what about anagamis and arahats who have not > done the arupa-jhanas and thus cannot go into cessation (nirodha)- do > they see nirodha of 5/6 senses? ------- N: Only anaagaamis and arahats who have mastery (vassi) in all stages of jhaana can attain to this temporal suspension of citta. Some, the sukkha vipassakas, have not attained jhaana, and they cannot. -------- > M: = what is the nature of nibbana as an object? if it does not > "exist" > like rupa or citta or cetasika - how does the mind-door sense it? > = isn't lokuttara citta anicca? so is nibbana within the field of > udaya-vyaya (anicca)? ------- N: See above. It cannot be said that nibbaana is impermanent, it does not arise and fall away. It is unconditioned. What is conditioned has to fall away. ------- > M: = does the contact of nibbana with the sotapatti lokuttara magga > citta > at mind-door lead to vedana (as per phass paccaya vedana)AND does the > contact of nibbana with the lokuttara PHALA citta at mind door lead to > vedana? so, is nibbana still within field of vedana and not beyond > vedana (vedanakhyaya)? is nibbana still within phass paccaya vedana > field? ------- N: We can say that phassa cetasika and vedanaa cetasika arise with each citta and thus also with lokuttara citta. But, where you mention phassa conditions vedanaa, you mention part of the Dependent Origination and this is not to be applied here. Lokuttara citta leads to the end of the cycle. So I would not use the expression: nibbaana is within the field of phassa paccaya vedanaa. -------- > M: = do different types of vedanas happen in case of the different > sotapatti phala lokuttara cittas (as per different jhana stages) when > the meditator is in phala-samapatti? ------- N: This is only for those who have attained jhaana. The feeling depends on the stage of jhaana. At the fourth stage (of the fourfold system) the feeling is indifferent. When the lokuttara cittas are accompanied by the jhaanafactors of this stage the feeling is indifferent feeling. -------- > M: = in case of sotapatti magga the 3 virati cetasika arise togehther. > is the sanna - nirodh sanna? what does the sanna sense? > = do these virati cetasikas make any sankhara or do they not because > this is with panna? is there a vipaka of the phala citta? > = if no sankharas are made at the stage of phala citta vithi - then > how does the lokuttata citta sustain itself? ----- N: The three virati cetasikas arise together in the case of lokuttara citta, they eradicate the base of misconduct according to the stage of enlightenment that has been reached, and they fulfill the Path factors of right action, speech, livelihood. They are not the actual abstentions. The phalacittas are also accompanied by them since they immediately succeed the magga-cittas. They are different from other kinds of vipaakacittas. Here my Cetasikas may help, Ch 32. As to sa~n~naa this accompanies each citta. Nirodha is not applied in this context. --------- > M: as per sankhara paccaya > vinnana - the lokuttara citta needs some sankharas to keep going. what > is the source of this sankhara.how does the lokuttara magga citta > sustain itself even during extended periods of phala samapatti? -------- N: Again, the Dependent Origination is not to be applied in the case of lokuttara citta.When phalacitta arises the magga-citta has fallen away. -------- > M:= during complete cessation (nirodha) of anagami and arahat, is > their > any difference between living and dead person? ------- N: Yes. This is the suspension of citta and mind-produced ruupa. But ruupa produced by kamma, heat and nutrition still occur in the case of human beings who attain cessation. Dhammadinna explains this in one of the suttas. That person is not like a corpse. -------- Nina. #77207 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 2:45 am Subject: dhammaquestions, no 11. nilovg Dear Dr Manash, Now I look at Q. 11. ------ M: 11)nina says that only 1 citta arises at a time and it can grasp only 1 object. so how do the many organs of the body work? it seems that there is only 1 vinnana that makes the so many organs of the body work - kayavinnana - so how do so many objects work together with 1 vinnana? ------- N: As to ruupas of the body, these are produced by kamma, citta, heat and nutrition. These factors produce ruupas throughout our life. We cannot say that kayavi~n~naa.na makes these ruupas work. Kayavi~n~naa.na does not arise all the time. When it arises, it experiences hardness, softness, heat, cold, motion or pressure when this impinges on the bodysense.This is its only task. Kayavi~n~naa.na is ahetuka vipaakacitta and it does not produce ruupa, but it conditions ruupa by way of post-nascence-condition. It supports the ruupa that has arisen and not fallen away yet. But meanwhile, conditions for the production of new ruupas are never lacking. -------- M: when I am watching kaya vedana (as anicca) and the kaya-vinnana is busy with this photabba feeling of anicca - are all the inner body organs not working? and if they are - is my knowing of sampajanna at level of kaya vedana not continuous and the kaya-vinnana actually goes inside body to respond to the organs.... ------ N: See above about kayavi~n~naa.na, this falls away immediately and could not go anywhere. Its task is knowing an object that impinges on the bodysense, and this is only for an extremely short moment. Since dhammas arise and then fall away immediately, I think that it is not possible to watch them. When there is more intellectual understanding of nama and rupa and of sati there are conditions for the growth of understanding. It is important to remember that sati is also anatta and cannot be made to arise at will. I find it helpful to think of our goal as having more understanding of this moment, not of watching or having many moments of sati. The dhamma appearing now may be bodily feeling, but this is a very short moment of ahetuka vipaakacitta and immediately after that like or dislike are bound to arise. We are really in a tangle, mixing up different dhammas. Only understanding can undo this tangle, little by little. Nina. #77208 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 5:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. nilovg Dear Azita, DC, Tep, Op 8-okt-2007, om 2:01 heeft gazita2002 het volgende geschreven: > Another sutta says that seeing the arising & passing away of the > > dhammas, the monk will also see the dukkham and anatta > > characteristics. > > Azita: the arising & passing away of dhammas - do we really know > just how difficult that is??? ------- N: It is a stage of vipassana, the fourth one, or the first principal one, but, with Azita, I realize how difficult even the first stage of tender insight is: directly discerning the difference between the characteristic of nama and of rupa when they appear. When they appear, that is: not in theory. I read that DC wrote: after the fourth ruupajhaana someone can become a sotaapanna. Any text where this is stated? Not everybody in the Buddha's time developed jhaana and, as I understand, this was not a requirement. It is understanding of conditioned realities that is indispensable, no matter someone has attained jhaana or not. Even those who attained jhaana had to emerge from it and realize the true nature of naama and ruupa. Nina. #77209 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 6:00 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (68) nichiconn Dear Friends, part 7 13. Viisatinipaato 3. Caapaatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa 294. "Maa me kujjhi mahaaviira, maa me kujjhi mahaamuni; na hi kodhaparetassa, suddhi atthi kuto tapo. 295. "Pakkamissa~nca naa.laato, kodha naa.laaya vacchati; bandhantii itthiruupena, sama.ne dhammajiivino. 296. "Ehi kaa.la nivattassu, bhu~nja kaame yathaa pure; aha~nca te vasiikataa, ye ca me santi ~naatakaa. 297. "Etto caape catubbhaaga.m, yathaa bhaasasi tva~nca me; tayi rattassa posassa, u.laara.m vata ta.m siyaa. 298. "Kaa.la"ngini.mva takkaari.m, pupphita.m girimuddhani; phulla.m daalimala.t.thi.mva, antodiipeva paa.tali.m. 299. "Haricandanalitta"ngi.m, kaasikuttamadhaarini.m; ta.m ma.m ruupavati.m santi.m, kassa ohaaya.m gacchasi. 300. "Saakuntikova saku.ni.m, yathaa bandhitumicchati; aaharimena ruupena, na ma.m tva.m baadhayissasi. RD: Caapaa. 'O be not angry with me, hero mine! O thou great prophet, be not wroth with me! For how may he who giveth place to wrath Attain to holy life and purity?' (293) 'Nay, I'll go forth from Naala. *359 Who would live At Naala now, where he who fain to lead A life of righteousness sees holy men Beguile'd by the beauty of a girl!' (294) 'O turn again, my dark-eyed lover, come And take thy fill of Caapaa's love for thee, And I, thy slave, will meet thy every wish, And all my kinsfolk shall thy servants be.' (295) 'Nay, were a man desirous of thy love, He well might glory didst thou promise him A fourth of what thou temp'st me here withal!' (296) 'O dark-eyed love, am I not fair to see, As the liana swaying in the woods, As the pomegranate-tree in fullest bloom Growing on hill-top, or the trumpet-flower Drooping o'er mouth of island cavern? See, (297) With crimson sandal-wood perfumed, I'll wear Finest Benares robe for thee - O why, O how wilt thou go far away from me?' (298) 'Ay! so the fowler seeketh to decoy His bird. Parade thy charms e'en as thou wilt, Ne'er shalt thou bind me to thee as of yore.' (299) *359 The Commentator explains this intrusion of Naala, a village 'in Magadha, near the Bo-tree' (of Gayaa) (see Ps. lix.), by saying it was Upaka's native place, and that the pair had gone to live there. As he was the trappers' middleman, and therefore in frequent communication with them, this would locate the Vankahaara country in the forests or jungles immediately to the south of Magadha, Gayaa being in South Magadha. PRUITT: [Caapaa:] 293. Do not be angry with me, great hero. Do not be angry with me, great sage. For there is no purity for one overcome by anger, how much less [is there] austerity. [Upaka:] 294. I shall indeed go out from Naa.laa. Who will live here in Naa.laa? [In Naa.laa] women bind ascetics who live in accordance with the doctrine by means of their figure[s]. [Caapaa:] 295. Come, Kaa.la*, turn back. Enjoy sensual pleasures as before. I shall be under your contol, and also whatever relatives I have. [Upaka:] 296. Caapaa, if there was a quarter as much as you say for me from you**, truly that would be excellent for a man in love with you. [Caapaa:] 297-298. Kaa.la, like a sprouting takkaarii tree in flower on the crest of a mountain, like a flowering daalima creeper, like a trumpet-flower tree in the middle of an island, with my limbs smeared with yellow sandalwood paste, wearing my best muslin garments, being beautiful, why do you go away abandoning me? [Upaka:] 299. Just as a fowler wishes to snare a bird, [so do you] by means of [your] charming figure. But you will not fasten me. *"Black [man]," Caapaa's name for Upaka in the verses. ** ...snip pali... (KRN trans.: "If indeed a quarter of this were as you say, Caapa"). See EV II, p.125 for a discussion of the readings. ===to be continued, connie #77210 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 6:05 am Subject: Citta. nilovg Dear Scott, thank you for your good wishes. -------- N: Very strong wrong view: there is no kamma, no vipaaka. Really being convinced of this. It is very dangerous. The intention to take away someone's possessions, thinking about it that one will do this." Scott: Would it be fair to suggest that these ideas are conditioned by the unwholesome roots? ------- N: When they arise they are conditioned by hetu-paccaya and this is conascent. But also they are conditioned by the accumulated latent tendencies, and this by way of natural strong dependence-condition, pakatupanissaya-paccaya. The latent tendencies show us that akusala has not been eradicated yet. Thus, even if we keep the five precepts, this does not mean that the akusala we do not transgress at this moment is eradicated. Any time, in difficult situations, it is possible that there will be transgression, that one may do things one did not think oneself capable of. Therefore I think that the trio siila-samaadhi-pa~n~naa can be misunderstood. If one says: just keep the precepts first and then one can develop samaadhi and pa~n~naa, it seems that one underestimates the force of the latent tendencies. The sotaapanna has developed insight and attained enlightenment and he cannot transgress the five precepts. However, one may have the good intention to keep the five precepts and with kusala citta give expression to this intention. Nina. #77211 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 6:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. nilovg Dear DC, just a few words, but this subject has been widely discussed in dsg. If it interests you you can dig up old posts under Abhidhamma. I give a few quotes from Rob K's forum, first in the Vinaya. Sarah wrote many posts about this subject. Those who are going to India, note at the end about Sankassa we shall visit. Op 8-okt-2007, om 9:03 heeft DC Wijeratna het volgende geschreven: > >A: 2) Where in the suttas is Abhidhamma Pitaka mentioned? > > DC: Nowhere!!! in the Sutta Pi.taka. The reason is simple. It is a > later development. ------ Rob K: Some quotes from the Sutta Pitaka and Vinaya: The Abhidhamma in the Vinaya. (Vin, 1V,344): QUOTE "If without any intention of reviling the Vinaya one were to instigate another, saying, Pray study the Suttas or Gathas or Abhidhamma first and afterwards you will learn the Vinaya - there is no offence in him," In the Bhikkhuni Vibhanga Vin,1V,344 QUOTE ( "A bhikkhuni is guilty of a minor offence) if she questions on the Abhidhamma or Vinaya after getting permission (to question) on the Suttanta, or on the Suttanta or Vinaya after getting permission (to question) on the Abhidhamma, or on the suttanta or Abhidhamma after getting permission (to question) on the Vinaya." Sanghadisesa VII, in the Book of Discipline, PTS, translated by I.B. Horner: QUOTE "Then the venerable Dabba, the Mallian, being so chosen, assigned one lodging in the same place for those monks who belonged to the same company. For those monks who knew the Suttantas he assigned a lodging in the same place, saying: "These will be able to chant over the Suttantas to one another." For those monks versed in the Vinaya rules, he assigned a lodging in the same place, saying: "They will decide upon the Vinaya with one another." For those monks teaching dhamma he assigned a lodging in the same place, saying: "They will discuss dhamma [in the actual Pali this is specified as ABHIDHAMMA] with one another." ------- And some quotes given in the same forum by Scott: Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 7:42 am Subject: Re: Citta scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Back to citta, as you suggest: T: "...Is it realistic for a single citta to arise with sati, and the second citta after that rises without sati?..." Scott: Citta arises, is present and then falls away. Citta has only one object at a time, therefore, citta arises, has an object, is present and then falls away. Citta does not arise without cetasika, nor does cetasika arise without citta - you cannot have one without the other. Cetasikas arising conascently with citta share the same object as citta. Citta and the accompanying cetasikas fall away simultaneously. Not all fifty-two cetasikas arise with every citta. There are only seven cetasikas which arise with each and every citta. These are the Universals - the sabbacittasaadhaara.na. Sati is not one of these, therefore sati does not arise with every citta by nature. Sati is one of the sobhanasaadhaara.na. It arises with each 'beautiful consciousness', along with eighteen mental factors. Sati does not arise with akusala citta. And finally, kusala citta can be condition for akusala citta (and vice versa). Thus there is the case for it being possible that sati can arise and then not arise. This, as I mentioned, would be by conditions. T: "...And if that is realistic, then how can there be an effect of restraint on the seeing (for example)?..." Scott: This seems to amount to a question as to the function of sati. I would say that is is the nature of sati to have an effect while it is present. Its effect is not the effect of any other mental factor. Sati conditions citta in its own way as both have a given object. In the moment, when sati is present, the functions of sati are in effect. These are, as have been enumerated often, such like focus on the object, non-confusion and non-forgetfulness, and guardianship. If the object is visible object then, while the moment is present, these functions are conditioning citta while visible object is the focus. T: "...Can that restraint happen in one moment of a single citta?..." Scott: Yes. It depends on conditions whether this arises again. Sincerely, Scott. #77213 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 8:19 am Subject: CMA (Abhidhammattha Sangaha) by Bhikkhu Bodhi - 7 Universals truth_aerator Hello all, I am reading this book. The 7 universal cetasikas accompany ANY and every citta (including negative ones) They are contact-feeling-perception-volition-ekagatta- life faculty-attention "The seven universals are cetasikas common (sadharana) to all consiousness (sabbacitta). These factors perform the most rudimentary and essential cognitive functions without which consiousness of an object would be utterly impossible." - pg 79. ekaggata (one pointedness ) - It is manifested as peace, and its proximate cause is happiness. - pg 80 Excuse me? What happens of one is really, really restless and unhappy? How can one have happiness as a UNIVERSAL proximate cause of (ekagatta cetasika) really restless & unhappy citta? What about consiousness in Avici hell? Does it have ekaggata cetasika with peace, and happiness as proximate cause? :( Lots of Metta, Alex #77214 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 8:30 am Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions truth_aerator --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > A: "Anyone read Ajahn Sujato's writings re: Abhidhamma?" > > Scott: Reference please. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > Mystique of Abhidhamma http://santifm1.0.googlepages.com/writings4 It's time http://santifm1.0.googlepages.com/it'stime Satipathana and evolution of the Dhamma theory http://santifm1.0.googlepages.com/satipatthanaandtheevolutionofthedham matheory #77215 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 8:34 am Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Thank you for the links. These two don't seem to work: A: It's time http://santifm1.0.googlepages.com/it'stime Satipathana and evolution of the Dhamma theory http://santifm1.0.googlepages.com/satipatthanaandtheevolutionofthedham matheory Scott: I'll read the first. Sincerely, Scott. #77216 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 9:00 am Subject: Re: Q. re:Asoka, Ch 7, no 5. indriyabala Dear Elaine and Nina, - Thank you both for a beautiful-and-well-formulated question and the expert reply based on the paramattha-dhamma principle "that is true in the highest sense". Elaine's question: Personally, I find it difficult not to get angry or jealous when the conditions arises. It is difficult to watch the "feelings" from a "detached" view. I always get absorbed in it and think that those feelings belong to "me" and "I" am hurting. Sometimes I repeat in my head, "feelings are not-self, anger is not-self, greed is not-self" etc, etc, but then I would still feel sad and cry. No matter how hard I convince myself that there is no-self, these feelings still felt so real and it hurts. It is difficult to stay calm and watch these feelings. Nina's reply: .. the fact that they come up, no matter we repeat that they are anatta shows that they are anatta, beyond control. They have already arisen before we realise it. ... If we tell ourselves that we should stay calm, there is an idea of self who wants to be calm and this does not help. ... Actually, it is not a matter of watching feelings that would help but understanding them as dhammas that arise because of conditions. Training the mind is actually having more understanding of dhammas that arise anyway, without trying to change them, we cannot. T: Now let me give a practical solution that is true in the conventional sense as follows. Whenever anger (or any other defilements like doubt, agitation, laziness, etc.) arises, the very first instant I am aware of it, I simply refuse to accept it by turning my thought to non-anger (similar to looking the other way when you see something you don't want to see). I also put all attention at the drawbacks of anger, rather than on the anger or on the person whom I am angry at. At first it was very hard for me to overcome anger this way. But after several repeated conscientious attempts over a few years to replace angry thought with its opposite, the mind seemed to learn and it became easier each time for me to switch from a big anger to small anger, then to non-anger and, finally, to small metta. I still have a long way to go before I can fill the mind with the metta that extends to all directions ! Tep ===.= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Elaine, > > ------ > > E:Personally, I find it difficult not to get angry or jealous when > the conditions arises. It is difficult to watch the "feelings" from a > "detached" view. I always get absorbed in it and think that those > feelings belong to "me" and "I" am hurting. Sometimes I repeat in my > head, "feelings are not-self, anger is not-self, greed is not-self" > etc, etc, but then I would still feel sad and cry. No matter how hard > I convince myself that there is no-self, these feelings still felt so > real and it hurts. It is difficult to stay calm and watch these > feelings. It will take time to train the mind and learn mindfulness > and hopefully I'm improving day by day. :)) > #77217 From: "Sukinder" Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 9:01 am Subject: Re: Response to DC Part 1. sukinderpal Dear DC, You wrote: =================== DC: Many thanks for your four posts. I'll respond to them certainly, whether they are long or short. That's no trouble at all. On the contrary it is a great pleasure and I consider it a great honour when somebody takes that much trouble over something I have written. My attitude is conditioned by the advice of the Buddha in the introduction to the the Brahmajaala Sutta. S=> I appreciate this and am very happy with this post of yours. You came across to me as being sincere and very patient. ==================== >[3]Sukin: I have to admit that I too am having difficulty with this. I am thinking particularly about how the recipient of our actions influence the quality / strength off the kamma involved. Actually I thought about this when still new to Abhidhamma, but at the time decided that I may figure it out later on. But also it seemed to not be so important to find out the answer as it has nothing to do with the growth in kusala and the development of wisdom. Perhaps I should leave it as being the aspect of kamma considered to be imponderable? What do you think? This is my response to [3] DC: I am also not sure what my thinking on this matter it. But I'll articulate it hoping that you will be able to pick holes in it. I'll start from the second sentence--"I am thinking particularly about how the recipient of our actions influence the quality / strength off the kamma involved." The recipient doesn't influence the quality or the strength of my kamma. That I have done. That I'll be heir to; I own it and so on. kamma is the act by mind, words or body. It will arise and be gone. The recipient or the listener accepts it. If you get to know it, you become pleased. So your happiness increases. That is merit. Ok, the recipient rejects or doesn't understand. Then you are unhappy. So the merit has decreased. S=> This is another area I have not considered which you appear to be addressing here, namely "merit". From what I understand you to be saying, it seems that `merit' is different from the fact of kusala kamma arising. You seem to be saying that an act of Dana for example, accumulates as merit and this is related to states of mind preceding and following the act in such a way that the quality of that merit is affected by these. I've never heard of this before, though I've often heard the term merit, I never paid any attention to it. Could you say more? ================== DC: Well you can keep on analysing like this. I find it a valid analysis. But we cannot analyse these things according to the Abhidhamma methods easily. At least for me. S=> I have no problem with the fact that akusala arises much more than kusala. This does not stop me from learning about even more subtle forms of both kusala and akusala nor for any kusala actions, body, speech or mind, to arise. I was actually comparing the process with that of murder. The problem I was having in the past was about the fact of accidentally killing an arahat while trying to kill someone else, which the kammic effect is said to be greater. I could not figure out how and why. But as I said, it is not important to know the answer. ================== DC: Now to the word "imponderable" My understanding of imponderable is another dimension. That is it is not possible for us human beings to relate this is the "kamma" and this is the "vipaaka" or its result. It is not possible to correlate the two. Because any act (kamma) is conditioned by many factors. Let's say today I see a nice picture that gives me happiness. Then I can't say that, sometime in the past I did a particular good deed and that the result I experience today is a result of that. It could be or it could not be. S=> Yes, this is the general meaning. But I know only the "story" of cittas, cetasikas and rupas, and this is not enough to stop me from spinning out other stories about cause and effect! ;-) ================== DC: The citta (let's call it) daana citta ''having in fact done its job and fallen away". I agree with that part. It is no more, it is gone. If for example, the recipient of the daana does not accept it, another citta will arise in the giver. We have no clue to what it is. It could be one of anger--or this fellow didn't listen to me; it could be one of compassion--poor fellow, this fellow can't understand, I shall try again. [Have you ever been a teacher? Then you'll know what I mean.] So we cannot really understand these things by going through this kind of psychological analysis. S=> Not through psychological analysis for sure. And I wasn't concerning myself with what goes before or after any act of Dana. I was focusing on the act (not conventional) itself. ================== >DC: So I would stick to the explanations given in the sutta pitaka. >Sukin: What do you mean? Are you saying that I should be paying attention to the "conventional act" and leave it at that? If so, how does one avoid relying on "belief", something you discourage in another context? DC: To the first question my position is yes. But you don't "pay attention" to the "conventional act", you do it with full attention and understanding that it is a good thing to do. S=> This is where we differ in opinion / understanding. The fact that Dana is of great value, we both agree with each other. That the same can be said of other forms of kusala and that akusala is to be discouraged, here too we agree. Our difference first of all, is in understanding of the relationship, if any, between other kusala, particularly the development of samatha and the development of Vipassana. And here is our second difference, namely you view the Path as consisting of eight limbs to be developed separately, I view it as being a reference to an instance of consciousness when at least five, six or all eight factors arise together to perform their specific and mutually supportive functions. The third difference is in our appreciation of the danger in `self-view' and how and when this manifests. And all this is related to the understanding of anatta and the issue of practice, and also to why you prefer to stick to the Suttas and Vinaya and my preference for the Abhidhamma. Your statement above expresses confidence in Dana, this I have no doubt about. However it seems to be overlooking the possibility and danger of an act of Dana being performed with "self view". Your stress on giving "attention" to the "good act" appears to go at the expense of understanding that any arisen citta has been so `by conditions'. In short you seem more interested in encouraging / developing kusala of other kinds and not so much understanding of the nature of reality…………. ==================== DC: Now the second sentence is crucial. There is absolutely no belief involved in paying attention to the conventional act, as far as I see. For example, I see a beggar. I feel sorry for him. I give him a meal. He is happy I am happy. Where is the belief. What ever the results you get, you get irrespective of what you do? This is Dhammapada verses 1 and 2. They only say that if you do something with a good mind you get good results and bad mind bad results. S=> You say that you do it with understanding, and I believe that you do. However as alluded to above, I think yours is the kind which is able to discriminate to some extent, the value and difference of kusala over akusala. As a result you are able to "do good deeds", but this is mostly with "self". And I believe that due to what I consider to be your mistaken understanding of the Path, you sincerely believe that this is what the Buddha taught you to do, therefore no thought is given to this particular problem of self-view. Am I close? Therefore it depends on how you see Dana in relation to vipassana. If you think that the former leads to the latter, then I consider this to be based on `belief', i.e. your interpretation of the Dhamma. If on the other hand you consider Dana as being good on its own, this would be a level of understanding. Better still, if you saw it as an opportunity to reduce the kilesas, here it would be parami. ==================== DC: If you go beyond the teaching of the Buddha then you have problems of belief, unless you claim a realization of your own. So you see my position, I think, is consistent. S=> Only when there is Right Understanding, do we not go beyond what the Buddha has said, but this is not easy to come by. ==================== DC: Dear Sukin, I think the meaning of the word 'understanding' has to be taken with respect to the Buddha's teaching. S=> I loved the simple definition which you gave to Alex: "pa~n~naa as a faculty of the mind is its ability discriminate: usually the right from wrong, or the true from the false, or the dhamma from adhamma." :-) ==================== DC: The 'dependent-origination' starts with: "avijjaa paccaayaa sankhaara" Our will-ful acts are conditioned by delusion. Now this to me means: All of us who are in Samsara have this delusion (moha) and are unable to see the reality and therefore understand. That is why we travel in samsaara. If you agree to sa.msaara, then you have to accept that. So the question of understanding the concepts you mentions such as anattaa does not arise. S=> Could you elaborate, I don't understand the point you are making? ==================== DC: I also sometime reflect on the following: The people who came to Buddha were hearing the Dhamma for the first time. They were not taught anattaa or satipatthana. But they became, at least some of them, arahants. So what is the necessity to learn all this stuff.] S=> So what do you think enabled them to understand so readily? Are you by any chance implying that our own interest in anatta, conditionality and Abhidhamma, that these are hindering us? What about all the hundreds of thousands of Buddhists who become monks and/ or meditate and go to long retreats, many of these like you stick only to the Suttas and Vinaya, what is their shortcoming? ==================== DC: Well, "sabba paapassa akaran.m" along with the next verse "khantii param.m.." are called the "ovaada paatimokkha" the adivice the Buddha gave to the bhikkhus every morning. The Vinaya rules were promulagared (commencement) twenty years after the Buddhahood. So this was all the advice the early Buddhist followers got. S=> The earliest disciples *did not need* the Vinaya, this is because they lived perfectly without committing even slight akusala. Others who were not so perfect understood the Dhamma well enough to continue developing satipatthana and be always mindful of even little wrong. The Vinaya rules were set out as you know, one by one when individual monks who had little or no wisdom would commit akusala kamma. When fully set out, these rules then served the purpose for sincere but less wise monks, to be reminded about the need to develop kusala, particularly satipatthana. Those who could not appreciate this, but nevertheless had some confidence, these could follow the rules, perhaps not as a reminder to develop satipatthana, but for other levels of kusala, namely Sila. And then there are those who not only could not keep the Vinaya, but who also thought that some rules can be done without. What does all this tell you? I think ideally, a "bhikkhu" is one who *can* follow these rules naturally without any resistance at all. How much this in fact is, depends on the level of panna accumulated. In conclusion, much as the Vinaya was a product of the Buddha's great wisdom, so too, to follow it requires wisdom on our part, don't you think? Personally I think that lay persons should also be interested in the Vinaya. But this not so much in order to follow them as rules, we can do very well with the five or eight precepts, but to grow in understanding / appreciation of kusala of all levels, but more importantly to be reminded of the need to develop wisdom / satipatthana. DC, I'll not be able to respond the next few days, in fact now since yesterday, I have been down with a cold, so I don't even know if this is going to also be a problem. As mentioned in another post, Jon, Sarah and others will be here this week and I will be joining them for discussions at the foundation. Metta, Sukin #77218 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 9:31 am Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. truth_aerator Dear Nina van Gorkom, Taken from another forum, a post by Bhikkhu Santi ---- What did the Buddha mean by the word 'abhidhamma'? Horner says that the term abhidhamma occurs not more than ten times in the first two pitakas (the Suttapitaka and the Vinayapitaka), three of these being in the Vinaya.' (Book of Discipline III, p xi). She says that the word abhidhamma (apart from its use in interpolated material) should be `taken as referring to some material or method in existence prior to the compilation of this [Abhidhamma] Pitaka, and out of which it [the Abhidhamma Pitaka] was gradually elaborated and eventually formed.' (Book of Discipline, Vol. III, p xi) The 'interpolated material' occurs in the Book of the Discipline Vol. III p415: [Regarding the bhikkhunis, who were supposed to ask for leave before asking the Sangha a question] "Not given leave" means: without asking for permission. "Should ask a question" means: if having asked for leave in regard to suttanta, she asks about discipline or about abhidhamma, there is an offense of expiation. This is the only place in the canon where the triad suttanta, vinaya and abhidhamma occur together, and is 'unhesitatingly asssumed to be an interpolation by Oldenburg. (ref: Book of Discipline, Vol. III, pxiv and Encyclopaedia of Buddhism, Vol. 1, p 39) This view is substantiated by Horner. She says that `abhidhamma' in the passage `probably means the literary digest of this name. This passage would therefore seem late, dating from some time after the compilation of the three pitakas.' (Book of Discipline III, p 415) The PTS Pali-English Dictionary says the word 'abhidhamma' was probably not used by the Buddha in the very earliest days of his teaching: 'As the word `abhidhamma' standing alone is not found in the Sutta Nipata or the Anguttara Nikaya, and only once or twice in the Digha Nikaya, it probably came into use only towards the end of the period in which the four Nikayas [of the suttas] grew up.' In the vinaya, at one place the term abhidhamma occurs with vinaya, suttanta, and also gatha (which means poems): [Regarding monks, for whom it is an offense to disparage the learning of vinaya] "There is no offense if, not desiring to disparage, he speaks saying: `Look here, do you master suttantas, or verses (gatha), or what is extra to dhamma [abhidhamma] and afterwards you will master discipline"Book of the Discipline Vol. III p42 Horner says, `The very presence of the word gatha is enough to preclude the term abhidhamma from standing for the literary exegesis of that name, for no reference to the third pitaka would have combined a reference to part of the material (poems) which one of the pitakas finally came to include.' (Book of Discipline, Vol. III, p xii) Her logic here is that, since gatha does not mean Gatha Pitaka, abhidhamma does not mean Abhidhamma Pitaka. So, what does `abhidhamma' actually mean here? Horner says: `Although we can say fairly confidently what abhidhamma does not mean here, it is by no means so easy to assess what it does mean. A monk may say to another, "Master suttanta, or verses (gatha) or abhidhamma, and afterwards you will master discipline."' (Book of Discipline, Vol. III p xii) Regarding this passage, she proposes that abhidhamma means `an intellectual exercise perhaps, devoid of all extraneous matter, in which the meaning of dhamma terms and concepts is to be grasped through their grouping, through their classified relations of identity and dependence and so on, instead of through the more picturesque, personal and hortatory methods, often made intelligible by homely parable and simile, which is the suttanta way of presenting dhamma.'(Book of Discipline, Vol. III p xiii) She says that the word `abhidhamma', occuring in the suttas and vinaya, although not indicating a complete and closed system of philosophy, `had been intended to stand for something more than dhamma and vinaya, perhaps in the sense of some more than usually complete grasp and mastery of them, due to further study and reflection'. (The Indian Historical Quarterly, XVII p299) She proposes that the value of the gathas lay in `their appeal to the more emotional type of disciple…whereas the mastery of abhidhamma would provide a field to attract the more intellectual type, while mastery of suttantas would stir the normally virtuous man of average mental equipment.' (p xiv) TW Rhys Davids suggests the suttas that typify the early abhidhamma: `The last two suttas of the Digha Nikaya [the Sangiti Sutta and the Dasuttara Sutta] with their catechism as a monologue by the catechumen, and of the absence of narrative - they become practically abhidhamma rather than Sutta Pitaka…In the Majjhima Nikaya we have abhidhamma talk in the two Vedalla Suttas'. (Dialogues of the Buddha, Vol. III p199-200) The reason Rhys Davids says that the Digha Nikaya suttas are `practically abhidhamma' is because `tradition itself has recognised a distinction in style between the Dhamma [i.e. the suttas] and the Abhidhamma. Thus the suttas embodying the Dhamma are said to be taught in the discursive style, which makes free use of the simile, the metaphor and the anecdote. This is contrasted with the non-discursive style of the Abhidhamma which uses very select and precise, and therefore thoroughly impersonal terminology which is decidedly technical in meaning and function'. (WS Karunaratne, Encyclopaedia of Buddhism, Vol. 1, p38) The Mahagosinga Sutta provides a valuable clue as to what abhidhamma meant in the earliest period of Buddhism. In the sutta, Ven Sariputta asks Ven MahaMoggallana what type of monk he thought would most illumine the Gosinga sal-wood. Ven MahaMoggallana replies: `In this connection, reverend Sariputta, two monks are talking on Further Dhamma[abhidhamma]; they ask one another questions; in answering one another's questions they respond and do not fail, and their talk on dhamma goes forward'. (M 1 211. Tr IBH) When the Buddha heard of Ven MahaMoggallana's answer, he said, as I've said: `It is good, it is good. For, Sariputta, Moggallana is a talker on dhamma'. This suggests that the earliest abhidhamma arose from the dialogues of monks of `the more intellectual type'. Intellectual interest in dhamma would naturally lead to conversations involving questioning and enquiry. To discover what `abhidhamma' meant in the earliest days, one should study the conversations between monks of the intellectual type. The Mahavedalla Sutta is a good example of this. It records a conversation between Ven Kotthita the Great and Ven Sariputta. Ven Sariputta was said by the Buddha to be `chief of those of great intuitive wisdom'. Ven Kotthita the Great was called `chief of those who have mastery in logical analysis'. These two monks were obviously very fond of discussing dhamma together. Many of their conversations are recorded in the Sutta Pitaka. We have now said that the earliest abhidhamma was the field of the intellectual types. It was characterized by catechism, and by intellectual conversations. As one of the recurrent features of these conversations is analyses of terms, we could reasonably assume that a third feature of the earliest abhidhamma was analysis. Ven Sariputta, `chief of those with intuitive wisdom', was a master of analysis, as is made clear in this passage: `Your reverences, when I had been two weeks ordained a monk, I grasped the analysis of meanings specifically and according to the letter (atthapatisambhida sacchikata odiso byanjanaso) That I explain it in various ways, I teach it, expound it, proclaim it, lay it down, open it up, analyse it and make it clear….[and likewise for the analysis of conditions (dhammapatisambhida), the analysis of definitions (niruttipatisambhida), and the analysis of intellect (patibhanapatisambhida)]. (Gradual Sayings, II, 159, Tr FL Woodward) -------- -- another post --- These are some of my ideas regarding 'abhidhamma': Following on from IB Horner's article, I think that both abhidhamma and abhivinaya referred to a similar sort of discussion & analysis of important terms as performed by some of the disciples of the Buddha (Maha Kotthita, Maha Moggallana, Sariputta, etc.). Oskar von Hinuber wrote a book, in German, several years ago in which he argues that this was originally the way the maatikaa (lists) in the Vinaya were analyzed into their various factors and permutations. Later the same method was applied to the doctrinal Dhamma terms. The commentary explains the last of the three terms "dhammadharo vinayadharo maatikadharo" in the Suttas as one who remembers the two Paatimokkhas. The Paatimokkhas, as simple lists, don't in fact occur anywhere in the Vinaya Pi.taka on their own. I think what happened is that the abhivinaya analysis of rules was eventually included into the Vinaya Pi.taka: "The rules are attributed to the Buddha himself, and the Old Commentary, incorporated into the text, gives accounts of the occasions on which the rules were formulated." Then there is "a New Commentary containing further supplementary information concerning them." Similarly, ways of analyzing and describing doctrinal terms have been evolving, and as the Kinti Sutta indicates, different monks have developed different theories and started disagreeing over them. This eventually led to the splits into various groups, disagreeing both on Vinaya and Dhamma. The groups decided to incorporate the accumulated body of new abhidhamma material into their Canons, although some groups opposed this, saying that abhidhamma could be found in the analytical sections of the Suttas (which were often approved by the Buddha afterwards) and didn't need a special 'basket'. Whether a third 'basket' was created so as to have a complete set of Three (like the Three Vedas) is not sure. Bhikkhu Gavesako -------- Regarding "Dhamma Theory" This theory did not remain static but evolved over the centuries as Buddhist thinkers sought to draw out the implications of the theory and to respond to problems it posed for the critical intellect. Thus the dhamma theory was repeatedly enriched, first by the Abhidhamma commentaries and then by the later exegetical literature and the medieval compendia of Abhidhamma, the so-called "little finger manuals" such as the Abhidhammattha- sangaha, which in turn gave rise to their own commentaries. http://www.abhidhamma.org/dhamma_theory_philosophical_corn.htm ----- I suspect that suttas such as Chachakka Sutta mn148 , would classify as "Higher or Further" Dhamma (Abhidhamma). We need to remember that in those times there were NO pitakas no Nikayas and no books. Sutta and Vinaya was orally passed from buddha to student or teacher to student. Can you imagine how long would it take to orally recite entire Nikaya even once? How long would it take to remember it? How long would it take for a Buddha (who generally didn't stay more than 3 month in a single place) to read 7 books of Abhidhamma Pitaka (which btw are very different from Abhidhamma as we know it) even to a single student? Lots of Metta, Alex #77219 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 9:50 am Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions truth_aerator --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > Thank you for the links. These two don't seem to work: > > A: It's time > http://santifm1.0.googlepages.com/it'stime PDF can be downloaded http://santifm1.0.googlepages.com/ItsTime.pdf They don't work because this webpage splits them in two. Either you recombine them in the URL box or go to the root page and find corresponding articles main page (from which you can also access them and other articles by Ajahn Sujato): http://santifm1.0.googlepages.com/writings Also a good read is: "A history of mindfulness" http://santifm1.0.googlepages.com/webmind.pdf > Satipathana and evolution of the Dhamma theory > http://santifm1.0.googlepages.com/satipatthanaandtheevolutionofthedham > matheory > > Scott: I'll read the first. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. Link to PDF http://santifm1.0.googlepages.com/Satipatthanaevolutiondhammatheory.pd f Make sure that you copy the ENTIRE link (and open it in new window). Lots of metta, Alex #77220 From: Dieter Möller Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 10:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions moellerdieter Hi Alex, thanks for the links.. an interesting source , refering to many topics discussed here. with Metta Dieter #77221 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 10:55 am Subject: Re: Citta indriyabala Dear Scott, my good man - Thanks for turning around 90 degrees back to the main highway again. I have read through your first reply and noticed that it is more a less a book recall. For example, consider my question about reality of the single citta that is associated with sati in contrast to a stream of uncountable cittas with sati for supporting a continuity of sense restraint. My conventional (not ultimate) wisdom tells me that sense restraining is a process that last over a time interval; during such time interval there must be an uncountable number of cittas, most of which are associated with sati, in order to condition the sense constraint to take effect in the conventional & real sense. Your long reply does not answer the question. It talks about the 52 cetasikas and the fact the sati (one of the 52 cetasikas) may or may not arise with every citta. It talks about a known fact that sati only accompanies kusala citta. And the last sentence of the long reply is : "Thus there is the case for it being possible that sati can arise and then not arise. This, as I mentioned, would be by conditions". So what? Tep === #77222 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 10:55 am Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions scottduncan2 Dear Alex, A: "Anyone read Ajahn Sujato's writings re: Abhidhamma?" Scott: The overall essay reads, as the Venerable as much as concedes at the outset, like a tedious tract written by one sect to denigrate another sect. As such it is, of course an opinion. And, as these tracts often are, it is full of inaccurate references to the thesis it wishes to denigrate. The Venerable suffers, in my opinion, from an essential misunderstanding of abhidhamma, coming no doubt from his desire to deconstruct and dismiss it rather than learn it. As such, I'd be moe interested in discussing Abhidhamma itself and not someone's opinion of it. Ajahn Sujato: "...‘Name’ and ‘form’ are each shown to correlate with a particular kind of ‘contact’. Name correlates to ‘labeling contact’, while form correlates to ‘impact contact’. So let us have a look at this ‘contact’. In the normal analysis of contact, it is said to be the co-operation of three factors: the external sense object (e.g. ‘image’), the internal sense organ (e.g. ‘eye’), and the corresponding class of cognition (e.g. ‘visual cognition’). In the case of the five physical senses, then, the ‘impact contact’ would be the ‘impact’ of the external sense object on the internal sense organ â€" light ‘hitting’ the eye, or sound ‘hitting’ the ear. In the case of mental cognition, we have the mental objects (dhammas), mano (usually rendered ‘mind’), and mano -cognition..." Scott: I consider this to be neo-abhidhamma of the author's own invention. Take contact (phassa), for example. You can see what the Venerable has done, can't you? He has devised a new theory which divides 'contact' according to whether it is physical or mental (depending on whether any of the five senses or the mind are involved) and produces two sorts of 'contact' accordingly - 'labelling contact' and 'impact contact'. If he is stating that this is an accurate representation of what is set out according to the abhidhamma method, then he is wrong. If he is making up his own version of things, then who needs it? Taking another commentary, that from the translators of Abhidhammattha Sangaha (A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, Bh. Bodhi, ed., p.78,): "The word phassa is derived from the verb phusati, meaning 'to touch,' but contact should not be understood as the mere physical impact of the object on the bodily faculty. It is, rather, the mental factor by which consciousness mentally 'touches' the object that has appeared, thereby initiating the entire cognitive event. In terms of the fourfold defining device used in the Pali Commentaries, contact has the characteristic of touching. Its function is impingement, as it causes consciousness and the object to impinge. Its manifestation is the concurrence of consciousness, sense faculty, and object. Its proximate cause is an objective field that has come into focus." Scott: The Venerable clearly refers to 'the internal sense organ (e.g. 'eye')' and seems to mean the literal eye. If you can show he doesn't mean this, then fine, but this concrete error is enough to invalidate his thesis. The physical eye is ruupa which arises, is present and then falls away. It is not that ball of meat in the skull. Phassa is a mental factor which arises conascently with citta. It is naama, not ruupa. My opinion is the above. Other than wishing to proseletyse for someone else's anti-abhidhamma musings, do you yourself have any interest in acutally learning it, Alex? This forum has held more than its share of endless discussions which amount to the contradicting theses that 1) 'Abhidhamma is so taught by the Buddha' and, 2) 'Abhidhamma is not taught by the Buddha'. Why reinivent this wheel? Sincerely, Scott. Sincerely, Scott. #77223 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 11:26 am Subject: Re: Citta scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Thanks for the reply: T: "...conventional...wisdom tells me that sense restraining is a process that last over a time interval; during such time interval there must be an uncountable number of cittas, most of which are associated with sati, in order to condition the sense constraint to take effect..." Scott: A 'process' starts with one moment of consciousness, is made of of separate moments of consciousness, and 'continues' by conditions. Sincerely, Scott. Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (216) #77224 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 11:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Citta nilovg Dear Scott and Tep, your dialogue is very good and I am glad you both continue it. Tep asked in the beginning: "...Is it realistic for a single citta to arise with sati, and the second citta after that rises without sati?..." We cannot count cittas, but we have learnt that there are usually seven javanacittas and these are all of the same type. If the first one is accompanied by sati, so are the following ones. The same is true of virati cetasika arising with kusala citta. Seven in a series. Nina. Op 8-okt-2007, om 16:42 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: > T: "...Can that restraint happen in one moment of a single citta?..." > > Scott: Yes. It depends on conditions whether this arises again. #77225 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 11:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Q. re:Asoka, Ch 7, no 5. nilovg Dear Tep, Thank you for your sincere post, and I know that you speak the truth, from your own experience. I think that you have conditions to realize at once the disadvantages of anger. And as I said before, I admire you for this, seeing such a difference between Tep a few years ago and Tep now. Again, there are conditions at work and certainly your continuous study of the Dhamma, reading many, many suttas all the time must have helped you. It is understanding, not you, which sees the disadvantages of dosa. Each sobhana citta has the assistance of many sobhana cetasikas, as Scott just explained. This is not theory, it can happen just now. Knowing this really helps us not to take abstention from akusala for mine. Nina. Op 8-okt-2007, om 18:00 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > I also > put all attention at the drawbacks of anger, rather than on the > anger or > on the person whom I am angry at. > > At first it was very hard for me to overcome anger this way. But after > several repeated conscientious attempts over a few years to replace > angry thought with its opposite, the mind seemed to learn and it > became easier each time for me to switch from a big anger to small > anger, then to non-anger and, finally, to small metta. I still have > a long > way to go before I can fill the mind with the metta that extends to > all > directions ! #77226 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 11:59 am Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Sorry, I didn't mean to be doubly sincere. I'm not that sincere. "Sincerely, Scott. Sincerely, Scott." I'm only this sincere: Sincerely, Scott. #77227 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 12:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] CMA (Abhidhammattha Sangaha) by Bhikkhu Bodhi - 7 Universals nilovg Dear Alex, I appreciate your continuous study of the Dhamma. Op 8-okt-2007, om 17:19 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > ekaggata (one pointedness ) - It is manifested as peace, and its > proximate cause is happiness. - pg 80 > > Excuse me? What happens of one is really, really restless and > unhappy? How can one have happiness as a UNIVERSAL proximate cause > of (ekagatta cetasika) really restless & unhappy citta? What about > consiousness in Avici hell? Does it have ekaggata cetasika with > peace, and happiness as proximate cause? --------- N: The manifestation and proximate cause do not refer to every citta, not to akusala citta. These refer to sammaa samaadhi which is sobhana, beautiful. Samaadhi is another term for this cetasika. In samatha and in vipassana the above mentioned manifestation and proximate cause are evident. Of course akusala citta does not have these. The Atthasaalinii mentions peace of mind and understanding as manifestation. It has the function to focus on one object, and this goes for each citta. Nina. #77228 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 12:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. nilovg Dear Alex, thank you for the trouble giving quotes about Abhidhamma theories. I know that there are many. The best is to find out what is in it, reading the Dhammasangani and the Vibhanga, for instance. There is much to say about this subject, but I am leaving for India day after tomorrow. Nina. Op 8-okt-2007, om 18:31 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > Taken from another forum, a post by Bhikkhu Santi > ---- > What did the Buddha mean by the word 'abhidhamma'? #77229 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 12:34 pm Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions truth_aerator --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > > Scott: I consider this to be neo-abhidhamma of the author's own invention. > > Take contact (phassa), for example. You can see what the Venerable > has done, can't you? He has devised a new theory which divides > 'contact' according to whether it is physical or mental (depending on whether any of the five senses or the mind are involved) and produces two sorts of 'contact' accordingly - 'labelling contact' and 'impact contact'. > > If he is stating that this is an accurate representation of what is > set out according to the abhidhamma method, then he is wrong. If he > is making up his own version of things, then who needs it? > Taking another commentary, that from the translators of Abhidhammattha Sangaha (A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, Bh. Bodhi, ed., p.78,): > "The word phassa is derived from the verb phusati, meaning 'to touch,' but contact should not be understood as the mere physical impact of the object on the bodily faculty. It is, rather, the mental factor by which consciousness mentally 'touches' the object that has appeared, thereby initiating the entire cognitive event. >>>>> I think that The Venerable has taken it from DN#15 Here is Ven Thanisaro translation: -- "'From name-and-form as a requisite condition comes contact.' If the qualities, traits, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of name-group (mental activity) were all absent, would designation-contact with regard to the form-group (the physical body) be discerned?" "No, lord." "If the permutations, signs, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of form-group were all absent, would resistance-contact with regard to the name-group be discerned?" "No, lord." "If the permutations, signs, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of name-group and form-group were all absent, would designation-contact or resistance-contact be discerned?" "No, lord." "Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for contact, i.e., name-and-form. DN#15 ---- >>> Its function is impingement, as it causes consciousness and the object to impinge. >>>>> Not consiousness but Nama-rupa according to DN#15. > Scott: The Venerable clearly refers to 'the internal sense organ (e.g. > 'eye')' and seems to mean the literal eye. If you can show he doesn't mean this, then fine, but this concrete error is enough to invalidate > his thesis. The physical eye is ruupa which arises, is present and > then falls away. It is not that ball of meat in the skull. >>>>> It probably shows the ambiguity in terms such as the "eye". If it is not the physical eye with corresponding consiousness (with the optic nerve, etc) that sees, what then? Oh and if we are really strict, the physical eye is a perception since it is form+color+tactile feeling (if we touch it) + it serves a function. I read abit of Abhidhamma from CMA. However as you are aware, Abhidhamma is HUGE and a lot was added to it over the centuries. > My opinion is the above. > > Other than wishing to proseletyse for someone else's anti-abhidhamma > musings, do you yourself have any interest in acutally learning it, > Alex? This forum has held more than its share of endless discussions which amount to the contradicting theses that>> Ven Sujato has also said: "No aspect of the abhidhamma speaks so eloquently of the dismissal of experience as the treatment of feeling. The abhidhamma says that `wholesome consciousness' is invariably associated with either pleasure or equanimity. This blatantly contradicts the Mahadhammasamâdâna Sutta (M46.16): `Here, someone in pain and grief abstains from killing living beings….' A similar point can be made with reference to the abhidhamma's strange analysis of the kinds of feeling associated with the six kinds of sense cognition. Feelings associated with the eye, ear, nose, and tongue are said to be neutral only. This seems to entail that flowers are beautiful and food tasty only because they make you happy. Has no abhidhammika eaten a mango while depressed and still found it tasty? Or smelt sewage while happy and still found it unpleasant? Again, the fact that this doctrine contradicts the suttas (which speak of `the feeling born of eye-stimulus, whether pleasant, painful, or neutral…') is not as worrying as the fact that it flies in the face of the living experience of the abhidhammikas, every moment of every day. Neither verifiable nor falsifiable, the theory of moments inhabits an epistemological no-man's-land, drifting like a lost albatross over the trackless seas of paradox, seeking but never finding a place to land. " ---------- One of the ways to study something and really learn it is to ask critical questions of it. In dialogue, question-answer, critique- rebutal we learn. Sometimes I myself when I think of some statement go and try to disprove it, in order to understand mine and someone else's view point. If we simply accept something on dogma than it would lead to stalling, regress, and falling of true Buddha teaching. Lots of Metta, Alex Date: Sun Oct 7, 2007 4:09 pm Subject: It occurred to me this evening zorroelbueno sitting in the park on a decaying picnic table watching the boats on the river and the ceaseless traffic on the expressway beside it that once you see that there is no choice everything beocmes observation and over and over I said to myself: It's true! #77231 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 1:01 pm Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions scottduncan2 Dear Alex, A: "..One of the ways to study something and really learn it is to ask critical questions of it. In dialogue, question-answer, critique- rebutal we learn. Sometimes I myself when I think of some statement go and try to disprove it, in order to understand mine and someone else's view point. If we simply accept something on dogma than it would lead to stalling, regress, and falling of true Buddha teaching." Scott: I may get to the rest of the reply. In my own field (not in the least Dhamma-relevant but just for example) I've had innumerable conversations with people who go on and on about how Freud is wrong about this and that. When asked if they've ever bothered to read the original, the inevitable response is to the negative. You keep quoting others with their own points of view. Do you have any of your own critical questions to ask regarding Abhidhamma? Wouldn't this come closer to trying to learn about it? Sincerely, Scott. #77232 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 3:14 pm Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > > Ven Sujato has also said: > "No aspect of the abhidhamma speaks so eloquently of the dismissal of > experience as the treatment of feeling. The abhidhamma says > that `wholesome consciousness' is invariably associated with either > pleasure or equanimity. This blatantly contradicts the > Mahadhammasamâdâna Sutta (M46.16): `Here, someone in pain and grief > abstains from killing living beings….' > > A similar point can be made with reference to the abhidhamma's > strange analysis of the kinds of feeling associated with the six > kinds of sense cognition. Feelings associated with the eye, ear, > nose, and tongue are said to be neutral only. This seems to entail > that flowers are beautiful and food tasty only because they make you > happy. Has no abhidhammika eaten a mango while depressed and still > found it tasty? Or smelt sewage while happy and still found it > unpleasant? Again, the fact that this doctrine contradicts the suttas > (which speak of `the feeling born of eye-stimulus, whether pleasant, > painful, or neutral…') is not as worrying as the fact that it flies > in the face of the living experience of the abhidhammikas, every > moment of every day. Neither verifiable nor falsifiable, the theory > of moments inhabits an epistemological no-man's-land, drifting like a > lost albatross over the trackless seas of paradox, seeking but never > finding a place to land. " >_____ Dear Alex As it happens I disagree with the venerable Bhikkhu on his points above. For example, it can be known directly that feeling is neutral when seeing, it is only in later mind door processes that desire or aversion ,which come with pleasant feeloing or unpleasant feeling arise. Thus it can certainly be verified despite the claims of the venerable Sujato. The venerable believes that when there is kusala citta there may be unpleasant feeling. This is wrong view but who could prove it to him, after all he doesn't think the Abhidhamma is correct, hence even the Buddha's teaching he rejects. The sutta quote he uses to prove his strange belief does nothing of the sort. One can have great physical pain but there can also be moments when here is kusala citta with equanimity that arise with neutral or plessant feeling. You see, feelings arise and pass away fairly quickly: in the time it takes to blink an eye trillions have already come and gone. Robert #77233 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 3:43 pm Subject: Re: Citta ... A Break ... indriyabala Dear Nina and Scott, - Thank you, Nina, for pointing out the seventeen javana-cittas that form a cognitive series (of consciousness) and the very important fact that sati either accompnies them all, or it does not. I also want to thank you, Scott, for bearing with me (who is not a very good student) for so long, longer than you might have thought at the beginning. I appreciate your sacrifice of personal time for all this. After having gone through our long discussion (with twists and turns), now I feel like the young-and-lazy college students these days when a Spring Break is near. So may I ask you for a permission, Scott, to give me a long break? I am also thinking about dropping the course. Yours truly, Tep. === #77234 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 3:52 pm Subject: Re: Citta ... A Break ... scottduncan2 Dear Tep, T: "...give me a long break? I am also thinking about dropping the course." Scott: Okay. Sincerely, Scott. #77235 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 4:22 pm Subject: Q. Re: Conditions, Ch 15, no 9. indriyabala Dear Nina (Sarah & Jon), - Thank you very, very much for taking the hard-to-find time to write another long reply for me. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Tep, > Op 6-okt-2007, om 21:48 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > > > T: Do you mean the investigation (pariyatti) of the naama and ruupa all by itself (as explained in your earlier post), when it is > > repeated over several long years, will be sufficient to eventually > > realize the 'direct knowing' of sensed objects in the present moment? It sounds like an over-simplification of the Teachings to me. Or, maybe I have missed something important here. Please advise. > -------- > N: Pariyatti is investigation of the dhammas that appear at this > moment. Pa~n~naa is still weak, but it can grow. We learn that what appears through the eyes is only what appears through the eyes and > that nobody can change it. The fact that nobody can change what > appears now teaches us about anattaa. Even on the intellectual level some of the wrong view of self is wearing away. To understand > realities as only nama, only rupa means: they are nama, not a person; they are rupa, not a person. > Coming back to your sutta quote: <"Bhikkhus, when one knows and sees the eye, forms, eye-consciousness, eye-contact, and feelings that arises with eye-contact as condition, as they actually are (jaanam passam yathaabhuutam), then one is not inflamed by lust (na saarajjati) for them.[MN 149] > > This sutta we should consider deeply. The Buddha speaks, as in many suttas about eyesense, seeing, colour, eye-contact, feelings. We are reminded of this moment. Seeing them as they are: first as non- self. > The sotaapanna has eradicated wrong view, but not yet clinging to > objects, as you know. But it is important to see the amount of > clinging, even now, after seeing has fallen away. Clinging, this is the second noble Truth and we have to understand this more an more in daily life. Clinging at this moment, even when it is subtle and we do not think of getting things for ourselves. After seeing we think of what is seen: a person, a thing. Thinking is always done either with kusala citta or with akusala citta. Mostly with clinging. We like to perceive persons and things all around us. We like to see, hear,think, go on living. The second noble Truth. > The first noble Truth is the fact that seeing and all other realities fall away immediately. They cannot be any refuge, they are dukkha. The third noble truth is also shown in this sutta; the end of clinging. And then, when we read this sutta we are exhorted to go on > developing the way leading to the end of clinging to objects. > Each sutta is very compact, not easy to understand all implications. > Nina. > Tep: I noticed that every time when I kept on revisiting the same or related issues, in which we did not have the same belief/understanding, you always replied with the same courtesy, thoroughness and patience. And, of course, your answers have been consistent (i.e. essentially the same, or with minor changes). I have known not many persons like you-- Sarah and Jon are included ;-); yet I do appreciate such qualities of self-confidence and consistency in you. So I have decided that from now I am not going to ask those conflicting/disagreeing questions anymore here, meaning I am withdrawing peacefully from all discussions with peace and good understanding. Yours truly, Tep === #77236 From: "vipassana_infonet" Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 2:51 pm Subject: Re: dhammaquestions vipassana_in... respected nina, sarah and other members of dsg, I sincerely thank all of you for replying (or contemplating to reply!) to my many dhamma questions (thread: dhamma question and dhamma question - part 2). I wait to read more replies (to all my questions) and then I may again discuss. I hope I am able to make a meaningful contribution to this dhamma discussion so that all may benefit. I thank all for helping me with my avijja. dear sarah, I am in calcutta, india. regards manish agarwala #77237 From: LBIDD@... Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 5:59 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,198 Vism.XVII,199 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII 198. Is this correct in view of the absence of consciousness in non-percipient beings?--It is not incorrect. For: This consciousness, as cause of mind And matter, is twice reckoned: Result, and also non-result. Wherefore this is correctly said. 199. The consciousness that is the cause of mentality-materiality is reckoned to be twofold classed as resultant and not resultant. And since in the case of non-percipient beings materiality is originated by kamma, it has as its condition kamma-formation consciousness that occurred in the five-constituent becoming. This applies also to the kamma-originated materiality arising in the course of an existence in the five-constituent becoming at the moment of profitable or any other consciousness. So this is correct. This is how the exposition can also be known here 'by inclusion'. ************************* 198. asa~n~nesu vi~n~naa.naabhaavaa ayuttanti ce. naayutta.m. idampi, naamaruupassa ya.m hetu, vi~n~naa.na.m ta.m dvidhaa mata.m. vipaakamavipaaka~nca, yuttameva yato ida.m.. 199. ya~nhi naamaruupassa hetu vi~n~naa.na.m, ta.m vipaakaavipaakabhedato dvedhaa mata.m. ida~nca asa~n~nasattesu kammasamu.t.thaanattaa pa~ncavokaarabhave pavattaabhisa"nkhaaravi~n~naa.napaccayaa ruupa.m. tathaa pa~ncavokaare pavattiya.m kusalaadicittakkha.ne kammasamu.t.thaananti yuttameva ida.m. eva.m sa"ngahatopettha vi~n~naatabbo vinicchayo. #77238 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 6:25 pm Subject: Re: Response to DC Part 1. indriyabala Dear DC (and Azita), - It was unexpected that you had a delight in my prompt reply. I have not been a very consistent person, however. You wrote, "My interest relate to really the whole question of enlightenment and "conversion"-entry to the Buddhist path, mundane or supramundane. It also is related to ideas about truth and knowledge in the Teachings of the Buddha.". I think that "interest" is common to all Buddhists who have an unshakable saddha in the Blessed One. .............. >DC: Let's take a few conversions: Angulimaala, Aalavaka, Saariputta (really upatissa) and of course Rahula. Can you really draw any inferences from these things? I can't because I don't know about any of these things personally and directly. You might say: "You don't know about Angulimala ..." But that is the truth (sacca) agreed or vohara. That is all mortals are capable of? So this discussion is about the unknown. Buddha totally and unequivocally rejected such discussions. T: I do not understand why you referred to these Arahants, the ariya savaka, as "things". And I am even more uncertain why you wrote, "But that is the truth (sacca) agreed or vohara. That is all mortals are capable of? So this discussion is about the unknown.". We don't have to discuss these Arahants if you do not think such discussion is useful. It is okay. ........... >DC: Azita says "When I read suttas about beings gaining final liberation, it reminds me just how very far away from 'me' that is." This is a view: a false view "micchaa di.t.thi". ... ... The Buddha was the Most Compassionate One (mahaa kaaruniko). He would not teach a dhamma that would condemn beings to samsaara for aeons and aeons. Such views are adhamma, misrepresentaion of the Buddha and a great akusala. T: DC, I think I understand Azita well enough to say her view is not a "micchaa di.t.thi". She believes in an extremely-long samsara and other things like "accumulations" and paramis, but that belief is based on several stories in the Suttanta Pitaka, especially the Digha Nikaya. You cited a passage in DN 22 about the great benefits from the development of Satipatthana ('if anyone should develop these four satipa.t.thaanas in such a way for seven years, one of two fruits could be expected for him:either final knowledge here and now, or, if there is a trace of clinging left, non-returning...'), but you have to be very special to be able to achieve one of those great benefits in this very life. Are you sure you are that special? ........... >DC: Here is a teaser for you: "What do you mean by seeing anattaa?" T: Seeing anattaa in all sankhata dhammas by paññaa-cakkhu. Tep === #77239 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 8:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. dcwijeratna Dear Nina, Thank you for your post, a portion of which I have quoted below: ....................... "Dear DC, just a few words, but this subject has been widely discussed in dsg. If it interests you you can dig up old posts under Abhidhamma. I give a few quotes from Rob K's forum, first in the Vinaya. Sarah wrote many posts about this subject. Those who are going to India, note at the end about Sankassa we shall visit. Op 8-okt-2007, om 9:03 heeft DC Wijeratna het volgende geschreven: > >A: 2) Where in the suttas is Abhidhamma Pitaka mentioned? > > DC: Nowhere!!! in the Sutta Pi.taka. The reason is simple. It is a > later development. ------ Rob K: Some quotes from the Sutta Pitaka and Vinaya: The Abhidhamma in the Vinaya. (Vin, 1V,344):" ............................... This is how I understand your post: The statement "Nowhere!!! in the sutta Pi.taka" is not factual as their is evidence in the Sutta Pi.taka and Vinaya Pi.taka. And then you give examples of "Abhidhamma in the Vinaya" which to seems to have no relevance to the quesion or the answer. Here are my responses: 1. This fragment--"just a few words, but this subject has been widely discussed in dsg."---what exactly do you refer to as "this subject"? The original subject to which I responded had a title like "Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions." 2. Thank you for the kind advice in the second sentence, i.e. "If it interests you you can dig up old posts under Abhidhamma." I presume that there is a lot of material relevant to the subject under discussion. 3. The third sentence is: "I give a few quotes from Rob K's forum, first in the Vinaya." This you follow up later with "Rob K: Some quotes from the Sutta Pitaka and Vinaya: The Abhidhamma in the Vinaya. (Vin, 1V,344):" There are two things here which I cannot connect up. (1) The original "subject" under discussion was "Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions". However, your quotes are from "The Abhidhamma in the Vinaya". (2) The question to which I responded was : "Where in the suttas is Abhidhamma Pitaka mentioned?" The question refers to "Abhidhamma Pi.taka" and not to "Abhidhamma". Moreover, many of the other questions the other questions also referred to "Abhidhamma Pi.taka" What follows from (1) and (2) above is the quotations from the Vinaya are not relevant to the subject under discussion and more importantly, to the speicific question and answer. None of them refer to the Abhidhamma Pi.taka. It is possible tha my analysis above is not correct. I shall be grateful, if you would kindly go through this and respond. This is very important. Because, my answers, which really relate to the history or development of the Tipitaka and in particular to the Abhidhamma Pit.taka, were based on acknowledged authorities. And you would be doing a great personal favour to me. Also now I stand accused of providing "minsinformation". With mettaa, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77240 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 10:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. dcwijeratna Dear Tep, I am involved in doing some other work. But the temptation to respond to your post is overwhelming. So here I am writing a reply. =========================================================== Dear DC (and Azita), - >Tep: I think that "interest" is common to all Buddhists who have an unshakable saddha in the Blessed One. ............ .. DC: What is unshakeable saddhaa? Your definition and the Pali word for it. ================================================ >>DC: Let's take a few conversions: Angulimaala, Aalavaka, Saariputta (really upatissa) and of course Rahula. Can you really draw any inferences from these things? I can't because I don't know about any of these things personally and directly. You might say: "You don't know about Angulimala ..." But that is the truth (sacca) agreed or vohara. That is all mortals are capable of? So this discussion is about the unknown. Buddha totally and unequivocally rejected such discussions. >T: I do not understand why you referred to these Arahants, the ariya savaka, as "things". And I am even more uncertain why you wrote, "But that is the truth (sacca) agreed or vohara. That is all mortals are capable of? So this discussion is about the unknown.". We don't have to discuss these Arahants if you do not think such discussion is useful. It is okay. ........... DC: I thougt I referred to the "conversions" and not to the arhants. How can I refer to arahants as "things"; I take refuge in them. [That is for the naama-ruupa boys]. And we have therefore to discuss them. What I meant by not discussing the conversions is in relation to the time it takes for a being to become an arahant. Sorry for making myself not clear. ================================================= T: DC, I think I understand Azita well enough to say her view is not a "micchaa di.t.thi". She believes in an extremely-long samsara and other things like "accumulations" and paramis, but that belief is based on several stories in the Suttanta Pitaka, especially the Digha Nikaya. ..................... DC: Dear Tep, Her view is a micchaa ditthi. I think you know that the Buddha never postulated a beginning for "beings". So not only her, all of us have a past that is extending to infinity. And none of are aware of the past. So all of us must start from the same point. As to the future, it does not accord with facts to form a belief that it takes a long period because it is not in accordance with dhamma--hence, it is a micchaa di.t.thi. It is just to give the facts in the Buddha's own words I quoted DN 22. This is verys serious issue, Tep. If one believes in that, then one has no saddhaa. One cannot even enter the Buddhist path. I felt so sorry, that is why I took the trouble. It reminds me, I saw something similar--That a being will have to hang around aeons and aeons in samsaara before one can find peace and happiness-- in an earlier post. That probably was in the back of my mind as well. ===================================== >Tep: You cited a passage in DN 22 ..., but you have to be very special to be able to achieve one of those great benefits in this very life. Are you sure you are that special? ........... DC: The first part is a belief of yours. As to the question above, I cannot judge; it is for others. But more seriously is there any criterion by which you can judge? I am not aware of one. In the cicumstances the safest thing is to believe the word of the Buddha. If you are averse to belief even to that extent, forget about that and see how you can be happy here and now. ================================================= >>DC: Here is a teaser for you: "What do you mean by seeing anattaa?" >T: Seeing anattaa in all sankhata dhammas by paññaa-cakkhu. ................... DC: You have avoided the issue. What is pa~n~naa-cakkhu? Where it is? I don't have any such thing. I have only my good old pair of eyes to see with. Give me also a pair with instructions to fit it? [All this is in a lighter vein. Hope I will not offend you. But the questions have a serious intent] =================================================== One point before I stop. I have been referring to Azita and her views without her permission. I hope she won't mind. I would be grateful, if you would kindly explain to her that 'micchaadi.t.thi' was used in a techincal sense. All di.t.this except sammaa di.t.thi are micchaadi.t.thi. And my humblest apologies, if I have wounded her feelings by using words indiscriminately. With mettaa to you and to Azita, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77241 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 10:50 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,198 Vism.XVII,199 nichiconn Path of Purity, p.673: Is this phrase suitable for the perceptionless beings, who have no consciousness? It is not suitable. For That consciousness which is the cause, Of name and form twofold, is deemed As with result and eke without; Hence what is said of it is fit. For that consciousness which is the cause of name and form is considered to be twofold as giving a result and not giving a result. And since this kind of matter is set up by karma among the perceptionless beings, it is conditioned by the consciousness of preparation proceeding in existence of the five constituents. And so is that matter which is set up by karma at the moment of consciousness, which is moral and so on at procedure in the five constituents. Hence is the above statement suitable. Thus is decision to be understood by way of groups also. #77242 From: "Leo" Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 11:46 pm Subject: ascetical and buddhist way leoaive Hi I would like to touch a topic of ascetism. It looks to me it is not touched in complete way. Buddha said that ascetism is unprofitable. So I found some things on ascetism: Asceticism describes a life characterized by abstinence from worldly pleasures (austerity). Those who practice ascetic lifestyles often perceive their practices as virtuous and pursue them to achieve greater spirituality. Many ascetics believe the action of purifying the body helps to purify the soul, and thus obtain a greater connection with the Divine or find inner peace. This may take the form of self-mortification, rituals or renunciations of pleasure. However, ascetics maintain that self-imposed constraints bring them greater freedom in various areas of their lives, such as increased clarity of thought and the ability to resist potentially destructive temptations. Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascetic From my studies of Suttas and Sitras, I found that the difference between ascetic and Bhikkhu is that Buddhist Monk has: Buddhist Bowl, Tree, Big robes, Cloth to sit on for meditation, medications stored, umbrella, fan and possibly some sandals or flip-flops. There are some items given in Vinaya, that are allowed. It looks to me these things are making that difference between ascetic and bhikkhu. Beside that, there are some talks that ascetics have are not allowed, so from all that I see a Buddhist way. How do you see it in terms of non-ascetism? With Metta Leo #77243 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 9, 2007 12:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Citta ... A Break ... nilovg Dear Tep, before you take a break I have to put something straight. Op 9-okt-2007, om 0:43 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > Thank you, Nina, for pointing out the seventeen javana-cittas that > form a cognitive series (of consciousness) and the very important fact > that sati either accompnies them all, or it does not. -------- Javana-cittas arise within a process and these are mostly seven in number. They are (for non-arahats) either kusala citta or akusala citta. Sati accompanies kusala citta. When counting a whole sense- door process, including bhavanga-cittas preceding it, there are seventeen cittas. Nina. #77244 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 9, 2007 12:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Re: Conditions, Ch 15, no 9. nilovg Dear Tep, please go on asking, it is useful. Also other people have similar questions. Nina. Op 9-okt-2007, om 1:22 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > So I have decided that from now I am not going to ask those > conflicting/disagreeing questions anymore here, meaning I am > withdrawing peacefully from all discussions with peace and good > understanding. #77245 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 9, 2007 12:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: dhammaquestions nilovg Dear Manish, sorry, I misspelled your name before. Op 8-okt-2007, om 23:51 heeft vipassana_infonet het volgende geschreven: > I wait to read more replies (to all my questions) and then I may again > discuss. > I hope I am able to make a meaningful contribution to this dhamma > discussion so that all may benefit. ---------- N: Yes, you have good questions. Each following person to answer could mention all preceding numbers that were answered. Thus far: 4, 9, 11, 12, 28. -------- > > M: I thank all for helping me with my avijja. ------- N: All of us are born, thus we have avijjaa. ---------- > > M:dear sarah, I am in calcutta, ------- N: We do not pass Calcutta this time. Nina. #77246 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 9, 2007 1:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. nilovg Dear DC (and Tep) Op 9-okt-2007, om 3:25 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > DC, I think I understand Azita well enough to say her view is not > a "micchaa di.t.thi". She believes in an extremely-long samsara and > other things like "accumulations" and paramis, but that belief is > based on several stories in the Suttanta Pitaka, especially the Digha > Nikaya. -------- N: This is completely in accordance with the ancient commentaries. Ciira kaala bhaavanaa. Also, we may come to realize that we have accumulated an enormous amount of ignorance. How could this be eradicated within a short time? BTW DC, you wrote in another post: Sorry I took out of your post 'Abhidhamma' because that caught my eye. No, I am not accusing you of misinformation, you are very sincere and modest and try to find out what is the truth. I know that there are different opinions and also at this time several Bhikkhus think that the Abhidhamma is of later time. For me the ancient commentaries are acknowledged authorities but we differ of opinion. I have no time now to answer your post, but I hope later on, after India. Perhaps someone else will meanwhile. Nina. #77247 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Oct 9, 2007 1:08 am Subject: Human Rebirth! bhikkhu0 Friends: Doing Much Good & little evil creates Human Being Rebirth! Whether deva , asura or human beings, one is short-lived because of killing done in the past or long-lived because of avoidance of all killing in the past! Leprosy, wasting, fever, madness & other diseases of human beings exist today because of past human evil of killing, harming & chaining creatures... Whoever is a thief of others goods & gives nothing whatsoever, will never acquire wealth, however much he works... Whoever takes wealth not given yet gives gifts is reborn after death first wealthy, but then later poor... Any one who is neither a thief, nor a giver, nor an exceeding miser surely obtains lasting wealth, though only with great difficulty... That man who is never a thief of others goods, generous & free from avarice, easily & swiftly obtains many rich possessions, which cannot be stolen... Whoever gives food is always reborn in comfort, given long life, beauty & strength, is wise & avoids disease... Whoever would offer clothes is reborn modest, beautiful, splendid, liked by all & receives many garments & ornaments... Whoever gives houses here with joyful heart, for that good being there will arise future deva palaces rich in all possible pleasures of the senses... Whatsoever men offer bridges, sandals and so on are always comfortable in the next life & they obtain the best of vehicles & means of transport... Those who build freshwater wells, tanks, ponds are reborn comfortable, free from heat, sweat and thirst... Whoever offers a garden, the refuge for all beings, will be reborn worshipped with flowers, rich & glorious... Erudition is obtained by giving knowledge, & wisdom by giving analysis... By giving medicine & safety, one is reborn free from illness & danger... By giving lamps one becomes clear-sighted, by giving musical sounds one becomes sweet-voiced, and by giving bed & seat one wins future ease... Whoever here on earth gives milk, nutriments, vegetables & fine edibles strengthening the body, becomes strong, beautiful, wealthy & very old... By giving a maiden one obtains sensual pleasures and a future retinue... By giving land one is reborn as prosperous and rich in money and grain... Whichever return is desired whether flowers, money, or beauty, then that itself should be given to whoever wants it... Then one will get it!!! Whoever gives only for the egoistic purpose of later gain spoils his gift, One who gives for the sake of heaven, out of fear, for fame or for own comfort, or with half-hearted unhappy motivation reaps spoiled fruit... Whoever gives something for the joy of others, warm, full of sympathy, happy, altruistic, generous, not only for own good, reaps unspoiled fruit... Anything whatsoever that is given to another at the proper time in the proper way returns many-fold in many future lives in just the same way... Not oppressing others, giving at the right time what is needed & desired, without spoiling the fruit by regretting, one can adorn oneself with the future effects of such Noble giving, in fine harmony with the Dhamma... Since there verily is winning of future fruit from gifts being well given, giving, and generosity becomes the most important and proximate cause of all luxury that results from action. Giving causes richness as Effect! Whoever keeps away from anothers wife, will obtain a beautiful wife! Whoever with own wife avoids the wrong place & time becomes a man! But that man who does not stop his horny thoughts of others wives and who commits adultery becomes a homosexual if light, or woman if grave! That woman who disgusts being female, is pure in moral, with little lust, and always longs for manhood, will attain future manhood accordingly... Whoever rightly enters upon a reclusive Noble life, all correct & pure, becomes splendid, very blessed, wealthy & adored even by the devas ... Avoiding drinking, drugs & inebriation one is reborn with clear memory, neither bewildered nor confused! A truthful person is reborn glorious, provided with great security & ensured... Whoever causes no division, even between those already split, is reborn strong-minded with faithful followers... Whoever always carries out the Teachers bidding in a joyful mind and who teaches what is advantageous & also what is detrimental, becomes one whose words are welcome... One will be downed & humbled by disrespecting others, but elevated & famed through respecting those who are worthy of respect. Those who enjoy contempt for others, are treacherous and untruthful, & take great pride in their beauty become hunchbacks and dwarves. Envying other's skills, one will become stupid... Unpleasant & rude to the pleasant & polite, one becomes dumb & ugly... Whoever is angry at friendly words is reborn deaf, mute & bewildered... Generalizing: Having given good, one gets pleasure. Having given evil bad, one gets suffering... Suffering is the result & fruit of own bad behaviour, while comfort, pleasure & ease is the resulted fruit of admirable action! Most common is a mixture of pleasure & pain as the resulted effect of a mixture of own past both good and bad mental, verbal & bodily action... Know that every event match & accord with the actions that caused it!!! All being & becoming is thus a complexity of cause & effect playing out... Action and Reaction! Cause and Effect! Kamma and Fruit! Determines all! Source (edited extract): PañcagatidÄ«panÄ« by Ashvaghosa & Saddhammaghosa: 11-12th century AC. Tr. by Ann A. Hazlewood. Journal of the PÄ?li Text Society. Vol. XI 1987: http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=13271 Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka * http://What-Buddha-Said.net ... Human Being Rebirth! #77248 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue Oct 9, 2007 4:55 am Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Regarding: "Horner says: ...Although we can say fairly confidently what abhidhamma does not mean here, it is by no means so easy to assess what it does mean. A monk may say to another, "Master suttanta, or verses (gatha) or abhidhamma, and afterwards you will master discipline."' (Book of Discipline, Vol. III p xii)..." This is from: http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebsut065.htm Scott: There are many quotes cited by I. B. Horner, in her study of the word 'abhidhamma'. She also wrote, in the foreword to Conditional Relations (a translation of some of Pa.t.thaana, the seventh book of the Abhidhamma): "...As the province of Pa.t.thaana is one of Omniscience, the sphere of Buddhas only (see Intr. p. cii), a faithful exposition of this 'ocean of method' could be made intelligible only by someone who had devoted years of deep study and reflexion to it...This vol. of Pa.t.thaana and the Guide to it may be studied therefore with every confidence. They are a magnificent example of a complete comprehension of what the Buddhavacana meant then, at the time it was uttered, and of a rare power to convey this meaning to students some 2,500 years later in the sense it was intended. They will find that the venerable verities still exist today..." Scott: And in her foreword to The Book of Analysis (Vibha"nga, the first book of the Abhidhamma) she writes (a bit over the top, in parts, but nonetheless): "This translation...go[es] far to show that this portion of the Abhidhamma-Pi.taka is not only possible of comprehension, but is possessed of a living and immediate concern to students in the Western world where but a few decades ago it was regarded as ununderstandable and virtually devoid of meaning. Now it shines forth in all its penetrating and practical detail, opening one more door of the rich storehouse of Ancient Indian wisdom to the English-speaking world. The result of a close and concentrated analysis, ascribed to the Buddha, Vibha"nga is a teaching directed primarily to the elucidation of that otherwise most intractable subject: the workings of the mind of man. Its aim is that each man, profiting from its guidance, may find for himself the way to the supreme goal: Tumehi kicca.m aatappa.m, akkhaataaro Tathaagataa, 'Yours is the ardour of the task, Tathaagataas are showers (Dh. 276) of the way to free oneself from Maara's bondage' (DhA. iii,404). And 'Therein, what is ardour? 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, energy, controlling faculty of energy, power of energy, right effort' (Vibh. 194). Scott: Not much doubt where Horner stood on Abhidhamma-Pi.taka, to add a bit to the quotes in which she analyses the word 'abhidhamma'. This seems polemical. Why don't you pursue a study of the texts themselves, questioning the material directly? Sincerely, Scott. #77249 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Tue Oct 9, 2007 4:58 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (68) nichiconn Dear Friends, part 8 13. Viisatinipaato 3. Caapaatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa 301. "Ima~nca me puttaphala.m, kaa.la uppaadita.m tayaa; ta.m ma.m puttavati.m santi.m, kassa ohaaya gacchasi. 302. "Jahanti putte sappa~n~naa, tato ~naatii tato dhana.m; pabbajanti mahaaviiraa, naago chetvaava bandhana.m. 303. "Idaani te ima.m putta.m, da.n.dena churikaaya vaa; bhuumiya.m vaa nisumbhissa.m, puttasokaa na gacchasi. 304. "Sace putta.m si"ngaalaana.m, kukkuraana.m padaahisi; na ma.m puttakatte jammi, punaraavattayissasi. RD: 'And this child-blossom, O my husband, see Thy gift to me- - now surely thou wilt not Forsake her who hath borne a child to thee?' (300) 'Wise men forsake their children, wealth and kin, Great heroes ever go forth from the world, As elephants sever their bonds in twain.' (301) 'Then this thy child straightway with stick or axe I'll batter on the ground - to save thyself From mourning for thy son thou wilt not go!' (302) 'And if thou throw the child to jackals, wolves, Or dogs, child-maker without ruth, e'en so 'Twill not avail to turn me back again!' (303) PRUITT: [Caapaa:] 300. But [what about] this child-fruit of mine, Kaa.laa, begotten by you? Why do you go away abandoning me with this child? [Upaka:] 301. Wise men leave their sons and relatives and their wealth. Great heroes go forth, like an elephant that has broken its fastening. [Caapaa:] 302. Now I shall knock down to the ground on the spot this son of yours with a stick or a knife. Because of grief for your son, you will not go. [Upaka:] 303. If you give [our] son to the jackals [and] dogs, you will not turn me back again for the child's sake, you wretched one. === to be continued, connie #77250 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 9, 2007 6:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. nilovg Dear Alex and Scott, Op 9-okt-2007, om 13:55 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: > Not much doubt where Horner stood on Abhidhamma-Pi.taka, to add > a bit to the quotes in which she analyses the word 'abhidhamma'. This > seems polemical. Why don't you pursue a study of the texts > themselves, questioning the material directly? --------- N: These quotes leave little doubt where Horner stood. Rhys Davies found the Abhidhamma a valley of dry bones. If one studies it oneself one can find out whether this is true. As Sayadaw Sitagu said: Abhidhamma and vipassana go together. Through satipatthana one sees for oneself the relevance of the Abhidhamma. Speaking of Horner (a much respected translator and scholar), here is an old post by Rob K, quoting what she said about the Commentaries, in her intro to the Commentary on the Chronicle of the Buddhas, Clarifier of the Sweet Meaning: Nina. #77251 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 9, 2007 8:12 am Subject: Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 198, 199 and Tiika. nilovg Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 198, 199 Intro: in the following sections it is explained that in the case of the non-percipient beings it can also be said that vi~n~naa.na conditions ruupa. Kamma produces ruupa in that case, but this kamma is conditioned by kusala citta, called abhisa”nkhaara, kamma- formation, that occurred in the past in a five-khandha-plane. Rebirth in this plane is the result of ruupa-jhaana. ----------------- Vis. 198: Is this correct in view of the absence of consciousness in non-percipient beings?--It is not incorrect. For: This consciousness, as cause of mind And matter, is twice reckoned: Result, and also non-result. Wherefore this is correctly said. Text Vis.199: The consciousness that is the cause of mentality- materiality is reckoned to be twofold classed as resultant and not resultant. And since in the case of non-percipient beings materiality is originated by kamma, it has as its condition kamma-formation consciousness that occurred in the five-constituent becoming. -------- N: As we have seen, in the plane of the non-percipient beings there is only ruupa, no naama. This ruupa is conditioned by kamma-formation consciousness occurring in the previous life in a five-khandha-plane where there were naama and ruupa. --------- Text Vis.: This applies also to the kamma-originated materiality arising in the course of an existence in the five-constituent becoming at the moment of profitable or any other consciousness. So this is correct. This is how the exposition can also be known here 'by inclusion'. ------------ N: The Tiika adds to < at the moment of profitable or any other consciousness> (kusalaadicittakha.ne): namely, the moments of akusala citta and kiriyacitta. --------- Conclusion: Naama and ruupa occurring in life arise because of their own conditions. What arises because of conditions has to fall away immediately and there is nothing left of them. So long as ignorance has not been eradicated completely there are still conditions for the arising again and again of kamma-formation that conditions vi~n~naa.na, rebirth-consciousness, and vi~n~naa.na that conditions naama-ruupa. There is no person that transmigrates from the past life to this life, there are only naama and ruupa arising and falling away. As we read further on in this chapter, Vism.XVII, 302. 