#77400 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Lay Anagaminship super quick!? Awesome story. What about us? upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - Thank you for the inspiring story and your personal encouragement to the group members. It is a worthy thing to give such and much appreciated! :-) With metta, Howard #77401 From: "gazita2002" Date: Sat Oct 13, 2007 8:21 pm Subject: Re: Response to DC Part 1. gazita2002 Hola Tep, -- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Hi Azita (and DC), - ........snip...... > > 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 ? azita: strange question. Do you mean acknowledging by merely thinking about it or do you mean developed understanding that knows this to be true, by having experienced arise and fall. Patience, courage and good cheer, azita #77402 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 10/13/2007 7:42:35 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: 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 ================================== Jon, we not only think about trees, but perceive them. Such perception is concocted, and the tree percept a mental construct, but, nonetheless, trees are perceived (through the mind door). There is a difference between a concept of a tree and a "seen" (i.e., perceived) tree. We perceive not only what is unconstructed such as sights, sounds, tastes, and smells, but also those mental constructs that are percepts. With metta, Howard #77403 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Oct 14, 2007 1:04 am Subject: What is Fluidity? bhikkhu0 Friends: What is the Fluidity in any Cluster of Form? The Blessed Buddha once explained: What is the cluster of Forms (rupa-khandha)? It is the 4 primary elements and all the forms derived from them... Which are these 4 Primary Elements (maha-bhuta)? The 4 Primary Elements are: 1: The Element of Solidity... (pathavi-dhatu) 2: The Element of Fluidity... (apo-dhatu) 3: The Element of Heat... (tejo-dhatu) 4: The Element of Motion... (vayo-dhatu) What, now, is the element of Fluidity? The element of Fluidity may be ones own & internal, or it may be external. And what is ones own inner element of Fluidity? Whatever in ones own body there is of kammically created liquidity or fluidity, such as bile, lymph, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, skin grease, spit, snot, oil of the joints, & urine: This is ones own internal element of Fluidity. However, whether it be ones own internal element of Fluidity, or whether it be the external element of Fluidity, such as oceans & rivers, they are both merely the element of Fluidity... One should understand, according to the utter reality & 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... In order to induce releasing disillusion with attractive fluidities... Whether internal or external, whether alive or dead, present or not... Clinging to any kind of Fluidity, both internal & external is Suffering... Source (edited extract): The Middle Length Sayings of the Buddha. Majjhima Nikaya. MN 28. Maha-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 Fluidity is a mere manifestation of microscopic cohesion! In all forms of materiality coexists all 4 primary elements in graduation. In water, the element of fluidity is domination at ambient temperature. When frozen into ice the solidity element becomes the dominant aspect. In stone, the element of solidity is domination at ambient temperature. When melted into lava the fluidity element becomes the main feature... Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka * http://What-Buddha-Said.net ... What is Fluidity: Neither Substance nor Matter! #77404 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Sun Oct 14, 2007 3:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] FOR ALL DSG MEMBERS. dcwijeratna To: dr manish agarwala This is a response to your "FOR ALL DSG MEMBERS" The fourth paragraph of the above capationed post is: "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. It is difficult to understand the significance of "I believe in truth". Is "truth" something to be believed in? 2. Does the expression "may my views be taken in that sense..." imply "may my views be taken as my beliefs" ? A clarification would make it easier to understand the post under discussion. A DSG MEMBER #77405 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Sun Oct 14, 2007 3:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. dcwijeratna Dear Azita, I have quoted this from your post to Tep, October 14, 2007 8:51:37 AM "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." [Original of this must be a previous post..] I agree with the above statement of yours. It would be easier to analyse this statement further, if you would give an example of a phenomenon that all of us familiar with. With mettaa, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77406 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Sun Oct 14, 2007 4:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: can citta feel itself? dcwijeratna Dear Alex, You wrote: >Alex: What about in a dream? I think that it IS possible for citta to experience itself. At least it can experience past citta. DC: I also think it is possible. But of course, it depends on the meaning you attach to the word citta. For example there is the paracitta-vijaanana-~naa.na in the suttas. Here the meaning is what we call mind. With that as citta, the question does not arise even. If we don't experience the citta we don't know about it. But if the citta has the definition in Abhidhamma, then things are more complex. Here I will just draw your attention to the fact that there are things that are called mind-door, mind-consciousness. [p. 150 Bhikkhu Bodhi, CMA] which also in a sense suggest that mind can be known. Leaving all these discussions apart, if we don't know the mind, then how things like memory are to function? Lots of Metta, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77407 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Sun Oct 14, 2007 4:52 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (68) nichiconn Dear Friends, part 13 13. Viisatinipaato 3. Caapaatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa On verse: 300. "Saakuntikova saku.ni.m, yathaa bandhitumicchati; aaharimena ruupena, na ma.m tva.m baadhayissasi. 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. txt: Ito parampi tesa.m vacanapa.tivacanagaathaava .thapetvaa pariyosaane tisso gaathaa. Tattha saakuntikovaati saku.naluddo viya. Aaharimena ruupenaati kesama.n.danaadinaa sariirajagganena ceva vatthaabhara.naadinaa ca abhisa"nkhaarikena ruupena va.n.nena kittimena caaturiyenaati attho. Na ma.m tva.m baadhayissasiiti pubbe viya idaani ma.m tva.m na baadhitu.m sakkhissasi. 299. After that, aside from the verses of their dialogue, there are three verses at the end. There, just as a fowler (saakuntiko va) means: like a hunter of birds (saku.na-luddoviya). By means of [your] charming figure means: by means of your specially prepared figure with its hair decorations, etc, and ornaments and [fine] clothing, etc. By the skilful and clever [preparation] of your complexion. That is the meaning. But you will not fasten (na ... baadhayissasi) me means: now you will not be able to fasten me (na baadhitu.m sakkissasi) as [you did] before. On verse: 301. "Ima~nca me puttaphala.m, kaa.la uppaadita.m tayaa; ta.m ma.m puttavati.m santi.m, kassa ohaaya gacchasi. 300. But [what about] this child-fruit of mine, Kaa.laa, begotten by you? Why do you go away abandoning me with this child? cy txt: Puttaphalanti puttasa"nkhaata.m phala.m puttapasavo. 300. Child-fruit (putta-phala.m) means: the fruit (phala.m) that is called a child (putta-sa"nkaata.m), a child that is brought forth. on verse: 302. "Jahanti putte sappa~n~naa, tato ~naatii tato dhana.m; pabbajanti mahaaviiraa, naago chetvaava bandhana.m. 301. Wise men leave their sons and relatives and their wealth. Great heroes go forth, like an elephant that has broken its fastening. txt: Sappa~n~naati pa~n~navanto, sa.msaare aadiinavavibhaaviniyaa pa~n~naaya samannaagataati adhippaayo. Te hi appa.m vaa mahanta.m vaa ~naatipariva.t.ta.m bhogakkhandha.m vaa pahaaya pabbajanti. Tenaaha- "pabbajanti mahaaviiraa, naago chetvaava bandhanan"ti, ayabandhana.m viya hatthinaago gihibandhana.m chinditvaa mahaaviiriyaava pabbajanti, na nihiinaviiriyaati attho. 301. Wise men (sappa~n~naa) means: those possessing wisdom (pa~n~avanto). Those who are possess of wisdom that makes clear the dangers in continued existence. That is the meaning. For they go forth having abandoned their circle of relative or a mass of wealth, whether small or great. Therefore, he says: great heroes (mahaa-viiraa) go forth, like (va) an elephant (naago) that has broken (chetvaa) its fastening (bandhana.m), which means: like (viya) an elephant (hatthi-naago) [that breaks] an iron fastening (aya-bandhana.m) those of great strength (mahaa-viriyaa) go forth after braking (chinditvaa) the fastening of householder. They are not men of inferior strength. That is the meaning. On verse: 303. "Idaani te ima.m putta.m, da.n.dena churikaaya vaa; bhuumiya.m vaa nisumbhissa.m, puttasokaa na gacchasi. 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. txt: Da.n.denaati yena kenaci da.n.dena. Churikaayaati khurena. Bhuumiya.m vaa nisumbhissanti pathaviya.m paatetvaa pothanavijjhanaadinaa vibaadhissaami. Puttasokaa na gacchasiiti puttasokanimitta.m na gacchissasi. 302. With a stick means: with some stick or other. With a knife means: with a razor. I shall knock down to the ground means: I shall make him fall to the earth and shall harm him by beating and piercing, etc. Because of grief for your son (putta-sokaa), you will not go (na gacchasi) means: on account of grief for your son (putta-soka-nimitta.m), you will not go (na gacchissasi). .. to continue, connie #77408 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:18 am Subject: Re: Response to DC Part 1. indriyabala > > >azita: 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 ? > > azita: strange question. Do you mean acknowledging by merely > thinking about it or do you mean developed understanding that knows this to be true, by having experienced arise and fall. > ............... T: Acknowledging "the fact that arising and falling away is happening now but most of the time there is ignorance about this phenomena". Here it is the word acknowledge in the real world sense, not in the Buddha's sense of understanding or experiencing. For example, a charity organization acknowledges my donation; an author of a new book acknowledges helps from his associates and colleagues. Tep ==== #77409 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:29 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. indriyabala Hi DC, - Chances are you did not see my reply at the bottom of message # 77363 : --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi DC, - > > Thank you for taking time to write to me. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, DC Wijeratna > wrote: > > > > Hi Tep, > > > > > ............. > > 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 > === > That's why I am resending it to you now. Tep === #77410 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Oct 14, 2007 8:09 am Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. scottduncan2 Dear colette, I've a little more time this morning. Me: "...'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?" Scott: Well, I might be wrong, for one thing. Let's see. This is aapo-dhaatu, or water element. Dhammasa"nga.ni of the Abhidhamma Pi.taka: "[652]What is that [material] form that is the fluid (aqueous) element (aapodhaatu)? That which is fluid and belongs to fluid, that which is viscid and belongs to viscous, the cohesiveness of form [matter] - this is that [material] form which is the fluid element." The Commentary, Atthasaalinii, p.435: "In the exposition of the element of cohesion 'liquid' is the natural word, whether it be aapo or aapagata; 'moist' is by way of being fluid, whether it be sineha or sinehagata. 'Cohesiveness of matter [form] is the cohering condition of the essential matter, such as the element of extension, etc. For the element of cohesion binds together iron, etc., in masses, makes them rigid. Because they are so bound, they are called rigid. Similarly in the case of stones, mountains, palm-seeds, elephant-tusks, ox-horns, etc. All such things the element of cohesion binds, and makes rigid; they are rigid because of its binding." Sammohavinodanii, pp.76-77: "304. As regards aapo aapgogata.m ('water, watery') and so on, aapo (water) is in the sense of cohesion; because of having 'gone' (gata) to the nature of that water it is aapogata.m ('watery'; lit. 'gone to water'). It is sneha ('liquid') owing to liquidity; also because of having 'gone to' the nature of that liquid it is snehagata.m ('liquid' lit. 'gone to liquid'). Bahdhanatta.m ruupassa ('the cohesion of materiality') is the cohesive state of materiality due to its not being broken up." Sammohavinodanii, p.93 (Here's where I was coming from): "The earth, fire and air elements are the tangible-data element only. The water element and the space element are the mental-data element only. The consciousness element is a term summarising the seven consciousness elements beginning with eye-consciousness" Scott: In other words, aapo-dhaatu is not tangible, rather mental, hence not 'perceived' in the sense that 'hardness' is perceived. 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." Scott: Might I suggest that your use of 'conditioning' is not the same as 'condition' is used in Abhidhamma. You seem to refer here to something synonymous with 'learning' or, perhaps, in a broad sense 'accumulation'. 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?" Scott: A 'word' is sound, therefore ruupa. A 'gesture' is the result of movement of the 'body', therefore ruupa. These are, I think, known as 'cittaja ruupa' or mind-made matter. Vaci-vi~n~natti (speech intimation) and kaaya-vi~n~natti (bodily intimation) are ruupa. In these cases, citta, whether kusala or akusala, conditions these ruupaa. colette: "...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?" Scott: I don't suggest alaya-vijnana is 'such an absurd idea', I just don't pursue it. Eye-consciousness cognises visible object and taste-consciousness cognises sapid object. This is Theravadin Abhidhamma, as I understand it, hence the senses are not considered to be subject to some sort of perceptual admixture. Thanks, colette. I hope you are well. The brick will sign off... Sincerely, Scott. #77411 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Oct 14, 2007 8:48 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. scottduncan2 Dear DC, Well, its Sunday: DC: "...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: (1) As I understand it (beware now), they *are* separate dhammas and so that is how they are separated. This is a definitional separation, of course, since both arise 'in nature' together and never apart. Citta is 'bare consciousness' and cetasika is what belongs to 'mind'. Citta has its own characteristics as do the cetasikas. (2) Ruupa is the reality that does not know anything. There are twenty-eight kinds of ruupa (count them now): earth or solidity (pa.thavi-dhaatu), water (aapo-dhaatu), fire or heat (tejo-dhaatu), wind (vaayo-dhaatu), arising (upacaya ruuupa), continuation (santati-ruupa), decay (jarataa-ruupa), falling away (aniccataa-ruupa) - the lakkha.na ruupas, colour or visible object (va.n.no), odour (gandho), flavour (raso), nutritive essence (ojaa),space (akaasa), five pasaada ruupas or sense organs, heart-base (hadaya vatthu), life faculty (jiivitindriya ruupa), sex (bhaava-ruupa, two of these), lightness, wieldiness and plasticity (vikaara-ruupas), body-intimation (kaaya-vi~n~natti) and speech intimation (vaci-vi~n~natti), and sound (sadda ruupa). (3) Nibbaana is also an ultimate reality but it is not a conditioned reality. I left it aside for the purpose of the discussion but yes it is considered to be an ultimate reality in the sense already discussed. Me: "...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: I'd suggest that this ability to recognise citta separate from cetasika is beyond me, whether in practise or theory, so let's hope someone else clarifies. I'd suggest that the difference between naama and ruupa is one to discern first. Black is ruupa, 'bull' is concept therefore naama. DC: "...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." Scott: Each moment of consciousness has its object. Whatever the object, ekaggata has the function of assisting citta and focuses on this object. Sincerely, Scott. #77412 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. upasaka_howard Hi, Scott (and DC) - In a message dated 10/14/2007 11:49:00 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: DC: "...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." Scott: Each moment of consciousness has its object. Whatever the object, ekaggata has the function of assisting citta and focuses on this object. ================================= What does that assisting and focusing consist of exactly, if you or anyone else knows? At any time, consciousness is consciousness of a unique object. That is so in all cases and at all times. So, what is there for concentration to do? (The object is unique!) In the past, as an attempt to justify the Abhidhammic "momentaristic" take on concentration, I've conjectured that concentration is the operation that, at any moment, fosters the continuation or repetition of the same object (or resists switching to another object) into the future, beyond the current moment, but that has not been accepted here. I cannot imagine what else it might be. (And if we do not know the meaning of 'concentration' rather than just using the term without understanding, it seems to me we are engaging in nonsense.) With metta, Howard #77413 From: Dieter Möller Date: Sun Oct 14, 2007 11:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. moellerdieter Hi Scott, DC , Sarah and others interested, I did not manage to follow this thread though quite interesting to me too. There is a special issue I have difficulties to understand from the beginning of Abhidhamma studies corresponding to DC's : (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." you answered : Scott :3) Nibbaana is also an ultimate reality but it is not a conditioned reality. I left it aside for the purpose of the discussion but yes it is considered to be an ultimate reality in the sense already discussed. D: quoting Abhidhammattha Sangaha (Ven. Narada): Tattha vutt' abhidhammattha - catudha paramatthato Cittam cetasikam rupam - Nibbanam' iti sabbatha. In an ultimate sense the categories of Abhidhamma, mentioned therein, are fourfold in all:- (1.) consciousness, (2.) mental states, (3.) matter, and (5.) Nibbana. Notes: 4. Realities - There are two realities - apparent and ultimate. Apparent reality is ordinary conventional truth (sammuti-sacca). Ultimate reality is abstract truth (paramattha-sacca). ' snip unquote Truth, ultimate in a sense (of free from impermanence -birth ,old age, death- and so ) free from suffering , can not be found in what is itself subject to it. How is it possible to group these 4 together by the term of Paramattha Dhammas? Dhammas in Nibbana? So far I have not learnt of canonical support, in particular by the Sutta Pitaka ,allowing such grouping. Hence my question (again.. I raised the point with Sarah some time ago) whether the statement (§ 2 of the Abhidhammattha-Sangaha ) must not be understood to be an individual interpretation of the Abhidhamma by the author (Ven. Anuruddhacariya) ? Maybe I am a little bit slow to get it right .. your help , eventually refering to previous messages , for the benefit of better understanding appreciated ... with Metta Dieter #77414 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Oct 14, 2007 11:30 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Dhammasa"nga.ni (p.11): "[11] What on that occasion is self-collectedness (cittass'ekaggataa)? Stability, solidity, absorbed steadfastness of thought which on that occasion is the absence of distraction, balance, unperturbed mental procedure, quiet, the faculty and the power of concentration, right concentration - this is the self-collectedness that there then is." Scott: 'That occasion' refers to (Dhs pp.1-2): "When a good thought concerning the sensuous universe has arisen, is accompanied by gladness and associated with knowledge (~naa.na-sampayutta.m), and has as its object a sight, a sound, a smell, a taste, a touch, a [mental] state or what not..." You can see that here a moment of consciousness is being discussed. H: "What does that assisting and focusing consist of exactly, if you or anyone else knows?" Scott: These are the characteristics of ekaggataa. With this mental factor arising, each moment of consciousness is imbued with the characteristics noted above. Arising conascently with citta, ekaggataa is the "stability, solidity, absorbed steadfastness of thought, the absence of distraction, balance, unperturbed mental procedure, [and] quiet" of that moment. H: "At any time, consciousness is consciousness of a unique object. That is so in all cases and at all times. So, what is there for concentration to do? (The object is unique!)" Scott: Ekaggataa has as its object "a sight, a sound, a smell, a taste, a touch, a [mental] state or what not". Ekaggataa *is* the concentration, etc., in relation to any given object. There is only one object per moment of consciousness and citta along with the conascent cetasikas have the same object at that time. H: "...concentration is the operation that, at any moment, fosters the continuation or repetition of the same object (or resists switching to another object) into the future, beyond the current moment, but that has not been accepted here. I cannot imagine what else it might be." Scott: This isn't a characteristic of ekaggataa as set out in Dhammasa"nga.ni. This sounds more