3. [As to prevention]: ******* Nina. #77252 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Oct 9, 2007 8:18 am Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. truth_aerator Hi Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: Why don't you pursue a study of the texts > themselves, questioning the material directly? > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > I've started reading CMA By Bhikkhu Bodhi. However in it there are many things that don't compute. On pg3 "The Abhidhamma may be described as a philosophy because it proposes an ontology, a perspectiveon the nature of the real. This perspective has been designated as the "dhamma theory" (dhammavada). Briefly, the dhamma theory maintains that ultimate reality consists of a multiplicity of elementary constituents called dhammas. The dhamms are not noumenon hidden behind phenomena, not "things in themselves" as opposed to mere appearances", but the fundamental components of actuality... The entities of our everyday frame of reference possesses merely a consensual reality derivative upon the foundational statum of the dhammas. It is the dhammas alone that possess ultimate reality: determinate existence "from their own side" (sarupato) independent of the mind's conceptual processing of the data. ... a sharp wedge must be driven between those types of entities that possess ontological ultimacy, that is, the dhammas..." Here we have contradiction not only of Buddha's teaching, but within a single page of Bhikkhu Bodhi writing. AS IF there is something "ultimately real". Ultimate reality? Brahman, Atman!! How can dhammas not be noumenon but on other hand possess ultimate reality, be elementary constituents (a little atta's)? Existing from their own side, independent from somethings IMPLIES ATTA. This is how Buddha'st eaching is ruined. First smuggle "atta" concept back in, then ruin the causality (ontological ultimate units can't act or be acted upon), and then say that Suttas are only provisional and not precise. I personally cannot consider any particle to be more ultimately real than another. Also Bhikkhu Bodhi makes another blunder saying that Buddha has talked about ultimates in the suttas. "Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick — this has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun. However you observe them, appropriately examine them, they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately. " http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.095.than.html Here emptiness and voidness denies any sort of ultimacy to them. Furthemore whenever Buddha or his disciples said that "X is made of these and these parts" he didn't imply that parts are ultimates while whole is not. After all parts are little wholes which can be divided even further. Sabbe sankhara anicca & dukha Sabbe dhamma anatta - Dhamapada ---- next --- Do the cetasikas occur ALL at absolutely the same moment or one after another? If they occur one after another than it would mean that: a feeling occurs when contact has ceased... Or feeling occurs when there is no life-faculty... How can this be? The seven universals are cetasikas common (sadharana) to all consiousness (sabbacitta). These factors perform the most rudimentary and essential cognitive functions without which consiousness of an object would be utterly impossible. pg 79. ekaggata - its proximate cause is happiness. First of all ekagga = calm, tranquil. (New course reading Pali pg 184) What happens of one is really, really restless and unhappy? How can one have happiness as a UNIVERSAL proximate cause of (ekaggata cetasika) really restless & unhappy citta? What about consiousness in Avici hell? Either ekaggata does not happen (which would contradict the ekaggata as universal cetasika), or its proximate cause doesn't exist in certain cases. If the latter is the case, then ekaggata is without proximate cause? Uncaused??? Do all dhammas (citta, cetasika, rupa) happen only sequentially or can some of them happen at exactly the same moment of it? If they happen sequentially then we have another paradox. How can a person eat, and watch TV (seeing, hearing) at the same time? If they happen only sequentially, then it would mean that in that moment a person is seeing, he is not hearing and not eating. What happens to the food inside of his mouth? Does it magically disappear when there is seeing or hearing and reappear when he is not seeing and hearing??!!! ""Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them."" - mn 43 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html --------- I am disappointed... :( Lots of Metta, Alex #77253 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Oct 9, 2007 8:35 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. truth_aerator --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Alex and Scott, > Op 9-okt-2007, om 13:55 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: > > > Not much doubt where Horner stood on Abhidhamma-Pi.taka, to add > > a bit to the quotes in which she analyses the word 'abhidhamma'. This > > seems polemical. Why don't you pursue a study of the texts > > themselves, questioning the material directly? > --------- > N: These quotes leave little doubt where Horner stood. Rhys Davies > found the Abhidhamma a valley of dry bones. If one studies it oneself > one can find out whether this is true. As Sayadaw Sitagu said: >>>>>> I have nothing against Abhidhamma (if by it we understand as Discussion of Higher Dhamma). Trying to analytically see non-self, impermanence and suffering IS IMPORTANT FACTOR (leading to ariyahood). I DO LOVE (perhaps too much) analytical analysis. Analysis & Discussion (Abhidhamma) is one of the qualities leading to the Right View (sotapana). sota=ear. Sotapanna = ear-entry. Savaka. Sravaka. A hearer. A much better interpretation than "stream-entry". > Abhidhamma and vipassana go together. Through satipatthana one sees for oneself the relevance of the Abhidhamma. >>> When one does Anapanasati one develops 4 satipathanas which lead to 7 factors of awakening. Anapanasati sutta. Word vipassana is mentioned very few times (usually with Jhana nearby). > Speaking of Horner (a much respected translator and scholar), here is > an old post by Rob K, quoting what she said about the Commentaries, in her intro to the Commentary on the Chronicle of the Buddhas, > Clarifier of the Sweet Meaning: > > IB Horner (past president of the Pali text Society) writes ""The > prime object of every Commentary is to make the meanings of the > words andphrases in the canonical passages it is elucidating > abundantly clear, definite, definitive even.... >>>>> Absolutely not to me. It seems that some commentators did their best to mystify and obscure some thing. I won't mention names... This is to preserve > the Teachings of the Buddha as nearly as possible in the sense > intended, and as conveyed by the succession of teachers, > acariyaparama. Always there were detractors, always there were and > still are "improvers" ready with their own notions. Through friends > and enemies alike deleterous change and deterioration in the word of > the Buddha might intervene for an indefinite length of time. The > Commentaries are the armour and protection against such an > eventuality. AS they hold a unique position as preservers and > interpreters of true Dhamma, it is essential not only to follow them > carefully and adopt the meaning they ascribe to a word or phrase > each time they commnet on it. They are as closed now as is the Pali > canon. No aditions to their corpus or subtractions from it are to > contemplated, and no commentary written in later days could be > included in it.""endquote Horner. pxiii Clarifier of the Sweet > Meaning" PAli Text Society 1978. > Robert > > > Nina. > Unfortunately commentarial blunders have crept in so much, that it is very hard to separate Buddha's message from the Brahmin commentarial literature. Even in the time of the Buddha, the teaching was ALREADY deteriorating due to certain people (Sati the fisherman's son, Arittha, Devadatta).... :( With certain Brahmin living somewhere in 5th (?) century mission was "accomplished" especially after his burning of old scriptures. Lots of Metta, Alex #77254 From: "nidive" Date: Tue Oct 9, 2007 8:47 am Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. nidive Hi Alex, > We have now said that the earliest abhidhamma was the field of the > intellectual types. It was characterized by catechism, and by > intellectual conversations. As one of the recurrent features of > these conversations is analyses of terms, we could reasonably > assume that a third feature of the earliest abhidhamma was > analysis. I appreciate your post that provides an alternative meaning to the word 'abhidhamma', and I think that there is some good reasons for this alternative explanation. In fact, this could very well be the actual meaning of the word based on evidences from the 4 main nikayas. Recently, you also proposed the idea that Prince Siddhartha could be a sakadagami. In fact, I found some evidences from MN 4 (which I presented over at SD), that strongly suggests that the bodhisatta is at the very least a sotapanna. You could very well be right that there is no such thing as a bodhisatta vow. And I am pleasantly surprised that Bhikkhu Samahita is also of the opinion that the bodhisatta is an ariyan. Swee Boon #77255 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Tue Oct 9, 2007 8:57 am Subject: Re: ascetical and buddhist way nichiconn Hi Leo, Leo: ...Buddha said that ascetism is unprofitable. ... Me: There are many different pali words that are translated as "ascetic", so we have to consider the context. For instance, have you ever read something along the lines of "Patience is the highest austerity/asceticism"? Extreme self-mortification and such are unprofitable; likewise, self-gratification beyond a point. I think we cannot tell whether there is worthwhile restraint or other forms of 'ascetic' practice from outside things such as one's bowl or clothing; rather, it depends on the understanding involved in the various activities or avoidances whether it is beneficial or not. peace, connie #77256 From: "nidive" Date: Tue Oct 9, 2007 9:06 am Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. nidive Hi Alex, > ""Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not > disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from > another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one > feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. > Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is > not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate > the difference among them."" - mn 43 > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html I like this sutta quote which I have never taken notice of before. I think it confirms what I have always thought: that feeling, perception & cognizance of a sense object all occur at the same time. Swee Boon #77257 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Tue Oct 9, 2007 10:00 am Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. nichiconn Hi Alex, Alas, we all dump the contents of our baggage into the teachings and have to sort everything back out again & it does tend to give rise to a lot of frustration, especially when a lot of the stuff we've been hanging onto wasn't ours in the first place. We tend to try to twist and force fit the teachings back in with all the junk rather than keeping an open mind and letting them fall ever so neatly into their own places. Abhidhamma MAY be described as "theory", but it might be easier to think of 'vada' more along the lines of "way of talking" or "doctrine"; not so much any old theory, but a way to put into words the truths (beautiful in the beginning, middle, and end) that can only be pointed at. As such, the words (provisional as they all must be) have to be taken on their own terms and allowed to express the meaning they hold within the context of dhammavada. The ultimate realities are not particles in the sense you seem to mean. Their existence does not imply a lastingness beyond the time it takes to arise and fall away (the scorners' "zero-duration"). If "particles" or "constituents" are problematic, try "characteristics"; more enjoyable in the long run to sift and shift through our old stuff than jump up and down on our conclusions maligning the Doctrine. And no, no one characteristic would be more ultimately real than the others, you're right. But emptiness and voidness of any permanence doesn't mean empty of what something can be described by or said to possess. On the other hand, it is the nature of an ultimate reality like hardness to be / possess / show / bear that same nature / characteristic whenever and wherever it comes to be and cease. It's kind of like nouns are being used to describe verbs and verbs, nouns. If there is atta being smuggled, it is in our own suitcase, not Abby's. I wonder whether you read Nina's answer to your question on ekaggata. Do all dhammas (citta, cetasika, rupa) happen only sequentially or can some of them happen at exactly the same moment of it? Yes. Both. And neither. Keep reading. peace, connie #77258 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Tue Oct 9, 2007 10:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Response to DC Part 2. dcwijeratna Dear Sukin, This is Part 2. Great fun! Dear DC, >Sukin: And now I'm back to square one. Because originally I was questioning your assertion to Alex about the requirement that the recipient "understands" the Dhamma, but now you seem to not be insisting on this….? DC: I must apologise Sukin. I have not expressed myself clearly. Let me clarify. What is not very clear is the following sentence: "But the level of merit that you accrue is dependent on his acceptance or rejection." I used the word dependent in the sense of say 'proportional'. But not in the sense of "dependent arising". What I meant is this: you get more merit if you give some thing to a man than a dog; then to an ariyan more than to a mortal, and the highest gift is what you give to the Bhikkhu-sangha headed by the Buddha. In a similar manner if you preach and nobody understands it then there is very little merit. In our country, over the radio, over the television, monks preach to millions everyday. I don't see them getting lot of merit. But if somebody understands it, intellectually, then there is more merit. If somebody really starts practising it then it is the highest merit. Understanding the dhamma without practising is no understanding at all. Are you aware of the gathaa in the Dhammapada "Bahu.m pi ce sahita.m bhaasamaano..." There the Buddha compares a man who knows the whole of the Buddha's teaching and doesn't practice it to a cowherd who looks after other's cattle: he collects the cow-dung but the milk goes to the owner. Have you ever come across cowherds? [That is for fun] ------------ --------- Sukin: You are saying here that kusala is that which leads to Nibbana, in which case dana, metta, karuna and so on are not kusala. Perhaps you use a different set of terms, but I consider kusala any citta with the roots, alobha, adosa and amoha. The fist two is common to all kusala cittas. Amoha can be either of the kind which is the development of samatha or the kind which is the development of vipassana. As I understand it, only this last leads to Nibbana. DC: Ref. "Perhaps you use a different set of terms, but I consider kusala any citta with the roots, alobha, adosa and amoha." I agree with you, that I am using different set of terms. But the terms that I use are according to the Sutta Pi.taka. Thus the words attributed to the Buddha himself. You say "I consider kusala any citta" So you refer to cittas as kusala. But in the teaching of the Buddha kusala has a wider meaning: See for example there are kusala kammas. Actually, according to the teachings of the Buddha, alobha, adosa and amoha are the three kusasla muulas or the roots of good. And the akusasala muulas there opposites. This is how we understand. ------------ -------- > DC: I have no "Dhamma Theory" of my own. If you mean by the word "Dhamma", the teaching of the Buddha it is not a "theory"? It is the truth which he has realised. Theory is mere speculation. I don't reject the Abhidhamma theory of moments. As you correctly put, it is a theory. Sukin: Yes Dhamma is not a theory and this includes the Abhidhamma. However like you, some people view the Abhidhamma as such. Now it may be that this perception does not imply that you have your own theory in opposition. But given that you see it as mere theory while I see it as reflecting reality, you will have some theory behind why you judge Abhidhamma as theory don't you? ;-) DC: I think it is better to start with the last sentence. I must reieterate that I have no theory of my own. According to the available evidence, the Abhidhamma is a later creation. The story about the Buddha having preached the Abhidhamma is in the commentaries. It is not corroborated by anything. Are you aware that some of the Mahaayana books are form Naagaloka. Of course it only in their books. Now do you accept that or don't you? If you accept the Theravaada story without any further corroborative evidence, it would not be rationsl for you to reject the Mahayana story for lack of supporting evidence. That is why I don't accept either. But I want to add one more point. I don't reject Abhidhamma as such. People are arguing about the meaning of the word. Meaningless definitions are given such as higher dhamma, excellent dhamma and so on. Since I don't know what is Abhidhamma, the question of acceptance or rejection does not arise. But if you mean by Abhidhamma the Abhidhamma Pi.taka of the Theravaada canon, then I have no use of it. For me the teaching of the Buddha is adequate. Abhidhamma started as an attempt to explain Dhamma. It was a sort of a commentary on the Dhamma. As time went on it developed its own theories and among (some) monks it became more important than the Dhamma. Please do remember practising Buddhists have very little time for Abhidhamma. Our forefathers most probably didn't know what it was. It was always the darling of the intellectual elite. Any I tell you these things not as a friend and the language of a friend. You can disregard the whole lot. >Sukin: Anyway, I am not saying that I know anything beyond intellectual understanding. But one thing for sure, the Abhidhamma has helped me to reject all theories about reality, and instead come to consider the present moment, including here, to distinguish mere parroting, suttamaya panna, cintamaya panna and bhavanamaya panna. DC: Here, I would like you to elaborate more on: "I have rejected all theories of reality." But shall I point out one thing. If you behave according to the theories of Abhidhamma, you would not last long. For example, all your things, all your loved one's are non-existent, they are not real? You'll understand why I have no use for abhidhamma. [Have some good fun thinking over that and don't loose any sleep] With lots of mettaa, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77259 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Tue Oct 9, 2007 11:00 am Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. nichiconn Hello again, Alex, Alex: Unfortunately commentarial blunders have crept in so much, that it is very hard to separate Buddha's message from the Brahmin commentarial literature. Even in the time of the Buddha, the teaching was ALREADY deteriorating due to certain people (Sati the fisherman's son, Arittha, Devadatta).... :( With certain Brahmin living somewhere in 5th (?) century mission was "accomplished" especially after his burning of old scriptures. Connie: Brahmin. A nice, respectable word. I think the vast majority of arahants were born into that category but only became true brahmins, that is, ariyans, later on. Unfortunately, I doubt that our understanding is of a level to match the Commentators. If you truly think yours is, you would have to point out the particular 'blunders' you see before I take them seriously or even believe they exist. Sadly, I think you are needlessly burdening yourself and carelessly repeating certain modern day skeptics without looking at both sides. Don't lean too hard in your dismissiveness as even they will favourably quote select parts of the commentarial literature when it suits their purpose. The true teaching never was confined to some old manuscripts, whether leaf, parchment or some other material. By 500 AD I'd think the older works would have been showing their age and most if not all would have been lost to us by now in any case had the elders not honoured Buddhaghosa with the monumental task he surely undertook out of the utmost concern with regards not only to the accuracy of the texts themselves but also, with respect to ourselves. I'll stop ranting (for awhile) now. connie #77260 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 9, 2007 11:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. nilovg Dear Alex, this is my last post before closing off mail. Abhidhamma can also mean: dhamma in detail. But most important: it is not 'in the book' as Kh Sujin always says. Seeing is abhidhamma, colour is abhidhamma, all here in daily life. For you to find out. Learn more about the realities within yourself and around yourself. Then you will understand the meaning of Abhidhamma. Also the analysis, this is not theory, it refers to this moment. Connie answered most of your questions. Nina. Op 9-okt-2007, om 17:35 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > I have nothing against Abhidhamma (if by it we understand as > Discussion of Higher Dhamma). Trying to analytically see non-self, > impermanence and suffering IS IMPORTANT FACTOR (leading to > ariyahood). I DO LOVE (perhaps too much) analytical analysis. #77261 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Oct 9, 2007 12:01 pm Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. truth_aerator Hi Connie, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "L G SAGE" wrote: > Connie: Brahmin. A nice, respectable word. I think the vast majority of arahants were born into that category but only became true brahmins, that is, ariyans, later on. >>>> By Brahmin I meant a priestly class who followed the Vedas and (many of them) were opponents of Buddhism. Being very intelligent the Buddha made a wise choice to use existing terms and redefine them. This is one of the reasons the Buddhism was popular. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately, I doubt that our understanding is of a level to match the Commentators. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most of the ideas are NOT really mine and many of them are not outside of Theravada (Ven. monks). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you truly think yours is, you would have to point out the particular 'blunders' you see before I take them seriously or even believe they exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We could start with seeing "shining bright light as nimitta"... We could continue with Antara-bhava (it IS in pali Canon)... Another one is using "vada" word which means doctrine. This word carries a negative connotation in Pali (sassatavada, antanantavadam , Ucchedavada, Asannivada, etc) Lots of Metta, Alex #77262 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Oct 9, 2007 12:12 pm Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. truth_aerator --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "L G SAGE" wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > Abhidhamma MAY be described as "theory", but it might be easier to think of 'vada' more along the lines of "way of talking" or "doctrine"; not so much any old theory, but a way to put into words the truths >>>>>>> With "way of talking" I agree 100%. Talking Abhidhamma is talking about Higher or Further Dhamma topics. This is what we are doing here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > The ultimate realities are not particles in the sense you seem to mean. Their existence does not imply a lastingness beyond the time it takes to arise and fall away (the scorners' "zero-duration"). If "particles" or "constituents" are problematic, try "characteristics"; more enjoyable in the long run to sift and shift through our old stuff than jump up and down on our conclusions maligning the Doctrine. >>>>>>>>>>>> This is how I tried to approach CMA. Unfortunately it seems that it is hard to call dhammas mere qualities since in the introduction to CMA Bhikkhu Bodhi has continously contradicted himself which alarmed me even more. Either he doesn't understand the implications of what he was saying or he was tongue twisting and trying to defend sabhava. >>>>>>>> And no, no one characteristic would be more ultimately real than the others, you're right. But emptiness and voidness of any permanence doesn't mean empty of what something can be described by or said to possess. >>>>> Of course we can say "An angry or blissfull or whatever - state of mind". However in what way would the best expression be? Buddha in the suttas was soo Good. He knew how to explain quickly and up to a point. >>>>>>> On the other hand, it is the nature of an ultimate reality like hardness to be / possess / show / bear that same nature / characteristic whenever and wherever it comes to be and cease. It's kind of like nouns are being used to describe verbs and verbs, nouns. If there is atta being smuggled, it is in our own suitcase, not Abby's. >>> Nouns can be misleading. >>>>>>> > I wonder whether you read Nina's answer to your question on ekaggata. >>>>>>>>> Yes. But ekaggata is universal cetasika and thus it would have to arise even in unwholesome and painful situations. Now if we say that it doesn't have "happiness" as proximate condition in certain cases then we have issues with causality. I wish everyone all the best!!!!!!!! Lots of Metta, Alex #77263 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Oct 9, 2007 12:43 pm Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. - addition truth_aerator Hi Connie, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "L G SAGE" wrote: > > Hi Alex, > Their existence does not imply a lastingness beyond the time it takes to arise and fall away (the scorners' "zero-duration"). >>> But arising and falling away are moments in time that have duration! So there is lastingness. And "arising" would need to have its own arising, lasting, and passing away. How could arising pass away? It is like saying young aged person. If the cause of "falling away" is cause of arising then what is the relationship between these two categories? Is the effect present in the cause or not? If there is falling away in arising then: a) It is contradiction like whiteness of blackness b) Why does falling away is produced AGAIN? If something is produced twice than it is called infinite regression. A flaw. c) If the effect (falling away) is different from the cause, then causality is negated. Anything could happen from anything. These have been brought up by one sage living somewhere in 2nd-3rd century... These questions as I've heard are still unanswered... As certain Bhikkhu said something like "maybe because they cannot be answered." >>>>>>>> If "particles" or "constituents" are problematic, try "characteristics"; >>>>>>>> As I've said. I have tried. But even then many logical problems arise. None of the characteristics are independent. They cannot be separated and shelved into nice boxes or "ultimate" categories. Another example: Seer - seeing - seen. In non buddhist, realism philosophies those three are separate. Abhidhamma made it good to show that there is NO seer. Just seeing - seen. However with deeper analysis one will realize that even seeing- seen are NOT separate. There are NO inherently existent qualities. You may say that "sight is different from sounds". But precisely because there is such mutual dependence (of sight and not-sight) we can say that the sight is. Like tallness is not separateable from shortness. None of them can exist in isolation. --- It is so good that today we have access to so much dhamma. No longer is there lack of information. Almost anyone can look in Nikayas or some treaties. Lots of Metta, Alex #77264 From: "colette" Date: Tue Oct 9, 2007 10:50 am Subject: Your Help Please, Sarah. ksheri3 Good Day Sarah, I recall you saying that I should enter the chit chat that you and DC were having but I'm afraid that I can't seem to find any references to you and only a few to DC who seems to be having LOTS OF CHIT CHATS with others. Besides doing my apartment searches I've run across some interesting concepts of buddhism: jneyavarana. Any thoughts on the jney or the avarana or even the jneyavarana? I think it's interesting how it can refer to the obstacles of knowledge or wisdom, yet it can itself turn into that specific obstacle. Any thoughts? toodles, colette #77265 From: "tom" Date: Tue Oct 9, 2007 4:54 am Subject: (Another!) Definition of Enlightenment zorroelbueno What is it? It is seeing that what you took so long to be you belongs with all the stuff you didn't take to be you. Tom #77266 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Tue Oct 9, 2007 4:03 pm Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. nichiconn Hi Alex, Alex: Either he doesn't understand the implications of what he was saying or he was tongue twisting and trying to defend sabhava. Connie: I'm afraid (what used to be) my copy of CMA has been 'on loan' so long that it must be considered 'a gift' now, so I can't really talk about the venerable Bodhi's introduction beyond suggesting that if your take (correct or not) on his personal views troubles you, skip them and jump right to the translation itself. Sabhaava - maybe you'd like something along the lines of 'particular condition' better than 'own nature'. There is nothing to defend in the teachings, only to understand; and the translators' choices of words can only serves as crutches or suggestions. Even if we read Pali, the word is only as good as the understanding and the understanding only as good as the realization... provisional, yes. I'm starting to like that word. About ekaggata, that singularity of focus accompanies each citta, but it is not that happiness is the universal proximate cause of that function. On it's own, I'd say vaada was a neutral term; and of course, we are free to have naanaavaada - or a difference of opinion - here (or anywhere else. Agreement is not the issue and might be a drawback). You pointed out some compounds with negative connotations, but on the other hand, let's not forget "Theravaada". Again, always a matter of context. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex: We could start with seeing "shining bright light as nimitta"... We could continue with Antara-bhava (it IS in pali Canon)... Connie: What IS nimitta? What is useful to know about it? What functions does it serve? As for the 'intermediate becoming', have you checked the Useful Posts? Maybe under bardo for a start. But is it useful to know, or can we even know, in our present conditions; or would it be more likely to fall under the Curiosity (or Useless Information) category? Arising and falling. I agree that they have a limited duration. Lastingness in that sense does not mean permanence or that there is any static state. Nor, when, say, hardness arises and falls and hardness arises and falls, etc., it is not that the same object arises and falls, but the same sort or category of ultimate reality makes its appearance and is gone again; not coming from or going to anywhere in the meantime. This bhaava is where the sassata/uccheda play comes in. peace, connie #77267 From: "Sukinder" Date: Tue Oct 9, 2007 4:09 pm Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. sukinderpal Dear Swee Boon, Alex and Ven. Samahita, Swee wrote to Alex: ==================== > Recently, you also proposed the idea that Prince Siddhartha could be > a sakadagami. In fact, I found some evidences from MN 4 (which I > presented over at SD), that strongly suggests that the bodhisatta is > at the very least a sotapanna. > > You could very well be right that there is no such thing as a > bodhisatta vow. And I am pleasantly surprised that Bhikkhu Samahita > is also of the opinion that the bodhisatta is an ariyan. Sukin: So you are all saying that the Bodhisatta (you might want to call him Siddhatta instead from now..?) on seeing the Divine Messengers, decided to seek for the answers and ending up engaging in all kinds of "wrong practices" was due to falling back momentarily, to the putthujana state? Please explain. Metta, Sukin #77268 From: "vipassana_infonet" Date: Tue Oct 9, 2007 2:05 pm Subject: Re: dhammaquestions, no 11. vipassana_in... thanks nina, I studied the working of rupa at 2 more sites. things are clear. many thanks. http://www.buddhistinformation.com/mind.htm http://www.abhidhamma.org/Rupa%201.htm --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Dr Manash, > Now I look at Q. 11. > ------ > M: 11)nina says that only 1 citta arises at a time and it can grasp only > 1 object. so how do the many organs of the body work? it seems that > there is only 1 vinnana that makes the so many organs of the body work > - kayavinnana - so how do so many objects work together with 1 > vinnana? > ------- > N: As to ruupas of the body, these are produced by kamma, citta, heat > and nutrition. <...> #77269 From: "vipassana_infonet" Date: Tue Oct 9, 2007 2:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dhamma questions vipassana_in... thanks sarah. I got it clear. here are my views on sanna again (from a website). I hope you agree. I should have said - sanna = samyutta-ñana = conditioned knowledge. please correct me, if I am wrong. "perception" or "cognition" (Skt. samjñā, Pāli saññā): registers whether an object is recognized or not (for instance, the sound of a bell or the shape of a tree). From samyutta-ñana, conditioned knowledge. It is ordinarily conditioned by ones past sankhara, and therefore conveys a coloured image of reality. In the practice of vipassana, sañña is changed into pañña, the understanding of reality as it is. It becomes anicca-sañña, dukkha-sañña, anatta-sañña, asubha-sañña--that is, the perception of impermanence, suffering, egolessness, and of the illusory nature of physical beauty. #77270 From: "vipassana_infonet" Date: Tue Oct 9, 2007 2:00 pm Subject: Re: dhamma questions - PART 2 vipassana_in... my dear sister nina, my dear friend tep, you see - kalena dhamma sakaccha - and many a times questions are resolved in the process of asking itself - if dhammanupassana can de practiced experientially... so no confusion! dear nina, I am aware of your view point of not working with an active kammatthana and I may be able to discuss this with you at some time... but, as tep said - this does not make me from any "different background". we are all part of the same dhamma family. as per agganna sutta - we are (all) sons and daughters of the buddha and thus, we are very much brothers and sisters. I hope this background introduction about me (that we have the same father) is enough for you and all dsg members. thanks for your replies ...please reply to others questions as well. tep, as far as I understood - I have to accept that no intoxication is part of 5 sila and that no intoxication is not a part of the samma-kammanto (as per the suttas). although, some dhamma teachers do put no intoxications in samma-kammanto bracket. I do have a thought here. buddha may not have put this intox thing in samma-kammanto as kammanto means the "final destination of kamma" or the final expression of kamma (finally at level of body - starting from mind and then through speech). intoxicants are external agents and not strictly a kammanto phenomenon that way. for stealing, killing, sexual misconduct - first the thing has to arise in mind. mano pubbangama dhamma.... pubbe hanati attanam... you know these quotes... is my understanding ok? nina? tep? sarah? if so, this question may end. or please add. -------------- has buddha mentioned not to take tobacco anywhere specifically? or is it always sura-meraya-majja... (only alcohol)? let me know. ---------- as far as samisa and niramisa is concerned - I take samisa vedana as the feeling of vedana that comes with avijja and niramisa vedana as one that comes with panna. whether for this or for bojjhangas - I feel what the buddha wanted us to do - is the carry on our at-times-weak at-times-strong development of panna (pajanati / sampajanna) and GRADUALLY move from avijja to vijja - mudhsati to satipatthan - asampajanassa to sampajanassa - samisa to niramisa.... is that right understanding? my question - how can one be with panna and yet feel samisa vedana is thus not correct. it is like saying - how can one be with panna and yet have nivaranas or have absence of bojjhanga factors. is my understanding of GRADUAL development idea ok? ---------- I wait to read more replies and then may add more on the abhidhamma questions. thanks nina. metta, manish agarwala #77271 From: "vipassana_infonet" Date: Tue Oct 9, 2007 2:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] questions - for NINA and respected kh. sujin vipassana_in... dear sister nina, I cannot thank you enough for your replies on sotapatti citta-vithi. a few more replies and I will have cleared all my doubts. thanks sister! I repeat these questions: can the 5 senses and their processes be said to be in nirodha state (during phala or phala samapatti) for sotapanna? --------- since lokuttara citta is anicca and the whole mano-vithi is anicca - how can sotapanna's nibbanic expereince be said to be outside mind-matter? of course, I know that nibbana as an object is unconditioned and lokuttara and that it is not part of the sankhata members of the paramattha realities of rupa, citta, cetasika. but, the whole nibbanic experience is still within mind-matter realm as mano-citta is still ON. please correct me. ---------- Nina said: "Lokuttara citta leads to the end of the cycle. So I would not use the expression: nibbaana is within the field of phassa paccaya vedanaa." = please explain how lokuttara citta is end of the cycle. = here there is nibbana as an object and lokuttara citta also at the mind door. so, lokuttara phass (as your book says). is that correct? now, you have agreed that there is vedana also. so is it not phass paccaya vedana? or do you mean there is vedana but, not due to phass? = what is the nature of this vedana? = is this vedana anicca? = how can then the sotapatti experience be beyond vedana? how can this be a vedanakhyaya (beyond vedana) experience? please get this nibbana / vedana in nibbana - confusion cleared directly from respected khun sujin - if possible. manish - nina: > > M: = do different types of vedanas happen in case of the different > > sotapatti phala lokuttara cittas (as per different jhana stages) when > > the meditator is in phala-samapatti? > ------- > N: This is only for those who have attained jhaana. The feeling > depends on the stage of jhaana. At the fourth stage (of the fourfold > system) the feeling is indifferent. When the lokuttara cittas are > accompanied by the jhaanafactors of this stage the feeling is > indifferent feeling. > -------- again, I have the same type of questions. you confirm that there is vedana. so what is the nature of this vedana? anicca? so how can the nibbana experience be beyond vedana? plus, does it mean that a sotapanna in phala or phala-samapatti DOES FEEL SOMETHING TANGIBLE? some vedana? so nibbana not indescribable or avyakta? --------- repeat of question. (I have seen your book already) in case of sotapatti magga the 3 virati cetasika arise togehther. do these 3 virati cetasikas make any sankhara or do they not because this is with panna? [ven. narada book says that no sankhara and endowed with panna] is there a vipaka of the sotapatti phala citta? if no sankharas are made at the stage of phala citta vithi - then how does the lokuttata citta sustain itself? as per sankhara paccaya vinnana - the lokuttara citta needs some sankharas to keep going. what is the source of this sankhara.how does the lokuttara phala citta sustain itself even during extended periods of phala samapatti? if you say that the Dependent Origination is not to be applied in the case of lokuttara citta [is it confirmed by abhidhamma texts?] - I would like to re-ask my question (this time without keeping paticca-samuppada in mind) - how does the lokuttara phala citta sustain itself even during extended periods of phala samapatti? please ask respected khun sujin as to what sustains the magga and phala cittas... ----- what is nirodh-sanna? function? how can nirodh (cessation) be perceived? or is it post cessation review? what is the difference between pahana-sanna, viraga-sanna and nirodha-sanna from experiential viewpoint? ---------- > > M:= during complete cessation (nirodha) of anagami and arahat, is > > their > > any difference between living and dead person? > ------- > N: Yes. This is the suspension of citta and mind-produced ruupa. But > ruupa produced by kamma, heat and nutrition still occur in the case > of human beings who attain cessation. Dhammadinna explains this in > one of the suttas. That person is not like a corpse. > -------- yes, I could recollect and understand... ayu sankhara, heat and jivitindriya remains during cessation. is that right? is the brain ON? breath and heart beat does stop. so will there be an EEG wave of the brain during cessation? any idea? any research? is the brain on during sotapanna's nibbana? will there be an EEG wave? I guess breath and heart beat stops here as well. any idea? any research? I am aware of the other external manifestations of a person in nibbanic dip (from sayagyiu ba khin's old burmese records) ------- take your time nina to reply and have a nice time in india. I cannot thank you enough, nina. the debt of sharing / teaching dhamma can never be paid and you know so much dhamma (abhidhamma)already. but, like culapanthaka - I may be able to humbly and egolessly share a few ideas about kammatthana with you...we may do this at end of our discussion ...in private emails... I have no fixation for any particular teacher and have an open mind....been researching things for 10 years... you may trust your brother's advice... you very much deserve to EXPERIENTIALLY FEEL all the dhamma you know and become an ariya dhamma-teacher in this very birth...akkaliko! ...that's all I can do to thank you... thanks for your kindness. thanks for bearing with my ignorance with so much pure dhammic love. regards and metta to you and your husband, dr manish agarwala #77272 From: "vipassana_infonet" Date: Tue Oct 9, 2007 3:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dhamma questions - PART 2 vipassana_in... The > moderators and all of us are interested to know more of your > background. It is kind if you can tell us more. > Nina. ------------- I am a (non practicing) classical homoeopath. future plans flexible. have been reading, writing and researching on many aspects of buddha's teachings - comparative / science / medicine / history / archaeo / pali suttas (very little abhidhamma)/ asoka / krishnamurti / sayagyi u ba khin / burmese satipatthana... etc. for 10 years. I found EXPERIENTIALLY (leaving all discussion aside)- the kammatthana of sayagyi u ba khin / goenkaji to be the REAL bhavana of ALL four satipatthanas leading to awareness of phenomenon at 6 sense-doors by the actual understanding of ALL 3 tilakkhanas. it leads to speedy bhanga-nana for those who keep good sila and are disease free. these things may happen in one 10-day course also. the whole path to nibbana is clear cut. many used it in sayagyi's times (as old burmese documents prove) to become sotapanna very quickly. saya thetgyi was an anagami. you may read john coleman's book "quiet mind" also. I may be able to substantiate and discuss what I wrote with quotes / references but, that is not important - experience is. thus, without any bias [and having deep respect for all dhamma teachers - lay or monk] - I humbly point to goenkaji - if anyone may ask me to show the way... I am an ordinary lay upasaka of the bhagava. namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa. #77273 From: "vipassana_infonet" Date: Tue Oct 9, 2007 3:26 pm Subject: from tanha to panna vipassana_in... respected dsg members, on some websites I found it mentioned that the vedana (after phass....phass paccaya vedana) and before sanna perceives the vedana is upekkha vedana. is that right? I think upekkha vedana is neutral sensation and is due to moha. but, I do feel (as goenkaji puts it) that the vibration (vedana) is neutral (indifferent) before sanna evaluates it. after sanna perceives the vedana with avijja - the vedana (experientially a vibration) becomes pleasant/unpleasant/neutral(due to moha)...and sankharas start forming. this is due to vedana paccaya tanha. if the sanna is anicca sanna (or anicce dukkha sanna) or dukkha sanna or anatta sanna or asubh sanna etc... it become vedana paccaya panna and this becomes the path of purification. please correct me, if I am wrong anywhere. regards, dr manish #77274 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Oct 9, 2007 4:40 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Citta ... A Break ... indriyabala Dear Nina, - Thank you for the correction -- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Tep, > before you take a break I have to put something straight. > Op 9-okt-2007, om 0:43 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > > > Thank you, Nina, for pointing out the seventeen javana-cittas that > > form a cognitive series (of consciousness) and the very important fact > > that sati either accompnies them all, or it does not. > -------- > Javana-cittas arise within a process and these are mostly seven in > number. They are (for non-arahats) either kusala citta or akusala > citta. Sati accompanies kusala citta. When counting a whole sense- > door process, including bhavanga-cittas preceding it, there are > seventeen cittas. > Nina. > > You were right. Tep === #77275 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Oct 9, 2007 5:26 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Are we responsible for our actions? indriyabala Hi Elaine , - Your description of the "bad habit" (below) is interesting. >Elaine: > I have a bad mental habit of having the mind drifting off and sometimes stopping at mid-sentence, forgetting what I wanted to say. ... T: The drifting off may be caused by lacking of a focus. The stopping at mid-sentence may be due to your thought switching to another subject while in the middle of the first thought. Both habits can be lessened by developing mental unification (or single-pointedness). Tep === #77276 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Oct 9, 2007 3:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anapansati: A Two-Edged Sword upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 10/4/2007 9:34:49 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: Hi Howard and all I've been thinking a lot (and experiencing, and experimenting) with mindfulness of the breath. One thing is for sure - the Buddha urges us to set up mindfulness of the body first and foremost. And there are benefits to be experienced even by those who do it in a clumsy, lobha-loaded way. That post has to be set up for the six animals to lie down by - and they do. It seems pretty clear that mindfulness of breath is the best way to do this, even in blatant, clumsy approaches such as mine. I look forward to discussing this a lot more when you and others when you get back - I'll wait until then. Metta, Phil ================================ I just got back this evening, and I have *loads* of things to do this week, including reading all the DSG posts! So it'll be a litte while before I can get into extended conversations, but I do look forward to do doing so as soon as I possibly can! :-) With metta, Howard #77277 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Oct 9, 2007 3:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Away Until Evening of October 9 upasaka_howard Hi, Tep - In a message dated 10/4/2007 4:51:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, indriyabala@... writes: Hi Howard, - May your auto travel be free from accidents and any other troubles. Tep =========================== Thanks! :-) I'm back now, but swamped with things to do. :-( With metta :-), Howard #77278 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Oct 9, 2007 4:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views upasaka_howard Hi, Sukin (and Jon) - In a message dated 10/5/2007 10:40:17 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sukinder@... writes: Hi Howard and Jon, Butting in here if you don't mind. =================== Jon: Time and again the Buddha emphasised how dhammas are to be seen and understood as they truly are. This I think means as they are at the moment of their being experienced. To my understanding of the theory, at the moments of seeing that are occurring as this message is being typed (in my case) or read (in yours), there is no text or monitor in the visible object being experienced. ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard That's right. The message, text, and monitor are experienced via mind door. The experiencing of them ADDS to our knowledge. Without a wisdom that enables directly experiencing interrelationships among dhammas and also without conceptualization that enables the indirect experiencing of interrelationships among dhammas, we would NOT know "the all" fully. Dhammas-in- relation is the nature of existence, not separate dhammas. Sukin: Howard, I may be misunderstanding you and therefore misrepresenting, in which case please clarify. You have made similar statements about different level of realities many times, and each time it has never appealed to me. ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: That's your prerogative, but it's not relevant, because I'm not talking about levels of reality here. -------------------------------------------------------- In fact in your post to Jon before this one when you said the following: >> IMO, what you say here is true, but more that is true can be said. When we hear a song we hear a sequence of sounds which are interrelated in very particular ways, and it is those interrelationships that make the sequence a song rather than just noise. It is due to the interrelatedness of the heard sounds that enables the perceiving (and conceiving) of the song. And to the extent that there is that interrelatedness, there is a song. The "song" is imputed upon the sounds by thought, and there is no song independent of thought. Thus the song is concept. But it is not baseless concept. It is by by means of our conceptualization that we can know and deal with relations.<< My first reaction was what if the music was in staccato? And if instead of one instrument say violin, there were hundreds of them and these were arranged in such a way that they all alternatively played one note at a time and sounded as if it was coming from the same instrument? Wouldn't the mind-door process wrap up the story in exactly the same way as it would were there only one violin playing? ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: So what? The heard sounds are in a particular relation. That is true. And I'm saying no more than that. --------------------------------------------------- I don't think panna is involved in the kind of stories you are referring to. Panna of vipassana *insights* and this process is completely different from "thinking about" all that has been experienced through the five sense doors and the mind. I think the real problem however, is in the *atta sanna* which seems to condition a need to come to a conclusion about what is perceived. That there are relationships "out there" is not something that we can know, certainly not through thinking, and should not concern us at all. What we can ever know is what is directly experienced namely, one dhamma at a time; this is what I think Jon is trying to get across. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: If so, I disagree. Wisdom discerns relations. ------------------------------------------------------- Any understanding of conditional relations is understood through insight of individual dhammas and would not come in the form of ideas about objects "out there". ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Relations among dhammas are not knowable solely by knowing individual dhammas. --------------------------------------------------- Besides conditional relations involve namas, and the only namas existing in relationship and can be known, are those that arise now, and these fall away together completely. So nothing remains for `thinking' to *see* any relationship. Even the relationship between say, craving and clinging, is not something we are supposed to observe in sequence, but is something insighted, I believe. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Relations hold among rupas as well, and between namas and rupas. Do you think there is no physical conditionality? --------------------------------------------------- I therefore think that you are missing the point in thinking about *levels of realities*. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: That has nothing to do with what we are discussing. ----------------------------------------------- In fact this seems not unlike the kind of "trying to make sense of reality" that everyone else does. In their case they use a different `theory' to explain their experience; and you are doing so with yours. And I believe that though this appears relatively harmless now, it can lead to increase of atta view later on. This should be of real concern. -------------------------------------------------------------- Jon: As to exactly *how* the concept of text or monitor comes to be created based on present sense-door experiences, that is an interesting area to consider, but something that I would see as being in the nature of a 'story about' rather than direct experience, if you see what I mean. -------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Everything expressed as speech is "story". Most stories are of little importance. The story of interrelations is an important one, however, it seems to me, and a true one. Sukin: The story of interrelationships involves dhammas as expressed in teachings of Paticcasamuppada and Patthana. And I think this is the only valid source from which worldlings like you and I could ever `learn' anything about the subject. ;-) Metta, Sukin ================================== With metta Howard #77279 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue Oct 9, 2007 10:03 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. kenhowardau Hi Alex, I think you should know what you are getting yourself into. Bhikkhu Thanissaro, whom you frequently quote, teaches an idiosyncratic version of the Dhamma in which there is an eternal soul. Nothing could be more antithetical to the original Dhamma than that! And yet BT's version is becoming ever more popular. It might be possible - by carefully selecting just a few suttas - to support the extreme heterodoxy that the Buddha believed in an eternal soul. But why do it? There are already conventional teachings (religions) that promise eternal reward. Why butcher the Buddha's beautiful, unique Dhamma just to make it like all the rest? Ken H PS: There are countless examples of BT's heterodoxy. The following is found in the introduction to his translation of the Alagaddupama Sutta: . . . "Thus it is important to focus on how the Dhamma is taught: Even in his most thoroughgoing teachings about not-self, the Buddha never recommends replacing the assumption that there is a self with the assumption that there is no self. Instead, he only goes so far as to point out the drawbacks of various ways of conceiving the self and then to recommend dropping them. For example, in his standard series of questions building on the logic of the inconstancy and stress of the aggregates, he does not say that because the aggregates are inconstant and stressful there is no self. He simply asks, When they are inconstant and stressful, is it proper to assume that they are "me, my self, what I am"? Now, because the sense of self is a product of "I-making," this question seeks to do nothing more than to induce disenchantment and dispassion for that process of I- making, so as to put a stop to it. Once that is accomplished, the teaching has fulfilled its purpose in putting an end to suffering and stress. That's the safety of the further shore. As the Buddha says in this discourse, "Both formerly and now, monks, I declare only stress and the cessation of stress." As he also says here, when views of self are finally dropped, one is free from agitation; and as MN 140 points out, when one is truly unagitated one is unbound. 