like one of the paccaya, or in other words, related to conditioning states, conditioned states, and the forces that are part of conditional relations. According to Abhidhamma, ekaggataa is just as is set out above. The notion of something 'resisting' something would imply a duality which is not intended, at least as I understand this. Sincerely, Scott. #77415 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Oct 14, 2007 12:15 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. scottduncan2 Dear Dieter, D: "...Truth, ultimate in a sense (of free from impermanence -birth, old age, death- and so) free from suffering, can not be found in what is itself subject to it." Scott: This is nonsensical to me, I'm sorry to say. Can you clarify? There is only one definition of paramattha, which has been given. If the above is your definition of paramattha, that is fine, but it certainly in no way conforms to the definition normally associated with the term. D: "...How is it possible to group these 4 together by the term of Paramattha Dhammas? Dhammas in Nibbana? So far I have not learnt of canonical support, in particular by the Sutta Pitaka ,allowing such grouping..." Scott: You've misunderstood. There are four paramattha dhammas. They are listed as 1) citta, 2) cetasika, 3) ruupa, and 4) Nibbaana. They are four separate realities, merely assembled in a list. This in no way implies that the first three members of the list are said, by being together in a list, to be therefore a part of the fourth member of the list. The first three members of the list are conditioned realities. The fourth member of the list is unconditioned. Here, from Dhammasa"ngani (pp. 342-344): "Unconditioned element [asankhataa-dhaatu] is indeterminate, neither result nor productive of result, neither grasped at nor favourable to grasping, neither vitiated nor vicious, 'without applied or sustained thought', to be put away neither by insight nor by culture, somehting the root-conditions of which are to be put away neither by insight nor by culture, that which makes neither for the piling up nor the undoing of rebirth, neither appertaining nor not appertaining to training, infinite, excellent, that which does not entail fixed consequences, invisible and non-reacting, not a root-condition, without root-conditions as concomitants, not associated with a root-condition, without material form, supra-mundane, not an Aasava, not having Aasavas, disconnected with the Aasavas, not a Fetter, unfavourable to the Fetters, disconnected with the Fetters, not a Tie, not that which tends to become tied, disconnected from the Ties, not a Hindrance, disconnected with and unfavourable to the Hindrances, not a perversion, disconnected with perversion and unperverted, without concomitant object of thought, not mind, not mental property, disconnected with thought, detached from thought, not something coming into being connected with thought, not consecutive to thought, not derived, without the attribute of Grasping, disconnected with Grasping, and not favouring it, without attribute of vice, not viscious, not vitiated, disconnected with the vices, and not viscious, without zest, unaccompanied by ease, unaccompanied by indifference, Unincluded, that by which there is no going away, something having no Beyond, not harmful..." Sincerely, Scott. #77416 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Oct 14, 2007 1:26 pm Subject: Re: Response to DC Part 1. indriyabala Hi Azita and DC, - I am sorry for the confusion that was caused by my "strange question". > > >azita: 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 ? > > azita: strange question. Do you mean acknowledging by merely > thinking about it or do you mean developed understanding that knows this to be true, by having experienced arise and fall. > ............... T: I mean acknowledging "the fact that arising and falling away is happening now but most of the time there is ignorance about this phenomena" in the conventional sense, not in the Buddha's sense of understanding or experiencing. For example, a charity organization acknowledges my donation; an author of a new book acknowledges helps from his associates and colleagues. Tep ==== > #77417 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 14, 2007 10:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 10/14/2007 2:30:50 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Howard, Dhammasa"nga.ni (p.11): "[11] What on that occasion is self-collectedness (cittass'ekaggataa)? Stability, solidity, absorbed steadfastness of thought which on that occasion is the absence of distraction, balance, unperturbed mental procedure, quiet, the faculty and the power of concentration, right concentration - this is the self-collectedness that there then is." ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Part of this definition is "absence of distraction." At a single moment, when there is but one object of consciousness, what distraction could there be? What would 'distraction' mean? ----------------------------------------------------------- Scott: 'That occasion' refers to (Dhs pp.1-2): "When a good thought concerning the sensuous universe has arisen, is accompanied by gladness and associated with knowledge (~naa.na-sampayutta.m), and has as its object a sight, a sound, a smell, a taste, a touch, a [mental] state or what not..." You can see that here a moment of consciousness is being discussed. H: "What does that assisting and focusing consist of exactly, if you or anyone else knows?" Scott: These are the characteristics of ekaggataa. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I understand that. The question is what they mean. What does 'focusing' mean? and what sort of assistance? There are degrees of concentration. But the one object of consciousness is the one and only object of consciousness. What variation of degree could there be? This idea of concentration relating to a single moment simply has never made sense to me, and no one has changed this. --------------------------------------------------- With this mental factor arising, each moment of consciousness is imbued with the characteristics noted above. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Scott, that just doesn't explain the matter. I do thank you for your effort, though. ---------------------------------------------------- Arising conascently with citta, ekaggataa is the "stability, solidity, absorbed steadfastness of thought, the absence of distraction, balance, unperturbed mental procedure, [and] quiet" of that moment. H: "At any time, consciousness is consciousness of a unique object. That is so in all cases and at all times. So, what is there for concentration to do? (The object is unique!)" Scott: Ekaggataa has as its object "a sight, a sound, a smell, a taste, a touch, a [mental] state or what not". Ekaggataa *is* the concentration, etc., in relation to any given object. There is only one object per moment of consciousness and citta along with the conascent cetasikas have the same object at that time. H: "...concentration is the operation that, at any moment, fosters the continuation or repetition of the same object (or resists switching to another object) into the future, beyond the current moment, but that has not been accepted here. I cannot imagine what else it might be." Scott: This isn't a characteristic of ekaggataa as set out in Dhammasa"nga.ni. This sounds more like one of the paccaya, or in other words, related to conditioning states, conditioned states, and the forces that are part of conditional relations. According to Abhidhamma, ekaggataa is just as is set out above. The notion of something 'resisting' something would imply a duality which is not intended, at least as I understand this. Sincerely, Scott. =========================== Thanks, Scott. :-) With metta, Howard #77418 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Oct 14, 2007 4:31 pm Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Dhammasa"nga.ni (p.11): "[11] What on that occasion is self-collectedness (cittass'ekaggataa)? Stability, solidity, absorbed steadfastness of thought which on that occasion is the absence of distraction, balance, unperturbed mental procedure, quiet, the faculty and the power of concentration, right concentration - this is the self-collectedness that there then is." [Katama tasmi.m samaye citassekagaata hoti? Yaa tasmi.m samaye cittassa .thiti sa.n.thiti ava.t.thiti avisaahaaro avikkhepo avissaahaa.tamaanasataa samatho samaadhindriya.m samaadhibala.m sammasamaadhi - aya.m tasmi.m samaye cittassekagaata hoti.] Howard: "Part of this definition is "absence of distraction." At a single moment, when there is but one object of consciousness, what distraction could there be? What would 'distraction' mean?" Scott: PTS PED: "Aavikkhepa...calmness, balance, equanimity," the opposite of: "Vikkhepa...disturbance, derangement...perplexity, confusion...upset of mind, unbalanced mind, mental derangement...avikkhepa equanimity, balance..." Scott: I'm not sure what the concern is. Always this refers to the so-called 'mental body' - the 'state' of the moment of consciousness; either with calm or with distraction, for example, but at that moment only. Howard: "...What does 'focusing' mean? and what sort of assistance?" Scott: Each mental factor has its characteristic which functions in a certain way. While citta cognises in a bare and clear fashion, the moment of consciousness is enhanced, as it were, by the presence of the other mental factors arising conascently with citta. In relation to whatever object is being taken at a given moment, cittassekaggataa is the mental factor which contributes the qualities noted above. H: "There are degrees of concentration...." Scott: Are there? How so? I think one might have to look at the viithi-citta to see where these things come in and in what way. I think Alex was getting at this, now that I write this, when he was asking about disturbed moments of consciousness. I'll wait until he clarifies and look further. H: "...But the one object of consciousness is the one and only object of consciousness. What variation of degree could there be?" Scott: This is your idea. Can you support it somehow? Clarify? Howard: "Scott, that just doesn't explain the matter. I do thank you for your effort, though." Scott: You're quite welcome, Howard. Sincerely, Scott. #77419 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:04 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon jonoabb Hi Howard (and hello to All, from Delhi) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > Hi, Jon - > ... > Jon, we not only think about trees, but perceive them. Such perception > is concocted, and the tree percept a mental construct, but, nonetheless, trees > are perceived (through the mind door). When you say "nonetheless, trees are perceived" you seem to be referring to a so-called connected group of rupas, i.e., something 'out there'. The perception that takes place through the mind-door is merely thinking. That perception's only object is a concept. > There