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." #77280 From: Date: Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:19 am Subject: eCard from Bangkok jonoabb Greetings All We arrived here late on Monday night. Yesterday afternoon and today (whole day) were spent at the Foundation where we were joined for part or all by Sukin, Han Tun, Ann (from Canada), Betty, Ivan, Ell and others for discussion with Aj. Sujin. Discussion covered the usual wide range of topics. Will try to post some details later. Our tendency to bad luck with equipment on trips away has continued, with my laptop breaking down soon after arrival. At this stage it looks like we'll be dependent on internet cafes during our time in India (am sending this from the hotel business centre, where I am also printing out messages to share with Sarah). Diagnosing the computer problem has been somewhat time consuming. Best guess is that the main board needs replacing. Jon #77281 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:45 am Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Thanks for the reply: A: "...I am disappointed... :(" Scott: Gone by now, I hope. I'll be working on a full reply tonight or tomorrow. Sorry for the delay. Sincerely, Scott. #77282 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Wed Oct 10, 2007 5:01 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (68) nichiconn Dear Friends, part 9 13. Viisatinipaato 3. Caapaatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa txt: 305. "Handa kho daani bhaddante, kuhi.m kaa.la gamissasi; katama.m gaamanigama.m, nagara.m raajadhaaniyo. 306. "Ahumha pubbe ga.nino, assama.naa sama.namaanino; gaamena gaama.m vicarimha, nagare raajadhaaniyo. 307. "Eso hi bhagavaa buddho, nadi.m nera~njara.m pati; sabbadukkhappahaanaaya, dhamma.m deseti paa.nina.m; tassaaha.m santika.m gaccha.m, so me satthaa bhavissati. RD: 'Why, then, go if thou must, and fare thee well. But tell me to what village wilt thou go, What town or burg or city is thy goal?' (304) 'In the past days we went in fellowship, Deeming our shallow practice genuine. Pilgrims we wandered - hamlet, city, town, And capital - we tramped to each in turn.' (305) 'But the Exalted Buddha now doth preach, Along the banks of the Nera~njaraa, *360 The Norm whereby all may be saved from ill. To him I go; he now my guide shall be.' (306) *360 This river flows from the watershed south of the Ganges past Gayaa, and the Buddha was coming from it when Upaka first met him. But the Buddha, in the Commentary, is said to have awaited Upaka at Saavatthii to the north-west. Upaka sets out 'westward' to find him. The geography here forms a pretty crux. Whatever may be decided by archaeologists in the near future as to the site of Saavatthii, that site was north-westward of Gayaa. PRUITT: [Caapaa:] 304. Then fare you well now. Where will you go, Kaa.laa? To what village, town, city, [or] royal capital? [Upaka:] 305. Formerly we were leaders of groups, not ascetics [although] thinking ourselves ascetics. We wandered from village to village, to cities [and] royal capitals. 306. [But it will be different now,] for the Blessed One, the Buddha, alongside the River Nera~njaraa, teaches the Doctrine to living creatures for the abandonment of all pain. I shall go to his presence. He will be my Teacher.* *Verse 306cd = v.317cd {Sundari, Sis69}. Cf. Th 1231 (Th-a III 194). 308. "Vandana.m daani me vajjaasi, lokanaatha.m anuttara.m; padakkhi.na~nca katvaana, aadiseyyaasi dakkhi.na.m. 309. "Eta.m kho labbhamamhehi, yathaa bhaasasi tva~nca me; vandana.m daani te vajja.m, lokanaatha.m anuttara.m; padakkhi.na~nca katvaana, aadisissaami dakkhi.na.m. 310. "Tato ca kaa.lo pakkaami, nadi.m nera~njara.m pati; so addasaasi sambuddha.m, desenta.m amata.m pada.m. 311. "Dukkha.m dukkhasamuppaada.m, dukkhassa ca atikkama.m; ariya.m ca.t.tha"ngika.m magga.m, dukkhuupasamagaamina.m. 312. "Tassa paadaani vanditvaa, katvaana na.m padakkhi.na.m; caapaaya aadisitvaana, pabbaji.m anagaariya.m; tisso vijjaa anuppattaa, kata.m buddhassa saasanan"ti.- Imaa gaathaa abhaasi. RD: 'Yea, go, and take my homage unto him Who is the supreme Sovran of the World, And making salutation by the right, *361 Do thou from us to him make offering.' (307) 'Now meet and right is this, e'en as thou say'st, That I in doing homage, speak for thee To him, the Supreme Sovran of the World. And making salutation by the right, I'll render offering for thee and me.' (308) So Kaala went to the Nera~njaraa, And saw the very Buddha on the bank, Teaching the Way Ambrosial: of Ill, (309) And of how Ill doth rise, and how Ill may Be overpast, and of the way thereto, Even the Ariyan, the Eightfold Path. (310) Low at his feet the husband homage paid, Saluted by the right and Caapaa's vows Presented; then the world again renounced For homeless life; the Threefold Wisdom won, And brought to pass the bidding of the Lord. (311) *361 Keeping the right side toward the object of adoration in walking around him. PRUITT: [Caapaa:] 307. You should utter [my] greeting now to the unsurpassed Protector of the World, and having circumambulated him you should dedicate [the] gift [to me]. [Upaka:] 308. This is indeed proper for us, for you and me, as you say. Now I should utter your greeting to the Unsurpassed Protector of the World, and having circumambulted him I shall dedicate [the] gift [to you]. [Concluding verses:] 309-310. And then Kaa.la went out alongside the River Nara~njaraa. He saw the Fully Awakened One teaching the state of the undying - pain, the arising of pain, and the overcoming of pain, the noble eightfold path leading to the stilling of pain. 311. He saluted his feet, circumambulated him, dedicated [the gift] for Caapaa, and went forth into the homeless state. He has obtained the three knowledges. He has done the Buddha's teaching. ..to be continued, connie #77283 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Oct 10, 2007 5:02 am Subject: Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views jonoabb Hi Tep --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Hi Jon, - > > You wrote : > > Jon: First a general comment. I was not basing my comments on any > particular personal experience, but was giving my (mainly > theoretical) understanding of how it is for everyone. > > T: Thank you for the reply which I carefully read through. I respect > your personal right to limit the discussion to only theoretical > understanding of the dhammas. I think your theoretical statements are > flawless. Well up until your last post we had both been discussing our (mainly) theoretical understanding of the teachings. So I wasn't sure whether I was reading your message correctly. > ............ > > Jon: Hoping this helps take the discussion forward. > > T: Since my inquiry and discussion are mainly about your practical > application of the Abhidhamma and any relating personal experience, I > have no further discussion going forward. The practical application of the Abhidhamma is that it, together with the rest of the Tipitaka, explains about the reality of the present moment. A theoretical understanding of the Tipitaka can help towards the development of a more direct understanding. I do not see any practical application of the Abhidhamma in isolation from the rest of the Tipitaka. Hoping this helps explain. If there's anything more you'd like me to say, please don't hesitate to ask. Jon #77284 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Wed Oct 10, 2007 6:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Your Help Please, Sarah. dcwijeratna Dear Colette, This is in reference to your message to Sarah. ================================ >C: "Besides doing my apartment searches I've run across some interesting concepts of buddhism: jneyavarana. Any thoughts on the jney or the avarana or even the jneyavarana?" ................. DC: I am aware of a word with the spellings: jneyya, which means what should be understood. It is from the root jnaa. This word gives rise to jneyyadhammaa. This word occurs in the Abhidhamma commentaries. The word also occurs in Nettippakarana. The combination I am not aware. But aavar.na has nearly the same meaning a niivara.na. to cover prevent, oppose etc. So it is possible to interpret is as something that covers what should be known. Well, I can do little more work if you give me where it occurs, preferable the passage. With mettaa, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna ----- Original Message ---- Besides doing my apartment searches I've run across some interesting concepts of buddhism: jneyavarana. Any thoughts on the jney or the avarana or even the jneyavarana? #77285 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Oct 10, 2007 8:48 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. truth_aerator Hi Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > I think you should know what you are getting yourself into. Bhikkhu > Thanissaro, whom you frequently quote, teaches an idiosyncratic > version of the Dhamma in which there is an eternal soul. Nothing > could be more antithetical to the original Dhamma than that! And yet > BT's version is becoming ever more popular. > > It might be possible - by carefully selecting just a few suttas - to > support the extreme heterodoxy that the Buddha believed in an eternal soul. But why do it? There are already conventional teachings (religions) that promise eternal reward. Why butcher the Buddha's beautiful, unique Dhamma just to make it like all the rest? > > Ken H > WHERE HAVE I STATED A BELIEF IN ATTA? If I wasn't clear before, I'll say it now: I DO NOT CONSIDER ANYTHING TO BE A SELF. NIBBANA IS NOT A SELF OR ETERNAL 'EXISTENCE'. It is more like eternal absence of suffering which every and any state of consiousness is. I am not an eloquent writer so some ideas I may say in less than perfect ways. I actually find TB explanations to be very good. Even though the Buddha did NOT support any doctrine of a 'Self' , his anatta teaching is ALSO a method for meditators to arrive at selflessness. In many suttas, even advanced ones such as anattalakhana sutta - Buddha has said "these 5 aggregates are not self". While he did not support any view of a Self, he wanted others to figure it out. Had he directly said "There is no self", that could make some people misunderstand him and fall either in nihilism or totall apathy. Neither Ven TB, nor I proclaim a "Self". There are certainly phenomenon happening which deluded mind craves for and in delusion calls 'a self' . Do you understand how irresponcible (and at first contrary to everyday beliefs) it is to say "YOU DON'T EXIST?". For spiritually immature this could be a ticket to "do as you wish since nobody gets killed or hurt". Buddha gave GRADUATED discourses that GRADUALLY guide a person toward "Nibbana". First is morality perfected, this supports samadhi and calm. Eventually panna (of Not self) arrives. At this stage an aspirant is mature in morality and calm and thus can handle the truth of selflessness. Wanderers in those times were looking for "Higher Self" . As you probably know, the Buddha was very smart at teaching. He would take their ideas and slightly change them into Buddhist ones. The egoistic search for "Higher Self" was converted into path towards Nibbana. Which BTW shared many of the qualities of the Higher self (permanence, happiness, security) except for it being Ultimate Self. Vinnanam Anidassanam (?) does NOT refer to eternal existence as it is not the consiousness we are talking about. Also fire blowing out and going to its roots shouldn't be taken as eternal 'existence' either. Lots of Metta, Alex #77286 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:15 am Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. truth_aerator Namo Tassa Bhagavato !!!!Arahato!!! Samma Sambuddhassa Hi Dear Sukinder, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinder" wrote: > > Dear Swee Boon, Alex and Ven. Samahita, > > Swee wrote to Alex: > ==================== > > Recently, you also proposed the idea that Prince Siddhartha could be > > a sakadagami. In fact, I found some evidences from MN 4 (which I > > presented over at SD), that strongly suggests that the bodhisatta is at the very least a sotapanna. > > > > You could very well be right that there is no such thing as a > > bodhisatta vow. And I am pleasantly surprised that Bhikkhu Samahita > > is also of the opinion that the bodhisatta is an ariyan. > > Sukin: So you are all saying that the Bodhisatta (you might want to call > him Siddhatta instead from now..?) on seeing the Divine Messengers, > decided to seek for the answers and ending up engaging in all kinds > of "wrong practices" was due to falling back momentarily, to the > putthujana state? > > Please explain. > > Metta, > > Sukin > First of all: I do not find anything wrong with a sotopanna or Sakadagamin to temporary lapse into COMMONLY PRACTICED (and respected) practices. Even a once returner CAN be married. Even an Anagamin CAN be layperson (a very reclusive and celibate one). Gotama DID not go around killing and maiming people. Even though his ascetic practices looked extreme to us,westerners raised in luxury, to him they were commonly used methods and probably not much more extreme than going to a pub and hanging around with pals today. A sotapanna CAN commit minor transgressions. One sotapanna failed in training (disrobed) and was given to drink. This angered a lot of people at that time. A sotapanna is incapable of wrong speculative views (Gotama quickly rejected Alara and Udakka) and strong enough moral transgressions which lead to hell. Also there is a story of (Vakkhali?) who commited suicide (using the knife) either as an Arahant or became one in the antara-bhava (or the moment of death). Also textual evidence suggests that the famous 4 messangers story is NOT Gotama's story anyway. It is Yasa's (or Buddha Vipassi) story. We also are not even certain of Buddha's name. Siddharthha = mission accomplished (as I remember) and Gotama is clan name (that Ananda was sometimes called by as well). Bodhisatta if I understand correctly means: Bodhi - Awakening Satta - Being. Thus a Bodhisatta is a "Being" intent on Awakening. Namo Tassa ARAHATO... Remember Buddha was an Arahant! A special one in the sense a)Good teaching abilities b)A first arisen Arahant. c) Extra abilities (he had a tough path). I personally find it MUCH stranger that Buddha took a vow and then 4 AK and 300,000MK later fell into 6 years of ascetic practices and before that maligning Buddha Kassapa many times until he was dragged by his hair to the Buddha. Maybe 6 years of ascetism was partly due to Kamma ripening in human existence? It seems much more reasonable that he became a sotapanna during Buddha Kassapa and then later when Buddha was reborn on earth he quickly achieved self-enlightment. This all is GOOD NEWS as it bridges a gap between Arahat and Bodhisatva stage. Again the view of Buddha as a Sakadagim is not just mine. Venerable Dhammavuddho Thera also holds this view. Lots of Metta, Alex #77287 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:47 am Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. truth_aerator --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "L G SAGE" wrote: >>>>>>> > About ekaggata, that singularity of focus accompanies each citta, but it is not that happiness is the universal proximate cause of that function. >>>>>>>>>> But in CMA it has stated that the proximate cause of Ekagatta is hapiness. If we literally take this (and Abhidhamma Pitaka is supposedly built with precision in mind) than it would imply that since a) Ekaggata is one of the UNIVERSAL cetasikas b) Nothing is uncaused c) Proximate cause of Ekaggata is happiness d) Niraya exists e) Consiousness IS present there f) Ekaggata is also present in Niraya being G) Proximate cause of Ekaggata is in Niraya... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Connie: What IS nimitta? What is useful to know about it? What functions does it serve? >>>>>>>>> Nimitta in the sutta meant a "sign". If I remember correctly, one should exercise sense restraint and try not to looking around to the degree that would make defilements (lust or aversion) arise. Yoniso manasikara. The commentators tooks some poetic phrase of bright light (mind free of defilments like a moon shining on cloudless night) and literalised it into a requirement for Jhana state... Even today certain Ajahn has taken the metaphorical phrase way too literally. >>>>> > As for the 'intermediate becoming', have you checked the Useful Posts? >>>>>>> Not for this one yet... I know that Katthavathu Orthodoxy is against it. I see no problems of anatta and antara-bhava. It is just that I've pointed some of the minor difference in opinions regarding Pali Texts. >>>>>>>> Maybe under bardo for a start. But is it useful to know, or can we even know, in our present conditions; or would it be more likely to fall under the Curiosity (or Useless Information) category? >>>>>>>> COrrect, it is not very useful info. We need to get awakened NOW and not hope for any last moment miracle. However the use of this is to show that not every minor detail of Theravada interpretation is correct. Remember let the suttas& vinaya (for monks) be the guide. Not this or that Orthodoxy. >>>>>>>>>>> > Arising and falling. I agree that they have a limited duration. Lastingness in that sense does not mean permanence or that there is any static state. >>>>>>>>> The thing is: If arising has >0 then it is not indivisible and ultimate. What is the Arising of Arising etc etc. If arising =0, then it is like saying that it doesn't exist in reality. Buddha teaches by the middle. Also arising is NOT identical to falling. How can arising which is contradictory to Falling arise and cease??? Same with falling >>>>>>> but the same sort or category of ultimate reality makes its appearance and is gone again; not coming from or going to anywhere in the meantime. This bhaava is where the sassata/uccheda play comes in. > > peace, > connie >>>>> Ultimate reality can't be "anatta" which is contradictory to Buddha's teaching AND DO. In MN#1 the Buddha has totally ridiculed building "ultimate categories". In fact it (and many other suttas such as Bahiya) reads like a strait critique of any "analysis of the ultimates". NO CATEGORIES ARE ULTIMATE! They are interdependently arisen. 3 stages of understanding: 1) seer - seein - seen 2) seeing - seen 3) "seeing" not-self in any category. It is just stress rising, just stress falling away. Neither existence (eternalism) nor non existence (anihhilationism). Lots of metta, Alex #77288 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:58 am Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. - CMA intro truth_aerator Hi Connie, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "L G SAGE" wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > Alex: Either he doesn't understand the implications of what he was saying or he was tongue twisting and trying to defend sabhava. > > Connie: I'm afraid (what used to be) my copy of CMA has been 'on loan' so long that it must be considered 'a gift' now, so I can't really talk about the venerable Bodhi's introduction beyond suggesting that if your take (correct or not) on his personal views troubles you, skip them and jump right to the translation itself. ......... Here is the intro available online http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/abhiman.html Unfortunately I've spotted this reification in another book by Bhikkhu Bodhi as well. So it is not an accidental mistake for him. Buddha Dhamma is soo good. So precious and subtle. Hard to see. The secure the peace, the MIDDLE WAY between extremes. Not as a compromise, but the position from which all positions (existence & non existence) seem to be naive and childish. Wasn't there a prophecy that Buddha Dhamma would start to be polluted ~500 years after Buddha's parinibanna? Something to think about.... Lots of Metta, Alex #77289 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Response to DC Part 3. dcwijeratna Dear Sukin, Here are some responses to your Part 3. ===================================================== >>>DC: I really don't need it to understand the teaching of the Buddha. So I ignore it. You cannot argue against theories. I think I mentioned that earlier. To clarify the meaning, here is an example. How do you verify that there there are 16 mind moments in one rupa-kalaapa arising and ceasing? So I'll leave it alone. ================================================== >Sukin: But since I see it as being such a great help, I question your perception if not understanding. ................................ DC: When we discuss dhamma, we find what is wrong or right with the argument. It is considere an error in logic and an improper argument. Because, a person using that kind of argument is trying to avoid the issue by a diversion. Further, you "question my perception if not understanding"? To do so do you know my perception and understanding? Or are you claiming that you have such ability? ================================================ Is it that your introduction to the Abhidhamma was not right? Do you see any difference in approach to it as expressed here compared to other places? On the other hand, the fault might be in your own attitude towards what all is in the Abhidhamma texts. For example this thing about the life span of a rupa being 17 times that of the citta, why do you think this is something to *prove right or wrong*? If another figure was given, would you not likely to question that? Or are you saying that you actually *know* this to not in fact be the case?! If not, wouldn't it be more sensible to be mindful of any resistance that arises? And in doing this, you may come to then agree with the main thrust of Abhidhamma, and that is, the study of present moment realities. ------------------------------- DC: All you are saying is; that you also don't understand the theory of 17 mind moments . So, leave it alone. Which is what I said earlier. But that is supposed to be the ultimate reality. Paramattha dhammas. In the last sentence above, "you may come to then agree with the main thrust of Abhidhamma, and that is, the study of present moment realities." you have given the objective of Abhidhamma as study of the present REALITIES." Two questions arise: (1) What is the definition of reality? (2) Are there many realities. But we are interested in the Dhamma for the purpose of peace and happiness, including the ultimate. ============================================= >Sukin, I believe this to be the beginning and the end of Abhidhamma / Dhamma. In rejecting the Abhidhamma "theories" are you by any chance preferring the world of conventional realities and ideas of past and future that this invariably brings……? ------------------ DC: First sentence: If it is your belief, so be it. I started the discussion, with 'one cannot argue against theories.' It is based on the Buddhas advice on many, many suttas. To the "In rejecting ..." Yes that is the world I live in? Are you living in a different world. Then who wrote this post to me? I am in as situation similar to vacchagotta. =================================================== >> DC: Regarding "my Abhidhamma" : I have no abhidhamma. I am only a disciple of the Buddha. So I follow his Dhamma-vinaya. All the dhamma I need are in the: Four Noble Truths, Pa.ticca Samuppada and Anattalakkhana sutta. For Vinaya I use Sigalovada, Vyagghapajjha, Dhammika and similar suttas. Sukin: Please don't take this personally; I am not even quite sure about what exactly your position on this is. But I've seen many people express more or less the same attitude as you have here. Consider this as an opportunity I take to express myself. ----------------- DC: Please put your mind at rest. I don't think I would be writing if I were angry. In fact I am enjoying this. =================================================== >Sukin: That we don't have any evidence about the origination of the Abhidhamma, I think the same can be said with regard to the Suttas and Vinaya. DC: Certainly, if that it your opinion. But, I want to point out to you something. The world functions on the basis of what is called sacca-that is consensual truth. Now the people who have studied the history of Buddhism agree that it is a later than the sutta and vinaya. At least the existence of three different Abhidhamma Pi.takas goes to show that it cannot be the Dhamma of the Buddha. Surely, the Buddha didnn't preach three Abhidhamma Pi.takasa ================================================== >Sukin: Arguments based on stories, history or whatever, is purely out of personal bias. ------------ DC: What do you consider as a valid argument? And please tell me how to formulate when dealing with the real world. ====================================================== But as Sarah was discussing with you, any expression of the Truth which agrees with the Dhamma, can be said to be Buddha vacana, since it can only be traced back to the Buddha himself. .............. DC: What is the basis of your above assertion? Virtually all religions say don't lie. Therefore is it a Buddha Vacana. The Truth is Buddha Vacana. There are no other expressions of truth. That is fundamental. ========================================================= Sukin>>Why for example, argue about the commentaries being not the Buddha's words, indeed we should be very grateful to them for helping explain otherwise hard to understand texts. But of course we don't in fact agree with their interpretation, and since we don't have a sound argument to support our own interpretation, we appeal to history and other stories. -------------------------- DC: I don't know whether I argued about commentaries that way. Commentaries on the suttas definitely attempt to explain the Buddhavacana. In fact it is a research tool used by scholars to identify the authenticity of the Suttas. The Problem with the commentaries is that they have been embellished with lot of later stories and with Abhidhamma theories, and as you say without that Teaching of the Buddha would have been totally unintelligible. You should be grateful to the monks who preserved it during the period seven-year drought by sustaining themselves with leaves. One of the books (in his memory) was available only with one monk. The dying monk somehow or other taught it to another. ================================================== >Sukin: The Abhidhamma has by tradition been considered one of the Three Baskets. The same Theras who preserved the Suttas and Vinaya, also preserved the Abhidhamma with the same veneration and respect. These same Theras also held the commentaries in high regard. Have you ever considered that in rejecting this one basket of the Teachings, that you may in fact be rejecting one expression of the Buddha's wisdom and compassion? And if so, is this not grave kamma? --------------------------------------------------- Certainly, the problem is the "tradition." You can read the tradition of the Theravaadins with regard to Abhidhamma Pi.taka, in Bhikkhu Bodhi's introduction to the "A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma." I am sure you know that the Sangha had divided into 18 schools or nikayas by the time of the Council at Paataliputra, when kathaavatthu was written by the Elder Moggaliputta tissa. (I hope you will not manintain that it is also Buddha Vacana). People who have compared the extant SUTTA pi.takas of these schools find that there are only minor differences between the sutta pi.taka of the various schools; the same is true of the Vinaya Paatimokkha. (By the way parivaara was written in Sri Lanka). That is the reason for accepting what is in the Pali sutta pi.taka as the most reliable representative of the Buddhavacana. (Some books in the Khuddhaka nikaaya are not accepted). ======================================== >>Sukin: Why reject the Abhidhamma based on preference for a story line about history / historians / text comparison / scholars etc.? Why not consider the possibility of your own limitations in understanding? ..................... DC: Why accept it, when it is contrary to Dhamma realised by the Buddha. With reference to the second "limitations in understanding" what? If by any chance, if you refer to the Teaching of the Buddha, this is how I understand it. The Buddha had said for us householder not to kill, etc.--observe the five precepts. Observe the uposatha on poya days--the eight precepts. Look after the family by doing a blameless job--including the parents; give daana to the monks. I do that and lead a happy life and the Buddha had said that if you do these things then after death I'll be born in Sugati. So I am ok I think. Since, I have not decided to become a monk, I follow that advice. What more is there for one to understand? >Dear Sukin: I would be most grateful to you if you would be kind enough to point out the limitations of my understanding of the Buddha dhamma. ==================================================== >Sukin: Could it be arrogance speaking? Each time I hear such things as "a handful of Suttas and / or Vinaya are all I need to understand the Dhamma", not to mention those who go to the extent putting away the Texts in preference to "practice", it smells of arrogance to me. DC: It could be or it could be "arrogance speaking"? Are you claiming the ability read other people's minds? If so, you yourself can decide. I don't have such powers. =================================================== >Sukin: How can a dhamma student say no to any word by the Buddha? ........................ DC: How do you define a dhamma student? Without such a definition, it is difficult to answer the quesion. =================================================== >Sukin: An Ariyan won't do such a thing even though he has already arrived at the Truth!! ------------ --------- DC: True, what is there for one who has arrived at the Truth to do? "kata.m kara.niiya.m" [What has to be done has been done] By the way, not by studying the Pi.takas. ==================================================== >Sukin: That someone thinks it is enough just to live righteously etc. is actually not really appreciating the Dhamma and is likely motivated by `self view'. ---------------------------------------------------- DC: Bernard Shaw is reputed have said: "They are wise those who agree with me" "Those who do not agree with me, they ar fools". The word "likely" give a probabality. So it also implies "not likely". Therefore, you have said nothing. ====================================================== >Sukin: That the kilesas ever increases is due to the continuing ignorance of the nature of experience. ------------------------ DC: Where did you learn "that the kilesas ever increase"? I haven't come across that teaching. ======================================================= >Sukin: Satipatthana is the unique Teaching of the Buddha involving increased understanding of nama and rupa leading to vipassana and enlightenment. ............................. DC: I thought "satipa.t.thaana" was part of "sammaa sati". Which section of satipa.t.thaana deals with naama and ruupa: ======= The Dhamma is *deep* in relation to the fact of there being so much avijja and almost no vijja. ........................ DC: For me dhamma is absolute and not relative. ========================== Thank you for a nice and entertaining discussion. Mettaa, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77290 From: "colette" Date: Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Your Help Please, Sarah. ksheri3 Good Morning DC, ................ > DC: I am aware of a word with the spellings: jneyya, which means what should be understood. It is from the root jnaa. This word gives rise to jneyyadhammaa. This word occurs in the Abhidhamma commentaries. The word also occurs in Nettippakarana. The combination I am not aware. But aavar.na has nearly the same meaning a niivara.na. to cover prevent, oppose etc. So it is possible to interpret is as something that covers what should be known. > > Well, I can do little more work if you give me where it occurs, preferable the passage. ############################################################## "Ignorance wu ming, avidya, a state of suchness in its evolution; practically the same as birth-and-death. Intellectual hindrance so chih chang, jñeyâvarana, the hindrance to the attainment of Nirvâna, which arises from intellectual prejudices. Interrelated defilement hsiang ying jan, a conscious assertion of dualism." http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/taf/taf30.htm There are other references to this condition that deal with the purification of the mind but I'm running out of time now and can't find them, plus, I don't have any material with me now other than "THE WILD AWAKENING" BY DZOGCHEN PONLOP toodles, colette #77291 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Oct 10, 2007 6:31 pm Subject: Ven. Vimalaramsi & Mahasi Saydaw's Vipassana truth_aerator Hello all. Have you heard about Bhante Vimalaramsi? He claims that he went through entire Mahasi Method (sometimes meditating 20-22 hours per day) in Burma, reached what they said was Nibbana - but he says that it is not real thing and so he got dissatisfied with Mahasi Saydaws system. Any comments? How can this be? It appears that the system has to lead atleast to Sotapanna stage. Any ideas? Lots of metta, Alex #77292 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Wed Oct 10, 2007 6:46 pm Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. nichiconn Hi Alex, Alex: But in CMA it has stated that the proximate cause of Ekagatta is hapiness. Connie: A quote might help, but no matter. I think most of the talk about ekaggata in CMA is in relation to it as a jhaana factor; so when we talk about it in one of the hells, we're probably taking it out of context - pretty sure it's a safe bet no hell beings [nor, for that matter, most humans, including "formal meditators"] are 'triple-rooted' and therefore cannot possibly attain jhaana. But consider the 5th jhaana - 1-pointedness and Equanimity, no? Also, while we usually only talk about five jhaana factors, there are seven when we look closer at 'feeling'; note the unwholesome jhaana factor, unhappiness. You mentioned that ekagga means tranquility or calm. True enough. Do you think that applies to ekagatta in the five sense door consciousnesses? "Nothing is uncaused" = False. Again, we have to take the texts on their own terms: rise and fall are said to be 'not produced by any cause, but wholly intrinsic' characteristic marks; no infinite regress problem to my mind. Is nibbaana caused? Alex: The commentators tooks some poetic phrase of bright light (mind free of defilments like a moon shining on cloudless night) and literalised it into a requirement for Jhana state... Connie: Again, I'd ask for a quote and bit of context if you really care to discuss it with anyone. If you're just 'pointing out minor differences of opinion regarding the texts', I'd be more interested in reading your own thoughts. For instance, what do you mean by <>? Thanks for the link. peace, connie #77293 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Oct 10, 2007 7:29 pm Subject: Re: Ven. Vimalaramsi & Mahasi Saydaw's Vipassana indriyabala Hello Alex, - I can see that you are enjoying the DSG hospitality -- your posts here have been well accepted. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > Hello all. > > Have you heard about Bhante Vimalaramsi? He claims that he went through > entire Mahasi Method (sometimes meditating 20-22 hours per day) in > Burma, reached what they said was Nibbana - but he says that it is not > real thing and so he got dissatisfied with Mahasi Saydaws system. > > Any comments? How can this be? It appears that the system has to lead > atleast to Sotapanna stage. Any ideas? > > Lots of metta, > > Alex > T: I wonder what benefit could a discussion on such a claim give us. Besides, there is a possibility of making a mistake if the story above is false. Tep === #77294 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Wed Oct 10, 2007 8:52 pm Subject: Re: eCard from Bangkok christine_fo... Hello Jon, Sarah. Betty, Sukin, Ivan, Ell - ANYBODY!! I'm at the Holiday Inn Silom in Bangkok, neither Betty nor Sukin's numbers that I have in my index seem current, I caught poor K. Suwat out and about without his list of numbers (and I think he thinks I'm from Sri Lanka).. I have left a pitiful message on your room phone Sarah and Jon ~ currently I'm Bamboozled in Bangkok. He-e-e-e-e-e-e-l-p Anyone..................... metta and in need of karuna, Chris -The trouble is that you think you have time- (and up to date data!) #77295 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Oct 10, 2007 8:48 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Anapansati: A Two-Edged Sword philofillet Hi Howard (ps to the India gang) > I just got back this evening, and I have *loads* of things to do this > week, including reading all the DSG posts! So it'll be a litte while before I > can get into extended conversations, but I do look forward to do doing so as > soon as I possibly can! :-) I'll be away from DSG until January (the latest permutation of my never ending battle with internet addiction! :) so won't be able to join, but it will be going on and on and on... ...I also think it is best for a beginning meditator to have a period without too much discussion about it. Discussion is invaluable, of course, an invaluable support, but there have to be periods of just getting down to it and not listening to what others - except one's provisionally trusted teacher - have to say. I will have one of those for awhile. ...a request. When the quote from Vism about mindfuness of breathing being the foremost among the various meditation subjects...difficult to develop etc which is used by some to dissuade others from meditating on breathing, I'd like it to be noted that Vism. also contains a very encouraging passage (VIII 190- 195) about how the "clansman who is a beginner" should use counting to get started on this meditation subject. Difficult to develop, yes, of course - but it is clearly of value to the beginnner as well. I was surprised actually to see counting the breaths so clearly taught in one of the ancient texts - I'd assumed it was the invention of modern teachers. Needless to say I am counting with more confidence these days! (The counting is to be abandoned when "the external disspation of applied thoughts" has been subdued.) Talk to you again in January (or tomorrow!) Metta, Phil p.s Wishing all those who are off to India a safe and fruitful journey. #77296 From: "tom" Date: Wed Oct 10, 2007 7:08 pm Subject: Searching zorroelbueno I was searching so hard searching so hard I was bleeding at the nipples from running so hard the only time I was happy was when I was sleeping One day I woke up and forgot to search ten minutes and no seaching I was astonished then seaching started again with a vengence but I was laughing I was laughing I tell you "You bastard" I said to searching "why didn't you tell me you were just another visitor! You bastard, I thought you owned the house!" Tom #77297 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:12 pm Subject: Dieter's Qu sarahprocter... Dear Dieter, (Han & all) I raised your question on the first day and again yesterday with Han. A few comments in note-form; First discussion (without Han) ............... 1. The main question (as I understood it) was concerning which of the 24 conditions includes tejo (temperature)conditioning another kalapa (group of rupas, inc. temperature). 2. The mahabhuta rupas (primary rupas) condition each other by sahajata paccaya as discussed in the bhikkhu's letter. With regard to the beginning of the world, the teachings just refer to mahabhuta rupas conditioning each other by this paccaya. These rupas don't concern any namas, just nature. 3. The conditions refer to what is relevant to us, to the end of samsara. They are not concerned with nature, for example. In animals and beings, namas - kamma and cittas- condition rupas from the first moment of life. 4. The 24 conditions are to help us understand anatta only and are not a conmprehensive list that includes everything. Also, we should realise that they are not explained so that we are told what to do or how to do it. Anything we learn is just to help us understand the anattaness of dhammas. For example, under ahara (nutriment) condition, ahara paccaya is only concerned with sentient beings, even though there is nutriment with each kalapa. The kalapas in a rock have ahara, but this is not relevant to the 4NT. 5. People want to know what is not our concern, instead of understanding dhammas, realities right now. 6. When there is awareness and understanding, there is no time to think of all the paccayas. The more we read, the more we know how little understanding there is of what is included in the Tipitaka and commentaries. *********** 2nd discussion (with Han) .............. 1. Ahara means samudaya (origination). So ahara paccaya includes anything which is samudaya. In this sense, I understood that tejo conditioning kalapas could be included. 2. Why are we trying to understand conditions when there are realities right now to be known? 3. It's not necessary to know such details - quite useless. It indicates there is no understanding about this moment!! ***** I hope Han, Jon or Sukin will correct or add to any of these comments. Dieter, you're welcome to send them on to the bhikkhu, or to extract just those you think are most relevant. Metta, Sarah ======= #77298 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 12:37 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. kenhowardau Hi Alex, ---------------- <. . . > A: > WHERE HAVE I STATED A BELIEF IN ATTA? ----------------- Sorry, but when people quote BT's views as evidence against other views I automatically assume they subscribe to his "the Buddha did not teach no-self" theory. ------------------------------ A: > If I wasn't clear before, I'll say it now: I DO NOT CONSIDER ANYTHING TO BE A SELF. NIBBANA IS NOT A SELF OR ETERNAL 'EXISTENCE'. It is more like eternal absence of suffering which every and any state of consiousness is. ------------------------------ I am relieved to hear that. ---------------------------------- A: > I am not an eloquent writer so some ideas I may say in less than perfect ways. I actually find TB explanations to be very good. ----------------------------------- (!) My relief was short lived. :-) ---------------------------------------------- A: > Even though the Buddha did NOT support any doctrine of a 'Self' , his anatta teaching is ALSO a method for meditators to arrive at selflessness. In many suttas, even advanced ones such as anattalakhana sutta - Buddha has said "these 5 aggregates are not self". While he did not support any view of a Self, he wanted others to figure it out. Had he directly said "There is no self", that could make some people misunderstand him and fall either in nihilism or total apathy. -------------------------------------------------- Fair enough! I have a different theory on why the Buddha spoke the way he did, but the main thing is: you and I agree there is no self. -------------------------- A: > Neither Ven TB, nor I proclaim a "Self". ------------------------- You would be surprised. We have had students of BT in this group, and they very definitely believed in a self. I think Tep and Swee Boon (still active members) believe in a self. (DSG had some vigorous debates about it quite recently.) And there are some others among us who sway one way and then the other. BT and his students are generally reluctant to say, "Yes, of course there is a self!" They think that sort of talk causes stress and disturbs their meditation. But they still believe very strongly that there is a self. I will be happy to pursue this discussion further if you like, but you might prefer to leave personalities out of it (as many wise DSG- members do). ----------------------------------------- A: > There are certainly phenomenon happening which deluded mind craves for and in delusion calls 'a self' . Do you understand how irresponcible (and at first contrary to everyday beliefs) it is to say "YOU DON'T EXIST?". ----------------------------------------- No, in my case it would not be irresponsible because no one takes my word as gospel. IMHO, anyone who uses the words "YOU DON'T EXIST" as an excuse to go crazy is going to go crazy anyway. ----------------------------- A: > For spiritually immature this could be a ticket to "do as you wish since nobody gets killed or hurt". ------------------------------- It's the same thing. They would only react that way if they were looking for an excuse. I wouldn't waste my breath on anyone who did not want to hear the truth, but nor would I be emotionally blackmailed into denying the truth. ------------------------------------------ A: > Buddha gave GRADUATED discourses that GRADUALLY guide a person toward "Nibbana". ---------------------------------------- As I have been saying, I believe that only a tiny minority of people would be incapable of handling the truth. Anyone who genuinely wanted to take refuge in the Triple Gem would be made aware of anatta right from the start. ----------------------------------------------------- A: > First is morality perfected, this supports samadhi and calm. Eventually panna (of Not self) arrives. At this stage an aspirant is mature in morality and calm and thus can handle the truth of selflessness. ------------------------------------------------------ I hope I can convince you that this is NOT the way it happens. ------------------------ A: > Wanderers in those times were looking for "Higher Self" . As you probably know, the Buddha was very smart at teaching. He would take their ideas and slightly change them into Buddhist ones. The egoistic search for "Higher Self" was converted into path towards Nibbana. Which BTW shared many of the qualities of the Higher self (permanence, happiness, security) except for it being Ultimate Self. ------------------------ This sounds like a teaching-by-stealth. When Jehovah's Witnesses come to my door they try the same sort of tactic. I think it is most un- Buddhist! :-) ----------------------------- A: > Vinnanam Anidassanam (?) does NOT refer to eternal existence as it is not the consiousness we are talking about. ------------------------------ As Sarah says in #75609, "vinnanam anidassana refers to nibbana, not to the 'knowing' of nibbana." Have a look in the Useful Posts file under 'Vinnana2 & Nibbana.' It is only found once or twice in the whole Pali Canon isn't it? It certainly does not mean the kind of unconditioned (or unbound) consciousness that BT describes. E.g., in the quote I gave you earlier: . . . "when views of self are finally dropped, one is free from agitation; and as MN 140 points out, when one is truly unagitated one is unbound. 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." (end quote) --------------------------------- A: > Also fire blowing out and going to its roots shouldn't be taken as eternal 'existence' either. --------------------------------- No, of course it shouldn't. But that is the inference that BT is determined to make clear. IMHO, of course. :-) Ken H #77299 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:53 pm Subject: The Five Rebirth Destinations! bhikkhu0 Friends: Buddha himself explained The 5 Rebirth Destinations! The Blessed Buddha once explained: Sariputta, there are these five destinations. What are the five? Hell , the animal realm, the realm of ghosts , human beings, and gods ... I fully understand hell , the animal , ghost , human , and the divine realm, and the various paths and ways leading to these realms of existence... I also understand, know and directly see how any one who has entered a path to hell, on the breakup of the body, right at death, will reappear in a state of deprivation, in a painful destination, in purgatory, in hell ... Similarly do I understand, know and see directly how any one, who has entered such path on the breakup of the body, right after death, will reappear as animal , ghost , human or divine being... I understand NibbÄ?na , the path and very way leading to this NibbÄ?na... And I also understand & see directly how one who has entered this path realising it himself by direct experience, will right there and then enter and dwell in that release of mind & that release by understanding, which is fermentation -free after the elimination of the mental fermentations! Source (edited extract: The Middle Length Sayings of the Buddha. Majjhima NikÄ?ya. MN 12. i 73-4:The great lions roar http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=25072X Comment: Seeing beings die and reappear is an ability of the Divine Eye , which is an ability connected with gaining suprahuman force & with Awakening: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/The_Divine_Eye.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Suprahuman_Force_V.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/b_f/dibba_cakkhu.htm More details on the five Rebirth Destinations: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/The_5_Destinations.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/The_Hell_Destiny.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/The_Minor_Hells.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Animal_Rebirth.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Hungry_Ghost_Rebirth.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Mad_Demon_Rebirth.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Human_Being_Rebirth.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Divine_Rebirth.htm On The Thirty-one Planes of Existence: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka * http://What-Buddha-Said.net ... The Five Rebirth Destinations! #77300 From: Dieter Möller Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 1:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dieter's Qu moellerdieter Dear Sarah (and others), I hope you enjoy the City of Angles (wishing to be there too) and Christine isn't ' Bamboozled in Bangkok' anymore... Thanks for keeping the topic still in mind , but as it is neither my question nor my answer , please formulate a conclusive letter to the Venerable I can pass to the address he provided . with Metta Dieter #77301 From: han tun Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 2:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dieter's Qu hantun1 Dear Sarah, Dieter, Jon, and Sukin, The original question was: “There is a commentary, it says that Teza (of rupa) makes a new Utuzarupa. If so, in 24 paccaya, by which paccaya realtion's take place here?” My understanding, after meeting with Khun Sujin, is as follows. (1) None of the 24 paccayas is related to Tejo (of ruupa) making a new Utuja-ruupa. (2) Sahajaata-paccaya is applicable to each of the four great essentials conditioning for the other three great essentials, but in the *same* ruupa-kalaapa, and not for another ruupa-kalaapa. (3) As aahaara is synonymous with samudaya, if taken in a broader sense, aahaara paccaya may be taken as the condition in the case under question. It is up to the Bhikkhu (who asked the question) to consider this point. Respectfully, Han --- sarah abbott wrote: > Dear Dieter, (Han & all) > > I raised your question on the first day and again > yesterday with Han. > #77302 From: "Ramesh Patil" Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 2:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] eCard from Bangkok rameshat27 Hi all, It is nice to know that all you had arrived in india.. BEst of luck..for further journey... with metta ramesh #77303 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 12:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anapansati: A Two-Edged Sword upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 10/11/2007 1:29:36 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: Hi Howard (ps to the India gang) > I just got back this evening, and I have *loads* of things to do this > week, including reading all the DSG posts! So it'll be a litte while before I > can get into extended conversations, but I do look forward to do doing so as > soon as I possibly can! :-) I'll be away from DSG until January (the latest permutation of my never ending battle with internet addiction! :) so won't be able to join, but it will be going on and on and on... --------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Or, if not going on & on & on, certainly recurring again & again & again! LOLOL! -------------------------------------------------------------- ...I also think it is best for a beginning meditator to have a period without too much discussion about it. Discussion is invaluable, of course, an invaluable support, but there have to be periods of just getting down to it and not listening to what others - except one's provisionally trusted teacher - have to say. I will have one of those for awhile. -------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree with you. Ultimately meditation is a very individual matter, and, like reading a restaurant review versus actually eating at the restaurant, the descriptions and reported details of meditating are radically different from the personal (uh, oh! "personal" - LOLOL!) experiences actually involved in meditating. (But guides are still of great importance, of course.) -------------------------------------------------------------- ...a request. When the quote from Vism about mindfuness of breathing being the foremost among the various meditation subjects...difficult to develop etc which is used by some to dissuade others from meditating on breathing, I'd like it to be noted that Vism. also contains a very encouraging passage (VIII 190- 195) about how the "clansman who is a beginner" should use counting to get started on this meditation subject. Difficult to develop, yes, of course - but it is clearly of value to the beginnner as well. I was surprised actually to see counting the breaths so clearly taught in one of the ancient texts - I'd assumed it was the invention of modern teachers. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: How interesting! Thanks for pointing that out! :-) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Needless to say I am counting with more confidence these days! (The counting is to be abandoned when "the external dissipation of applied thoughts" has been subdued.) Talk to you again in January (or tomorrow!) Metta, Phil p.s Wishing all those who are off to India a safe and fruitful journey. ================================ With metta, Howard #77304 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 4:33 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (68) nichiconn Dear Friends, Part 10 of Caapaatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa. On verse: 292. "La.t.thihattho pure aasi, so daani migaluddako; aasaaya palipaa ghoraa, naasakkhi paarametave. 291. Formerly I carried an [ascetic's] staff. Now I am a deer hunter. Because of craving, I have not been able to go from the terrible mire to that far shore. txt: Tattha la.t.thihatthoti da.n.dahattho. Pureti pubbe paribbaajakakaale ca.n.dago.nakukkuraadiina.m parihara.nattha.m da.n.da.m hatthena gahetvaa vicara.nako ahosi. So daani migaluddakoti so idaani migaluddehi saddhi.m sambhogasa.mvaasehi migaluddo maagaviko jaato. Aasaayaati ta.nhaaya. "Aasayaa"tipi paa.tho, ajjhaasayahetuuti attho. Palipaati kaamapa"nkato di.t.thipa"nkato ca. Ghoraati aviditavipulaanatthaavahattaa daaru.nato ghoraa. Naasakkhi paarametaveti tasseva palipassa paarabhuuta.m nibbaana.m etu.m gantu.m na asakkhi, na abhisambhuniiti attaanameva sandhaaya upako vadati. Pruitt: 291. There, [an ascetic's] staff (la.t.thi-hattho) means: [having] a stick in my hand (da.n.da-hattho). Formerly means: in the past, when I was a wanderer, I was one who moved about taking a stick in hand for the sake of protection against fierce oxen and dogs, etc. Now (daani) I am a deer hunter (miga-luddo), a deer stalker (maagaviko), with deer hunters (miga-luddehi) living together with me. Because of craving (aasaaya) means: because of craving (ta.nhaaya). There is also the reading aasaya {"because of a whish"), because of [my] wish (ajjhaasaya-hetu). That is the meaning. From the ... mire means: from the mud of sensual pleasures and from the mud of [wrong] views. Terrible means: terrible because it is cruel through producing extensive misfortunes that are unknown. I have not been able (naasakkhi) to go (etave) to that far shore (paaram) means: I have not been able (na asakkhi), I have not been capable of going (etu.m = gantu.m) to quenching, which is the far shore (paara-bhuuta.m) of that mire. Upaka speaks with reference to himself. On verse: 293. "Sumatta.m ma.m ma~n~namaanaa, caapi puttamatosayi; caapaaya bandhana.m chetvaa, pabbajissa.m punopaha.m. 292. Thinking me enamoured [of her], Caapaa has kept our son happy. Having cut Caapaa's bond, I shall go forth again. txt: Sumatta.m ma.m ma~n~namaanaati attani su.t.thu matta.m madappatta.m kaamagedhavasena lagga.m pamatta.m vaa katvaa ma.m sallakkhantii. Caapaa puttamatosayiiti migaluddassa dhiitaa caapaa "aajiivakassa puttaa"ti-aadinaa ma.m gha.t.tentii putta.m tosesi ke.laayasi. "Supati ma.m ma~n~namaanaa"ti ca pa.thanti, supatiiti ma.m ma~n~namaanaati attho. Caapaaya bandhana.m chetvaati caapaaya tayi uppanna.m kilesabandhana.m chinditvaa. Pabbajissa.m punopahanti puna dutiyavaarampi aha.m pabbajissaami. Pruitt: 292. Thinking me very enamoured (sumatta.m) [of her] means: regarding me as intoxicated by (pamatta.m) or attached to [her] because of my greed for sensual pleasures, intoxicated (mada-ppatta.m), very enamoured (su.t.thu matta.m) with her (attani). Caapaa has kept our son happy means: Caapaa, O daughter of the deer hunter, you delight, you make much of our son, while mocking me by saying, "O son of an Aajivaka,", etc. And some read, "thinking me asleep" (supati ma.m ma~n~namaanaa). Thinking of me, "He is asleep." That is the meaning. Having cut (chetvaa) Caapaa's bond (bandhana.m) means: having cut (chinditvaa) the bond of the defilement (kilesa-bandhana.m) that has arisen in you Caapaa. I shall go forth (pabbajissa.m) again (puno-p' aha.m) means: I shall go forth (aha.m pubbajissaami) again (puna), a second time. === to be continued, connie #77305 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 4:55 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views jonoabb Hi Howard Welcome back. Hope you had a good trip. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Jon - > ... > To my understanding of the theory, at the moments of seeing that are > occurring as this message is being typed (in my case) or read (in > yours), there is no text or monitor in the visible object being experienced. > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard > That's right. The message, text, and monitor are experienced via mind door. > The experiencing of them ADDS to our knowledge. Without a wisdom that enables > directly experiencing interrelationships among dhammas and also without > conceptualization that enables the indirect experiencing of interrelationships > among dhammas, we would NOT know "the all" fully. Dhammas-in- relation is the > nature of existence, not separate dhammas. > -------------------------------------------------------------- I'm unclear what you mean by 'interrelationships among dhammas' here, and the direct or indirect experiencing of such. Are you referring to something that is mentioned in the suttas? That aside, you talk about the experiencing of the message, text and monitor. But I assume you are not saying there is a sense in which these (conventional) objects are experienced, rather than, say, visible/tactile object that is taken for such objects. > As to exactly *how* the concept of text or monitor comes to be created > based on present sense-door experiences, that is an interesting area to > consider, but something that I would see as being in the nature of a > 'story about' rather than direct experience, if you see what I mean. > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Everything expressed as speech is "story". Most stories are of little > importance. The story of interrelations is an important one, however, it seems > to me, and a true one. > ------------------------------------------------------------ Perhaps your answer to my question above will clarify what you mean here by the 'story of interrelations'. Thanks. Jon #77306 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:02 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddha Gotama, a Once Returner? jonoabb Hi Alex --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott > wrote: > > > > Hi Alex > > > > Welcome to the list from me. > > > I don't see the relevance of the reasons/evidence you've mentioned to > the issue at hand (namely, whether the Bodhisatta was a sakadagamin > when reborn in the lifetime in which he obtained Buddhahood). Would > you mind explaining the connection? Thanks. > >>>>>> > > First of all it was NOT my idea. I've heard it from some Theravada > Venerables, and I've read somewhere that one of early schools (was it > sautrantikas or Sarvastivadins?) believed that Buddha was Sakadagamin. > > Basically what I was trying to say is that it appears that to become > a Buddha one does NOT have to take a vow, and becoming a Sotopanna > could make one a Buddha (but the chances are of course very very > slim). Yes, I understand the premise being put forward. What I don't get yet is why the various incidents you mention support that premise. Would you mind spelling out the connection for me. Thanks. > This makes the goal (Arahatship) less egotistic and answers some of > Mahayanist attacks. Sorry, you'll have to explain this for me too ;-)) > > I am also wondering how you define a 'sakadagamin'. To me, a > > sakadagamin is a person who has attained the 2nd of the 4 stages of > > enlightenment. Is this your definition too (and if so what textual > > 'evidence' is there on this point)? > > > > Thanks. > > > > Jon > > Yes this is the definition. An ariya who forever rooted out 3 fetters > and weakened 2 (lust&anger). > > > The suttas which I've brought up appear to suggest that it is very > likely that the Buddha Gotama became a Sotopanna under Buddha Kassapa, > then as an Ariya he came to Earth and achieved Arahatship when there > weren't any arahats. Being the first Arahant in this civilization he > was also a Buddha. Again, would you mind explaining how those suttas tend to show what you say they do. Thanks. Jon #77307 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:22 am Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Sorry for the delay. The reply suggests a need to clarify 1) the meaning of paramattha, 2) cetasikas, including ekagatta cetasika, 3) mention of paramattha dhammas in the suttas, 4) the nature of the arising of dhammas, and 5) MN43. I see that some of these have already been addressed. 1) Paramattha. A: "...How can dhammas not be noumenon but on other hand possess ultimate reality, be elementary constituents (a little atta's)? ...After all parts are little wholes which can be divided even further..." Scott: The term 'paramattha' is a compound of 'parama' which means 'ultimate' or 'highest' or 'final', and 'attha', meaning 'reality' or 'thing'. Citta, cetasika, ruupa, and Nibbaana are paramattha dhammas. To quote from the text of Abhidhammattha Sangaha (CMA p. 25): "The things contained in the Abhidhamma, spoken of therein, are altogether fourfold from the standpoint of ultimate reality; consciousness, mental factors, matter, and Nibbaana." Tattha vutt' abhidhammatthaa Catudhaa paramatthato Citta.m cetasika.m ruupa.m Nibbaana.m sabathaa. This simply means, as far as I understand it, that they are realities and there is no further subdivision or reduction to be made of them - there are no further overarching or underlying phenomena of which these four consist. The 'little atta' comment couldn't apply to Nibbaana - I leave it aside - and is a misunderstanding of paramattha in relation to citta, cetasika, and ruupa. While citta, cetasika, and ruupa have characteristics, they are not agents - there is no little self. You need to inform yourself as to the meaning of 'sabhava'. A: "...he didn't imply that parts are ultimates while whole is not..." Scott: A correct understanding of paramattha does away with misconceptions regarding 'wholes' and 'parts'. A: "...I personally cannot consider any particle to be more ultimately real than another..." Scott: What do you mean? 2) Cetasikas. A: "Do the cetasikas occur ALL at absolutely the same moment or one after another?" Scott: Neither option in the question is entirely correct. As I understand it, cetasikas arise with citta (and citta with cetasikas) as both are condition for the other and do not arise separately (from each other). Citta and cetasika are conascent condition for each other and always arise together. The seven universals always occur with each citta. The others occur with some cittas but not all. There are kusala and akusala cittas and these are so due to the nature of the cetasikas which arise with them. Cittass' ekaggataa, according to Dhammasa"nga.ni (the first volume of the Abhidhamma Pi.taka) (p.11): "The stability, solidity, absorbed steadfastness of thought which on that occasion is the absence of distraction, balance, unperturbed mental procedure, quiet ['samatho' - 'mental calm'], the faculty and power or concentration, right concentration..." Scott: As I understand it, ekaggataa ('one-pointedness') from this standpoint refers to the cetasika, one of the universals - i.e., it arises with each and every moment of consciousness - the characteristics of which are enumerated above. This means that ekaggataa functions to assist citta in relation to an object. There is no little self implied here. Ekaggataa-cetasika simply imbues each moment of consciousness with the above noted characteristics in relation to an object of that moment. It is very important to make this distinction here. 3) Mention of paramattha dhammas in the suttas. Scott: Please see Useful Posts for more on this. 4) The nature of the arising of dhammas. A: "Do all dhammas (citta, cetasika, rupa) happen only sequentially or can some of them happen at exactly the same moment of it?" Scott: Naama (citta and cetasika) and ruupa are distinct and separate, as far as I understand. They are both subject to arising, being present, and then ceasing. They do so at different 'rates'. Citta and cetasika arise together and then fall away, arising again, perhaps in different combinations, with the next moment of consciousness depending on conditions. Ruupa arises in 'groups' as well, so at the same moment, but then falls away. A: "...How can a person eat, and watch TV (seeing, hearing) at the same time? If they happen only sequentially, then it would mean that in that moment a person is seeing, he is not hearing and not eating. What happens to the food inside of his mouth? Does it magically disappear when there is seeing or hearing and reappear when he is not seeing and hearing??!!!" Scott: Don't think of 'a person' or 'eating' or 'watch[ing] TV' when you are trying to learn about paramattha dhammas - this is mixing you up. These things are all conceptual. Again you misunderstand the 'parts' and 'wholes' thing. Citta arises and has only a single object at a time. Seeing and hearing and tasting do not occur at the same time - they occur one at a time. Although it might seem as if 'a person' 'watching TV' sees and hears at the same time, this is not the case. Please ask for more clarification. 5) MN43 Scott: I've run out of time and will get to this next. Sincerely, Scott. #77308 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:41 am Subject: S's e-card from Bkk 2 sarahprocter... Dear Friends, The computer is working temporarily so we're using this little window..... This afternoon we had another discussion with A.Sujin. Rob K was already at the Foudation when we arrived. From today, he's now living in Thailand and starting a new job at a university outside Bangkok in November. Chris arrived, no longer bamboozled, but with an account of how she'd missed her flight and actually arrived a day late. Aiport staff wondered if this might indicate a lack of mindfulness, but we we discussed how sati has nothing to do with tripping over, losing keys or even missing flights! I must say she was very relaxed and in very good humour for someone who'd been through a few tests and trials at the beginning of her trip. I brought up a point that had been raised in a discussion between Tep & Scott, referring to Scott's message #74862 about "The four foundations are the basis of concentration (samaadhinimitta).." Was this another meaning of nimitta, I wondered. KS pointed out that we have to appreciate the section is referring to the 8 fold-path and not to take the comments out of context of this. When there is the developed understanding of the arising and falling away of dhammas, it's clear what realities are and what nimittas of conditioned dhammas are. The passage is talking about satipatthana and samadhi. So satipatthana is the basis for understanding what is samaadhinimitta. B.Bodhi suggested that in this context nimitta isn't a 'sign', in the sense of a distinctive mark or object, but we thought it was. Rob quoted from Garunaratne's article on Jhanas and in particular, the references to 'khanika samadhi' or momentary concentration. The comments seem to have no basis in the texts, but perhaps Rob will elaborate and give a link. Also, more on vipassana nanas, cintamaya panna, methods and control, death reflections and understanding, following on from a post of Ken O's which I referred to. (If you're reading, Ken O, I'll elaborate when I have a chance). And then an account of a problem at work that Chris had had with her superior and some Tibetan advice to write something in gold on blue paper which seemed to offer the desired solution!! A coincidence? I'll leave it to her as to whether she wishes to elaborate or not! Another enjoyable occasion! Metta, Sarah p.s Dieter, the note I sent to you was 'e-card Bkk 1'. I'm sorry, but as you were the kind messenger, I addressed the notes to you rather than the bhikkhu. I don't have the original and as I'm travelling and with very limited computer access, I won't be re-writing it. Pls just re-format and include what you think is useful and address to the Bhikkhu if you'd like to. You're welcome to say that they are just the cryptic notes your friend sent you. =========================== #77309 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 2:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 10/11/2007 7:56:06 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Howard Welcome back. Hope you had a good trip. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Thanks, it was great. :-) ------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Jon - > ... > To my understanding of the theory, at the moments of seeing that are > occurring as this message is being typed (in my case) or read (in > yours), there is no text or monitor in the visible object being experienced. > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard > That's right. The message, text, and monitor are experienced via mind door. > The experiencing of them ADDS to our knowledge. Without a wisdom that enables > directly experiencing interrelationships among dhammas and also without > conceptualization that enables the indirect experiencing of interrelationships > among dhammas, we would NOT know "the all" fully. Dhammas-in- relation is the > nature of existence, not separate dhammas. > -------------------------------------------------------------- I'm unclear what you mean by 'interrelationships among dhammas' here, and the direct or indirect experiencing of such. Are you referring to something that is mentioned in the suttas? That aside, you talk about the experiencing of the message, text and monitor. But I assume you are not saying there is a sense in which these (conventional) objects are experienced, rather than, say, visible/tactile object that is taken for such objects. > As to exactly *how* the concept of text or monitor comes to be created > based on present sense-door experiences, that is an interesting area to > consider, but something that I would see as being in the nature of a > 'story about' rather than direct experience, if you see what I mean. > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Everything expressed as speech is "story". Most stories are of little > importance. The story of interrelations is an important one, however, it seems > to me, and a true one. > ------------------------------------------------------------ Perhaps your answer to my question above will clarify what you mean here by the 'story of interrelations'. Thanks. Jon ============================== Jon, I find what I said to be almost self-evident. Dhammas are interrelated in many ways. For us unawakened folks, conceptualization is our means to grasp the relations among dhammas. If we were not cognizant of relations, we would not be able to function and we would also not know all there is to know about reality. Do you disagree with that? With metta, Howard #77310 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 6:22 am Subject: Re: dhamma questions -- Q. No. 1 jonoabb Hi Manish Welcome to the list from me. Thanks for the many good questions raised. I'd like to try answering the first one. (That means answers now to Nos. 1, 4, 9, 11, 12, 28) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "vipassana_infonet" wrote: ... > 1) am I right if I understand that a) becoming an observer (just > observing - passana) and not becoming a 'doer' b) observing vedana > with the understanding of anicca i.e. - changing the sanna to anicca > sanna (VI- passana) eradicates old sankhara as per a) "sankhara > paccaya vinnana" b) navanca kammam na karoti puranca kammam phussa > phussa vyayanti karoti (AN, nigantha sutta)? Your question is, I think: Does observing (i.e., merely observing) vedana with an understanding of anicca lead to a level of understanding? (Hope I've got this right.) To my understanding, the 3 characteristics of anicca, dukkha and anatta are characteristics of conditioned dhammas that are observable to developed panna. An understanding of each of the characteristics thus develops gradually as panna is developed. As I see it, it is not a matter of one's understanding of the characteristics being applied (as it were) to selected dhammas such as vedana. In any event, it seems to me that observing 'with the understanding of anicca' is actually a kind of 'doing' rather than a mere observing. I hope this addresses your question. I'm afraid I have not understood your comments about eradicating old sankhara. Would you mind explaining this part of your question a little further, please. Thanks again for the questions. Jon PS For others: Manish's original posts are at #77160 and 77164; do have a go! Sarah and Nina are both 'off' for the next 2 weeks. #77311 From: Sobhana Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 6:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are we responsible for our actions? shennieca Hi Tep, Thanks for the advice. :)) T: The drifting off may be caused by lacking of a focus. The stopping at mid-sentence may be due to your thought switching to another subject while in the middle of the first thought. Both habits can be lessened by developing mental unification (or single-pointedness) . E: Yes, there's still lots of mental developing to do, sometimes it is difficult to stay focused. I'm just fickle-minded most of the time. :lol: Thanks again! :)) #77312 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:05 am Subject: S's e-card from Bkk (3) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, I'm jumping around as I try to recall different discussions. The one that actually comes to mind most easily was the one when Han kindly joined us at our hotel and then accompanied us to the morning discussion yesterday. Other friends, inc. Sukin, Ann, Peter & Marisee were also present. (Ann is a lurking member here and the good friend who originally introduced me to KS, Jon and Nina. She, Peter & Marisee will be joining the India trip.) We actually had 3 discussions with Han - one at our hotel when he arrived as we finished our breakfast, one when we arrived early at the Foundation and sat out in the garden with Sukin as well, and then the 'proper' discussion indoors with A.Sujin and other friends. By this time we had rehearsed some of our joint questions and a lot was coverd. Most the topics arose out of DSG discussions. I've already referred to the first topic which was on the qu. Dieter raised for the bhikkhu other topics: - The bodhisatta as sotapanna - atta/anatta, Han 'on the fence' depending on whether someone speaks angrily to him or whether he's meditating or counting beads:-)'No 'I', no self, otherwise always 'I'm doing this and that'. - death moments - Puggala Pannatti - persons and Abhidhamma. 4 kinds of teachers, how to reconcile with 'no person'? 'All dhammas, whether in suttas, vinaya or abhidhamma.' 'Result of kusala to be born as a human being - words to classify dhatus.... What we call 'teacher' is a dhatu... We learn to differentiate different dhatus.... We can understand realities and use any term.' - no person - Purification of views. 'Now!'. - too much emphasis on anatta? No Han, no Sarah - 'It's the truth!'. - kali yoga, Sakka-sasana? - Paramis - break and accelerator. "How many people would you like to help?" "...climb a hill or the highest mountain...." - material possessions - sila - different causes, out of fear etc **** I'd like to say that we all find it a great pleasure and honour when Han joins us. Although he's not young and has had some health problems recently, in the discussion he's very lively, articulate, with a strong voice and fires back as well as he's fired at!! A very lively and enjoyable session with great questions and discussion. Thanks, Han! (Yes, believe it or not, but face-to-face, Han and James swap roles somewhat - Han, the lively rebel and James, the listening diplomat;-)) [I know Han intends to add more detail, but please take your time, Han. No hurry at all. I apologise for writing my notes/prompts now and not later, but I know that if I wait until after India, so much will have occurred, that the details of these sessions will have been forgotten. I simply don't have your powers of recall:-)] Metta, Sarah p.s many thanks for the good wishes for the trip to India. Much appreciated. Ramesh, we arrive in Delhi on Sunday. Manish, we finish in Bodh Gaya, where we stay 2 or 3 nts (I forget). Thx for telling us you live in Calcutta and thanks for your further posts. I'll show Nina the ones addressed to her and she'll be glad to see them, but she and I won't be able to discuss them further til our return home. I hope others pick up more of the Qus. ============= #77313 From: "vipassana_infonet" Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 6:48 am Subject: Re: dhamma questions -- Q. No. 1 vipassana_in... my question was about looking at (from abhidhamma standpoint) the process (in the citta-vithi) that explains how the sankharas are actually eradicated by vipassana. you may read the question again. thanks. ---- I may wait for nina and sarah. #77314 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. dcwijeratna Dear Scott, This is regarding your post addressed to Alex. The topic that you are discussing interests me. Would you mind if I butt in? ======================================================== >Scott: The reply suggests a need to clarify 1) the meaning of paramattha, 2) cetasikas, including ekagatta cetasika, 3) mention of paramattha dhammas in the suttas, 4) the nature of the arising of dhammas, and 5) MN43. I see that some of these have already been addressed. ................. DC: Above are the issues that I am interested in as I cannot understand them. Even if they have been addressed earlier, I shall be grateful if they are discussed. ----------------------------------------------------------------- >Scott: The term 'paramattha' is a compound of 'parama' which means 'ultimate' or 'highest' or 'final', and 'attha', meaning 'reality' or 'thing'. Citta, cetasika, ruupa, and Nibbaana are paramattha dhammas. To quote from the text of Abhidhammattha Sangaha (CMA p. 25): ........................ DC: I looked at the dictionary about the meaning of attha: Here is what is given in A P Buddhadatta's Concise Dictionary: welfare; gain; wealth; need; want; use; meaning; destruction. Thus I cannot find the meaning of attha as "reality". I made a search for the the word paramattha in the Pi.taka. You get the word in cuula and mahaa niddesapaalis and In kathaavatthu but not in the suttas. There are number of other points that trouble me: (1) How can you separate citta and cetasika as separate dhammas? (2) what does ruupa refer to? To the materiality of a being or to the ruupa in the whole outside world? (3) Nibbaana is out of character here? For one thing is citta, cetasika, and ruupa is samsaara and Nibbaana not sa.msaara. At least in sense, in the sense of 'ultimate reality' (paramattha), they are the same. This also confuses me. ...................... >Scott: A correct understanding of paramattha does away with misconceptions regarding 'wholes' and 'parts'. DC: Reference my problems stated earlier, grateful for a clarification. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) Cetasikas. >>A: "Do the cetasikas occur ALL at absolutely the same moment or one after another?" >Scott: Neither option in the question is entirely correct. As I understand it, cetasikas arise with citta (and citta with cetasikas) as both are condition for the other and do not arise separately (from each other). Citta and cetasika are conascent condition for each other and always arise together. DC: This is another point that troubles. If they always arise together and and cease together. How do you recognise them separately? I can't imagine that. Let me put it with an example. I see a black bull. I have seen black separate from a bull. So that is ok. Supposing there is no black elsewhere, I wouldn't know how to separate it? ........................................ >Scott: As I understand it, ekaggataa ('one-pointedness' ) from this standpoint refers to the cetasika, one of the universals - i.e., it arises with each and every moment of consciousness -.... Ekaggataa-cetasika simply imbues each moment of consciousness with the above noted characteristics in relation to an object of that moment. It is very important to make this distinction here. ............................ DC: To me in the suttas, cittassa ekaggata is concentration of the mind on a single object in samaadhi. But according to the above, it is there with every moment of consciousness. That is another point I find difficult. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------\ ------ 3) Mention of paramattha dhammas in the suttas. >Scott: Please see Useful Posts for more on this. ...................... DC: As mentioned above, I couldn't find it in the suttas. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------\ --------- 4) The nature of the arising of dhammas. >>A: "Do all dhammas (citta, cetasika, rupa) happen only sequentially or can some of them happen at exactly the same moment of it?" >Scott: Naama (citta and cetasika) and ruupa are distinct and separate, as far as I understand. They are both subject to arising, being present, and then ceasing. They do so at different 'rates'. DC: Here is another thing I can't find in the suttas. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------\ -- I must say again, that if you think they are not worth answering, then please diregard them and accept my apologies in advance. I am new to Abhidhamma. With mettaa, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77315 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 4:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. upasaka_howard Hi, DC (and Scott) - ........................ DC: I looked at the dictionary about the meaning of attha: Here is what is given in A P Buddhadatta's Concise Dictionary: welfare; gain; wealth; need; want; use; meaning; destruction. Thus I cannot find the meaning of attha as "reality". I made a search for the the word paramattha in the Pi.taka. You get the word in cuula and mahaa niddesapaalis and In kathaavatthu but not in the suttas. =============================================== As you indicate, one meaning of 'attha' is "meaning". So, how about 'paramattha dhamma' meaning "a dhamma in ultimate meaning" or "a dhamma in the ultimate sense"? With metta, Howard #77316 From: "nidive" Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:06 am Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. nidive Hi Sukin, > Sukin: So you are all saying that the Bodhisatta (you might want to > call him Siddhatta instead from now..?) on seeing the Divine > Messengers, decided to seek for the answers and ending up engaging > in all kinds of "wrong practices" was due to falling back > momentarily, to the putthujana state? I am actually new to this idea, and I am investigating it from the perspective of the suttas. My perspective right now is that the bodhisatta is actually a sotapanna. (And no, I don't agree with Alex that a sotapanna would take to intoxicating drinks/drugs.) The question arises as to whether knowledge of the intricate formulation of the Noble Eightfold Path would be imprinted into a sotapanna's mind upon obtaining the Dhamma Eye, such that such knowledge can be recalled at will by the sotapanna even at the seventh (last for the sotapanna) rebirth. I remember reading a story about King Sakka (a sotapanna) who enjoys so much heavenly sensual pleasures that he would forget about the Dhamma and would have to ask the Buddha to teach him again. So, I think knowledge of the intricate formulation of the NEP is not imprinted into a sotapanna's mind upon obtaining the Dhamma Eye. Imagine if Sariputta were to immediately pass away without meeting the Buddha after obtaining the Dhamma Eye upon hearing Assaji's stanzas; would he have any knowledge of the intricate formulation of the Noble Eightfold Path or the seven factors of awakening, etc? I don't think so. Based on the premise that a sotapanna's knowledge of the intricate formulation of the NEP is acquired through intellectual learning by hearing a Dhamma discourse, there is the possibility that such an intellectual learning could be forgotten through the process of repeated (at most seven) rebirths. Humans supposedly do not have the natural ability to recall past lives, and in this respect, the bodhisatta is no exception. This would explain why the bodhisatta seemingly takes on "all the wrong practices" even though he is a sotapanna. He had forgotten about the NEP which he learned intellectually from Buddha Kassapa (most likely) in one of his previous life. If you look carefully at what sort of "wrong practices" that the bodhisatta undertook, the theme of these "wrong practices" are connected with one thing: the abandoning of sensuality. This fact is made plain in the Buddha's first discourse where he said that: There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable. None of the bodhisatta's "wrong practices" are connected with the abandoning of self-identity views that is abandoned by a sotapanna. He didn't engage in practices such as ox-duty ascetism or dog-duty ascetism which would indicate the presence of the fetter. In a very telling way in MN 36, the Buddha told of how 3 similes regarding the abandoning of sensuality appeared spontaneously to him prior to his awakening. These 3 similes, I think, tell us what the bodhisatta was really after: the abandoning of sensuality. Sensuality is the fetter to be abandoned after self-identity views. Without first eliminating self-identity views, it is impossible to eliminate sensuality. If the bodhisatta is not at least a sotapanna, the spontaneous appearance of these 3 similes regarding the abandoning of sensuality would appear to be very "out of sequence", if not barking up the wrong tree. Swee Boon #77317 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: dhamma questions -- Q. No. 1 dcwijeratna Dear Manish, I quote from a message addressed to you by Jon: --- In dhammastudygroup@ yahoogroups. com, "vipassana_infonet" wrote: ... > 1) am I right if I understand that a) becoming an observer (just > observing - passana) and not becoming a 'doer' b) observing vedana > with the understanding of anicca i.e. - changing the sanna to anicca > sanna (VI- passana) eradicates old sankhara as per a) "sankhara > paccaya vinnana" b) navanca kammam na karoti puranca kammam phussa > phussa vyayanti karoti (AN, nigantha sutta)? ---------------------------------------------------- I wish to make some observations "a)" --becoming an observer (just observing - passana) and not becoming a 'doer' I have very little knowledge of Abhidhamma So I will look at this from the prespective of Dhamma. First: My thinking is that the very definition of 'observing' is that you don't do anything. You just watch. And when you watch or observe, you realise that whatever you are watching is impermanent ,for example, the breath. And then it is that observation that leads to your understanding anicca. Can you please give the exact reference in AN? nipata vagga or page number. With Mettaa, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77318 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. dcwijeratna Dear Howard, Many thanks for your prompt reply. A quick one. You wrote: ----------As you indicate, one meaning of 'attha' is "meaning". So, how about 'paramattha dhamma' meaning "a dhamma in ultimate meaning" or "a dhamma in the ultimate sense"?----------- DC: Yes, that seems to be a good idea, provided we restrict the dhamma to Nibbana. Because Nibbana is: permanent and satisfactory (nicca, sukha). Other parattha dhammas of the Abhidhamma are anicca hence dukkha; yadanicca,m ta.m dukkha.m"': what ever is impermanent is unsatisfactory. To call that "attha" would be little difficult. So that also leads to a problem. With mettaa, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77319 From: Dieter Möller Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 10:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anapansati: A Two-Edged Sword ....? moellerdieter Hi Phil , Howard ...Nina , Robert ,Sarah ,Sukinder and others interested, I hope you don't mind when I chip in with a frank opinion as the issue relates to the topic re: Asoka, mindfulness of breath' you wrote ...a request. When the quote from Vism about mindfuness of breathing being the foremost among the various meditation subjects...difficult to develop etc which is used by some to dissuade others from meditating on breathing, I'd like it to be noted that Vism. also contains a very encouraging passage (VIII 190-195) about how the "clansman who is a beginner" should use counting to get started on this meditation subject.' D:Thanks for your reference! But then how can we understand without contradiction that Vism quotation , which indeed seems to dissuade 'commons folks' to practise mindfulness of breathing?? Once more the wording: Vis. VIII< 211: "Although any meditation subject, no matter what, is successful only in one who is mindful and fully aware, yet any meditation subject other than this one gets more evident as he goes on giving it his attention. But this mindfulness of breathing is difficult, difficult to develop, a field in which only the minds of Buddhas, paccekabuddhas and Buddhas sons are at home. It is no trivial matter, nor can it be cultivated by trivial persons.." D: I wonder, whether the context provides another understanding, but as far as I see it, here must be some kind of error either translation or by copies from the original. Of course mindfulness of breathing even in its slightest form is of benefit for the commoner ( a scientific fact ) and should be cultivated , developed ....so that there is a base to practise what for example is told us in the Maha Satipatthana Sutta or the Anapanasati Sutta. Regarding the latter it has been claimed, that it was directed only to the (advanced )Ariyans. But when we compare with the text, the Buddha adressed as well those below: MN 118 excerpt: 'Now on that occasion -- the Uposatha day of the fifteenth, the full-moon night of the White water-lily month, the fourth month of the rains -- the Blessed One was seated in the open air surrounded by the community of monks. Surveying the silent community of monks, he addressed them: "Monks, this assembly is free from idle chatter, devoid of idle chatter, and is established on pure heartwood: such is this community of monks, such is this assembly. The sort of assembly that is worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of respect, an incomparable field of merit for the world: such is this community of monks, such is this assembly. The sort of assembly to which a small gift, when given, becomes great, and a great gift greater: such is this community of monks, such is this assembly. The sort of assembly that it is rare to see in the world: such is this community of monks, such is this assembly -- the sort of assembly that it would be worth traveling for leagues, taking along provisions, in order to see. "In this community of monks there are monks who are Arahants, whose mental effluents are ended, who have reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who are released through right gnosis: such are the monks in this community of monks. "In this community of monks there are monks who, with the total ending of the first set of five fetters, are due to be reborn [in the Pure Abodes], there to be totally unbound, never again to return from that world: such are the monks in this community of monks. "In this community of monks there are monks who, with the total ending of [the first] three fetters, and with the attenuation of passion, aversion, & delusion, are once-returners, who -- on returning only one more time to this world -- will make an ending to stress: such are the monks in this community of monks. "In this community of monks there are monks who, with the total ending of [the first] three fetters, are stream-winners, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening: such are the monks in this community of monks. "In this community of monks there are monks who remain devoted to the development of the four frames of reference... the four right exertions... the four bases of power... the five faculties... the five strengths... the seven factors for Awakening... the noble eightfold path: such are the monks in this community of monks. "In this community of monks there are monks who remain devoted to the development of good will... compassion... appreciation... equanimity...[the perception of the] foulness [of the body]... the perception of inconstancy: such are the monks in this community of monks. "In this community of monks there are monks who remain devoted to mindfulness of in-&-out breathing. ' Concerning the difficulty to develop mindfulness of breathing and the claim mindfulness of breathing can be singled out as the most difficult among the 40 types of meditation , regardless of my personal view , I like to maintain that following quote from a respected source represents common Dhamma understanding: ''Mindfulness of Breathing is the most popular kind of concentration in Buddhism since it is easy to practice. It uses only the breath as the meditation object and can be practiced at both levels, that is, Tranquillity meditation (Samadhi) and Insight meditation (Vipassana).' (Mahamakut Buddhist University, Bangkok)' So, when Howard says: The practice of mindfulness of breathing is difficult...it may be better to say the practise of mindfulness is difficult, as first of all the focus on breathing is a mean for samadhi/meditation practise 'for one who is at ease his body calmed ,the mind becomes concentrate'. And as such -as I see it- one should understand , why the Maha Sati Patthana starts with mindfulness of breathing : it provides the necessary attention for the 4 Great References beginning with the body. Concerning the point of the breath becoming subtle , I think one should better talk about it when it comes to the Jhanas, the 8th element of the N.P. Now, there are obviously some who have difficulties to be mindful of the breath . If those recommend others - who state similar diffculties-, different methods , all would be fine . However to caution or dissuade others in general of even trying , has to be rejected as far as my Dhamma understanding is concerned. . With Metta Dieter P.S. : would be nice, Sarah, to learn about the view of your discussion group in BKK. #77320 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 3:06 pm Subject: Re: Ven. Vimalaramsi & Mahasi Saydaw's Vipassana truth_aerator Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > T: I wonder what benefit could a discussion on such a claim give us. > Besides, there is a possibility of making a mistake if the story above > is false. > > Tep > === > This is CRUCIAL. I don't know about you, but personally I don't want to seriously meditate and 30 years later with all the physical problems find out that I've missed some little step. It is CRUCIAL to study the mistakes of others so not to repeat them. As I understand Bhante V got SERIOUS problems due to him sitting up to 8hours per session. If that leads to Nibbana than it is a sacrifice I am willing to take. However if not, than not. We may not have that much time to practice. So time has to be well spent. As a saying goes: "Fools learn from their own mistakes. Wise people learn from the mistakes of others". (that means that wise learn from the fools? hahaha) Lots of Metta, Alex #77321 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 3:27 pm Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. truth_aerator --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "L G SAGE" wrote: > > > Hi Alex, > > Alex: But in CMA it has stated that the proximate cause of Ekagatta is hapiness. > > Connie: A quote might help, but no matter. I think most of the talk about ekaggata in CMA is in relation to it as a jhaana factor; >>>>> But the problem is that is NOT just a Jhana factor, but part of 7 universal cetasikas. >>>>>> > You mentioned that ekagga means tranquility or calm. True enough. Do you think that applies to ekagatta in the five sense door consciousnesses? >>>>>>> Well it is possible that 4 senses are equinimious, but the pleasure/pain that derived from them is based on the mind. However I don't know if "ekaggata" applies to them. > > "Nothing is uncaused" = False. Again, we have to take the texts on their own terms: rise and fall are said to be 'not produced by any cause, but wholly intrinsic' characteristic marks; no infinite regress problem to my mind. Is nibbaana caused? > >>> Nothing is uncaused = conditionality. Ie the reverse of "nothing is uncaused" is everything (except Nibbana) is caused. Rise and fall are NOT produced by any cause??? Do you mean that arising of this or that cetasika is uncaused? Everything is caused (by conditions)! > Alex: The commentators tooks some poetic phrase of bright light (mind free of defilments like a moon shining on cloudless night) and literalised it into a requirement for Jhana state... >>>>>> Have you read "The Mystery of the Breath Nimitta Or The Case of the Missing Simile by Bhikkhu Sona http://www.kusala.org/udharma/nimitta.html For instance, what do you mean by <>? > > Thanks for the link. > > peace, > connie > Anatta = conditionality. Lack of an inner core. Lack of "noumenon". Lack of self existence. Atta = Independent, constant, inner core. Can be as a belief in a Self, or it can be belief in constant phenomenon (however small). NO OBJECTS HOWEVER SMALL should be regarded as being constant, ultimate or have their own and fully independent self characteristics. As soon as you conceive of something as having a "self nature" - craving can arise towards that. But if you view everything as INCONSTANT and interdependent - then you get more and more dispassionate. What enjoyment can be taken from something that is inconsant and unsatisfactory? Lots of Metta, Alex #77322 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 3:35 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Are we responsible for our actions? indriyabala Hi Elaine, - It was nice to see your response that tells me you already know a lot about the Buddhist ways. Who taught you the Dhamma since the beginning ? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sobhana wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > Thanks for the advice. :)) > > T: The drifting off may be caused by lacking of a focus. The stopping at mid-sentence may be due to your thought switching to another subject while in the middle of the first thought. Both habits can be lessened by developing mental unification (or single-pointedness) . > > E: Yes, there's still lots of mental developing to do, sometimes it is difficult to stay focused. I'm just fickle-minded most of the time. :lol: > Thanks again! :)) > You are very welcome ! Tep ==== #77323 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 3:52 pm Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. truth_aerator Dear Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > Sorry for the delay. >>>>>>>>> No problem. >>>>>>>>>>>>> > 1) Paramattha. > > A: "...How can dhammas not be noumenon but on other hand possess > ultimate reality, be elementary constituents (a little atta's)? > ...After all parts are little wholes which can be divided > even further..." > > Scott: The term 'paramattha' is a compound of 'parama' which means > 'ultimate' or 'highest' or 'final', and 'attha', meaning 'reality' or > 'thing'. >>>>>>>>> As I understand attho can also mean "advantage, meaning, aim, usage, use , welfare, gain, sense, purpose, advantage, moral good, need" . So maybe paramattha CAN also mean ultimate aim. (new course Citta, cetasika, ruupa, and Nibbaana are paramattha dhammas. > To quote from the text of Abhidhammattha Sangaha (CMA p. 25): > > "The things contained in the Abhidhamma, spoken of therein, are > altogether fourfold from the standpoint of ultimate reality; > consciousness, mental factors, matter, and Nibbaana." > This simply means, as far as I understand it, that they are realities and there is no further subdivision or reduction to be made of them - there are no further overarching or underlying phenomena of which these four consist. >>> Well is it possible to say 10 "grams" of Greedy citta and then divide the number? Is it possible to divide these cittas such as greed into lesser greed? etc etc. > > The 'little atta' comment couldn't apply to Nibbaana - I leave it >>> It doesn't. There isn't atta anywhere. ESPECIALLY IN NIBBANA. > aside - and is a misunderstanding of paramattha in relation to citta, cetasika, and ruupa. While citta, cetasika, and ruupa have > characteristics, >>>>>>>>> But these characterstics are totally dependent on other factors. Right? For example: tallness is dependent on shortness. This DOES NOT MEAN THAT ONE CREATES THE OTHER. No. > A: "...he didn't imply that parts are ultimates while whole is not..." > > Scott: A correct understanding of paramattha does away with > misconceptions regarding 'wholes' and 'parts'. > > A: "...I personally cannot consider any particle to be more > ultimately real than another..." > > Scott: What do you mean? >>>> What I mean is that EVERYTHING is dependent on causes and conditions. Take DO for example. Vinnana is dependent on Nama-Rupa. Nama rupa is dependent on Vinnana. None of the links of DO have self nature as they are all anicca, dukkha, anatta. > 2) Cetasikas. > > A: "Do the cetasikas occur ALL at absolutely the same moment or one > after another?" > > Scott: Neither option in the question is entirely correct. As I > understand it, cetasikas arise with citta (and citta with cetasikas) > as both are condition for the other and do not arise separately (from each other). Citta and cetasika are conascent condition for each> other and always arise together. > > The seven universals always occur with each citta. The others occur > with some cittas but not all. There are kusala and akusala cittas and these are so due to the nature of the cetasikas which arise with them. >>>> Can you please provide an example of how Abhidhammika would analyze "eye seeing a form". Which dhammas would arise at exactly the same time and which would follow one after another. > > A: "Do all dhammas (citta, cetasika, rupa) happen only sequentially or > can some of them happen at exactly the same moment of it?" > > Scott: Naama (citta and cetasika) and ruupa are distinct and separate, as far as I understand. They are both subject to arising, being > present, and then ceasing. They do so at different 'rates'. Citta > and cetasika arise together and then fall away, arising again, perhaps > in different combinations, with the next moment of consciousness > depending on conditions. Ruupa arises in 'groups' as well, so at the > same moment, but then falls away. > About Rupa being independent from consiousness I disagree. Rupa depends on consiousness atleast to be defined. Without perception of matter, we cannot say "it exists or it doesn't". Since "hardness, motion, temperature, cohesion" are perceptions , without perceptions and feelings they are meaningless. This does NOT mean that mind creates matter. Rather it means that without mind we cannot perceive matter or absence of matter (vaccum). > A: "...How can a person eat, and watch TV (seeing, hearing) at the > same time? If they happen only sequentially, then it would mean that > in that moment a person is seeing, he is not hearing and not eating. > What happens to the food inside of his mouth? Does it magically > disappear when there is seeing or hearing and reappear when he is not > seeing and hearing??!!!" > > Scott: Don't think of 'a person' or 'eating' or 'watch[ing] TV' when > you are trying to learn about paramattha dhammas - this is mixing you up. These things are all conceptual. Again you misunderstand the > 'parts' and 'wholes' thing. > > Citta arises and has only a single object at a time. Seeing and > hearing and tasting do not occur at the same time - they occur one at > a time. Although it might seem as if 'a person' 'watching TV' sees > and hears at the same time, this is not the case. Please ask for more > clarification. Ok. Lets examine it in terms of a dhammas. What happens to matter (rupa) that is still in the mouth (bodily rupa) when some citta sees the image on the screen? Does the rupa of food disappear in that however brief moment of time? Thank you very much for your replies, Lots of Metta, Alex #77324 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 3:59 pm Subject: Re: Ven. Vimalaramsi & Mahasi Saydaw's Vipassana indriyabala Dear Alex, - Your reply opens up a lot of issues. I just make a list below to explain my point; but I do not wish to initiate a long discussion/debate. I am following Nina's good & practical example. Is our venerable's story true of false? Given that it is true, do we have enough information about how he practiced during the past 30 years? Will the venerable appreciate your discussion? If we do not know enough about his way of practice according to the Teachings, how can we tell if we may make the same "mistakes"? What is the use of learning about personal mistakes, unless he tells you himself how he had learned from the mistakes to turn around and become succeeded? Why did the Blessed One most of the time teach only the right ways? Why is a sitting meditation up to 8 hours per session a wrong way ? How long should a sitting session be? why? Why is long sitting related to Nibbana? BTW I think wise people do not learn anything from fools; those fools who have learned from the wise, are no longer foolish. Tep === #77325 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 4:03 pm Subject: Re: Ven. Vimalaramsi & Mahasi Saydaw's Vipassana indriyabala Hi, - Sorry for my typo. > Is our venerable's story true of false? Corrected: Is our venerable's story true or false? Thanks. Tep === #77326 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 4:03 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. truth_aerator --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Alex, > ----------------------------------------- > A: > There are certainly phenomenon happening which > deluded mind craves for and in delusion calls 'a self' . > > Do you understand how irresponcible (and at first contrary to > everyday beliefs) it is to say "YOU DON'T EXIST?". > ----------------------------------------- > > No, in my case it would not be irresponsible because no one takes my word as gospel. ......... You don't know. Maybe someone in a certain state of mood take it. > > IMHO, anyone who uses the words "YOU DON'T EXIST" as an excuse to go crazy is going to go crazy anyway. >>>> This will give it more intellectual justification. > > ------------------------------------------ > A: > Buddha gave GRADUATED discourses that GRADUALLY guide a person > toward "Nibbana". > ---------------------------------------- > > As I have been saying, I believe that only a tiny minority of people would be incapable of handling the truth. Anyone who genuinely wanted to take refuge in the Triple Gem would be made aware of anatta right from the start. >>>>>>>>>> I would like to know how many ordinary lay buddhist in Asia believe in anatta? We need to remember that here we are talking on a much deeper level than majority of lay "Buddhists". Just like most "Christians" do not argue about precise interpreation of this or that word - same may be with some Buddhists. > > ----------------------------------------------------- > A: > First is morality perfected, this supports samadhi and > calm. Eventually panna (of Not self) arrives. At this stage an > aspirant is mature in morality and calm and thus can handle the truth > of selflessness. > ------------------------------------------------------ > > I hope I can convince you that this is NOT the way it happens. >>>> Please explain. Sotapanna is mostly about Right View (of not self) and morality. Of course some samadhi is present. Only in later stages (Anagamin) is samadhi perfected. And on Arahat level panna is fully developed so there is no more "I am" feeling. > ------------------------ > A: > Wanderers in those times were looking for "Higher Self" . As you > probably know, the Buddha was very smart at teaching. He would take > their ideas and slightly change them into Buddhist ones. The egoistic > search for "Higher Self" was converted into path towards Nibbana. > Which BTW shared many of the qualities of the Higher self > (permanence, happiness, security) except for it being Ultimate Self. > ------------------------ > > This sounds like a teaching-by-stealth. When Jehovah's Witnesses come to my door they try the same sort of tactic. I think it is most un- Buddhist! :-) >>> Buddha did that. For example in one of the suttas some wanderer came and asked to merge with Brahma (or something like that). Rather than totally ridiculing the idea, he taught him Metta. This is one of the tactics he used. GRADUAL DISCOURCES. In a society where Brahmins were the highest and the best - what did he do? He defined a "Brahmin" through Buddhist values. He used his teachings in a most PC way possible. This is why most of terminology is almost identical. 