is a difference between a > concept of a tree and a "seen" (i.e., perceived) tree. To my understanding of the teachings, there is no such thing as what you refer to here as a "seen" tree. > We perceive not only what > is unconstructed such as sights, sounds, tastes, and smells, but also those > mental constructs that are percepts. Through the mind-door are perceived (a) sense-door objects and (b) thoughts (pannatti), nothing else. Jon #77420 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:43 pm Subject: Re: S's e-card from Bkk 2 scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Thank you for: S: "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." Scott: Samaadhinimitta in this case, then, is the object of satipa.t.thaana in the sense of being differentiated from realities? Sincerely, Scott. #77421 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 14, 2007 3:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 10/14/2007 7:32:00 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Howard, Dhammasa"nga.ni (p.11): "[11] What on that occasion is self-collectedness (cittass'ekaggataa)? Stability, solidity, absorbed steadfastness of thought which on that occasion is the absence of distraction, balance, unperturbed mental procedure, quiet, the faculty and the power of concentration, right concentration - this is the self-collectedness that there then is." [Katama tasmi.m samaye citassekagaata hoti? Yaa tasmi.m samaye cittassa .thiti sa.n.thiti ava.t.thiti avisaahaaro avikkhepo avissaahaa.tamaanasataa samatho samaadhindriya.m samaadhibala.m sammasamaadhi - aya.m tasmi.m samaye cittassekagaata hoti.] Howard: "Part of this definition is "absence of distraction." At a single moment, when there is but one object of consciousness, what distraction could there be? What would 'distraction' mean?" Scott: PTS PED: "Aavikkhepa...calmness, balance, equanimity," the opposite of: "Vikkhepa...disturbance, derangement...perplexity, confusion...upset of mind, unbalanced mind, mental derangement...avikkhepa equanimity, balance..." ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Concentration is one-pointedness. It is not identical with calm, balance, and equanimnity. These are other cetasikas. -------------------------------------------------- Scott: I'm not sure what the concern is. Always this refers to the so-called 'mental body' - the 'state' of the moment of consciousness; either with calm or with distraction, for example, but at that moment only. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Concentration and calm are related but not the same. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: "...What does 'focusing' mean? and what sort of assistance?" Scott: Each mental factor has its characteristic which functions in a certain way. While citta cognises in a bare and clear fashion, the moment of consciousness is enhanced, as it were, by the presence of the other mental factors arising conascently with citta. In relation to whatever object is being taken at a given moment, cittassekaggataa is the mental factor which contributes the qualities noted above. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: None of this explains what concentration could mean at a single instant. The only thing that makes sense to me is that it be an operation whose function, at any moment, is the sustaining of the currrent object into the future (for a period), avoiding the distraction that of a potential alternative object. --------------------------------------------- H: "There are degrees of concentration...." Scott: Are there? How so? I think one might have to look at the viithi-citta to see where these things come in and in what way. I think Alex was getting at this, now that I write this, when he was asking about disturbed moments of consciousness. I'll wait until he clarifies and look further. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: It has been my impression that Abhidhamma countenances degrees of most if not all cetasikas. Certainly personal experience points to that. Do you believe that there is the same strength of concentration in all mind states and for all persons? I sure don't. Even consciousness itself varies in intensity. ----------------------------------------------------- H: "...But the one object of consciousness is the one and only object of consciousness. What variation of degree could there be?" Scott: This is your idea. Can you support it somehow? Clarify? Howard: "Scott, that just doesn't explain the matter. I do thank you for your effort, though." Scott: You're quite welcome, Howard. Sincerely, Scott. ============================= With metta, Howard #77422 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 14, 2007 3:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 10/14/2007 8:04:43 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Howard (and hello to All, from Delhi) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > Hi, Jon - > ... > Jon, we not only think about trees, but perceive them. Such perception > is concocted, and the tree percept a mental construct, but, nonetheless, trees > are perceived (through the mind door). When you say "nonetheless, trees are perceived" you seem to be referring to a so-called connected group of rupas, i.e., something 'out there'. --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: No, sorry for giving that impression. I don't mean that at all. There is just the mental construct (the result of a kind of mental summing up) based upon a complex body of direct experiences. ------------------------------------------------------ The perception that takes place through the mind-door is merely thinking. That perception's only object is a concept. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: If one is using 'concept' in a broad way, I agree. The thing is: a thought-of tree (as in imagination or memory) is not the same as the cognized tree "seen" when looking out the window. That latter mental construct I call a percept rather than a concept. -------------------------------------------------- > There is a difference between a > concept of a tree and a "seen" (i.e., perceived) tree. To my understanding of the teachings, there is no such thing as what you refer to here as a "seen" tree. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I hope that what I wrote above clarifies this. There is, in fact, no tree at all as something "out there". --------------------------------------------------- > We perceive not only what > is unconstructed such as sights, sounds, tastes, and smells, but also those > mental constructs that are percepts. Through the mind-door are perceived (a) sense-door objects and (b) thoughts (pannatti), nothing else. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I am further subdividing what you call thoughts into concepts and percepts. There is a difference between a thought-of television and one on which we watch shows. Perhaps the difference is only in the relative immediacy of "the perceived television" - the percept is (repeatedly) constructed *immediately* following the experiencing of the rupas that are basis for "the television being watched". Whereas, the televisions that are being thought of as I write this are quite different sorts of constructs. ----------------------------------------------------- Jon ==================================== With metta Howard #77423 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Sun Oct 14, 2007 9:51 pm Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (68) nichiconn Dear Friends, part 14, Caapaatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa -- On verses: 304. "Sace putta.m si"ngaalaana.m, kukkuraana.m padaahisi; na ma.m puttakatte jammi, punaraavattayissasi. 305. "Handa kho daani bhaddante, kuhi.m kaa.la gamissasi; katama.m gaamanigama.m, nagara.m raajadhaaniyo. 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. 304. Then fare you well now. Where will you go, Kaa.laa? To what village, town, city, [or] royal capital? txt: Padaahisiiti dassasi. Puttakatteti puttakaara.naa. Jammiiti tassaa aalapana.m, laamaketi attho. Idaani tassa gamana.m anujaanitvaa gamana.t.thaana.m jaanitu.m "handa kho"ti gaathamaaha. 303. [If] you give (padaahisi) means: if you give (dassasi). For the child's sake (putta-katte) means: because of the child (putta-kaara.naa). Wretched one is [his way] of addressing her. The meaning is: inferior one. 304. Now, giving him permission for his departure and in order to know the place he is going to, she spoke the verse [beginning] Then [fare you well] now. On verse: 306. "Ahumha pubbe ga.nino, assama.naa sama.namaanino; gaamena gaama.m vicarimha, nagare raajadhaaniyo. 305. Formerly we were leaders of groups, not ascetics [although] thinking ourselves ascetics. We wandered from village to village, to cities [and] royal capitals. txt: Itaro pubbe aha.m aniyyaanika.m saasana.m paggayha a.t.thaasi.m, idaani pana niyyaanike anantajinassa saasane .thaatukaamo, tasmaa tassa santika.m gamissaamiiti dassento "ahumhaa"ti-aadimaaha. Tattha ga.ninoti ga.nadharaa. Assama.naati na samitapaapaa. Sama.namaaninoti samitapaapaati eva.m sa~n~nino. Vicarimhaati puura.naadiisu attaana.m pakkhipitvaa vadati. 305. The other one said: "Previously I dwelt, maintaining a teaching that does not lead to release. But now I want to stand firm in the teaching of the Conqueror of the Unending that leads out [from continued existence]. Therefore, I shall go into his presence. And to show this, he spoke the verse [beginning] [Formerly] we were. There, leaders of groups (ga.nino) means: supporter of groups (ga.na-dharaa). Not ascetics means: our evil was not calmed. Thinking ourselves ascetics means: having the [false] impression that our evil was calmed. We wandered means: he speaks, putting himself [in the category] of Puura.na, etc. On verse: 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. 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. txt: Nera~njara.m patiiti nera~njaraaya nadiyaa samiipe tassaa tiire. Buddhoti abhisambodhi.m patto, abhisambodhi.m patvaa dhamma.m desento sabbakaala.m bhagavaa tattheva vasiiti adhippaayena vadati. 306. Alongside [the River] Nera~njaraa (Nera~njara.m) means: near the River Nara~njaraa (Nera~njaraaya), on its banks. The Buddha means: the one who has attained perfect awakening, and having attained perfect awakening, constantly teaching the Doctrine, he dwells there, the Blessed One. He speaks, meaning this.* *Verse 306cd = v.316cd. On verse: 308. "Vandana.m daani me vajjaasi, lokanaatha.m anuttara.m; padakkhi.na~nca katvaana, aadiseyyaasi dakkhi.na.m. 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]. txt: Vandana.m daani me vajjaasiiti mama vandana.m vadeyyaasi, mama vacanena lokanaatha.m anuttara.m vadeyyaasiiti attho. Padakkhi.na~nca katvaana, aadiseyyaasi dakkhi.nanti buddha.m bhagavanta.m tikkhattu.m padakkhi.na.m katvaapi catuusu .thaanesu vanditvaa, tato pu~n~nato mayha.m pattidaana.m dento padakkhi.na.m aadiseyyaasi buddhagu.naana.m sutapubbattaa hetusampannataaya ca eva.m vadati. 