5 aggregates is not a buddhist concept. Neither is karma, Brahma, Indra, etc etc. > --------------------------------- > A: > Also fire blowing out and going to its roots shouldn't be taken > as eternal 'existence' either. > --------------------------------- > > No, of course it shouldn't. But that is the inference that BT is > determined to make clear. IMHO, of course. :-) > > Ken H >>>> Maybe the closet eternalists are trying to read-in into BT's writings. Again I really like the emphasis on a "strategy" rather than ontology. Since ultimately the ultimate thing which matters is SUFFERING AND CESSATION OF IT. Concept of a self is a crucial link that needs to be cut. Lots of Metta, Alex #77327 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:59 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. scottduncan2 Dear DC, Thanks for the reply. Please permit the following elisions and request for clarification: DC: "...To me in the suttas...As mentioned above, I couldn't find it in the suttas...Here is another thing I can't find in the suttas..." Scott: You'll forgive the question, but given that the above is so clearly sprinkled throughout your reply, I'm wondering if you come from a 'Sutta-only' perspective. I'd enjoy the chance to study by working on responses to your questions but am not interested in a polemical debate that will enevitably end with the statement: "It is not in the suttas." Thanks in advance for your kind clarification. Sincerely, Scott. #77328 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 2:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. upasaka_howard Hi, Scott (and DC) - In a message dated 10/11/2007 9:00:13 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: I'd enjoy the chance to study by working on responses to your questions but am not interested in a polemical debate that will enevitably end with the statement: "It is not in the suttas." Thanks in advance for your kind clarification. ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, recently Jon wrote the following to me: "I'm unclear what you mean by 'interrelationships among dhammas' here, and the direct or indirect experiencing of such. Are you referring to something that is mentioned in the suttas?" So, Scott, like a bad influenza virus, I guess it must be "going around"! ;-)) A drop more seriously: It would seem that every one of us has his/her idea of what constitutes "legitimacy". Perhaps we would all do well to have our opinions but hold them lightly, not being opinionated or judgmental. ------------------------------------------------------------ Sincerely, Scott. ============================== With metta, Howard #77329 From: "gazita2002" Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 6:53 pm Subject: Re: Response to DC Part 1. gazita2002 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Dear Azita (DC and Sukin), - > > I am glad to welcome you to this forum. > > > >Azita: When I read suttas about beings gaining final liberation, it > reminds me just how very far away from 'me' that is. That journey > can start now this very moment, it cant start anywhere else than > right here right now. > > T: Yes, thank you very much for reminding me of the importance > of "right here right now". > > > >Tep: > > >Another sutta says that seeing the arising & passing away of the > > dhammas, the monk will also see the dukkham and anatta > > characteristics. > > >Azita: the arising & passing away of dhammas - do we really know > just how difficult that is??? > > T: Are you implying that seeing 'anattaa' is easier? azita: certainly not! I think that when'one' does see arising and falling away, one then understands anatta. Isn't it bec. we are deluded and take for what is arising and passing away [anicca] not anicca? Right here, right now there is arising and passing away, but do 'we' see that? Like this very moment of seeing or hearing. > To truly see "the arising & passing away of dhammas" is very difficult. > But we are lucky to have a few clues like the followings. > 1) Seeing the rise and fall of a dhamma(say, vedana) is pari~n~naa. > 2) Before pari~n~naa that truly sees the rise-and-fall phenomena , we > need direct knowledge(abhi~n~naa). > 3) Satipatthana bhavanaa is the path of practice for direct knowledge. > > Next step , just 'do it' right here right now. > Azita: yep, thats right, just 'do it' - with right understanding!!! Patience, courage and good cheer, azita #77330 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:13 pm Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. nichiconn Hi Alex, You would have to show me where the CMA says happiness is always the proximate cause of ekaggata. I don't believe it does. Something can be a cause, proximate or otherwise, of something on some occasions and on others, play no part. I don't take sabhava to imply a belief in citta, cetasika or rupa as constant. It is more like sabhava = how an ultimate reality can be described or characterised... it's nature or behaviour. I think we agree that to talk of the arising of arising, etc. is foolishness. When a conditioned dhamma arises, we don't talk about the arising of arising, but the arising of the particular citta, cetasika or rupa. Alex: What enjoyment can be taken from something that is inconstant and unsatisfactory? Connie: If we truly saw anatta and dukkha, there would be no problem, would there? Alex: Have you read "The Mystery of the Breath Nimitta Or The Case of the Missing Simile by Bhikkhu Sona Connie: I wasted the time once some while back. For the most part, I have no interest in looking outside the Tipitaka and Commentaries for reading materials. When I question or don't understand those, I figure the problem is with me, not them. peace. #77331 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:32 pm Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. scottduncan2 Dear Alex, I continue: 5) MN43: "Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them." Scott: Note that Thanissaro Bhikkhu offers the confusing and contradictory, translation-based opinion that it is possible to separate that which is conjoined and not disjoined, hence we'll skip to another translation; it at least is clearer. Another translation (Bh. ~Naa.namoli Bh. Bodhi): "Feeling, perception, and consciousness, friend - these states are conjoined, not disjoined and it is impossible to separate each of these states from the others in order to describe the difference between them. For what one feels, that one perceives; and what one perceives that one cognizes. That is why these states are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is impossible to separate each of these states from the others in order to describe the difference between them." The Pali: 9. " Yaa caavuso vedanaa yaa ca sa~n~naa ya~nca vi~n~naa.na.m ime dhammaa sa.msa.t.thaa udaahu visa.msa.t.thaa, labbhaa ca panimesa.m dhammaana.m vinibbhujitvaa vinibbhujitvaa naanaakara.na.m pa~n~naapetunti? Yaa caavuso vedanaa yaa ca sa~n~naa ya~nca vi~n~naa.na.m ime dhammaa sa.msa.t.thaa no visa.msa.t.thaa. Na ca labbhaa imesa.m dhammaana.m vinibbhujitvaa vinibbhujitvaa naanaakara.na.m pa~n~naapetu.m. Ya~ncaavuso vedeti ta.m sa~njaanaati, ya.m sa~njaanaati ta.m vijaanaati, tasmaa ime dhammaa sasa.m.t.thaa no visa.msa.t.thaa. Na ca labbhaa imesa.m dhammaana.m vinibbhujitvaa vinibbhujitvaa naanaakara.na.m pa~n~naapetunti." The commentary (Note 436): MA: "Wisdom has been excluded from this exchange because the intention is to show only the states that are conjoined on every occasion of consciousness." Scott: So, the passage is referring to the sabbacittasaadhaara.na - the Universals - 'only the states that are conjoined on every occasion of consciousness'. The passage also seems to be referring to In particular reference is to vedanaa-cetasika and sa~n~naa-cetasika. This seems to be providing support for the Abhidhamma-based clarifications regarding mental factors conascently arising with consciousness ('vin~n~aa.na.m'). This is to say that they cannot arise separately the one from the other. Also, the passage refers to the fact, also supporting Abhidhamma, that all have the same object ('For what one feels, that one perceives; and what one perceives that one cognizes'). Corrections welcome, please. Please slow down a bit, Alex, as I'd like to give time to your replies but have a limited amount of time. You have another post to me to which I will turn after this. Thanks, man. Sincerely, Scott. #77332 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:35 pm Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Please excuse: "...The passage also seems to be referring to..." Scott: Leave it out, please. I think the rest is semi-grammatical and complete. (My son was thrashing away on his accoustic drums right behind me while I composed the reply.) Deafly and twitchily yours, Scott. #77333 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. dcwijeratna Dear Scott, Many thanks for your prompt response. Tou wrote: =========================== >>DC: "...To me in the suttas...As mentioned above, I couldn't find it in the suttas...Here is another thing I can't find in the suttas..." >Scott: You'll forgive the question, but given that the above is so clearly sprinkled throughout your reply, I'm wondering if you come from a 'Sutta-only' perspective." .............. DC: The response the last line of the above quoted passage is a qualified yes. Let me explain. We are traditional Buddhists. That means my forefathers were Buddhists. We started learning Buddhism at home and not from books. Just following the Buddhist practices in the business of living. The expressions like "Budu saranai", "teruwan saranai", meaning "May you be protected by the Buddha", "May you be protected by the Three Jewels--the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha" were most probably some of the first words we would have heard as infants. Our first grounding in Dhamma was to learn "Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammaasambhuddhassaa" or the shortened form "namo Buddhaaya". (I remember my mother telling me, that I should start anything by first uttering those words) Followed by "itipiso...", "svaakkhaato..." and "supatipanno" and the five precepts. As we grew up, the Dhamma we heard, mainly from Bhikkhus, also in the form of stories, poems and drama were things such as "Wessantara Jaatakaya" and the suttas like Mangala. Abhidhamma was something confined to intellectual monks; something that is difficult to understand. It had no use for us in the business of living or in our religious practices." A monk was never valued, but highly respected, for his knowledge of Abhidhamma. He was valued for his "siila" -virtue. So you might say, that I come from a sutta perspective. There is no question of judging abhidhamma, it is something very difficult to understand especially for the householders. But as time went on, we got curious what this abstruse thing called Abhidhamma is. Intellectual curiosity and the fact it was spoken in terms of "highest dhamma"; the prefix "abhi" was responsible for that. But in common parlance, the expression "abhidhamma kaarayek" meaning "one who practices abhidhamma" was used when somebody spoke in a language that was difficult to understand. It was not a complimentary expression. These experiences, formed our attitude to Abhidhamma. To repeat: Dhamma is supreme; Abhidhamma something very special or high but difficult to understand. There is no comparison with dhamma." I hope that explains my attitude to Abhdidhamma. My curiosity about Abhidhamm is still there. The questions I framed, and "not in the suttas..." etc, are based on the above experience. But one thing I want to clarify: the word "polemical debate". That is one thing I am not interested. One firm advice of the Buddha that is running through the Sutta Pi.taka is "no debate". As I mentioned at the beginning, I follow the Buddha's advice, as a traditional Buddhist. Kind regards, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77334 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:52 pm Subject: Re: Response to DC Part 1. indriyabala Dear Azita (DC, Nina), - I was about to turn off the computer when I saw you message. > T: Are you implying that seeing 'anattaa' is easier? Azita: certainly not! I think that when'one' does see arising and falling away, one then understands anatta. Isn't it bec. we are deluded and take for what is arising and passing away [anicca] not anicca? Right here, right now there is arising and passing away, but do 'we' see that? Like this very moment of seeing or hearing. ............. T: I can see two issues in the above comment. I would be glad to read any thought you may share with me. i) "..when'one' does see arising and falling away, one then understands anatta." ii) "Right here, right now there is arising and passing away, but do 'we' see that?" According to a sutta I have read, when one "sees" arising and falling away of a dhamma, then one "sees" anicca. Seeing anicca in a conditioned arising & passing away phenomenon, ones understands dukkha. Then it follows that whatever is dukkha, it cannot be taken for granted as 'that is mine', 'that is what I am', 'that is my self'(attaa). Thus one sees 'anattaa'. When a dhamma rises (or falls away) one may "see" the origination (or cessation) only if s/he is endowed with direct knowledge. Patisambhidamagga, I, 29 : "What is known as the meaning of direct knowledge is to be directly known. Judging (investigating) as the meaning of full-understanding ... Giving up as the meaning of abandoning ..." Vism. XX, 7: "Herein, the plane of full-understanding as the known extends from the delimitation of formations up to the discernment of conditions; for in this interval the penetration of the specific characteristics of states predominates." ............. T: Based on the above two quotes, the word "see" here does not refer to the way the eyes see a visible object rises and falls away. If this interpretation is correct, then one only "sees" the rise and fall phenomena with 'pa~n~aa cakkhu'. Tep === #77335 From: han tun Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] S's e-card from Bkk (3) hantun1 Dear Sarah and the rest, I intend to report on the discussions that I participated on 10 October 2007, one topic at a time, but I would like to wait till Sarah and Jon come back from India trip and back to their normal access to the internet. It is because I want Sarah and Jon (and Sukin as well) to correct me if there is any mistake in my reporting. Sarah, I have no fear that if I wait until that time, so much will have occurred, and that you might have forgotten the details of these sessions, because whatever you my say, I know your powers of recall:-)] Respectfully, Han --- sarah abbott wrote: #77336 From: "Sukinder" Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:08 pm Subject: Re: Response to DC Part 2. sukinderpal Dear DC, I'm snipping off parts. ================ DC: In our country, over the radio, over the television, monks preach to millions everyday. I don't see them getting lot of merit. But if somebody understands it, intellectually, then there is more merit. If somebody really starts practising it then it is the highest merit. Sukin: In such a case, the one who preaches can't know of the other end, so how does merit get affected if no one tells him about it? OTOH isn't the understanding of the `preacher' and his intention more important? ================ DC: Understanding the dhamma without practising is no understanding at all. Are you aware of the gathaa in the Dhammapada "Bahu.m pi ce sahita.m bhaasamaano..." There the Buddha compares a man who knows the whole of the Buddha's teaching and doesn't practice it to a > cowherd who looks after other's cattle: he collects the cow-dung but the milk goes to the owner. Have you ever come across cowherds? [That is for fun] Sukin: OTOH I think it is silly to think that without a correct understanding at the level of listening and reflection, there can arise any correct practice. And of course it is hard to draw a line, after having heard the Dhamma, there may follow a growing understanding of the fact that *this moment* is the only valid object of understanding. And here it may be pariyatti, patipatti or pativedha, it does not matter, all are right. In other words, pariyatti is most definitely, not "collecting the cow-dung". But of course, you are referring to one who perhaps is capable of memorizing large amounts of texts and is keen on `preaching' with little understanding about application. This could be due to little panna being accumulated. And also there is the problem of holding the snake by the wrong end… ================ DC: So you refer to cittas as kusala. But in the teaching of the Buddha kusala has a wider meaning: See for example there are kusala kammas. Actually, according to the teachings of the Buddha, alobha, adosa and amoha are the three kusasla muulas or the roots of good. And the akusasala muulas there opposites. This is how we understand. Sukin: Citta conditioned by roots, of course, and also the accompanying mental factors are of the same jati. Did I need to spell it out? Or are you perhaps suggesting here that citta itself is neutral or something? ================ > DC: I think it is better to start with the last sentence. I must reieterate that I have no theory of my own. According to the available evidence, the Abhidhamma is a later creation. The story about the Buddha having preached the Abhidhamma is in the commentaries. It is not corroborated by anything. Sukin: Judging from what you have written on this list, it looks like you studied logic and perhaps also critical thinking as subjects in school..? I haven't. However this doesn't sound like good logic to me. You are apparently trying to disprove the validity of the Abhidhamma, based on what you think to be authority, i.e. the Suttas. And this is based not on any interpretation of the Teachings, but just your own idea about when the one originated in relation to the other in history. Perhaps if you were to study the Abhidhamma without thinking about its origination, you may end up giving the same authority to it as you do the other two Pitakas. This would be in terms of *understanding* which is of far greater value than any reasoning based on a preferred story line. What evidence *is* that you seem to give so much value to? Have you ever considered that this may all be games we play in our own heads? When I study the Abhidhamma, do you think that I ever needed to convince myself first that it is the direct words of the Buddha? On the other hand, do I doubt it? Why should I? Why should I be moved by worldly considerations such as history etc. when the Dhamma is all about understanding present moment realities and this is exactly what the Abhidhamma points directly to? And would you believe it that in fact I started my Abhidhamma study seven years ago, thinking like you, that it was a later creation?! That we come across Dhamma is due to past kamma, that we then understand it rightly or wrongly, is due to accumulations. No one chooses to hear the Dhamma, likewise no one decides what the understanding will be. That there is picking and choosing of information out there and an explanation is formed to justify and reinforce a belief, is something that needs to be seen for what it is. That this story about the Buddha going to heaven is found only in the commentaries, is this "proof" that it in fact did not happen? What kind of logic would this be? Have you ever considered that there must have been conventional facts about what happened during the Buddha's time, not documented? That whatever is in the Suttas and Vinaya is not all that the Bhikkhu Sangha knew about and passed on from one generation to the next? But because the Suttas and the Vinaya are what was officially supposed to be passed down to future generations, other known facts got lost except for the little other mentioned in the commentaries? This is just a theory and I thought about it only just now. But why not, and why yes to some other theory? In any case, I trust the commentators not based on any need to be convinced about and by "stories", but because they uttered so much that is good about the Dhamma / dhammas, it all reflects great wisdom and other wholesome qualities, including sacca. If I as an ordinary worldling appreciate the value of such qualities, then they appreciate it much, much more. So how could they make such things up? Certainly this little prick of a mind is in no position to judge them and that too, by relying on other stories?!! ================ DC: Are you aware that some of the Mahaayana books are form Naagaloka. Of course it only in their books. Now do you accept that or don't you? If you accept the Theravaada story without any further corroborative evidence, it would not be rationsl for you to reject the Mahayana story for lack of supporting evidence. Sukin: Before Theravada I was interested in Mahayana. As it is now with the Theravada, I did not think much about these stories, but of course I was more gullible then than I am now. ;-) However presently, I don't accept the Mahayana at all; in fact I'll consider it adhamma. So this thing about Nagas, I would not even think to compare it with the Theravada story. Besides the Mahayana is full of stories, why would even you, someone who is a Theravadin, want to make such a comparison? ================ DC: That is why I don't accept either. Sukin: Something wrong with the reasoning again? ================ DC: But I want to add one more point. I don't reject Abhidhamma as such. People are arguing about the meaning of the word. Meaningless definitions are given such as higher dhamma, excellent dhamma and so on. Since I don't know what is Abhidhamma, the question of acceptance or rejection does not arise. But if you mean by Abhidhamma the Abhidhamma Pi.taka of the Theravaada canon, then I have no use of it. Sukin: By Abhidhamma I mean the Pitaka and also Dhamma. And I repeat here, that the Dhamma is deep and hard to understand. In the Suttas the same Dhamma has been explained in many ways depending on the audience. The Abhidhamma of the Pitaka is all about this same Dhamma, but in a language that makes it easier for me to understand. In other words, I find Khandhas, Ayatanas and even Dhatu hard to understand as compared to Citta, Cetasika and Rupa classification. The Abhidhamma says nothing outside of the two other Pitakas, but it helps me focus on the Dhamma, reducing the risk of being lost in stories about people and situations. This being lost in stories is not just the problem of `thinking', but rather thinking with self view. And this is a real problem, for the very Dhamma that is supposed to cure this particular disease as a necessary first step, if interpreted with `self view', what chance is there for any of the other diseases ever being cured? Yet we try vainly to deal with the other diseases not realizing that in the process, the primary one gets in fact worse. In other words, the Dhamma itself may be the best hiding place for atta to operate from. :-/ =================== DC: For me the teaching of the Buddha is adequate. Abhidhamma started as an attempt to explain Dhamma. It was a sort of a commentary on the Dhamma. As time went on it developed its own theories and among (some) monks it became more important than the Dhamma. Please do remember practising Buddhists have very little time for Abhidhamma. Our forefathers most probably didn't know what it was. It was always the darling of the intellectual elite. Any I tell you these things not as a friend and the language of a friend. You can disregard the whole lot. Sukin: This sounds like a self spun commentary running through one's head, the kind that keeps us from really appreciating the Dhamma, not just `Abhidhamma'. In other words, it is conditioned by self view. How else would the concept "practicing Buddhist" above have been formed? And "intellectual elite", is this not just a cover up for not looking at the Abhidhamma as Dhamma. Also are you really inclined to think in terms of "forefathers" and the like?! I appreciate that you try to pull me out of the bog. But so far you seem only to be drawing me into your "story" without any Dhamma being pointed at. =================== > DC: Here, I would like you to elaborate more on: "I have rejected all theories of reality." But shall I point out one thing. If you behave according to the theories of Abhidhamma, you would not last long. For example, all your things, all your loved one's are non-existent, they are not real? You'll understand why I have no use for abhidhamma. [Have some good fun thinking over that and don't loose any sleep] Sukin: :-) Let me tell you, I have *no* desire nor any reason to reject thinking about members of my family and friends. What I do think of value however, is to think about them with kusala and with right understanding instead of akusala and wrong understanding. "Persons" however are and ever is only a concept! "No persons" as put forward by some of us here, is *not* an expression of a preference not to think in terms of persons, but a pointer towards the "wrong view" generally involved. It is not itself an ontological position, but is a statement made to counter those positions which in one way or the other lead to making "persons" a reality it clearly does not have, except conventionally. The Abhidhamma is meant to lead one to understand better the realities that make up one's moment to moment experiences. The same should be expected from reading the Sutta and Vinaya. In doing so, it does not stop one from thinking about persons; in fact it also encourages those dhammas such as Dana, Metta, Karuna, Mudita and so on, that necessarily take `persons' as objects. These dhammas do not however need to have these persons *exist*. The question of what in fact exists, is determined by the arising of panna to know the moment *as it is*. And the object of panna of the level of satipatthana and vipassana can ever only be a paramattha dhamma. One of these dhammas is the citta that thinks. The panna would know at that moment that citta is real, but the object of the thinking is most definitely not. If OTOH you think that in studying about paramattha dhammas thinking about `person' will be replaced by thinking about visible object, sound, hardness and so forth, know this as being mere projection on the part of an uninitiated. ;-) Metta, Sukin #77337 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:20 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. scottduncan2 Dear DC, Thank you very much for your kind and excellent response. I appreciate the candour and history. I enjoyed reading about you. Since we both are interested in learning I'll get to studying for the reply tomorrow morning. Thanks again. Sincerely, Scott. #77338 From: "vipassana_infonet" Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:56 pm Subject: can citta feel itself? vipassana_in... dear sarah and dear nina, at one place nina wrote that citta cannot be aware of itself... but, I think ALL dhammas can be experienced... I just checked the cula-tanha-sankhaya sutta and it says sabbe dhamma abhijanati... parijanati etc... even in the mahasatipatthana sutta see dhammanupassana and you will find mentions where all 5 khandas and all cittavithi processes are listed under pajanati. now go to vipassana website at www.vri.dhamma.org and search the site for goenkaji's teachings: put the word "gong" [without the quote marks] and read the results. you will get to know what I mean. I got MAD trying to figure out some concepts I had held for AGES in the light of the suttas. I never did this fine abhidhamma analysis and it left me crazy...ha ha... thinking of returning to the comfort of suttas!!! well I do understand that citta cannot take itself as arammana from the abhidhamma viewpoint but, I think a vipassana moment is filled with panna and this panna can see and be aware of ALL as a vibration, as a wave, as a wavelet... I am interested in looking at things from experiential viewpoint only... thanks for your/nina's kind attention. I understand that you are busy. I am trying to solve my questions - myself ..... I have sent a personal email to htoo... is he available? regards manish agarwala #77339 From: "vipassana_infonet" Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 10:35 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: dhamma questions -- Q. No. 1 vipassana_in... my question was understanding (as per abhidhamma) how sankharas are eradicated when a vipassana meditator meditates. many of my questions are sketchy with just the references - those who know the ref. points may like to initiate a deeper discussion. you may read these 2 links to understand. http://www.vri.dhamma.org/research/90sem/vedana6.html http://www.vri.dhamma.org/research/90sem/kamma1.html metta dr manish #77340 From: "vipassana_infonet" Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 10:46 pm Subject: REQUEST TO DSG vipassana_in... dear dsg (scott, aleax, htoo, han tun and others) sarah and nina are not here. I request other respected members to kindly look at my questions. I may like to further discuss. looking for insightful input. my posts are at 77338 77317 77312 77310 77273 77271 77270 77245 77236 77177 dr manish agarwala #77341 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Oct 11, 2007 11:53 pm Subject: Blazing Goodwill! bhikkhu0 Friends: Cultivating the 4 Infinite States produces Infinite Gladness! Training Universal Friendliness induces unalloyed Joy! Cultivating Boundless Pity enables tranquil Tolerance! Developing Mutual Joy produces deep Contentment! Refining Equanimity establishes calm Serenity! The Blessed Buddha repeatedly explained: May all creatures, all breathing things, all beings one and all, without exception, experience joy & good fortune only. May they not fall into any harm. Anguttara Nikaya II, 72 With good will for the entire cosmos, Cultivate a limitless heart: Above, below, & all around, Unobstructed, without hostility or hate. Sutta Nipata I, 8 Overcome the angry by friendliness; Overcome the wicked by goodness; Overcome the miser by generosity; Overcome the liar by truth. Dhammapada 223 Train yourself in doing only pure good! That lasts and brings great happiness. Cultivate generosity, a peaceful living, and a mentality of infinite friendliness. Itivuttaka 16 Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka * http://What-Buddha-Said.net ... Friendliness is the GREATEST! #77342 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] dhamma questions dcwijeratna "my question was understanding (as per abhidhamma) how sankharas are eradicated when a vipassana meditator meditates. many of my questions are sketchy with just the references - those who know the ref. points may like to initiate a deeper discussion." you may read these 2 links to understand. " According to Dhammas Sankhaaras are not eradicated by vipassanaa. That is how we understand. McAfee site advisor advises that the links are to a potentially dangeous site. So we are unable to get there and no further discussion would be possible. Many thanks, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77343 From: "colette" Date: Fri Oct 12, 2007 3:47 am Subject: Re: can citta feel itself? ksheri3 Good Morning Manish Agarwala, Taking "panna" to be similar to "prajna" or Wisdom I will address one aspect you mention below: Yes, it certainly is reasonable to conclued that a Vipissana moment would have the unmistakable characteristic of "panna" or "prajna". In that moment there would be a change in the physiological condition of the body of the person experiencing this. I think these changes in the body that take place are the characteristics you are attributing to "panna" possessing human characteristics such as concsciousness, etc. I think that assigning human characteristics in this way is Wrong View since now you are giving this transcendent condition human qualities . It appears you're trying to fit the human condition into the transcendent condition which is just wishful thinking. It is astounding that you say that panna could be aware of something such as an anticipatory condition. If so, then isn't the panna then creating it's own truths since it, panna, is expecting to experience something in the vibrations, waves, etc, that encounters? Panna, Prajna, Wisdom, actually being concsious of other vibrations, hmmmmmm. A very cool perspective to view panna, prajna, wisdom, from. I'm gonna give it a try. Thank you. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "vipassana_infonet" wrote: > > ... > well I do understand that citta cannot take itself as arammana from > the abhidhamma viewpoint but, I think a vipassana moment is filled > with panna and this panna can see and be aware of ALL as a vibration, > as a wave, as a wavelet... > ... #77344 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. dcwijeratna Dear Scott, Many thanks for your prompt reply and the kind words. Your plan to read my post tomorrow suits me fine. I am planning to go out of Colombo tomorrow morning. And hoping to return on Sunday. I am looking forward to that. Kind regards, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77345 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 2. dcwijeratna Dear Sukin, You said: "If OTOH you think that in studying about paramattha dhammas thinking about `person' will be replaced by thinking about visible object, sound, hardness and so forth, know this as being mere projection on the part of an uninitiated. ;-)" DC: I understand now my error. With mettaa, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77346 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:43 am Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Thanks for the reply. Good questions. Here's my attempt at answering but we can wait for the gang to return and get it all cleared up: A: "As I understand attho can also mean "advantage, meaning, aim, usage, use , welfare, gain, sense, purpose, advantage, moral good, need". So maybe paramattha CAN also mean ultimate aim." Scott: I think that the term 'paramattha' has its own precise meaning in this context and no other. I'm no Pali expert, but I think that compound words often have meaning that supercedes the separate meanings of their component parts. PTS PED: "Parama (adj.) [Vedic parama; superl. formation of para, lit. "farthest," cp. similarly, although fr. diff. base, Lat. prÄ«mus] highest, most excellent, superior, best..." "Attha...attho paramo the highest sense, the ultimate sense or intrinsic meaning...(paramatthato in the absolute sense)..." A: "Well is it possible to say 10 "grams" of Greedy citta and then divide the number? Is it possible to divide these cittas such as greed into lesser greed? etc etc." Scott: No. Lobha is lobha. Lobha-mula-citta is lobha-mula-citta. Lobha has its own characteristic and, being cetasika and root-condition, 'suffuses' a moment of consciousness according to its characteristic. Mental development (bhaavanaa) seems to me to relate to conditions for the arising of a given mental factor versus its non-arising, not less or more of the dhamma itself. To me, this is either present or not. If present it is present only in terms of its particular 'flavour' or characteristic. Pa~n~naa is said develop, for example. To me this means that the particular characteristic that is pa~n~naa, with its inherent function, 'increases' in relative 'presence'. I think this means it arises more often, not that it necessarily literally 'increases in strength'. The rate limiting factor, as it were, is that there is only one moment of consciousness at a time, with only one object at a time. There would be more moments of consciousness with pa~n~naa. The same would go for the development of lobha. This is where we are at now - very well-developed lobha - there are many, many moments of consciousness rooted in lobha compared to very few wholesome moments of consciousness. A: "But these characterstics are totally dependent on other factors. Right? For example: tallness is dependent on shortness. This DOES NOT MEAN THAT ONE CREATES THE OTHER. No." Scott: Wrong. The characteristic of something is simply its characteristic. Here the example you use refers to conventional concepts - tallness versus shortness. This is simply conceptual. When dealing with realities (i.e. as opposed to pa~n~natti) the characteristic is simply what it is and stands alone. Conditionality is another thing altogether but it does not apply to concepts, in my opinion. These, being concepts, can be proliferated ad infinitum but have no intrinsic reality. A: "...I personally cannot consider any particle to be more ultimately real than another...What I mean is that EVERYTHING is dependent on causes and conditions. Take DO for example. Vinnana is dependent on Nama-Rupa. Nama rupa is dependent on Vinnana. None of the links of DO have self nature as they are all anicca, dukkha, anatta." Scott: It is unclear what you mean by 'particle'. I'd suggest we discard the term. Let's deal with citta, cetasika, and ruupa. These three conditioned realities are all there is to this existence. They are all there is that is 'real' in the particular sense of 'paramattha'. Each is as 'real' as the other. Do we agree on this? I think it would be more fruitful to consider the 'conditional relations method' rather than the 'dependent origination method' in discussing 'causes and conditions'. The DO method deals with states as effect in a global way, as far as I can tell. The twenty-four conditions enumerated in Pa.t.thaana are the elaboration of this and show cause and effect in relation to the forces - 'interaction' or 'dynamics' or what have you - involved in the process wherein states come and go and are related one to the other. 'Naama-ruupa' refers to the five aggregates. I think, from the DO perspective (which refers to 'this' existence - how it comes from 'causes' in the previous existence and how causes for the next are forming) - consciousness (vi~n~naa.na) is said to be dependent on there being these five aggregates arising and falling away and mutually conditioned. So, citta, cetasika, and ruupa are equally 'real'. But there is nothing else to this world. In this sense, for example, one can therefore say that the five aggregates exist but not the person. They are all conditioned and conditioning. (Nibbaana is the fouth 'reality' but I'm not discussing that.) I'm going to stop here. I'll keep working on the last three points and perhaps be tonight can post again. Sincerely, Scott. #77347 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:45 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. scottduncan2 Dear DC, Thanks for the reply: DC: "...I am planning to go out of Colombo tomorrow morning. And hoping to return on Sunday. I am looking forward to that." Scott: Good. This will give me more time. Sunday then. Sincerely, Scott. #77348 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:56 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (68) nichiconn dear friends, part 11 13. Viisatinipaato 3. Caapaatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa On verse: 294. "Maa me kujjhi mahaaviira, maa me kujjhi mahaamuni; na hi kodhaparetassa, suddhi atthi kuto tapo. 293. Do not be angry with me, great hero. Do not be angry with me, great sage. For there is no purity for one overcome by anger, how much less [is there] austerity. txt: Idaani tassaa "mayha.m attho natthii"ti vadati, ta.m sutvaa caapaa khamaapentii "maa me kujjhii"ti gaathamaaha. Tattha maa me kujjhiiti ke.likara.namattena maa mayha.m kujjhi. Mahaaviira, mahaamuniiti upaka.m aalapati. Ta~nhi saa pubbepi pabbajito, idaanipi pabbajitukaamoti katvaa khanti~nca paccaasiisantii "mahaamunii"ti aaha. Tenevaaha- "na hi kodhaparetassa, suddhi atthi kuto tapo"ti, tva.m ettakampi asahanto katha.m citta.m damessasi, katha.m vaa tapa.m carissasiiti adhippaayo. Pruitt: 293. Now he speaks of her, saying, "I have no need of her." When she heard this, Caapaa, pacifying him, said the verse, Do not be angry with me, [etc]. There, Do not be angry with me (me) means: do not be angry with me (mayha.m) only because I made a joke. She addresses Upaka with the words great hero, great sage. For she says, "Previously you went forth. Now you want to go forth." And desiring his forgiveness, she says, "Great sage." Therefore she says: "For there is no purity for one overcome by anger, how much less [is there] austerity." If you are unable to endure so little, how will you tame your mind? How will you practise asceticism? On verse: 295. "Pakkamissa~nca naa.laato, kodha naa.laaya vacchati; bandhantii itthiruupena, sama.ne dhammajiivino. 294. I shall indeed go out from Naa.laa. Who will live here in Naa.laa? [In Naa.laa] women bind ascetics who live in accordance with the doctrine by means of their figure[s]. txt: Atha naa.la.m gantvaa jiivitukaamosiiti caapaaya vutto aaha- "pakkamissa~nca naa.laato, kodha naa.laaya vacchatii"ti ko idha naa.laaya vasissati, naa.laatova aha.m pakkamissaameva. So hi tassa jaatagaamo, tato nikkhamitvaa pabbaji. So ca magadhara.t.the bodhima.n.dassa aasannapadese, ta.m sandhaaya vutta.m. Bandhantii itthiruupena, sama.ne dhammajiivinoti caape tva.m dhammena jiivante dhammike pabbajite attano itthiruupena itthikuttaakappehi bandhantii ti.t.thasi. Yenaaha.m idaani ediso jaato, tasmaa ta.m pariccajaamiiti adhippaayo. Pruitt: 294. Then, having gone to Naa.la, being addressed by Caapaa with the words "You want to live," he says: "I shall indeed go out from Naa.laa. Who will live here in Naa.laa?" Who will live (vasissati) here (idha) in Naa.laa? I shall indeed go out (pakkamissaam' eva) from Naa.laa. For that was the village where he was born. He departed, he went forth from there. And this was in the kingdom of Magadha, near the place of the Bodhima.n.da ("seat of awakening"). [This] is said with reference to that village: women bind ascetics who live in accordance with the doctrine (dhamma-jiivino) by means of their figure[s] (itthi-ruupena), which means: you, Caapaa, live there, binding ascetics who live in accrodance with the doctrine (dhammena jiivante), righteous ones who have gone forth (dhammike pabbajite), by means of your own feminine figure (itthi-ruupena), your feminine attire and coquetry (itthi-kutt'-aakappehi). Since I have become like that now, I therefore leave you. That is the meaning. On verse: 296. "Ehi kaa.la nivattassu, bhu~nja kaame yathaa pure; aha~nca te vasiikataa, ye ca me santi ~naatakaa. 295. Come, Kaa.la, turn back. Enjoy sensual pleasures as before. I shall be under your contol, and also whatever relatives I have. vri: Eva.m vutte caapaa ta.m nivattetukaamaa "ehi, kaa.laa"ti gaathamaaha. Tassattho- kaa.lava.n.nataaya, kaa.la, upaka, ehi nivattassu maa pakkami, pubbe viya kaame paribhu~nja, aha~nca ye ca me santi ~naatakaa, te sabbeva tuyha.m maa pakkamitukaamataaya vasiikataa vasavattino kataati. Pruitt: 295. When this was said, Caapaa, who wanted to turn him back, spoke the verse [beginning] Come Kaa.la. This is the meaning: Kaa.la, because of your black complexion (kaa.la-va.n.nataaya), Upaka, come, turn back, do not go away. Enjoy sensual pleasures just as before. Whoever is my relative - all of them and I are under your control (vasii-kataa), brought into your power (vasa-vattino kataa) if you do not want to go away. ..tbc, connie #77349 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:16 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Anapansati: A Two-Edged Sword jonoabb Hi Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > > Hi Howard (ps to the India gang) ... > > Talk to you again in January (or tomorrow!) > > Metta, > > Phil > > p.s Wishing all those who are off to India a safe and fruitful > journey. Many thanks for this. Nice to see you around. Hoping to see you again from time to time. Jon #77350 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dieter's Qu jonoabb Hi Han Thanks for the succinct summary of the discussion. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Sarah, Dieter, Jon, and Sukin, > > The original question was: > "There is a commentary, it says that Teza (of rupa) > makes a new Utuzarupa. If so, in 24 paccaya, by which > paccaya realtion's take place here?" > > My understanding, after meeting with Khun Sujin, is as > follows. > > (1) None of the 24 paccayas is related to Tejo (of > ruupa) making a new Utuja-ruupa. And may I add that it was also noted that knowledge of the manner in which tejo conditions new utuja-rupa is not likely to be knowledge that is necessary for liberation. > (2) Sahajaata-paccaya is applicable to each of the > four great essentials conditioning for the other three > great essentials, but in the *same* ruupa-kalaapa, and > not for another ruupa-kalaapa. > > (3) As aahaara is synonymous with samudaya, if taken > in a broader sense, aahaara paccaya may be taken as > the condition in the case under question. It is up to > the Bhikkhu (who asked the question) to consider this > point. > > Respectfully, > Han Well summarised! Jon #77351 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:30 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views jonoabb Hi Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > Hi, Jon - ... > Jon, I find what I said to be almost self-evident. Dhammas are > interrelated in many ways. For us unawakened folks, conceptualization is our means to > grasp the relations among dhammas. If we were not cognizant of relations, we > would not be able to function and we would also not know all there is to know > about reality. Do you disagree with that? I'm still not sure yet what you mean by the interrelation of dhammas. Could you give an example or two? I get the impression you are referring to the interrelation between the dhammas that comprise what we take for conventional objects such as text or monitor. To my knowledge such interrelationships were not the subject of the teachings (see the thread on tejo conditioning utuja rupas). Jon PS Regarding your comment in another post about "in the suttas". You are fond of saying that if it's not in the suttas, it's not within the leaves in the Buddha's hand. So I wondered if what you are saying in this thread is from the suttas. But if from some other source, that's fine too ;-)) #77352 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:33 am Subject: Re: dhamma questions -- Q. No. 1 jonoabb Hi Manish --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "vipassana_infonet" wrote: > > my question was about looking at (from abhidhamma standpoint) the > process (in the citta-vithi) that explains how the sankharas are > actually eradicated by vipassana. you may read the question again. > thanks. > ---- I am interested in this topic. Would you mind explaining which sankharas are eradicated by vipassana. Are you referring to the 3 roots (lobha, dosa and moha) and all akusala tendencies? Jon #77353 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:35 am Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Here's another two questions answered (subject to correction of course): A: "About Rupa being independent from consiousness I disagree. Rupa depends on consiousness atleast to be defined. Without perception of matter, we cannot say "it exists or it doesn't". Since "hardness, motion, temperature, cohesion" are perceptions , without perceptions and feelings they are meaningless. This does NOT mean that mind creates matter. Rather it means that without mind we cannot perceive matter or absence of matter (vaccum)." Scott: Naama and ruupa are separate realities. That they can be condition for or conditioned by each other is also true. This is not conceptual since these are both realities with characteristics. Definitions are conceptual. 'Hardness, motion, temperature, cohesion' are not perceptions. Well, cohesion cannot be 'perceived' but that is a whole other question. At any rate hardness, motion, and heat are ruupa, not naama. Perception is naama, not ruupa. Naama 'interacts' with ruupa - that is the object of 'perception' (naama) can be ruupa. Ruupa exists whether it becomes the object of perception or not. Mind can be said to create matter. For example, dosa-mula-citta can be condition for harsh speech or gestures (ruupa). Mind perceives matter. I don't know what 'absence of matter' means - that is, let's forget about it. That being said, in Pa.t.thaana, the seventh volume of the Abhidhamma Pi.taka, it is stated, regarding Dissociation Condition (Vippayutta-paccaya)" "(i) The material states are related to the immaterial states by dissociation condition. (ii) The immaterial states are related to the material states by dissociation condition." Scott: U Naarada clarifies in his commentary to his translation of Pa.t.thaana (Guide To Conditional Relations, part 1, pp. 68-69): "Definition. The condition where a conditioning state relates by making other states, the conditioned states, arise together with it according to the nature of conascence only, but are not associated to the characteristics of association, is known as dissociation condition. "Analogy: This condition is like the mixture of the six flavours: sweet, sour, hot, salty, astringent, and bitter, which, although they are together, remain separate, i.e. the sweet taste does not become sour but remains sweet, nor does the sour taste become sweet but remains sour and so on. Or it is like a mixture of water and mercury where, although they are together, they remain separate." Scott: There is much more on this as one gets into the finer points regarding conascence-dissociation. A: "Ok. Lets examine it in terms of a dhammas. What happens to matter (rupa) that is still in the mouth (bodily rupa) when some citta sees the image on the screen? Does the rupa of food disappear in that however brief moment of time?" Scott: Still mixing concepts with realities. 