307. You should utter [my] greeting now means: you should speak my greeting, you should speak my words to the unsurpassed Protector of the World. That is the meaning. And having circumambulated him you should dedicate [the] gift [to me]* means: having circumambulated around the Buddha, the Blessed One, three times, having paid homage in the four positions, then having circumambulated him, you should dedicate [it], giving me a gift of the merit of that meritorious action. And she speaks in this way because she had previously heard of the good qualities of the Buddha and because of the maturing of the prerequisites [in her]. *Dhammapaala is clearly taking the gift to be a gift of merit that Upaka gives to Caapaa. The translation in EV II takes this gift to be a gift she gives Upaka to give to the Buddha ("you should dedicate [my] gift"). ===to be concluded, connie #77424 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Sun Oct 14, 2007 9:50 pm Subject: Perfections Corner (26) nichiconn Dear Han and All, This is the first extract from Chapter 7: The Perfection of Truthfulness, 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 Commentary to the "Basket of Conduct" defines the perfection of truthfulness as follows: "Truthfulness has the characteristic of non-deceptiveness in speech; its function is to verify in accordance with fact; its manifestation is excellence; honesty is its proximate cause." The perfection of truthfulness, sacca paaramii, is sincerity and truthfulness with regard to realities. It means truthfulness through body, speech and mind. In order to realize the four noble Truths, one should be truthful, sincere, with regard to oneself, and this means, truthful with regard to the realities which appear just as they are. Kusala is kusala and akusala is akusala; they cannot be otherwise, no matter whether they arise in oneself or in someone else. If we see the disadvantage of untruth and falsity, we shall further develop the perfection of truthfulness. In the Tipi.taka deceitful speech is compared to bean-soup {*}, because when one cooks beansoup, some beans are cooked while others are not cooked. When eating, one comes sometimes across hard beans which are not cooked. It is the same with speech: when a person speaks a great deal, some deceptive words may permeate his speech. Or it may also happen that everything he says is true, from the first word until the last. We can only know with regard to ourselves when we are insincere and when truthful. It is pa~n~naa that knows akusala as akusala. We may begin to see that akusala is ugly, that it is wrong. Pa~n~naa that is of a higher degree can gradually eliminate akusala. However, if one does not see the disadvantage and the danger of akusala dhammas, akusala will only increase. The realization of the four noble Truths leads to the eradication of defilements, but in order to realize the four noble Truths we should be truthful in action, speech and mind. {*} See also Visuddhimagga I, 75, about bean-soupery. ===to be continued, connie #77425 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:51 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Howard: "Concentration is one-pointedness. It is not identical with calm, balance, and equanimnity. These are other cetasikas." Scott: Yeah, I was wondering about that as well. We can be sure on equanimity - upekkhaa or tatramajjhattataa cetasika - but I'm not aware that 'calm' and 'balance' are cetasikas. You think so? I thought that one of the characteristics of upekkhaa was 'balance'. I'm not aware that 'balance' is a cetasika in and of itself. As far as 'calm' goes, there are kaaya-passaddhi-cetasika and citta-passaddhi-cetasika (tranquility of body, tranquility of citta) which are calm but, as I understand it, in relation to the mental body and to citta, again only of the moment. Howard: "Concentration and calm are related but not the same." Scott: How do you see these as being related? I agree they are not the same. Howard: "None of this explains what concentration could mean at a single instant. The only thing that makes sense to me is that it be an operation whose function, at any moment, is the sustaining of the current object into the future (for a period), avoiding the distraction that of a potential alternative object." Scott: Again, this is not as it is set out in Abhidhamma, as far as I can tell. Reference to 'operation' and 'sustaining of the current object into the future' and 'potential alternative object' are not compatible with the Abhidhamma explanation of ekaggataa, its characteristics and function. In fact this seems more like a version of cognitive neuroscience. Wouldn't the 'current object' arise, have presence, and then fall away? How can there be any idea of 'sustaining' it? It would behave according to the way of things, wouldn't it? And since any given citta has only one object at a time - the one it has at the time - there can be no question of 'potential alternative object'. And as far as a cetasika being 'an operation', this too does not seem to accord with the way in which Abhidhamma sets things out. Might you be referring to function here? Or characteristic? Do you concede that concentration is a mental factor (cetasika)? Perhaps we need to start here. Sincerely, Scott. #77426 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Oct 15, 2007 5:55 am Subject: From James: So sorry and so disappointed... :-(( buddhatrue Dear Friends, I am so sorry and so disappointed that I cannot participate more fully in DSG lately. At the present, I find myself enmeshed in a culture and in a lifestyle from which I cannot regularly escape for even the briefest of moments. Taiwan is very hard core….hard core about everything! Even this message is too personal and too revealing…uh, oh!...that will soon cease as soon as my assimilation is complete ;-)). Anyway, I will post the rest of my series about "Introduction to Buddhism" as I can. I apologize to everyone for the long delay!! Honestly, I miss the discussions with Sarah, Tep, Ken H., Howard, and the many others in this group who are very passionate about the Dhamma. I am also passionate about the Dhamma...and DSG, but my kamma is pulling me in a different direction at the moment. My daily meditation practice takes precedence (and still continues), but I miss the extra time I used to have to participate more fully with DSG. One needs both meditation and scholarship (Dhamma study) in my opinion to follow the Buddha's path. So I am really missing out. (This is your cue to cry for me...BOOH, HOOH.... ;-)) Anyway, please don't forget me or send me any freaky bad vibes ;-). Please only send me good vibes as I explore this side-detour in my spiritual development. Where it will lead me I do not know; but I do know that I will keep all my friends at DSG foremost in my mind! Hopefully I will be able to post again regularly. Metta, James #77427 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 10/15/2007 7:51:26 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Howard, Howard: "Concentration is one-pointedness. It is not identical with calm, balance, and equanimnity. These are other cetasikas." Scott: Yeah, I was wondering about that as well. We can be sure on equanimity - upekkhaa or tatramajjhattataa cetasika - but I'm not aware that 'calm' and 'balance' are cetasikas. You think so? --------------------------------------------------- Howard: The word balance might be a synonym for equanimity - I don't know. As for 'calm', Khun Sujin includes kaya-passadhi and citta-passadhi among cetasikas. ---------------------------------------------------- I thought that one of the characteristics of upekkhaa was 'balance'. I'm not aware that 'balance' is a cetasika in and of itself. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, probably synonyms with slightly different nuance. -------------------------------------------------- As far as 'calm' goes, there are kaaya-passaddhi-cetasika and citta-passaddhi-cetasika (tranquility of body, tranquility of citta) which are calm but, as I understand it, in relation to the mental body and to citta, again only of the moment. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Looks like I should have waited to read further before I gave my comments! LOL! ------------------------------------------------ Howard: "Concentration and calm are related but not the same." Scott: How do you see these as being related? I agree they are not the same. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: There are suttas in the Anguttara Nikaya that show them to be mutually (positively) conditioning. I've written about that before when discussing "spiral development" with Jon. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: "None of this explains what concentration could mean at a single instant. The only thing that makes sense to me is that it be an operation whose function, at any moment, is the sustaining of the current object into the future (for a period), avoiding the distraction that of a potential alternative object." Scott: Again, this is not as it is set out in Abhidhamma, as far as I can tell. Reference to 'operation' and 'sustaining of the current object into the future' and 'potential alternative object' are not compatible with the Abhidhamma explanation of ekaggataa, its characteristics and function. In fact this seems more like a version of cognitive neuroscience. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: My problem is that so far I haven't seen an Abhidhammic explanation of what the focusing that is concentration actually does. When there is but one object of consciousness, what does focusing on it consist of? I have no clue. ------------------------------------------------- Wouldn't the 'current object' arise, have presence, and then fall away? How can there be any idea of 'sustaining' it? It would behave according to the way of things, wouldn't it? And since any given citta has only one object at a time - the one it has at the time - there can be no question of 'potential alternative object'. And as far as a cetasika being 'an operation', this too does not seem to accord with the way in which Abhidhamma sets things out. Might you be referring to function here? Or characteristic? ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Most namas are operations. As regards "sustaining" an object, what I mean is the following: It is said that a rupa can exist for a duration of up to 17 mind-moments; i.e., during a period in which there are as many as 16 changes in the collection of cetasikas present. Some rupas may be object for just a few moments, and others for many more. Also, even after a rupa is no longer object, shortly afterwards, even immediately afterwards, another closely related rupa of the same sense-door type might become object. These two situations of a rupa lasting through many mind states and of new, not very different, rupas arising are what I have in mind when I speak of "sustaining" the object. I conjecture that concentration amounts to fostering such sustaining. This is not a belief of mine, though, but just a thought. I cannot figure out what focusing on the one and only existing object of consciousness can mean except possibly maintaining that object throughout more than just a few mind states, avoiding the switch to other objects. -------------------------------------------------------- Do you concede that concentration is a mental factor (cetasika)? Perhaps we need to start here. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Nothing to concede. Of course it is a cetasika. What else? It's a mental operation concomitant to consciousness. ---------------------------------------------------- Sincerely, Scott. =========================== With metta, Howard #77428 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] From James: So sorry and so disappointed... :-(( upasaka_howard Hi, James - I miss your participation here, James, but I'm very happy for your meditative practice! Right on, man! :-) With metta, Howard #77429 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:13 am Subject: Re: From James: So sorry and so disappointed... :-(( indriyabala Hi James, - Last time you wrote, "When things settle down a bit I will post my views.", it was Sep 28th. There were approximately 120 messages under this thread, 'Introduction to Buddhism - 1', and only 5% of these were written by James. You wrote 'Introduction to Buddhism -2' on Sep 20th (message #76540). So far there has been no discussion by other members (yet). Yes, it is clear that you are enmeshed in a (strange) culture and in a lifestyle from which you "cannot regularly escape for even the briefest of moments". Is your kamma "pulling you in a different direction" right now? Well, just follow the "middle path" to avoid the extremes and steer your life back to normal ! >James: Please only send me good vibes as I explore this side-detour in my spiritual development. Where it will lead me I do not know; but I do know that I will keep all my friends at DSG foremost in my mind! Hopefully I will be able to post again regularly. Thanks, James, for not forgetting us. I am so sad that I can't help myself crying ..BOOH, HOOH !! Tep ==== #77430 From: Dieter Möller Date: Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. moellerdieter Dear Scott (DC, Sarah and ..), you wrote: (D: "...Truth, ultimate in a sense (of free from impermanence -birth, old age, death- and so) free from suffering, can not be found in what is itself subject to it." Scott: This is nonsensical to me, I'm sorry to say. Can you clarify? D: sorry, my English is far from being perfect.. : ultimate truth- nibbana /freedom from suffering- can not be found within the khandas, which I assume are more or less identical with citta, cetasika, rupa. You stated before : Scott :3) Nibbaana is also an ultimate reality " , in response to DC's '(3) Nibbaana is out of character here? ' Nibbana is 'out of Character here' ..because of the khanda 'character ' Scott: There is only one definition of paramattha, which has been given. If the above is your definition of paramattha, that is fine, but it certainly in no way conforms to the definition normally associated with the term. D: Isn't 'the definition normally associated with the term 'represented by §2 of the Abhidhamma -Sangaha: Tattha vutt' abhidhammattha - catudha paramatthato Cittam cetasikam rupam - Nibbanam' iti sabbatha. In an ultimate sense the categories of Abhidhamma, mentioned therein, are fourfold in all:- (1.) consciousness, (2.) mental states, (3.) matter, and (4.) Nibbana. unquote I have no own definition of Paramattha , because the term appears to me only due to Abhidhamma studies. But if we come to the point of consens of what means ultimate truth in Buddhism, I maintain that is nibbana. Scott: You've misunderstood. There are four paramattha dhammas. They are listed as 1) citta, 2) cetasika, 3) ruupa, and 4) Nibbaana. They are four separate realities, merely assembled in a list. This in no way implies that the first three members of the list are said, by being together in a list, to be therefore a part of the fourth member of the list. The first three members of the list are conditioned realities. The fourth member of the list is unconditioned. D: the assembly ( Scott "Nibbaana is also an ultimate reality ") under the term of Paramattha Dhammas is just what is confusing S: Here, from Dhammasa"ngani (pp. 342-344): "Unconditioned element [asankhataa-dhaatu] is indeterminate, neither result nor productive of result, neither grasped at nor favourable to grasping, neither vitiated nor vicious, 'without applied or sustained thought', to be put away neither by insight nor by culture, somehting the root-conditions of which are to be put snip D: do you mean reference to Nibbana as the 'unconditioned element`..? with Metta Dieter #77431 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Mon Oct 15, 2007 10:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. dcwijeratna Dear Tep, You wrote" "Chances are you did not see my reply at the bottom of message # 77363 :" Actually I saw it, and couldn't figure out how to send a reply. Now I will reply in the following manner: There is a set of assumptions about the world, that I make. Of course these assumptions are in accordance with what I accept as the Buddha's teaching as found in the earlier portions of the Pali Sutta Pi.taka. These include (1) that the world out there is real, because that is the only world that I can perceive. For me knowledge is only one kind of truth. That is "consensual truth". Without any ado, I fully and unequivocally accept the Four Noble Truths, Dependent arising and the Three Characteristics. ================================ > >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: I want to first focus on "understanding of the Dhamma". This sentence, to my way of thinking, hinges on the meaning of "Dhamma" I have absolutely no problem if it interpreted in the sense of the teaching of the Buddha. But I am unable to discuss the various Abhidhamma concepts (or realities) because I can't understand them. I'll give you one example, the fundamental realities (paramattha) according to Theravaada Abhidhamma are: citta, cetasika, ruupa and nibbana. Now Nibbnana you would agree is different from the other three. Cittas arise and die; but nibbana or for that matter cittas that are called supramudane sphere cittas most probably do not die. Really, I am only mentioning my difficulties, I am not discussing there truth or validity. ================================================ > > >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: My dear Tep, Not only you, I am also confused. I have no real excuse to give for that blunder. I think I have written cannot for can. So sorry about it. ================================================ > > 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/descripti on 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. ................................. I give below my view on the above matters sentence by sentence 1. "Yet the labelling/descripti on of "an object of experience" is conceptual." DC: Yes, for purposes of communication. What you do is you really give a name (a label) to your experience. Note: I don't postulate things. There are no concepts involved in expereince. ................................... 2. "The fact that a thing is real or not does not depend on the human's view on it." DC: Certainly, but the problem is you can't talk about what you cannot experience because you don't know about it. ................................ 3. "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." DC: We can't put a label on Nibbana (of course assuming that we are not arahants), so the situation does not arise. Re. "the label would never alter a reality to be non-existent." Agreed, about things that we can experience. Other things, we can't put a label. ====================================== > '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. ..................... DC: Panna-cakkhu is a dhamma in what sense? Here I think we have different definitions. My definition is pa~n~naa cakkhu is the ability to distinguish right from wrong. It is a label, like all the other names we use. but not aconcept. The second part of the system "its meaning > (attha) is the understanding (pa~n~naa) that arises from direct knowledge of the naama-ruupa." I cannot comment. The reasons are: (1) What is the meaning of direct knowledge? What is naama-ruupa? With mettaa, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77432 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Oct 15, 2007 6:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. upasaka_howard Hi again, Scott - I had written you as follows: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Howard: "Concentration and calm are related but not the same." Scott: How do you see these as being related? I agree they are not the same. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: There are suttas in the Anguttara Nikaya that show them to be mutually (positively) conditioning. I've written about that before when discussing "spiral development" with Jon. ---------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is also the following from the Upanisa Sutta which shows calm as support for concentration: "Just as, monks, when rain descends heavily upon some mountaintop, the water flows down along with the slope, and fills the clefts, gullies, and creeks; these being filled fill up the pools; these being filled fill up the ponds; these being filled fill up the streams; these being filled fill up the rivers; and the rivers being filled fill up the great ocean — in the same way, monks, ignorance is the supporting condition for kamma formations, kamma formations are the supporting condition for consciousness, consciousness is the supporting condition for mentality-materiality, mentality-materiality is the supporting condition for the sixfold sense base, the sixfold sense base is the supporting condition for contact, contact is the supporting condition for feeling, feeling is the supporting condition for craving, craving is the supporting condition for clinging, clinging is the supporting condition for existence, existence is the supporting condition for birth, birth is the supporting condition for suffering, suffering is the supporting condition for faith, faith is the supporting condition for joy, joy is the supporting condition for rapture, rapture is the supporting condition for tranquillity, tranquillity is the supporting condition for happiness, happiness is the supporting condition for concentration, concentration is the supporting condition for the knowledge and vision of things as they really are, the knowledge and vision of things as they really are is the supporting condition for disenchantment, disenchantment is the supporting condition for dispassion, dispassion is the supporting condition for emancipation, and emancipation is the supporting condition for the knowledge of the destruction (of the cankers)." As you can see, this gives tranquillity --> happiness --> concentration. (BTW, as an aside, were these supporting conditions *requisite* conditions, then that would put into question the claim that concentration occurs in every mind state. However, I suspect this is no problem. I think it likely that supporting conditions are merely sufficient but not necessary.) With metta, Howard #77433 From: Dieter Möller Date: Mon Oct 15, 2007 10:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. moellerdieter Hi Howard, just a comment between.. you wrote: '(BTW, as an aside, were these supporting conditions *requisite* conditions, then that would put into question the claim that concentration occurs in every mind state. However, I suspect this is no problem. I think it likely that supporting conditions are merely sufficient but not necessary.) I think, the claim that 'concentration occurs in every mind state' is questionable Our usual state of mind is scattered due to the multiple of sense impressions , though they may appear always a priority of focus, presenting some kind of concentration, it is not the concentration -Samadhi - in the Buddhist sense, is it? with Metta Dieter #77434 From: Sobhana Date: Mon Oct 15, 2007 10:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Reply to Tep shennieca Hi Tep, all, >> 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) ? E: How would I know when the "Right Conditions" finally arise? Hhmmm, when the Right Condition arises, you will know automatically because the "Right Effort" will arise by itself, "Right Concentration" will arise by itself, and probably "Right Mindfulness" will also arise by itself. You don't need to "force yourself to do anything" because when the "Right Conditions" arises, the "knowing will know" by itself and you can take your "self" out of the equation. No?? Ahhhh, actually I don't understand everything that I have typed above but ..... I'll live with it and try not to force myself to anything too much, just keep daily mindfulness and when the "right conditions" come, something in the mind will click and it will know - and it will do things by itself ((whatever that means)). I don't neccessary believe in the Right Conditions thingy but I try my best to be mindful, e.g. being aware of my speech, actions and thoughts, I guess that's good enough. I hope someone in DSG can correct my views of "Right Conditions", if they are wrongly described. Thank you. #77435 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter - I suspect there is *some* degree of concentration at all times there is consciousness, though the degree required for what is typically called "samadhi" is not the norm As for the state of mind being scattered due to a multiplicity of sense impressions, I don't think that is exactly correct. I do believe that only one dhamma is present to consciousness at any moment, so there is no multiplicity. I think the mind being "scattered" amounts to an inclination to switch to another sense object due to an aversion to the present object or craving for an object of a different sort, and supported by some cetasikas that weaken attention (e.g., sloth & torpor, or excitement). A scattered mind is a fragile one, whereas a concentrated mind is strong. With metta, Howard #77436 From: "gazita2002" Date: Mon Oct 15, 2007 6:34 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. gazita2002 Hello DC, I had a hand written reply but left it at home :-( so will have to remember some of my comments. Hand written cos dont have home pc. have to use internet cafes. In this case, its the local newsagent! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, DC Wijeratna wrote: > > Dear Azita, > > Thank you for your response. Here is a part of your post. > ======================================== > > >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. azita: True, no one knows when final liberation will occur, however I can say that until sotapatimagga arises then we all have micchaaditthi on many occasions, if not on a daily basis. I understand that truthfulness is a necessary factor in gaining understanding of what is and what is not the Path. We must be very careful not to delude ourselves into believing that we are much closer to liberation than we really are. > 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. Azita: Sammaditthi isnt something we get to. It is a sobhana cetasika which arises and falls away. For sammaditthi to arise there must first be the right understanding as to what is real and what is convention or concept. So the first thing you need to do is to get over that hurdle-- micchaadi.t.thi. A. likewise micchaaditthi is a cetasika which arises and falls away and it is only completely eradicated at the moment of sotapattimagga. .....snip.... > 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? Azita: why not? Awareness and understanding can arise in a householders life just as much as it can in a solitary monk's life. Mind you, I know that household life can be 'dusty and cluttered' but a monks life can also be so if he doesnt have right understanding about what is and what is not the truth. DC. 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. Azita: I agree with your last sentence but I dont think it is as simple as you seem to imply. I have not answered some of you questions in this post as I do have limited time and wanted to answer the ones that I felt were pertinent to me. Patience, courage and good cheer, azita #77437 From: "gazita2002" Date: Mon Oct 15, 2007 6:52 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon gazita2002 Hello Jon and other pilgrims. You are probably no longer in Delhi given the tight schedule. Nevertheless, I wish all of you a wonderful trip and lots of good dhamma discussion. Special hello to Ajarn :-) and hope all goes extremely well. Patience, courage and good cheer, azita. PS Currently tryiing to get my head around 'elements' have been reading SN on dhatu and comments in Vis. Seems to go in one side of the brain and out some unmentionable other place. It does take a long time doesnt it!!!! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Howard (and hello to All, from Delhi) > #77438 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:27 pm Subject: Re: Response to DC Part 1. indriyabala Hi DC (Scott, Dieter, James ...) - It was good to read your definition on "assumptions", although I am not a very precise person (who does not get 'full satisfaction' with the ordinary conversation). >DC: For me knowledge is only one kind of truth. That is "consensual truth". Without any ado, I fully and unequivocally accept the Four Noble Truths, Dependent arising and the Three Characteristics. T: That is good enough for me too. No fuss. ............ T: I concur with you with respect to the followings. 1. The Dhamma means teachings of the Buddha. 2. Nibbana is different, much different from citta, cetasika, and ruupa -- simply because Nibbana is unconditioned. But I do not understand the second half of your following sentence : DC: "Cittas arise and die; but nibbana or for that matter cittas that are called supramudane sphere cittas most probably do not die." T: Can you explain to me, please, why cittas that are 'anicca' become deathless/permanent in the supramundane sphere ? .......... 1. "Yet the labelling/descripti on of "an object of experience" is conceptual." DC: Yes, for purposes of communication. What you do is you really give a name (a label) to your experience. Note: I don't postulate things. There are no concepts involved in expereince. T: I agree with you that labels and concepts are for purpose of communication. Thus we can include in the same category the following terms: postulates, theories, models, symbols, hypotheses, assumptions, thoughts, spoken and written words. .......... 2. "The fact that a thing is real or not does not depend on the human's view on it." DC: Certainly, but the problem is you can't talk about what you cannot experience because you don't know about it. T: I can think of an exception. At DSG discussion the Abhidhammikas always can. ;-) ........... 3. "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." DC: We can't put a label on Nibbana (of course assuming that we are not arahants), so the situation does not arise. Re. "the label would never alter a reality to be non-existent." Agreed, about things that we can experience. Other things, we can't put a label. T: Does the Almighty God exist? Do the Hindu gods exist? I don't think so. But there are many "labels" about them. ........... DC: Panna-cakkhu is a dhamma in what sense? T: Understanding(pa~n~naa) is a cetasika, hence it is a dhamma. DC: I cannot comment. The reasons are: (1) What is the meaning of direct knowledge? What is naama-ruupa? T: Direct knowledge is the first stage (full-understanding of the known) of the "three kinds of full-understanding" as described in the Visuddhimagga XX, 3. Naama-ruupa (lit. 'name and form'): 'mind-and-body', mentality and corporeality. It is the 4th link in the dependent origination (s. paticcasamuppaada 3, 4) where it is conditioned by consciousness, and on its part is the condition of the sixfold sense-base. In two texts (D. 14, 15), which contain variations of the dependent origination, the mutual conditioning of consciousness and mind-and-body is described (see also S. XII, 67), and the latter is said to be a condition of sense-impression (phassa); so also in Sn. 872. [Nyanatiloka Dictionary] http://www.budsas.org/ebud/bud-dict/dic3_n.htm Tep ==== #77439 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. dcwijeratna Dear Scott, Thank you for the courtesy shown to me by a thoughtful reply. I am indeed grateful for such a resoponse. I give below my reactions to them: ========================================================================== >>DC: "...There are number of other points that trouble me: ... This also confuses me." >Scott: (1) As I understand it (beware now), they *are* separate dhammas and so that is how they are separated. This is a definitional separation, of course, since both arise 'in nature' together and never apart. Citta is 'bare consciousness' and cetasika is what belongs to 'mind'. Citta has its own characteristics as do the cetasikas. ................. DC: Here, I wish to concentrate on the last sentence: "Citta has its own characteristics as do the cetasikas." I presume that "own characteristics" refer to the Pali word "sabhaava". This is a term that I cannot understand. At one point you have the following defintions: "Attano sabhaava.m dhaarentiiti dhammaa" meaning "Dhammas are so called because they bear their own nature". In effect, we have here the Abhidhammic defintion of dhammaa. Here's another defintion: "Dhariiyanti attano paccayehi dhammaa." "Dhammas are so called because they are causally conditioned or borne by their (causes) and conditions. For me two defintions for the same "thing" spells out trouble. You will also note the word "attano" in both these defintions. Another thing I am wary about. A discussion of the "Dhamma theory" is not feasible within a short e-m like this. However, if