'Mouth' is not 'bodily ruupa'. Citta doesn't 'see' 'image on the screen', as this is a whole. Citta 'sees' visible object, which is not 'image on the screen'. 'Food' is concept but yes, ruupa arises, is present, and falls away as does naama, albeit at a different rate (i.e., it persists for as long as seventeen moments of consciousness). And no, ruupa doesn't 'disappear' in the sense you seem to be referring (facetiously) to. You're still thinking about the conceptual whole when you imagine how ridiculous it is to suggest that a morsel of cookie in the mouth is there one minute and gone the next and then there again. Do you see the problem of mixing-up concepts with paramattha dhammas? Ultimately, there is no cookie, no mouth. I'll get to the last point when I can. Sincerely, Scott #77354 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 10/12/2007 8:30:41 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > Hi, Jon - ... > Jon, I find what I said to be almost self-evident. Dhammas are > interrelated in many ways. For us unawakened folks, conceptualization is our means to > grasp the relations among dhammas. If we were not cognizant of relations, we > would not be able to function and we would also not know all there is to know > about reality. Do you disagree with that? I'm still not sure yet what you mean by the interrelation of dhammas. Could you give an example or two? ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I'm referring to the relations given in the Patthana and all other relations not specifically given there. ------------------------------------------------------ I get the impression you are referring to the interrelation between the dhammas that comprise what we take for conventional objects such as text or monitor. To my knowledge such interrelationships were not the subject of the teachings (see the thread on tejo conditioning utuja rupas). -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Jon, there is a difference between such things as monitors and such imagined things as unicorns. The difference is that there are actual dhammas related in specific ways that are the basis for such concepts as "monitor". There are relations that hold between namas and namas, between rupas and namas (and vice-versa), and between rupas and rupas. Dhammas do not exist independently of other dhammas but in relation to other dhammas, with the relations being of many sorts. It makes no sense to me when you say that interrelationships "were not the subject of the teachings". In fact, I find such an assertion to be false on he face of it. ============================== With metta, Howard Jon PS Regarding your comment in another post about "in the suttas". You are fond of saying that if it's not in the suttas, it's not within the leaves in the Buddha's hand. So I wondered if what you are saying in this thread is from the suttas. But if from some other source, that's fine too ;-)) #77355 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:36 am Subject: Relations Among Rupas/Jon upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - Relations among rupas are included in the Patthana. For example, consider ii and v below. With metta, Howard Co-nascence Condition (Sahajàta Paccaya) i The four incorporeal (i.e. mental) aggregates are mutually related to one another by conascence condition. ii The four great essentials (mahàbhutas) are mutually related to one another by conascenece condition. iii At the moment of conception, mentality (patisandhi citta) and corporeality (kammaja-rupa) are mutually related to each other by conascence condition iv Consciousness and its concomitants are related to the mindproduced corporeality (cittaja-rupa) by conascence condition. v The great essentials are related to their derived matter (upàdà-rupa) by conascence condition. vi Material phenomena are sometimes related to immaterial (i.e. mental) phenomena by conascence condition and are sometimes not related by conascence condition. citta) and corporeality (kammaja-rupa) are related to each other by mutuality condition. #77356 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Fri Oct 12, 2007 7:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. dcwijeratna Dear Tep, This is with regard to the following post. ========================================= >Dear Azita (DC, Nina), > T: Are you implying that seeing 'anattaa' is easier? ... ..... ...... >T: Based on the above two quotes, the word "see" here does not refer to the way the eyes see a visible object rises and falls away. If this interpretation is correct, then one only "sees" the rise and fall phenomena with 'pa~n~aa cakkhu'. DC: I have snipped off the middle portion of your message. Really, I wish to add my comments only to the last paragraph . 1. T: "Based on the above two quotes, the word "see" here does not refer to the way the eyes see a visible object rises and falls away." My focus in this sentence is the second occurrence of 'see' (eyes see a visible object). This is contrary to the way I understand dhamma. Seeing or visual consciousness is described by 'cakkhu.m paticca ruupe ca uppajjati cakkh cakkhuvi~n~naana.m." That is "visual consciousness arises on account of form and the eye." The word arises here is important, it means that seeing is a causal proces. To put it another way, when the eye meets a ruupa visual consciouness arises. This is another way of saying "if your eyelids are open, and your eye is functioning normally, then seeing occurs without any effort." To say 'eyes see' is to introduce attaa into the eye. Then to the the second sentence: actually 'anicca' and 'anttaa' are concepts. What is meant by seeing a concept is understanding it as a fact; that is you see phenomena as impermanent. (the see here is physcal seeing described earlier. In effect, as you have said rightly, when you see anicca, you ae a sotapanna-a stream-enterer. And when one sees anatta you are an arahant. I would rather not use pa~n~naa not use pa~n~naacakkhu, because it is also another conept. Well, that is how I understand them. Any comments? D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77357 From: Dieter Möller Date: Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dieter's Qu moellerdieter Dear Jon, Han , Sarah and others.. I suppose you like me to pass Han's succinct summary to the Venerable and will do so . It is not sure when we may expect a response , as he is residing in a monastery far away from the capital. Thank you all for the care! with Metta Dieter #77358 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:16 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. indriyabala Hi DC, - I am glad that you reply to my post on pa~n~naacakkhu because it also answers you earlier question. > DC: Then to the the second sentence: actually 'anicca' and 'anttaa' are concepts. What is meant by seeing a concept is understanding it as a fact; that is you see phenomena as impermanent. (the see here is physcal seeing described earlier. > > In effect, as you have said rightly, when you see anicca, you ae a sotapanna-a stream-enterer. And when one sees anatta you are an arahant. I would rather not use pa~n~naa not use pa~n~naacakkhu, because it is also another conept. > > Well, that is how I understand them. > > Any comments? T: You said earlier that even 'buddha' was a concept. Indeed names and meanings(attha) are concept. So I think an argument about this or that is a concept does not benefit anyone, because it is not Dhamma discussion that leads to knowledge. Tep ==== #77359 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:50 am Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. truth_aerator Dear Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: >> A: "As I understand attho can also mean "advantage, meaning, aim, > usage, use , welfare, gain, sense, purpose, advantage, moral good, > need". So maybe paramattha CAN also mean ultimate aim." > > Scott: I think that the term 'paramattha' has its own precise meaning > in this context and no other. I'm no Pali expert, but I think that > compound words often have meaning that supercedes the separate > meanings of their component parts. PTS PED: > > "Parama (adj.) [Vedic parama; superl. formation of para, lit. > "farthest," cp. similarly, although fr. diff. base, Lat. prÄ«mus] > highest, most excellent, superior, best..." > > "Attha...attho paramo the highest sense, the ultimate sense or > intrinsic meaning...(paramatthato in the absolute sense)..." >>>> According to the above definitions it is still possible to translate it as "Highest, ultimate sense" (as in the best goal). However this issue is not that important. > A: "Well is it possible to say 10 "grams" of Greedy citta and then > divide the number? Is it possible to divide these cittas such as greed > into lesser greed? etc etc." > > Scott: No. Lobha is lobha. >>>>> Can it be of different strength or only different in number. Example: person with little greed has few of these cittas, person with strong greed has many of them happening per unit of time. > > A: "But these characterstics are totally dependent on other factors. > Right? For example: tallness is dependent on shortness. This DOES > NOT MEAN THAT ONE CREATES THE OTHER. No." > > Scott: Wrong. The characteristic of something is simply its > characteristic. >>>>>>> But a "characteristic" is a PERCEPTION! Any word you say or any feeling - THAT IS A PERCEPTION. If a person has no mind (vinanna, nama, citta, cetasika), he cannot perceive (or label), feel or cognize anything. This does NOT mean that reality does or does not exist outside of perception. It means that we mistake OUR perception of reality for reality itself. Even phrase "Objective reality" is subjective statement. A rock does not know and can not say that "Something exists, nothing exists, both, neither). >>>>>>>>> > Let's deal with citta, cetasika, and ruupa. These three conditioned > realities are all there is to this existence. They are all there is > that is 'real' in the particular sense of 'paramattha'. Each is as > 'real' as the other. Do we agree on this? >>>>>> Please define what you mean by Real. What stages of "reality" is there? Is rainbow real? I mean we see it, don't we? What about dreams? If we change our sense organs, the perception of "reality" will change. If you take 5 different people with 5 differently functioning sense organs and beliefs, they will see 5 different versions of "Reality"? Is anyone of them more right than the other? People centuries ago believed that Sun rotated around the Earth. I mean, they saw it! It was a undeniable reality to them! Even in english language they say "Sun RISE", "SUN SET". >>>>>> > I think it would be more fruitful to consider the 'conditional > relations method' rather than the 'dependent origination method' in > discussing 'causes and conditions'. >>>>> I disagree. DO is CRUCIAL aspect of Buddhism. >>>>>> The DO method deals with states as effect in a global way, as far as I can tell. >>>>>>>>> Not exactly. It happens within multiple lifetimes AND within each moment as well. For example: 6 senses->contact->feeling->(if ignorance is then)->craving-> clinging->becoming. Also during deep stages of meditation if one has a suddenly risen avijja one is knocked out of the meditationg due to craving. --- Thank you very much for your posts. It will take me some time to digest them. Lots of Metta, Alex #77360 From: "colette" Date: Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:09 pm Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. ksheri3 Good Day Scott and Alex, THANK YOU BOTH FOR EXCELLENT DISCOURSE AND ANALYSIS! > A: "About Rupa being independent from consiousness I disagree. Rupa > depends on consiousness atleast to be defined. colette: yes, this is true that without consciousness we could not have any order in a society since people could not comunicate. HOWEVER, I wish to point out, and this same concept is made several more times in the material below, that consciousness itself is a DEFILED CONDITION. Consciousness exists only in the sense of it's additatives, it's parts, that were added to create the whole, an aggregate. Everybody has the choice to decide wether something is pleasing, displeasing, or nothing at all. From the time a person is born they are trained, conditioned, to identify and associate the conditions of things that are pleasing, displeasing, and neither. Here you have the CAUSE of DEFILEMENTS, psst, it's called EVOLUTION. ------------------------------------------ Without perception of > matter, we cannot say "it exists or it doesn't". colette: again, once we perceive that it does exist we then place it in one of the above named categories of satisfaction. It's all about DE-PROGRAMMING A CONSCIOUSNESS. -------------------------------------- Since "hardness, > motion, temperature, cohesion" are perceptions , without perceptions > and feelings they are meaningless. This does NOT mean that mind > creates matter. colette: THIS IS WHERE THE INTELLIGENCE EQUATES TO "THE RUBBER MEETING THE ROAD", thank you. How can we actually be sure that mind DOES NOT create matter? (Quantum physics please) In our current situation of existance we are limited to the science that matter cannot be created nor destroyed YET the TRANSCENDENT CONDITION clearly indicates that something "other" does exist with us, THERFORE how can we be sure that we are not creating our own destiny, sort of speak, creating our own reality, re-evaluating the past dharmas and discovering new uses and applications for the same ole material that we at one time were so cock sure of be the masters of? ---------------------------------------------------------- Rather it means that without mind we cannot perceive > matter or absence of matter (vaccum)." > colette: true, but our limitations create that state, and our limitations are CONDITIONS, see CAUSE & CONDITION. Why are we trying to "save the planet" if not for the children because INSIDE, internally, we are CONSCIOUS of the fact that tomorrow does exist and that we are on a limited engagement, that our bodies are deteriorating and therefore may not have the chance to achieve this state of prajna. ------------------------------------------- > Scott: Naama and ruupa are separate realities. That they can be > condition for or conditioned by each other is also true. This is not > conceptual since these are both realities with characteristics. > Definitions are conceptual. > > 'Hardness, motion, temperature, cohesion' are not perceptions. Well, > cohesion cannot be 'perceived' colette: why is it not possible to Perceive cohesion when we can see chemical reactions, we can see the results of electro-magnetic forces in atoms and such? Why is cohesion something that is not visable? -------------------------------- oooops, in my routine of answering material I forgot to read the next line. Sorry for bothering with that but that is a whole other question. At > any rate hardness, motion, and heat are ruupa, not naama. colette: the rubber meets the road again, is it possible that the "conditioning" we experienced throughout our existances has been faulty and constantly requires that we make the effort of de- programming? Thus a mislabeling of nama for rupa and rupa for nama. --------------------------------------- Perception > is naama, not ruupa. Naama 'interacts' with ruupa - that is the > object of 'perception' (naama) can be ruupa. > > Ruupa exists whether it becomes the object of perception or not. Mind > can be said to create matter. For example, dosa-mula-citta can be > condition for harsh speech or gestures (ruupa). colette: why is harsh speech or gestures "ruupa"? a word cannot be seen nor can it be physically felt which places it in the category of Nama and not rupa? The result of dosa-mula-citta ends up as nama (a state or condition of Being) so are you suggesting that dosa-mula- citta is truely RUPA? -------------------------------------------- Mind perceives > atter. I don't know what 'absence of matter' means - that is, let's > forget about it. > > That being said, in Pa.t.thaana, the seventh volume of the Abhidhamma > Pi.taka, it is stated, regarding Dissociation Condition > (Vippayutta-paccaya)" > > "(i) The material states are related to the immaterial states by > dissociation condition. > (ii) The immaterial states are related to the material states by > dissociation condition." > > Scott: U Naarada clarifies in his commentary to his translation of > Pa.t.thaana (Guide To Conditional Relations, part 1, pp. 68-69): > > "Definition. The condition where a conditioning state relates by > making other states, the conditioned states, arise together with it > according to the nature of conascence only, but are not associated to > the characteristics of association, is known as dissociation condition. > > "Analogy: This condition is like the mixture of the six flavours: > sweet, sour, hot, salty, astringent, and bitter, which, although they > are together, remain separate, i.e. the sweet taste does not become > sour but remains sweet, nor does the sour taste become sweet but > remains sour and so on. Or it is like a mixture of water and mercury > where, although they are together, they remain separate." > colette: Sorry, I've gotta step in and use my CONDITIONING from my childhood. At McDonald's headquarters in Oakbrook IL USA there are rooms with cubicals (the predessessor of a cube farm) where the corporation tests new food products to be marketed to the public for sale. Each cubicle has a different color light in it so that the corporation can get a proper idea of how the food tastes in different light. THEREFORE LIGHT has a direct effect on the taste, flavor, of food, THUS BRINGING ME TO THE FACTUALLY REALIZED QUESTION that eye- consciousness DIRECTLY EFFECTS mouth consciousness and I haven't even gone into ear consciousness, so WHY IS THE ALAYA-VIJNANA SUCH AN ABSURD IDEA? ---------------------------------------------------- I'm terribly sorry gents but I've wasted a lot of the limited time I have to do research but this is an amazing discussion you two bloaks are having. Maybe the word I should've used is "bricks" are having. I don't know. toodles, colette #77361 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. dcwijeratna Hi Tep, You wrote: Hi DC, - I am glad that your reply to my post on pa~n~naacakkhu because it also answers you earlier question. > DC: Then to the the second sentence: actually 'anicca' and 'anttaa' are concepts. What is meant by seeing a concept is understanding it as a fact; that is you see phenomena as impermanent. (the see here is physcal seeing described earlier. > > In effect, as you have said rightly, when you see anicca, you ae a sotapanna-a stream-enterer. And when one sees anatta you are an arahant. I would rather not use pa~n~naa not use pa~n~naacakkhu, because it is also another conept. > > Well, that is how I understand them. > > Any comments? T: (1) You said earlier that even 'buddha' was a concept. (2) Indeed names and meanings(attha) are concept. (3) So I think an argument about this or that is a concept does not benefit anyone, because it is not Dhamma discussion that leads to knowledge. ============================ DC: (a) I agree with "it is not dhamma discussion that leads to knowledge" within limits. But then, Tep, what are we doing? We should not discuss? (b) "I think an argument about this or that is a concept does not benefit anyone" I cannot agree with you here. because a discussion about concepts is a total waster of time. I think that I have made a mess by making loose statements. Let me explain. I think we didn't agree on the meaning of concept. I have used it loosely; at least, so it appears. Let me give the meaning I use. What a normal human being experiences, through the faculties (except the mind) are "real". So a name if it is given to an object of experience is not a concept. But for example, if you say "2" (the number 2) it is a concept. It is an abstraction. So the criterion is reality. Therefore to make a statement that names are concepts is not logical. If you say all names are concepts, then there is nothing real. Pa~n~naa cakkhu is a concept. You can't point out to the real world and say: "Ah, there is the pa~n~naa cakkhu" Therefore it is not possible to agree on what pa~n~naa cakkhu is. And that is the end of meanigful discussion. This is what happens if you try to discuss concepts. This world has to run on "vohara". Dear Tep, I find it difficult to follow your argument: I have numbered the sentences in your response, 1, 2 and 3. (1) has no relevance to the discussion. A statement about the Buddha in a different context has nothing to do with is not relevant. And it has no connection with the next sentence. (2) This is a categorial statement and appear to be a major premise. [As I pointed out then there is no real world. On the basis of this assumption the whole world is concepts and in the mind] (3) This sentence is a curious one. The first part is a logical conclusion from (2) that is if all names are concepts, then certainly there is no benefit to anyone: there are no "anyones"; they are mere concepts. The in the second half of the sentence you add another "because clause" and introduce ,another logic and a new concept, dhamma and knowledge. Making the whole thing very very difficult to understand. At the end of the day, on a first reading, the para under reference looks a very sound argument. But as shown above, it seems to lead to logical difficulties, at least to me. With mettaa, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77362 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:18 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. kenhowardau Hi Alex, ------- <. . .> KH: > > Anyone who genuinely wanted to take refuge in the Triple Gem would be made aware of anatta right from the start. >>>>>>>>>> A: > I would like to know how many ordinary lay buddhist in Asia believe in anatta? We need to remember that here we are talking on a much deeper level than majority of lay "Buddhists". ------- It is hard to talk about the Dhamma in conventional terms. "Ignorant Buddhist," for example, is a contradiction in terms. Ultimately, "Buddhist" can - like anything else in the world - only refer to certain [momentary] namas and rupas. And ignorance (moha) would not be among them. ------------------- A: > Just like most "Christians" do not argue about precise interpreation of this or that word - same may be with some Buddhists. ------------------- I'm sure it is the same with some Buddhists. We have all heard Christians talk as if God was anything they wanted him to be: "My god is a god of forgiveness" "My god is a god of justice" and so on. Some believe God is the way the Bible says he is, while others believe he is the way they experience him in their personal prayers and meditations. The same sort of thing applies in popular Buddhism, I am sorry to say. > ----------------------------------------------------- > A: > First is morality perfected, this supports samadhi and > calm. Eventually panna (of Not self) arrives. At this stage an > aspirant is mature in morality and calm and thus can handle the truth > of selflessness. > ------------------------------------------------------ > > KH: > > I hope I can convince you that this is NOT the way it happens. >>>> A: > Please explain. Sotapanna is mostly about Right View (of not self) and morality. Of course some samadhi is present. Only in later stages (Anagamin) is samadhi perfected. And on Arahat level panna is fully developed so there is no more "I am" feeling. -------------- Oh, I see! That is not the way I read your original statement. I thought you were saying that morality had to be perfected first, then calm, then wisdom. I might add here that the Middle Way is - from beginning to end - essentially a way of wisdom (right understanding). Panna-cetasika arises in every moment of right study, right practice and right attainment. And panna is the leader (forerunner) of all co-arising path factors. --------------- <. . .> A: > This is one of the tactics he used. GRADUAL DISCOURCES. In a society where Brahmins were the highest and the best - what did he do? He defined a "Brahmin" through Buddhist values. He used his teachings in a most PC way possible. This is why most of terminology is almost identical. 5 aggregates is not a buddhist concept. Neither is karma, Brahma, Indra, etc etc. ---------------- Yes. This is one of my favourite topics. The doctrine of anatta (no- self ) turns the world as we know it upside down. We need to learn an entirely new way of understanding everything - from the beginning - just as if we were little children. There are really only dhammas (fleeting conditioned namas and rupas). There are no people, no Buddhas, no monks, no bodies etc. And so it was pertinent that the Buddha asked rhetorical questions such as, "How [according to this doctrine] does a monk practise mindfulness of the body?" We all know the conventional meaning of mindfulness of the body. It involves the idea of a permanent observer and a permanent object. As the commentaries to the Mahasatipatthana Sutta say (rather unflatteringly), this is the kind of knowledge we share with dogs and jackals. But a monk knows the body in an entirely different and unconventional way. He knows at all times that there are ultimately only namas and rupas. -------------- A: > Maybe the closet eternalists are trying to read-in into BT's writings. Again I really like the emphasis on a "strategy" rather than ontology. Since ultimately the ultimate thing which matters is SUFFERING AND CESSATION OF IT. Concept of a self is a crucial link that needs to be cut. -------------- Ontology is fine! We need to know the world as it really is - the presently arisen namas and rupas. None of these namas or rupas contains a self or anything pertaining to a self. And so the Abhidhamma is a giant stumbling block to anyone who wants to teach that the Buddha's path leads to eternal heavenly existence. You will notice there is no Abhidhamma-pitaka material at Access-To- Insight. Ken H #77363 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:28 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. indriyabala Hi DC, - Thank you for taking time to write to me. ............. Dear friend DC, you are a man of complex logics, and you are fond of analytical thinking. Alas, a simple man like me can only use his limited common sense. It seems to me that your thoughts branched out in several directions while you were reading my simple sentences. On the one hand, the branching-out might completely have confounded the simple facts in my original statements. On the other hand, your complicated analysis and logical deduction might be too much for this poor man to comprehend it fully. Therefore, I can only deal with the followings. >DC : a) I agree with "it is not dhamma discussion that leads to knowledge" within limits. But then, Tep, what are we doing? We should not discuss? T: IMHO we should only discuss the issues we both agree that they lead to a better understanding of the Dhamma. This may sound restrictive to those who enjoy debating (on anything & everything). .................. >DC : (b) "I think an argument about this or that is a concept does not benefit anyone" I cannot agree with you here. because a discussion about concepts is a total waster of time. T: I am confused here. Why can you not agree with me, if you agree that "a discussion about concepts is a total waster of time" ? ................... DC : So a name if it is given to an object of experience is not a concept. ... If you say all names are concepts, then there is nothing real. Pa~n~naa cakkhu is a concept. You can't point out to the real world and say: "Ah, there is the pa~n~naa cakkhu". T: Yet the labelling/description of "an object of experience" is conceptual. The fact that a thing is real or not does not depend on the human's view on it. Therefore, we humans can put a label on anything, even Nibbana, but that label or our thoughts based on the label would never alter a reality to be non-existent. 'Pa~n~naa cakkhu' is a dhamma or it may be called a label/name/concept (depending on who looks at it); yet, its meaning (attha) is the understanding (pa~n~naa) that arises from direct knowledge of the naama-ruupa. That is another one-rupee thought I can give. Tep === #77364 From: Sobhana Date: Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:44 pm Subject: Reply to Tep shennieca Hiya Tep, T: It was nice to see your response that tells me you already know a lot about the Buddhist ways. Who taught you the Dhamma since the beginning ? E: I come from a Theravada Buddhists family. My parents, grandparents, siblings are all Buddhist, so it is natural for me to be a Buddhist. My first dhamma teacher is Bhante Suvanno (of Malaysia), I met him when I was 10 years old. I remember he gave a dhamma talk on Kamma, the 5 precepts, four noble truths, noble 8fold paths, and it all felt so right and so logical to me. I don't think Buddhism has to be too complex. It sounds so very complicated especially when it is discussed in DSG, most of the time I have no idea what it is about!! The discussion in DSG group is too difficult for me to follow, especially the Abhidhamma part. I don't really understand some of the views here, especially on the interpretation of "anatta". But I come to DSG when I have some questions to ask and the members here will answer them promptly and sincerely. :)) Personally, I prefer to "practise" than to read or discuss the dhamma but my practise part is rather weak (reads ~ meditation is not going anywhere and I'm too lazy to meditate). And my daily mindfulness is non-existent, I think. :(( Oh well, I hope the right conditions to practise will come soon. How about you? How long have you been a Buddhist? #77365 From: "Sukinder" Date: Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:57 pm Subject: Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views sukinderpal Hi Howard, I would like to respond on just one part of your post. It may be just repeating what I already said earlier. Perhaps I've run out of ways to convince ;-). But I hope you don't mind. --------------------------------------------------- Sukin: Besides conditional relations involve namas, and the only namas existing in relationship and can be known, are those that arise now, and these fall away together completely. So nothing remains for `thinking' to *see* any relationship. Even the relationship between say, craving and clinging, is not something we are supposed to observe in sequence, but is something insighted, I believe. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Relations hold among rupas as well, and between namas and rupas. Do you think there is no physical conditionality? S> I thought that you might have been referring to this, and this is why I gave the example of the staccato music. And when you reacted with, "So what? The heard sounds are in a particular relation.", I thought that you may have in mind such relationships as that of `melody' and `harmony'. So my next question there is: What significance do you give to the relationship between notes, say in the minor scale? Is this more `real' in one sense than randomly played notes? If so, is there also some difference between this and the major scale, or pentatonic, or twelve-tone, or quarter-tone scales? One thing I discovered from my experience with music more than twenty years ago was the fact of "conditioning". This was before I knew anything about Buddhism. I had come to the conclusion that "noise" could be musical when used in the right context. I also saw how different cultures found different melodic and harmonic progressions to be more `musical' than others. I came to the conclusion that we grow to get used to certain melodic and harmonic scales more than others and the kind of music we compose is conditioned by past experiences, so no such thing as originality. The above is deep into concepts with nothing said about "reality". Sound is sound, not note, not melody, not music. The important thing is that it arises and falls away in an instant, and it is in that instant, that any conditional relationships occur. My experience of melody and harmony aside from the actual experience at the ear door, the thinking which intersperse, and by which "music" comes to be experienced, this is due mainly to memory and not any real relationship between rupas. But let me take the example of a "Tree". That we `think' tree, this is not from seeing alone, but also touch, smell and perhaps also sound (a falling tree or moving branches). One may be tempted to make the connection between these experiences through the different doorways, and conclude that the thinking process is a kind of summing up of these experiences. I don't think so. But as above, this is all about memory and thinking only. Wisdom insights conditional relationships for sure, but this would be in the experience of `dhammas' and not concepts. For example, at the moment that panna has "hearing" as an object; it may understand it as being an element or internal ayatana, or it may know that it was conditioned by visible object and perhaps also that it is anicca or dukkha or anatta. You may `think' about these things at the level of suttamaya panna or even cintamaya panna. But to think that `thinking' in itself is a process of summing up of actual relationships, this doesn't make sense. Don't forget that there is the question of what the accompanying cetasikas are. Why attribute to the thinking process a function it does not have? With metta, Sukin #77366 From: LBIDD@... Date: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] can citta feel itself? lbidd2 Hi Manish, Here is an attempt to answer your abhidhamma question experientially. However, this is only my interpretation. Manish: "well I do understand that citta cannot take itself as arammana from the abhidhamma viewpoint but, I think a vipassana moment is filled with panna and this panna can see and be aware of ALL as a vibration, as a wave, as a wavelet..." Larry: What does "an object of consciousness" mean? In my experience a feeling arises, then there is a reaction (either with or without understanding) to that feeling. Naturally there can be a reaction to any experience. Every experience is the object of the next reaction, which is an experience. Consciousness is experience. Therefore, consciousness is the object of the next consciousness. "Object of consciousness" means "what an experience is in response to". Larry #77367 From: han tun Date: Fri Oct 12, 2007 6:42 pm Subject: Perfections Corner (25) 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. ------------------------------ The perfection of equanimity includes impartiality towards all beings and this is most difficult to practise. The ten perfections are: generosity, daana, morality, síla, renunciation, nekkhamma, wisdom, paññaa, energy, viriya patience, khanti truthfulness, sacca, determination, adiììhaana, loving-kindness, mettaa, equanimity, upekkhaa. We should not neglect anyone of these ten perfections, we need all of them. We need sincerity in the abandonment of defilements and that is the perfection of truthfulness. We should remember to think of other people’s wrongs with loving-kindness. We also need the perfection of determination, the firm, unshakable determination to practise all kinds of kusala in order to reach the goal. We may have sincerity in our wish to abandon defilements, but at times we lack determination, we are not firm enough in our determination to abandon defilements. We need the perfection of determination for being sincere in our practice to eradicate defilements. We need the perfection of patience, that is, endurance. We need to develop all the perfections and this is the only way to have wise attention to whatever we experience, to develop paññaa. ------------------------------ This is the End of chapter 10: The Perfection of Equanimity. Metta, Han ------------------------------ P.S. Dear Connie, I will be most grateful if you will kindly present one of the three chapters that you have agreed to present. If you like, please continue the serial number, starting with Perfections Corner (26). Thank you very much. #77368 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Oct 12, 2007 6:56 pm Subject: Re: Reply to Tep indriyabala Hello Elaine, - Thank you very, very much for initiating this conversation about our individual Buddhist background, and more. >Elaine: I come from a Theravada Buddhists family. My parents, grandparents, siblings are all Buddhist, so it is natural for me to be a Buddhist. My first dhamma teacher is Bhante Suvanno (of Malaysia), I met him when I was 10 years old. I remember he gave a dhamma talk on Kamma, the 5 precepts, four noble truths, noble 8fold paths, and it all felt so right and so logical to me. T: My mother was my very first Buddhism teacher who was very steady in dana and sila practice; she knew little vipassana and zero abhidhamma. The first house I lived in (from birth till I was 24) was surrounded by seven old Buddhist temples, one of these is the Royal Palace Temple right in the center of Bangkok. I became my Mom's helper in giving foods to the monks every morning since I was 5 years old. So you see, I was influenced mostly by the sangha from the very beginning. My faith in the Buddha and the Dhamma came much later in life. >E: How about you? How long have you been a Buddhist? T: I consider myself a "Buddhist" when I fully understood the meanings of the Triple Gem and established a real faith (not because I was told), and that was about 33 years ago. You are very fortunate to have met a capable teacher who taught you the Dhamma at the early age. For me most of my knowledge of the Dhamma comes from self study. >E: And my daily mindfulness is non-existent, I think. :(( Oh well, I hope the right conditions to practise will come soon. T: That comment is interesting. Could you please explain a little, if you don't mind, about the right conditions to practice and how you would know when they finally arise (if not too late) ? Tep === #77369 From: "gazita2002" Date: Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:15 pm Subject: Re: Response to DC Part 1. gazita2002 hola Tep, Apologies for the last post as it was done in haste and I forgot to address you before launching into the post main. Rather rude of me, I thought :-( --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > T: Are you implying that seeing 'anattaa' is easier? > > Azita: certainly not! I think that when'one' does see arising and > falling away, one then understands anatta. Isn't it bec. we are > deluded and take for what is arising and passing away [anicca] not > anicca? Right here, right now there is arising and passing away, but > do 'we' see that? Like this very moment of seeing or hearing. > ............. > > T: I can see two issues in the above comment. I would be glad to read > any thought you may share with me. > > i) "..when'one' does see arising and falling away, one then > understands anatta." > > ii) "Right here, right now there is arising and passing away, but > do 'we' see that?" > > According to a sutta I have read, when one "sees" arising and falling > away of a dhamma, then one "sees" anicca. Seeing anicca in a > conditioned arising & passing away phenomenon, ones understands > dukkha. Then it follows that whatever is dukkha, it cannot be taken > for granted as 'that is mine', 'that is what I am', 'that is my > self'(attaa). Thus one sees 'anattaa'. azita: Yes, I agree with this. You have added more detail to my hasty post. Phenomena are dukkha bec they are anicca. > > When a dhamma rises (or falls away) one may "see" the origination (or > cessation) only if s/he is endowed with direct knowledge. > > Patisambhidamagga, I, 29 : "What is known as the meaning of direct > knowledge is to be directly known. Judging (investigating) as the > meaning of full-understanding ... Giving up as the meaning of > abandoning ..." > > Vism. XX, 7: "Herein, the plane of full-understanding as the known > extends from the delimitation of formations up to the discernment of > conditions; for in this interval the penetration of the specific > characteristics of states predominates." > ............. > > T: Based on the above two quotes, the word "see" here does not refer > to the way the eyes see a visible object rises and falls away. If > this interpretation is correct, then one only "sees" the rise and > fall phenomena with 'pa~n~aa cakkhu'. azita: Maybe my italics should have been around 'see' and not 'one/we', as I also agree with your last comment!! So no disagreements with you. I just wanted to emphasise the fact that arising and falling away is happening now but most of the time there is ignorance about this phenomena. Patience, courage and good cheer, azita #77370 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:11 pm Subject: Perfections Corner nichiconn Dear Han, I'll be happy to continue the serial order and start posting chapter 7 next week. Thanks again, connie #77371 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:05 pm Subject: e-card from Bkk 4 sarahprocter... Dear Friends, This afternoon we're off to the Foundation for the last discussion before our trip. This is the regular Sat. session. For us, much of yesterday was spent trying to get the computer fixed, speaking to IBM in Malaysia and so on, to no avail until just as we were getting ready for bed and suddenly, bingo! It's like the car we had when I was a child - extremely difficult to start, requiring every kind of assistance imaginable - but once started, it runs and runs! On our first day (Tuesday) with Ann & Sukin also, the main topics I noted were (apart from the one on rupas from the Burmese monk): - more on the meaning of samatha, pasaddhi cetasika and samatha at each moment of kusala - samatha, jhana, jhaayati. Jhaayati means it burns, (inc. by way of contemplation). In the case of samatha, it burns sensuous objects. In the case of vipassana, it burns defilements. Sometimes people suggest that one can apply oneself to tranquil meditation of samatha bhavana. This is not correct because it suggests a clinging to the idea of self again. We think in terms of 'I apply', but actually, there is no one. Similarly, it's not correct to refer to 'using jhana as a basis for insight'. The path is based on detachment. - Also, when we read 'jhana as a foundation for vipassana', we should be clear that any dhamma can be a foundation, even dosa now. The foundation should be parami. - more on the vasis (masteries). Vasis at First Jhana, but developed for those so skilful in thinking of jhana. - Right thinking in samatha - thinks and thinks and thinks on that one object in a kusala way with understanding. - meanings of kusala and punna discussed. Punna shows the aspect of washing away the akusala. bhavana roots. An arahant doesn't need punna, nothing to be washed away. ***** In the discussion with Han, I forget if I included: - long discussion on seeing with neutral feeling - the importance of understanding seeing and visible object. We think we see someone and are therefore attached/angry with someone. But when we appreciate and understand more and more that only visible object is seen, it conditions more metta, less dosa, for example. Are you angry with seeing? With hearing? - Death, janaka kamma - kali yoga - bodhisatta - qualities of panna developed over such a long time - During the Buddha's time, no Tipitaka, but afterwards, at the Councils, organised for convenience. (Ignore any of these I already included, Han.) Metta, Sarah p.s for those interested: Tomorrow (Sunday), we leave for Delhi. Monday, we head for Agra which is en route to Lucknow and Bihar to the East, where most the holy places are. Tuesday we head to Sankasia where the Buddha is said to have taught the Abhidhamma, arriving from Tusita. Last time I visited it, there was just a mound with a mark, 100s of kms from any town. We go on to Lucknow, another 400 kms on off-main track Indian roads:-). Wed, we head to Savatthi and Jetavana where so many, many suttas were delivered by the Buddha. It's now a beautifully excavated and restored site, where the remains of all the original kutis of the Buddha and main disciples can be seen. 2 nts there, before heading up to Lumbini, just inside Nepal. More very long journeys. Another beautifully restored site, clearly showing the spot where the Buddha was born, ruins and so on. All these restorations have just happened in the last 20 yrs. From Lumbini, on Sat, we head to Kusinara. Sunday, on to Varanasi. 3 nts in the one hotel! Visits to Sarnath, discussions, Sangha dana and a chance to get washing done! Finally on Wed, 24th, we head to Bodh Gaya, also for 3 nts with a side-trip to Rajghir, Vulture's Peak, also Veluvana, the Bamboo Grove, where again the Buddha spent many early rains and taught so many suttas, vinaya and so on. Nalanda, many other places of interest....many discussions planned en route. Metta, Sarah ========= #77372 From: han tun Date: Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] can citta feel itself? hantun1 Dear Manish, Larry and others, Manish: at one place nina wrote that citta cannot be aware of itself... but, I think ALL dhammas can be experienced. ..I just checked the cula-tanha-sankhaya sutta and it says sabbe dhamma abhijanati.. . parijanati etc... even in the mahasatipatthana sutta see dhammanupassana and you will find mentions where all 5 khandas and all cittavithi processes are listed under pajanati. ---------- Han: The heading of your question was “can citta feel itself?” You used the word, “feel.” But the references that you quote do not convey the “feel.” In MN 37 Cuula-tanhaa-sankhaya sutta, it is true that you can find the following passage: so sabbam dhammam abhijaanaati. Sabbam dhammam abhi~n~naaya sabbam dhammam parijaanaati. (he directly knows everything; having directly known everything, he fully understands everything.) But “abhijaanaati” and “parijaanaati” mean “to know”, not “to feel.” Even if you have meant to say “know”, with what dhamma one will know all dhammas? It is through citta which is accompanied by pa~n~nindriya cetasika. So it is the case of one citta knowing the preceding citta which has arisen and fallen away. But how? It will be like what Larry has explained, i.e., “consciousness is the object of the next consciousness.” If it were not so, one will not be able to contemplate on cittaanupassanaa in Mahaa-sati-patthaana sutta. However, one citta cannot know itself, because it cannot be its own object of consciousness. ========== Manish: now go to vipassana website at www.vri.dhamma.org and search the site for goenkaji's teachings: put the word "gong" [without the quote marks] and read the results. you will get to know what I mean. -------------------- Han: I tried that web-site as you suggested. But I could not get anything relevant. Could you kindly print a paragraph or two which you wanted to refer to? ========== Manish: I got MAD trying to figure out some concepts I had held for AGES in the light of the suttas. I never did this fine abhidhamma analysis and it left me crazy...ha ha... thinking of returning to the comfort of suttas!!! well I do understand that citta cannot take itself as arammana from the abhidhamma viewpoint but, I think a vipassana moment is filled with panna and this panna can see and be aware of ALL as a vibration, as a wave, as a wavelet... -------------------- Han: What is pa~n~naa? It is a kusala citta which is accompanied by pa~n~nindriya cetasika. There are eight Mahaa-kusala cittas, four of which are accompanied by ~naana. As regards, vibration, a wave, or a wavelet, I do not know anything about it. It is the first time that I hear about it. ========== Manish: I am interested in looking at things from experiential viewpoint only... -------------------- Han: I am sorry if what I wrote above is not from experiential viewpoint. I only write what I know. If it is not useful, kindly disregard it. With metta and respect, Han #77373 From: han tun Date: Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] e-card from Bkk 4 hantun1 Dear Sarah and Jon, Thank you very much for the additional points. I have sent the following message, but I did not see it on the message board. So I will repeat it again. -------------------- Dear Sarah and the rest, I intend to report on the discussions that I participated on 10 October 2007, one topic at a time, but I would like to wait till Sarah and Jon come back from India trip and back to their normal access to the internet. It is because I want Sarah and Jon (and Sukin as well) to correct me if there is any mistake in my reporting. Sarah, I have no fear that if I wait until that time, so much will have occurred, and that you might have forgotten the details of these sessions, because whatever you my say, I know your powers of recall:-)] -------------------- I see your very tight programme. I hope you will be able to endure the hardship of long journeys, and at the same time being fired by Khun Sujin :>)) Please convey my kind regards and respect to Nina and Lodewijk. Wishing you all the best, Han #77374 From: han tun Date: Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections Corner hantun1 Dear Connie, Thank you very much. Han --- L G SAGE wrote: > Dear Han, > I'll be happy to continue the serial order and start > posting chapter 7 next week. > Thanks again, > connie #77375 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:41 pm Subject: Solidity is neither matter nor substance! bhikkhu0 Friends: What is the Solidity in any Cluster of Form? The Blessed Buddha once explained: What is the cluster of Forms (rÅ«pa-khandha)? It is the 4 primary elements and all the forms derived from them... Which are these 4 Primary Elements (mahÄ?-bhÅ«ta)? The 4 Primary Elements are: 1: The Element of Solidity... (pathavÄ«-dhÄ?tu) 2: The Element of Fluidity... (Ä?po-dhÄ?tu) 3: The Element of Heat... (tejo-dhÄ?tu) 4: The Element of Motion... (vÄ?yo-dhÄ?tu) What, now, is The Element of Solidity? The Element of Solidity may be ones own & internal, or it may be external & not of ones own individuality. And what is ones own Element of Solidity? Whatever there is inside ones own body of kammically caused hardness, firmness, being in a solid state, such as the hairs of head, hairs of body, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, diaphragm, spleen, lungs, stomach, bowels, mesentery, & excrement: This is called own Element of Solidity. Now, whether it be ones own Element of Solidity, or whether it be the external Element of Solidity (e.g. mountains of stone, forests of wood), they are both merely This Element of Solidity. One should understand, according to the absolute reality and true Wisdom: This does not belong to me! This I am not! This is not my self! One may add: [This is not lasting, this is not a real substance, this is not safe...] [This is not pleasure, this is not happiness, this is also suffering...] [This induces releasing disillusion with even very attractive forms...] [Whether internal or external, whether alive or dead, present or not...] Source (edited extract: The Middle Length Sayings of the Buddha. Majjhima NikÄ?ya. MN 28. MahÄ?-hatthipadopama Sutta: The Great Elephant Footprint Simile: Splendid Book: http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=25072X Text: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.028.than.html Comment: The 4 Primary Elements are not 'real substances out there', but more realistically: Experienced qualities or properties appearing 'in here'... They are manifestations of form, and not lasting 'substantial entities'... Their 'material' appearances depend on the level of observation: Macroscopic Solidity is a mere manifestation of microscopic extension! Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka * http://What-Buddha-Said.net ... What is Solidity: Neither Matter nor Substance! #77376 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Oct 13, 2007 3:11 am Subject: Re: Response to DC Part 1. indriyabala Hi Azita (and DC), - Some messages I posted once in a while did not have an addressee as well, so don't worry about your last post. ;-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "gazita2002" wrote: > > hola Tep, > > Apologies for the last post as it was done in haste and I forgot > to address you before launching into the post main. Rather rude of > me, I thought :-( > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" > wrote: > ... ... ... > > > > According to a sutta I have read, when one "sees" arising and > falling away of a dhamma, then one "sees" anicca. Seeing anicca in a conditioned arising & passing away phenomenon, ones understands dukkha. Then it follows that whatever is dukkha, it cannot be taken for granted as 'that is mine', 'that is what I am', 'that is my > > self'(attaa). Thus one sees 'anattaa'. > > azita: Yes, I agree with this. You have added more detail to my > hasty post. Phenomena are dukkha bec they are anicca. > > ... ... ... > > T: Based on the above two quotes, the word "see" here does not > refer to the way the eyes see a visible object rises and falls away. If > > this interpretation is correct, then one only "sees" the rise and > > fall phenomena with 'pa~n~aa cakkhu'. > > > azita: Maybe my italics should have been around 'see' and > not 'one/we', as I also agree with your last comment!! > > So no disagreements with you. I just wanted to emphasise the fact > that arising and falling away is happening now but most of the time > there is ignorance about this phenomena. > T: The most important observation in this post is indeed what you emphasized, "arising and falling away is happening now but most of the time there is ignorance about this phenomena". What did the Buddha tell us what to do, or not do, after we have acknowledged that ? Tep ==== #77377 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:27 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (68) nichiconn Dear Friends, part 12 13. Viisatinipaato 3. Caapaatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa On verse: 297. "Etto caape catubbhaaga.m, yathaa bhaasasi tva~nca me; tayi rattassa posassa, u.laara.m vata ta.m siyaa. 296. Caapaa, if there was a quarter as much as you say for me from you, truly that would be excellent for a man in love with you. txt: Ta.m sutvaa upako "etto caape"ti gaathamaaha. Tattha caapeti caape. Caapasadisa-a"ngala.t.thitaaya hi saa, caapaati naama.m labhi, tasmaa, caapaati vuccati. Tva.m caape, yathaa bhaasasi, idaani yaadisa.m kathesi, ito catubbhaagameva piyasamudaacaara.m kareyyaasi. Tayi rattassa raagaabhibhuutassa purisassa u.laara.m vata ta.m siyaa, aha.m panetarahi tayi kaamesu ca viratto, tasmaa caapaaya vacane na ti.t.thaamiiti adhippaayo. Pruitt: 296. When he heard this, Upaka spoke the verse [beginning] Caapaa, [if there was a quarter] as much. There, Caapa (Caape) means: O Caapaa (Caape). She received the name Caapaa because she had stick-like limbs resembling a bow (caapa-sadisa-a"nga-la.t.thitaaya). Therefore, she was called Caapaa. Caapa, [if there were] a quarter as much as you say, however much you say now, from now on that would make for only friendly behaviour. Truly that would be excellent for a man in love with you, overwhelmed by passion. But now I am detached from sensual pleasures and you. Therefore, I will not remain because of Caapaa's words. That is the meaning. On verses: 298. "Kaa.la"ngini.mva takkaari.m, pupphita.m girimuddhani; phulla.m daalimala.t.thi.mva, antodiipeva paa.tali.m. 299. "Haricandanalitta"ngi.m, kaasikuttamadhaarini.m; ta.m ma.m ruupavati.m santi.m, kassa ohaaya.m gacchasi. 297-298. Kaa.la, like a sprouting takkaarii tree in flower on the crest of a mountain, like a flowering daalima creeper, like a trumpet-flower tree in the middle of an island, with my limbs smeared with yellow sandalwood paste, wearing my best muslin garments, being beautiful, why do you go away abandoning me? txt: Puna, caapaa, attani tassa aasatti.m uppaadetukaamaa "kaa.la"nginin"ti aaha. Tattha, kaa.laati tassaalapana.m. A"ngininti a"ngala.t.thisampanna.m. Ivaati upamaaya nipaato. Takkaari.m pupphita.m girimuddhaniiti pabbatamuddhani .thita.m supupphitadaalimala.t.thi.m viya. "Ukkaagaarin"ti ca keci pa.thanti, a"ngatthila.t.thi.m viyaati attho. Girimuddhaniiti ca ida.m kenaci anupahatasobhataadassanattha.m vutta.m. Keci "kaali"nginin"ti paa.tha.m vatvaa tassa kumbha.n.dalataasadisanti attha.m vadanti. Phulla.m daalimala.t.thi.mvaati pupphita.m biijapuuralata.m viya. Antodiipeva paa.talinti diipakabbhantare pupphitapaa.talirukkha.m viya, diipaggaha.na~ncettha sobhaapaa.tihaariyadassanatthameva. 297. Then, Caapaa, wanting to produce his attachment to herself, said, Kaa.la, like a sprouting [tree]. There, the word Kaa.la is her way of addressing him. Sprouting (a"ngini.m) endowed with sprouts (a"nga-la.t.thi-sampanna.m). The word like (iva) is a particle showing comparison. [Like] a takkaari tree in flower (pupphita.m) on the crest of a mountain (giri-muddhani) means: like a daalima creeper in full flower standing on a mountain top. But some read ukkaagaari.m [for takkaari.m]. Like sprouting limbs,* that is the meaning. On the crest of a mountain is said in order to show that its beauty cannot be suppressed by anyone. Some say the reading is kaali"ngini.m [a kind of plant] and say the meaning is: like a kumbha.n.da creeper. Like a flowering daalima creeper means: like a creeper full of seeds that is in flower. Like a trumpet-flower tree (paa.tali.m) in the middle of an island (anto-diipe) means: like a trumpet-flower tree in flower (pupphita-paa.tali-rukkha.m) inside an island (diipaka-ssantare). And [the word] "island" is included here in order to show the marvel of its beauty. A"ng'-atthi-la.t.thi.m (not in CPD). Ce reads: aggi-la.t.thi.m ("a fire creeper"). txt: Haricandanalitta"nginti lohitacandanena anulittasabba"ngi.m. Kaasikuttamadhaarininti uttamakaasikavatthadhara.m. Ta.m manti taadisa.m ma.m. Ruupavati.m santinti ruupasampanna.m samaana.m. Kassa ohaaya gacchasiiti kassa naama sattassa, kassa vaa hetuno, kena kaara.nena, ohaaya pahaaya pariccajitvaa gacchasi. 298. With my limbs smeared with yellow sandalwood paste (hari-candana-litt'-a"ngi.m) means: with all my limbs anointed (anulitta-sabb'-a"ngi.m) with red sandalwood [unguent] (lohita-candanena). Wearing my best muslin garments (kaasik'-uttama-dhaarini.m) means: wearing my garments that are of the best muslin (uttama-kaasika-vattha-dhara.m). Me (ta.m ta.m)* means: me, being in such a condition. Being (santi.m) beautiful (rupavati.m) means: being (samaana.m) endowed with beauty (ruupa-sampanna.m). Why do you go away abandoning [me]? means: For what person or what cause, because of what reason do you go away, abandoning [me], forsaking [me], leaving [me] behind? *Literally: "that me." See EV II, p.63 ad v.24, for a discussion of third person pronouns with reference to the first person. === "ain't love grand?" connie #77378 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 13, 2007 12:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views upasaka_howard Hi, Sukin - In a message dated 10/12/2007 7:57:47 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sukinder@... writes: Hi Howard, I would like to respond on just one part of your post. It may be just repeating what I already said earlier. Perhaps I've run out of ways to convince ;-). But I hope you don't mind. --------------------------------------------------- Sukin: Besides conditional relations involve namas, and the only namas existing in relationship and can be known, are those that arise now, and these fall away together completely. So nothing remains for `thinking' to *see* any relationship. Even the relationship between say, craving and clinging, is not something we are supposed to observe in sequence, but is something insighted, I believe. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Relations hold among rupas as well, and between namas and rupas. Do you think there is no physical conditionality? S> I thought that you might have been referring to this, and this is why I gave the example of the staccato music. And when you reacted with, "So what? The heard sounds are in a particular relation.", I thought that you may have in mind such relationships as that of `melody' and `harmony'. So my next question there is: What significance do you give to the relationship between notes, say in the minor scale? Is this more `real' in one sense than randomly played notes? If so, is there also some difference between this and the major scale, or pentatonic, or twelve-tone, or quarter-tone scales? ======================================== I understand you in part, but we're not in agreement. As I see it, relations among dhammas, including relations among rupas, are not imagined. In fact, as I see it, a "world" of unrelated dhammas is a conceptual dream without reality. I wrote recently, in discussing the distinguishability of dhammas, something to the effect that the world is not an undifferentiated porridge. At the other end, it is also not an unconnected collection of separate dust particles. Each of these positions would be an unreal, extreme view. The issue of how relations are known is a separate one. (For worldlings the knowing is largely inferential, based on memory and conceptualization, but essential for understanding. The pa~n~na of worldlings doesn't play so much of a role.) With metta, Howard #77379 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Oct 13, 2007 5:05 am Subject: e-card from Bkk 5 sarahprocter... Dear Friends, Quite a crowd this afternoon - some joining the discussion there for the first time, inc. 2 men from Mexico with a keen interest in the Dhamma and other friends we've known for over 30 years, some joining the trip tomorrow. - the development of metta WITH understanding. A sotapanna has much greater metta because of the understanding of no beings. Metta is 'wider' when we appreciate there is just seeing and visible object. - nimitta of dhammas - vis. object and attachment -theoretical understanding, then what? Effort? Effort now, so v.common - kusala and akusala. - paramattha, the meaning: no one can change the meaning of that characteristic at all, that is paramattha of dhamma. Parama - so high that no one can change. If no characteristic, then no meaning (attha) which represents the characteristic. - the development of understanding - unexpected results. - hiri (shame of akusala) which is detached, the shame of not understanding realities. Hiri with all sobhana cittas. More hearing and listening, the more one understands the benefits and also the shame of not developing kusala. - nama and rupa, thinking and physical pain. What is the 'separation'? Ignorance. For the Buddha, no physical discomfort conditioned by such akusala thinking. - Compassion - no unpleasant feeling. - Death and the Frog - the sign of the Buddha's voice in the last javana cittas conditioned by past kamma, leading to a happy rebirth. - Death can be now. The Buddha asked Ananda how many times he had reflected on death because he knew it indicated an understanding of realities, of sankhara khandha at such times....can be now! Perhaps others like Sukin, Matt and Rob K may add more. Metta, Sarah ======= #77380 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Oct 13, 2007 5:24 am Subject: e-card from Bkk 6 & final sarahprocter... Dear Friends, a few notes from Wed afternoon with Ivan (Matt) & Ell, Sukin, Betty, and other friends. - Paramis - Scrutinise hich paramis developed or not, but no rules, no 'do'. Understand all dhammas, no idea of developing or trying to have any arise. Just understanding. - dana and forgiveness, just understanding all kinds of kusala - sila with understanding. Carita and virati sila. Carita sila refers to usually that which is done through speech or body. Instead of mana and harsh speech, the speech is humble and with respect, with adosa, metta. Virati sila refers to the abstaining from wrong speech and deeds. - reflection on the Buddha grows with satipatthana. Refuge on the Buddha depends on understanding. When there's atipatthana, there's no fear. Death is so common, it may be next moment. An understanding of dhammas overcomes fear. - resolution, adhitthana - not moving away from understanding realities now. - Bodhisatta gave with panna, i.e no expectations. - roots - without roots, not enough conditions for paramis and satipatthana to grow. - #66460, the sutta quoted by Swee Boon. Buddha as Brahma. The meaning of 'brahma' is 'the most virtuous one'. Recollection on the virtues of Buddha. - paticca samuppada (D.O.)Just feelings as vipaka? (#74085, #73861). All other vedana included, otherwise useless. All kinds of feelings condition tanha. kamma leads to vipaka with vedana which conditions tanha, inc.to all kinds of vedana. All phassa inc. Must conform with paccaya (conditions) to be condition by what kind of paccaya and so on. The present cause conditions the future result and the present cause will be the past. - Hiri and ottappa as balas. 5,7 or even 36 balas. (see Nyantiloka's dict). - When we understand that each moment is conditioned, we stop doing anything with an idea of control or wishing. We've already got what we wished for - seeing, hearing etc. There's no need to wish for anything because there are always conditions for its arising from moment to moment. **** time to finish packing.... We'll look forward to reading all the posts along the way. We've printed out the ones to date to share with Nina when we see her. metta, Sarah ======== #77381 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:12 am Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. scottduncan2 Dear Alex, The last question (of the first series...) A: "Can you please provide an example of how Abhidhammika would analyze 'eye seeing a form'. Which dhammas would arise at exactly the same time and which would follow one after another." Scott: I'll try. First of all, the 'eye' - cakkhu-pasaada-ruupa, not the eye which you think you are using to read this most excellent post, (Visuddhimagga,XIV, 47): "There is what is called the 'eye' in the world. That looks like a blue lotus petal and is surrounded by black eyelashes and varied with dark and light circles. The eye [sensitivity as meant] here is to be found in the place in the middle of the black circle surrounded by the white circle in that [feature of the] eye with its accessories where there appears the immage of the bodies of those who stand in front of it. It pervades the eye's seven layers like oil sprinkled on seven layers of cotton. It is assisted by the four primary elements whose [respective] functions are upholding, cohering, maturing, and moving, as a warrior prince is by four nurses whose functions are holding, bathing, dressing, and fanning. It is consolidated by temperature, consciousness, and nutriment; it is maintained by life; it is furnished with colour, odour, flavour, etc...; it is the size of a mere louse's head; and it duly serves both as physical base and as door for eye-consciousness, and the rest [of the consciousness in the cognitive series]. Next, the object of eye - just colour not 'images on a screen' (Visuddhimagga XIV,54): "...a visible datum has the characteristic of impinging on the eye. Its function is to be the objective field of eye-consciousness. It is manifested as the resort of that too. Its proximate cause is the four great primaries...This [visible datum] is of various kinds as 'blue, yellow' (Dhs617) and so on." And then, eye-consciousness (Visuddhimagga XIV,96): "Herein eye-consciousness has the characteristic of being supported by the eye and cognizing visible data. Its function is to have only visible data as its object. It is manifested as occupation with visible data. Its proximate cause is the departure of the functional mind element that has visible data as its object." And now the process (I'll use CMA for now, p.131): "Therein , forty-six types of consciousness arise in the eye-door according to circumstances: five-door adverting, eye-consciousness, receiving, determining, sense-sphere javanas, and registration..." Scott: There is much more on the specific order of moments of consciousness, as well as the function of each, not to mention that the javana-process is quite important. Enough for now. Sincerely, Scott. #77382 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:29 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views jonoabb Hi Howard What I've been saying is that the relationships between the dhammas that are taken for conventional inanimate objects (e.g., message, text or monitor) were not the subject of the teachings. As is being discussed in another thread, knowledge regarding such relationships does not seem to be necessary in order to gain release from samsara. While there are numerous references in the texts to ways in which namas are conditioned by rupas, rupas by namas, and namas by namas, there is very limited reference to rupas being conditioned by rupas. One example of such is that each of the 4 maha-bhuta rupas conditions the other 3, i.e., when arising in the same kalapa (sahajata paccaya). But I know of no reference describing the relationships between the rupas that make up what we take for ordinary inanimate objects. Jon --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 10/12/2007 8:30:41 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > jonabbott@... writes: > > Hi Howard > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > > > > Hi, Jon - > ... > > Jon, I find what I said to be almost self-evident. Dhammas are > > interrelated in many ways. For us unawakened folks, > conceptualization is our means to > > grasp the relations among dhammas. If we were not cognizant of > relations, we > > would not be able to function and we would also not know all there > is to know > > about reality. Do you disagree with that? > > > I'm still not sure yet what you mean by the interrelation of dhammas. > Could you give an example or two? > ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > I'm referring to the relations given in the Patthana and all other > relations not specifically given there. > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > > I get the impression you are referring to the interrelation between > the dhammas that comprise what we take for conventional objects such > as text or monitor. To my knowledge such interrelationships were not > the subject of the teachings (see the thread on tejo conditioning > utuja rupas). > -------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Jon, there is a difference between such things as monitors and such > imagined things as unicorns. The difference is that there are actual dhammas > related in specific ways that are the basis for such concepts as "monitor". There > are relations that hold between namas and namas, between rupas and namas > (and vice-versa), and between rupas and rupas. Dhammas do not exist > independently of other dhammas but in relation to other dhammas, with the relations being > of many sorts. It makes no sense to me when you say that interrelationships > "were not the subject of the teachings". In fact, I find such an assertion to > be false on he face of it. > ============================== > With metta, > Howard #77383 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:41 am Subject: Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon jonoabb Hi Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > Hi, Jon - > Relations among rupas are included in the Patthana. For example, consider ii > and v below. Yes, rupas arising together in the same kalapa mutually support each other. But I don't think this helps explain the relationship between the various rupas that are taken to be a monitor. At the (present) moment of reading this message, there is the experiencing of visible object and followed by many, many moments of thinking about what has been experienced. It is during those thinking moments that the idea of 'monitor' occurs. Jon > With metta, > Howard > Co-nascence Condition (Sahajàta Paccaya) > i The four incorporeal (i.e. mental) aggregates are mutually related to one > another by conascence condition. > ii The four great essentials (mahàbhutas) are mutually related to one > another by conascenece condition. > iii At the moment of conception, mentality (patisandhi citta) and > corporeality (kammaja-rupa) are mutually related to each other by conascence condition > iv Consciousness and its concomitants are related to the mindproduced > corporeality (cittaja-rupa) by conascence condition. > v The great essentials are related to their derived matter (upàdà- rupa) by > conascence condition. > vi Material phenomena are sometimes related to immaterial (i.e. mental) > phenomena by conascence condition and are sometimes not related by conascence > condition. > citta) and corporeality (kammaja-rupa) are related to each other by > mutuality condition. #77384 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] e-card from Bkk 4 jonoabb Hi Han --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Sarah and Jon, > > Thank you very much for the additional points. > > I have sent the following message, but I did not see > it on the message board. > So I will repeat it again. > ... > > I see your very tight programme. I hope you will be > able to endure the hardship of long journeys, and at > the same time being fired by Khun Sujin :>)) Many thanks. I'm sure we'll all be doing a lot of firing at each other! > Please convey my kind regards and respect to Nina and > Lodewijk. Will do Jon #77385 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 10/13/2007 10:30:21 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Howard What I've been saying is that the relationships between the dhammas that are taken for conventional inanimate objects (e.g., message, text or monitor) were not the subject of the teachings. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Well, much in the suttas pertains to conventional objects and their interrelationships. But that was not what I was talking about. I was talking about relations holding among paramattha dhammas - between namas and namas, between namas and rupas, between rupas and namas, and between rupas and rupas. What I say is that it is these relations that serve as the basis for our valid conceptualizing, and, in fact, our valid conceptualizing is the means that worldlings and lesser ariyans have for (indirectly) grasping relations among paramattha dhammas. --------------------------------------------------------- As is being discussed in another thread, knowledge regarding such relationships does not seem to be necessary in order to gain release from samsara. --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I believe that knowledge about relationships among paramattha dhammas, conditionality of various sorts, is critical for that. --------------------------------------------------------- While there are numerous references in the texts to ways in which namas are conditioned by rupas, rupas by namas, and namas by namas, there is very limited reference to rupas being conditioned by rupas. --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree that there is less of that and that such is less important to awakening. However, even there such knowledge is important. Knowledge of conditionality among rupas contributes to seeing the emptiness of rupas. [As an aside, I would note that a relation of rupa to nama followed upon by a relation of nama to rupa yields an indirect relation of rupa to rupa. For example, an unpleasant bodily sensation such as great heat or very strong pressure is condition for contact (rupa-to-nama), that contact to unpleasant feeling (nama to nama), that unpleasant feeling to aversion and aversive volitional reaction (nama to nama), and that volition to motion (nama to rupa), yielding a compound relation of the type rupa to rupa; i.e., unpleasant bodily sensation resulting in bodily movement.] But my main point was not to say that rupa-to-rupa relations are of major importance, but only to say that 1) they exist, and 2) they are the basis for (valid) conceptualization with regard to the "rupic realm" (a.k.a. the material world). --------------------------------------------------------- One example of such is that each of the 4 maha-bhuta rupas conditions the other 3, i.e., when arising in the same kalapa (sahajata paccaya). But I know of no reference describing the relationships between the rupas that make up what we take for ordinary inanimate objects. ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I expect that is so. I don't claim that to be of primary importance. ----------------------------------------------------------- Jon ============================== With metta, Howard #77386 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 10/13/2007 10:41:16 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: At the (present) moment of reading this message, there is the experiencing of visible object and followed by many, many moments of thinking about what has been experienced. It is during those thinking moments that the idea of 'monitor' occurs. =============================== Yes, I agree. But that thinking is not with basis. The basis consists of relations among rupas. Our concocted perception of "monitor" occurs for good reason: the interrelationship of rupas. Note that we never actually perceive conventional objects concocted from *unrelated* rupas. We may imagine such, but we never perceive such. With metta, Howard #77387 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Oct 13, 2007 8:47 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddha Gotama, a Once Returner? truth_aerator Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Alex > > > Again, would you mind explaining how those suttas tend to show what > you say they do. > > Thanks. > > Jon >>>>>>> As far as I am aware (I asked a certain Ven on this). There is NO mention of 10 paramis in the early suttas. There is NO mention of Buddha EVER taking a vow. He actually behaved like an ordinary worldling (even worse) befor meeting Buddha Kassapa. In a certain sutta the Buddha (An ARAHANT) says that even if you don't desire enlightment - but you train for it. Then you will get it. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.101.than.html#hen This also shows that no VOW is nessesary. This all helps to bridge a gap between Mahayana and "Hina"yana. Path to Arahatship MAY end up in path to Buddhahood. Lots of Metta, Alex #77388 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Oct 13, 2007 8:49 am Subject: Re: can citta feel itself? truth_aerator --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "vipassana_infonet" wrote: > > dear sarah and dear nina, > > at one place nina wrote that citta cannot be aware of itself... > > What about in a dream? I think that it IS possible for citta to experience itself. Atleast it can experience past citta. If we have two lines running parallel to each other, is it possible for them to cross over? Or can a strait line also be circular at the same time? In euclidian geometry no. In non-euclidian geometry, YES. How? through curvature of space. Lots of Metta, Alex #77389 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:33 am Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Thanks for the reply: A: "...According to the above definitions it is still possible to translate it as 'Highest, ultimate sense' (as in the best goal)." Scott: Only if one wishes to have it mean something other than what it does mean. See Message #77379, Sarah's summary: "- paramattha, the meaning: no one can change the meaning of that characteristic at all, that is paramattha of dhamma. Parama - so high that no one can change. If no characteristic, then no meaning (attha) which represents the characteristic." A: "However this issue is not that important." Scott: Yes it is. If one wishes to learn Abhidhamma one has to understanding the meaning of paramattha, since the whole Pi.taka deals with realities from this point of view. A: "Can it be of different strength or only different in number. Example: person with little greed has few of these cittas, person with strong greed has many of them happening per unit of time." Scott: Good question. I'm not sure. Someone else will have to field this one. A: "But a 'characteristic' is a PERCEPTION!" Scott: Can it be said that 'perceiving' is a characteristic? A: "...Any word you say or any feeling - THAT IS A PERCEPTION..." Scott: Well, speech is mind-produced ruupa - sound. Feeling is vedanaa - a mental factor with its own characteristics. Atthasaalinii, p.145: "'Feeling' is that which feels. It has (1) experiencing as characteristic, (2) enjoying as function, (3) taste of the mental properties as manifestation, and (4) tranquility as proximate cause." Scott: So vedanaa 'feels'. I think this would count as 'perception' wouldn't it? Its characteristic is 'experiencing'. This too, it seems, can be categorised as 'perception' of a particular kind. A: "...If a person has no mind (vinanna, nama, citta, cetasika), he cannot perceive (or label), feel or cognize anything. This does NOT mean that reality does or does not exist outside of perception. It means that we mistake OUR perception of reality for reality itself. Even phrase "Objective reality" is subjective statement..." Scott: Alex, Abhidhamma deals with paramattha dhammas, not 'a person'. Thinking in terms of 'person' is part of the problem of 'mistaking our perception of reality for reality itself'. I agree that there is no such thing as objectivity for a 'person'. Citta, however, cognises directly. A: "...A rock does not know and can not say that "Something exists, nothing exists, both, neither)." Scott: Correct. Ruupa is the reality that does not know anything. Here's from Dhammasa"ngani: "595. All form is that which is: not root condition, not the concomitant of a root condition, disconnected with root condition, causally related, conditioned, endowed with form, mundane, co-intoxicant, of the Fetters, of the Ties, of the Floods, of the Bonds, of the Hindrances; infected, of the Graspings, belonging to the Vices, indeterminate, void of mental objects, not a mental property, disconnected with thought, neither moral result nor productive of it, not vicious yet belonging to the Vices, not applied and sustained thinking, not 'applied but only sustained thinking', neither 'applied nor sustained thinking', not 'accompanied by zest', not 'accompanied by ease', not 'accompanied by indifference', not something capable of being got rid of not that the cause of which may not be got rid of either by insight or by cultivation, neither tending to, nor away from, the accumulation involving rebirth, belonging neither to studentship nor to that which is beyond studentship, of small account, related to the universe of senses, not related to the universe of form, not to that of the formless, included, not Unincluded, not [something entailing] fixed [retribution], unavailing for (ethical guidance), appararent, cognisable by six modes of cognition, impermanent, subject to decay..." Scott: Can't beat that detail. A: "Please define what you mean by Real..." Scott: See definition of paramattha in relation to dhammas. A: "...What stages of "reality" is there?..." Scott: I may misunderstand you here, but no stages. A: "...Is rainbow real? I mean we see it, don't we?" Scott: Rainbow is a concept. Colour is real. See Dhs. on ruupa. A: "...What about dreams?" Scott: Thinking, therefore real. The content is concept, therefore not real. A: "If we change our sense organs, the perception of 'reality' will change. If you take 5 different people with 5 differently functioning sense organs and beliefs, they will see 5 different versions of 'Reality'? Is anyone of them more right than the other? People centuries ago believed that Sun rotated around the Earth. I mean, they saw it! It was a undeniable reality to them! Even in english language they say 'Sun RISE', 'SUN SET'." Scott: Stop thinking about people when it comes to understanding Abhidhamma. Learn to understand the meaning of paramattha. I suppose each moment of consciousness is the world isn't it? Eye-consciousness only has visible object and no other object; the same to be said for the other four sense-consciousnesses. A: "I disagree. DO is CRUCIAL aspect of Buddhism." Scott: Who said it wasn't? I was suggesting you need to consider conditionality as outlined in the Pa.t.thaana to get a better look at all this. All views open to intense scrutiny and correction. The writer reserves the right to decide which correction to agree with. Sincerely, Scott. #77390 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 13, 2007 8:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: can citta feel itself? upasaka_howard Hi, Aloex (and Sarah & Nina) - In a message dated 10/13/2007 11:49:33 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "vipassana_infonet" wrote: > > dear sarah and dear nina, > > at one place nina wrote that citta cannot be aware of itself... > > What about in a dream? I think that it IS possible for citta to experience itself. Atleast it can experience past citta. If we have two lines running parallel to each other, is it possible for them to cross over? Or can a strait line also be circular at the same time? In euclidian geometry no. In non-euclidian geometry, YES. How? through curvature of space. Lots of Metta, Alex ============================== Whether dreaming or waking, the issue is whether or not there is knowing of that *very same* knowing. What exactly, then, would be the object of that knowing? This is more than paradox - it is contradiction. With metta, Howard #77391 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:00 pm Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. truth_aerator Dear Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > A: "But a 'characteristic' is a PERCEPTION!" > Scott: Can it be said that 'perceiving' is a characteristic? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Percieving is a mental process. Characteristic is what is being percieved. However one cannot have characteristic apart from consiousness. In order to say "the characteristic of this or that" there must be consiousness. A rock cannot form any idea. > A: "...Any word you say or any feeling - THAT IS A PERCEPTION..." > > Scott: Well, speech is mind-produced ruupa - sound. Feeling is > vedanaa - a mental factor with its own characteristics. > > Atthasaalinii, p.145: > > "'Feeling' is that which feels. It has (1) experiencing as > characteristic, (2) enjoying as function, (3) taste of the mental > properties as manifestation, and (4) tranquility as proximate cause." >>>>>> My old question again. Atthasaalinii says that feeling has (4) tranquility as proximate cause. What about citta in Niraya? Is there tranquility as proximate cause? How can tranquility be in Niraya? Is it causeless? What about "(2) enjoying as function" ? Is there enjoying in Niraya? . I agree that there is > no such thing as objectivity for a 'person'. Citta, however, cognises directly. >>> What about deluded citta (moha citta)? What about defective eye (or in more precise terminology: defective eye-citta). >>>>>>>>>>>>> > A: "...What stages of "reality" is there?..." > > Scott: I may misunderstand you here, but no stages. > > A: "...Is rainbow real? I mean we see it, don't we?" > > Scott: Rainbow is a concept. Colour is real. See Dhs. on ruupa. >>>>>>> Isn't colour a concept? Furthermore defective sense organ consiousness may cognize incorrectly or not cognize at all. Again, thank you very much for answering. I'll have to digest it in time. #77392 From: "vipassana_infonet" Date: Sat Oct 13, 2007 8:05 am Subject: FOR ALL DSG MEMBERS. vipassana_in... respected dr han tun, please accept my regards and greetings. may your dhamma practice bear fruits. the questions that you ask (or for that matter other respected members ask) need to be looked at from the experiential point of view. why? because, buddha did not teach any "ism" or a philosophy - he taught the path of liberation - a path of experiential practice. every word of pariyatti is for patipatti - and of that is not - it is either not correct pariyatti or it is useless, if not experienced. I am not a "member" of any organisation etc. I believe in truth! that's all. may my views be taken in that sense... 1) as far as my views on abhidhamma itself is concerned - you may read this article On "abhidhamma and how it began" at piya tan's site. http://dharmafarer.googlepages.com/ 2) as far as your question of experiencing / feeling / knowing citta etc. is concerned - please note that you are right if you say that the citta cannot know itself - as you mean that the citta cannot take itself as arammana. this is as per abhidhamma. but, the basic mistake all students of abhidhamma mahe is that they fail to remember that the abhidhamma javanas is all about cognition... and awareness is MUCH DEEPER than cognition... this in brief says a lot.... I would like to assure you (with endorsement from the buddha!) that a meditator can be aware of vinnana, sanna, vedana, sankhara, phass and EVERYTHING. but, yes, that may not be called cognition. it is AWARENESS with sati-sampajanna - this is at the level (especially)after bhanga-nana. 3) for references. check the satipatthana sutta, dhammanupassana where buddha mentions pajanati for everything.... 4) I think this is mula sutta of AN... here your point is addressed directly: sabbe dhamma vedana sammosarana" all dhammas flow along with sensations. so everything is experienced! 5) I know things may not be so clear to you and others and so I am providing a few links. kindly go through it. this may well be my last (or close to last) post on the forum [as of now]. I may discuss privately with a few members... = the experience of the mind-matter process is at the level of "sabbo pajjalito loko, sabbo loko pakampito" the whole loka (this mind-matter that we call "body") is vibrating and in combustion. this level of understanding is at the level of anicca (vibration), dukkha (burning, heat, combustion, radiation, tejo). this is the level of sampajanna. this is the level of udaya-vyaya nana - samudaya-vyaya nana. this is EXPERIENCE. not theory. this is yathabhutam pajanati. this level is MUCH DEEPER that the cognitive javana moments. at this level all is felt as a vibration, wave, wavelet... so bhavanga is a vibration, vinnana arises as a vibration from that vibratory pool ...and so on.... all anicca, dukkha, anatta.... at this level, the sampajanna pabbam of the mahasatipatthana sutta, sedak sutta, aditta pariyaya sutta etc makes sense.... 6) I would like to close with a few links. kindly go through it carefully. many of you are VERY well versed in pariyatti. a little patipatti and you may nibbana - who knows! may all of you (who know more pariyatti than me) see nibbana. links here: http://dharmafarer.googlepages.com/ read essay on "abhidhamma and how it began" read essay on "aggregate: feeling" read essay on "aggregate: perception" what is vedana - experientially? http://www.vri.dhamma.org/research/90sem/vedana1.html sampajanna - experientially: http://www.vri.dhamma.org/research/90sem/sampa5.html http://www.vri.dhamma.org/research/90sem/sampa4.html the experiential understanding of dhamma: http://www.vri.dhamma.org/publications/webversion/english/gfod.html http://www.vri.dhamma.org/research/90sem/dhuna1.html how vipassana (panna) eradicates sankharas: http://www.vri.dhamma.org/research/90sem/vedana6.html http://www.vri.dhamma.org/research/90sem/kamma1.html this much may be enough. even a little dhamma is more than enough! many many thanks for your kindness. may all forgive me - if anyone has been troubled because of me or my views or my questions. regards and metta to you and all others. dr manish agarwala #77393 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:10 pm Subject: Lay Anagaminship super quick!? Awesome story. What about us? truth_aerator Hello all. Anagamin stage + Analytical insight and mundane super powers very quickly (perhaps in about 4 month)?! ------ Here is very inspiring story ------- On one occasion, sixty bhikkhus, after obtaining a subject of meditation from the Buddha, went to Matika village, at the foot of a mountain. There, Matikamata, mother of the village headman, offered them alms-food; she also built a monastery for them, so that they could stay in the village during the rainy season. One day she asked the group of bhikkhus to teach her the practice of meditation. They taught her how to meditate on the thirty-two constituents of the body leading to the awareness of the decay and dissolution of the body. Matikamata practised with diligence and attained the three Maggas and Phalas together with Analytical Insight and mundane supernormal powers, even before the bhikkhus did. http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/dmpada2b.htm#CertainBhikkhu ------- Also Sunlun Sayadaw (who lived in late 19th - middle 20th century) as a layman apparently attained Anagamin stage + super powers in about 8 month... -------- And Angulimala... If a murderer Angulimala could attain Arahatship, what stops us (atleast from attaining sotopanna stage?). ---------- Of course it goes without saying that they: a) did not have serious Kamma obstructions. b) Did lots of DANA (Except for Angulimala perhaps. But who knows about his DANA in previous lives). c) Their subject of meditation was suitable for them... The Dhamma is timeless. It always works. In the past and in the future. We have to follow it all the way. Lots of Metta, :) Alex #77394 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:35 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views jonoabb Hi Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 10/13/2007 10:30:21 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > jonabbott@... writes: > > Hi Howard > > What I've been saying is that the relationships between the dhammas > that are taken for conventional inanimate objects (e.g., message, > text or monitor) were not the subject of the teachings. > ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Well, much in the suttas pertains to conventional objects and their > interrelationships. But that was not what I was talking about. I was talking > about relations holding among paramattha dhammas - between namas and namas, > between namas and rupas, between rupas and namas, and between rupas and rupas. OK, fine. > What I say is that it is these relations that serve as the basis for our valid > conceptualizing, ... Yes, I suppose we could say that. > and, in fact, our valid conceptualizing is the means that > worldlings and lesser ariyans have for (indirectly) grasping relations among > paramattha dhammas. I think 'valid conceptualising' as you call it is common to all beings including the fully-enlightened. I think that fully grasping the nature of different conditions, as is necessary for full enlightenment, removes all wrong view and ignorance about the way things are. But I see this as a somewhat separate matter from 'valid conceptualising'. > As is being > discussed in another thread, knowledge regarding such relationships > does not seem to be necessary in order to gain release from samsara. > --------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I believe that knowledge about relationships among paramattha dhammas, > conditionality of various sorts, is critical for that. Yes, knowledge of conditionality of various sorts as specified in the texts is clearly necessary for release. > While there are numerous references in the texts to ways in which > namas are conditioned by rupas, rupas by namas, and namas by namas, > there is very limited reference to rupas being conditioned by rupas. > --------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I agree that there is less of that and that such is less important to > awakening. However, even there such knowledge is important. Knowledge of > conditionality among rupas contributes to seeing the emptiness of rupas. Yes, conditionality of the kinds mentioned in the texts is important. But we are not asked to speculate on other kinds of conditionality not so mentioned. > [As an aside, I would note that a relation of rupa > to nama followed upon by a relation > of nama to rupa yields an indirect relation of rupa to rupa. For example, an > unpleasant bodily sensation such as great heat or very strong pressure is > condition for contact (rupa-to-nama), that contact to unpleasant feeling (nama > to nama), that unpleasant feeling to aversion and aversive volitional reaction > (nama to nama), and that volition to motion (nama to rupa), yielding a > compound relation of the type rupa to rupa; i.e., unpleasant bodily sensation > resulting in bodily movement.] I'm not sure about this. I don't think we are asked to 'trace through' conditional relations in this manner. I do not see this kind of thinking as being part of the necessary intellectual understanding on which the development of insight is to be based. > But my main point was not to say that rupa-to-rupa relations are of > major importance, but only to say that 1) they exist, and 2) they are the basis > for (valid) conceptualization with regard to the "rupic realm" (a.k.a. the > material world). Maybe so, but I would say that we don't need to speculate about relationships that are not specifically dealt with in the texts. I think we have moved a bit closer with this post ;-)) Jon #77395 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:42 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon jonoabb Hi Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 10/13/2007 10:41:16 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > jonabbott@... writes: > > At the (present) moment of reading this message, there is the > experiencing of visible object and followed by many, many moments of > thinking about what has been experienced. It is during those > thinking moments that the idea of 'monitor' occurs. > > > > =============================== > Yes, I agree. But that thinking is not with basis. The basis consists of > relations among rupas. Our concocted perception of "monitor" occurs for good > reason: the interrelationship of rupas. Note that we never actually perceive > conventional objects concocted from *unrelated* rupas. We may imagine such, > but we never perceive such. But nor are conventional objects concocted from *related* rupas "actually perceived". What is actually perceived is only visible object, audible object, etc (and even that cannot, in my view, be said to be visible object *of* a conventional object, i.e., certain of the so-called 'related rupas'). Jon #77396 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:48 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddha Gotama, a Once Returner? jonoabb Hi Alex Thanks for taking the trouble to come back with some further explanation. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" > wrote: > > > > Hi Alex > > > > > > Again, would you mind explaining how those suttas tend to show what > > you say they do. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Jon > >>>>>>> > > As far as I am aware (I asked a certain Ven on this). There is NO > mention of 10 paramis in the early suttas. There is NO mention of > Buddha EVER taking a vow. He actually behaved like an ordinary > worldling (even worse) befor meeting Buddha Kassapa. But there is likewise no mention of him becoming enlightened. > In a certain sutta the Buddha (An ARAHANT) says that even if you > don't desire enlightment - but you train for it. Then you will get it. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/ sn22.101.than.html#hen > > This also shows that no VOW is nessesary. Correct. A specific vow is not a necessary precondition to becoming an arahant. But that does not help as regards Bodhisatta-hood. > This all helps to bridge a gap between Mahayana and "Hina"yana. Path > to Arahatship MAY end up in path to Buddhahood. I'm not familiar with the Mahayana position, but I understood it to involve a vow. Jon #77397 From: "Sukinder" Date: Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:49 pm Subject: Re: e-card from Bkk 5 sukinderpal Hi Sarah, all, > Quite a crowd this afternoon - some joining the discussion there for the > first time, inc. 2 men from Mexico with a keen interest in the Dhamma and > other friends we've known for over 30 years, some joining the trip tomorrow. Regarding the two men from Mexico, the one who was asking all the questions his name is Rodrigo, the other one I never heard the name before so I didn't catch. Rodrigo really impressed me at the discussions and when after that with Robert and Ivan we went for coffee at Starbucks, from the discussions we had, I was even more impressed, this time by both of them! Apparently they are students of the Acharn Naeb tradition which Robert and I both were at one time too. Also they both were and still are very interested in Krishnamurti, so much so that Rodrigo felt the same way as I did, that K. was more Buddhists than 99% of Buddhists today. Though this he told me while I was driving them to near their guest house, he thinks Krishnamurti had likely experienced one of the Vipassana nnanas. I of course strongly disagreed but couldn't say much because we were about to reach our destination, so we agreed to talk about this when we next meet. When with Robert and Ivan, they expressed as you may know, Acharn Naeb's stress on shifting of bodily posture to avoid dukkha vedana and coming to know this when it happens. Here inevitably, the tendency to try to observe `posture' comes in and Ivan, Robert and I were having a hard time to talk them out of this. Everything else however, we agreed on, "no control", "no method of practice" and most of the other points we make here on DSG. :-) > - Death and the Frog - the sign of the Buddha's voice in the last javana > cittas conditioned by past kamma, leading to a happy rebirth. > > - Death can be now. The Buddha asked Ananda how many times he had > reflected on death because he knew it indicated an understanding of > realities, of sankhara khandha at such times....can be now! > > Perhaps others like Sukin, Matt and Rob K may add more. Don't know about `adding' I however would like to mention the problem I was having and which occupied my mind till an hour ago, when I woke up. ;-) It was about `seeing the Buddha' (conventionally), as having higher probability of conditioning kusala cittas, including with panna, be this of samatha or vipassana. I was holding on to the notion that one would perceive signs of `purity of his citta' via speech and gesture and I also thought about this being akin to `association with the wise' and a `blessing'. You reminded me about Devadatta and Vakkali (?), but I struggled against that, rationalizing that these were `exceptions to the rule'. And to be sure, it is not that I thought that I was right and you wrong, I really felt that it was a hole in my thinking process, but couldn't see what that was. I even came to the conclusion that in the end, the Dhamma is what we are supposed to receive from the Buddha etc. etc. But this morning, when still in bed, and this may not be the answer I in fact `need' but only an `explanation' to appease the mind for now, I thought to switch the object from the Buddha to say, a Hollywood star, not of the opposite sex. I realized that this depended so much on the individual, such as being his fan of not. So in the case of the Buddha, it must quite entirely be dependent on the individual's panna! :-/ You probably will read this when in India already. Anyway, have a good remainder of your journey, and hope you don't fall ill this time. Send my best wishes to Nina, Lodewijk, Tom and Beverly whom all I didn't meet yesterday. And also to Christine please, I forgot to wish goodbye to her. Metta, Sukin #77398 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:26 pm Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Here's more: Atthasaalinii, p.145: "'Feeling' is that which feels. It has (1) experiencing as characteristic, (2) enjoying as function, (3) taste of the mental properties as manifestation, and (4) tranquility as proximate cause." A: "My old question again. Atthasaalinii says that feeling has (4) tranquility as proximate cause..." Scott: The commentary in this case is explaining kusala states, Alex - "Only joyful feeling enjoys". Did you actually think this was for all vedanaa? Dhammasa"ngani,(pp. 101-102): "[427] Which are the states that are bad?...What on that occasion is feeling? The mental pain, the mental distress (dukkha.m), which on that occasion, is born of contact with the appropriate element or representative intellection; the painful distressful sensation which is born of contact with thought; the painful, distressful feeling which is born of contact with thought - this is the distress that there then is." Scott: From The All Embracing Net of Views (Bh. Bodhi, tr., p.38), a discussion of the sixteen conveyance modes used by the ancient Commentators, this is 'proximate cause': "Mode 4 requires that the dhammas or concrete actualities indicated by the terms of the text be shown to function as proximate causes for other dhammas resulting from them and dependent upon them. This mode brings to the fore the principle of conditionality which is the heart of the Buddha's doctrine." A: "What about citta in Niraya? Is there tranquility as proximate cause? How can tranquility be in Niraya? Is it causeless? What about '(2) enjoying as function' ? Is there enjoying in Niraya?" Scott: Which citta in Niraya do you wish to consider? Is what 'causeless'? Again, the commentary quoted was in reference only to kusala citta. What might the proximate cause of akusala-vedanaa (if there is such a term) be, do you think? What is the opposite of tranquility? We are referring to a methodology of exegesis and so can apply the formula to other states, can we not? Me: "Citta, however, cognises directly." A: "What about deluded citta (moha citta)? What about defective eye (or in more precise terminology: defective eye-citta)." Scott: What do you mean here? Me: "Rainbow is a concept. Colour is real. See Dhs. on ruupa." A: "Isn't colour a concept?" Scott: No. Colour arises with odour, flavour, and nutritive essence and accompanies the Four Great Primaries. Colour is ruupa. A: "Furthermore defective sense organ consiousness may cognize incorrectly or not cognize at all." Scott: You've lost me, Alex. Can you clarify, please? Sincerely, Scott. #77399 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:27 pm Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. scottduncan2 Greetings colette, Thanks for your cheery: c: "THANK YOU BOTH FOR EXCELLENT DISCOURSE AND ANALYSIS!" Scott: We do our best, eh. I'll try to get to your response tomorrow, my friend. Sorry. Sincerely, Scott.