you think it is worth we can start from the beginning. How profitable is that, I am not sure. This "Dhamma theory" was not propounded by the Buddha. One other point I want to raise is "This is defintional separation ... " Yes, I think that was the origin. But later they were ascribed reality--as "paramatthas". ----------------------------------------------------------- "reality that does not know anything. ..." .............. DC: If this, as you say, is for the purpose of defintion or identification, then I can live with it. But still there is an aspect that is not very clear. The use of the phrase "does not KNOW" above. I want to address this because I have seen defintions like the 'citta knows'. Once we use the word "knows" aren't we postulating "atta"? It reminds me of Descartes: "T think, therefore I am". But there is another side to it. How do we attribute a meaning to "knowing"? Is it same as your and mine or it is different? If different, then it is a pure belief. And that would be going against the core of the teachings of the Buddha. That is the one only teaching that is totally devoid of belief. This is a positive statement I make and willing to defend it. ============================================== (3) Nibbaana is also an ultimate reality but it is not a conditioned reality. I left it aside for the purpose of the discussion but yes it is considered to be an ultimate reality in the sense already discussed. ------------------------- DC: This classifying Nibbana as a reality is a big issue. First, did the people who postulated the Paramattha Dhamma theory knew about nibbaana? My understanding is not. In that case the defintion has no validity. Because they have been talking about things that they didn't know. Here is another issue with regard to this: In what sense is nibbaana real, according to Abhidhamma? --------------------------- Me: "...Citta and cetasika are conascent condition for each other and always arise together." ............... DC: agreed, that is the abhidhammic analysis. But my way of describing reality is different. My education is in mathematics and sciences. To give my desciption I need to go there--to maths or science. Would it make sense to you if I explain my understanding of reality through a mathematical explanation? Forgive me for asking this question. If I write in that language, it could be misconstrued? ================================== 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: I'd suggest that this ability to recognise citta separate from cetasika is beyond me, whether in practise or theory, so let's hope someone else clarifies. I'd suggest that the difference between naama and ruupa is one to discern first. Black is ruupa, 'bull' is concept therefore naama. ........ DC: No problem, we are in the same boat. I wish to add that anybody who claims to give an explanation will also have to claim "sabba~n~nutaa". But he will have more trouble. Then he/she will have to transform us, so that we can see these naama and ruupa. ========================================== DC: "...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. " Scott: Each moment of consciousness has its object. Whatever the object, ekaggata has the function of assisting citta and focuses on this object. ---------------------- DC: Ok, that is fine as long as we specify in our discourse, in what sense we are using them. But still I want to be able to discuss any human affairs with that kind of definitions. In any given act, there will be millions and millions of cittas arising. Are there cittas without an object in Abhidhamma. If not we have cittassa ekaggata as a permanent condition. Of course, this is a logical conclusion. What do you say? Kind regards, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77440 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:17 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. kenhowardau Great post, Azita, internet cafes bring out the best in you! :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "gazita2002" wrote: > ... > > When I read suttas about beings gaining final liberation, > it > > > > reminds me just how very far away from 'me' that is. ------------------- I think I know what you mean. I am always reluctant to think in terms of *my* state of mental development *my* chances of becoming enlightened and that sort of thing, but I think you are talking about something very different. When we read sutta descriptions of magga cittas we can know that they are infinitely more noble than the uninstructed worldling cittas that make up our daily lives. And that's fine. It's actually a nice thing to understand. There is no need to get a complex about our ordinary cittas. They are not our selves. They are not anybody else's selves either. They are just fleeting dhammas, arising and falling away by conditions. --------------------------- A: > That journey > > can start now this very moment, it cant start anywhere else than > > right here right now. --------------------------- If it does it is because there were conditions for it. And if it doesn't it is because there weren't conditions for it. Either way, there are only dhammas coming and going. --------------------------------------- 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. azita: True, no one knows when final liberation will occur, however I can say that until sotapatimagga arises then we all have micchaaditthi on many occasions, if not on a daily basis. I understand that truthfulness is a necessary factor in gaining understanding of what is and what is not the Path. We must be very careful not to delude ourselves into believing that we are much closer to liberation than we really are. ------------------------------------------ This reminds me of the story of Sariputta in the early days before his first meeting with a Buddhist monk. As I remember it, he told a friend that if he ever heard the true Dhamma he would understand it immediately. There aren't many who could truthfully say that. Ken H #77441 From: "colette" Date: Mon Oct 15, 2007 10:48 pm Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. ksheri3 Dear Scott, I'll try a short reply to one or two statements, ya gotta go way down to about 2 thirds into your reply. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear colette, > > I've a little more time this morning. > > Me: "...'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?" > > Scott: Well, I might be wrong, for one thing. Let's see. This is > aapo-dhaatu, or water element. Dhammasa"nga.ni of the Abhidhamma Pi.taka: > > "[652]What is that [material] form that is the fluid (aqueous) element > (aapodhaatu)? That which is fluid and belongs to fluid, that which is > viscid and belongs to viscous, the cohesiveness of form [matter] - > this is that [material] form which is the fluid element." > > The Commentary, Atthasaalinii, p.435: > > "In the exposition of the element of cohesion 'liquid' is the natural > word, whether it be aapo or aapagata; 'moist' is by way of being > fluid, whether it be sineha or sinehagata. 'Cohesiveness of matter > [form] is the cohering condition of the essential matter, such as the > element of extension, etc. For the element of cohesion binds together > iron, etc., in masses, makes them rigid. Because they are so bound, > they are called rigid. Similarly in the case of stones, mountains, > palm-seeds, elephant-tusks, ox-horns, etc. All such things the > element of cohesion binds, and makes rigid; they are rigid because of > its binding." > > Sammohavinodanii, pp.76-77: > > "304. As regards aapo aapgogata.m ('water, watery') and so on, aapo > (water) is in the sense of cohesion; because of having 'gone' (gata) > to the nature of that water it is aapogata.m ('watery'; lit. 'gone to > water'). It is sneha ('liquid') owing to liquidity; also because of > having 'gone to' the nature of that liquid it is snehagata.m ('liquid' > lit. 'gone to liquid'). Bahdhanatta.m ruupassa ('the cohesion of > materiality') is the cohesive state of materiality due to its not > being broken up." > > Sammohavinodanii, p.93 (Here's where I was coming from): > > "The earth, fire and air elements are the tangible-data element only. > The water element and the space element are the mental-data element > only. The consciousness element is a term summarising the seven > consciousness elements beginning with eye-consciousness" > > Scott: In other words, aapo-dhaatu is not tangible, rather mental, > hence not 'perceived' in the sense that 'hardness' is perceived. colette: aapo-dhaatu is stated as an element, which is an additive or constituent part of the whole. Here I've gotta contend that it is "TANGIBLE". Now we can also see it in a different light, that of concept which results from Name & Form. This new term "aapo-dhaatu" seems like an illusive character, no? -------------------------------------------- > > 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." > > Scott: Might I suggest that your use of 'conditioning' is not the same > as 'condition' is used in Abhidhamma. You seem to refer here to > something synonymous with 'learning' or, perhaps, in a broad sense > 'accumulation'. colette: My use comes from the thoughts that, for instance, Leather, is stiff at first, but if conditioned properly with the correct oils becomes some, supple, and satisfying. ;-) Or we can see "conditionings" in the form of ritual behavior where it is repetition which does the conditioning on the consciousness -- conditions the mind to remember and to associate certain aspects to that which is remembered. Yes, it can be a learning process. I cannot be making too much noise on the keyboard at this hour so Ill end there. Thank you for your insight, your references, and your appreciation of the dharma. The more I see this tantra stuff work the more I'm shocked that society around the world has not found and admired the perferction of the Buddhist teachings. I'm still gonna review the rest and hopefully I'll be able to finish our discussion properly. toodles, colette #77442 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Oct 16, 2007 2:36 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. philofillet Hi Howard, Scott and all --- In > There are suttas in the Anguttara Nikaya that show them to be mutually > (positively) conditioning. I've written about that before when discussing > "spiral development" with Jon. > ---------------------------------------------- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > There is also the following from the Upanisa Sutta which shows calm as > support for concentration: Also good to note, I think, the various suttas that lay out ( alone or in varying combinations) virtue, non-remorse and sense control as support for concentration, which is in turn support for insight. Sorry I can't give the exact references, don't have my books with me - they've been quoted often enough here anyways. If anyone doubts that there are such suttas, please post an inquiry and someone will post them, I'm sure. (Most of the ones I'm thinking of are in AN, though if I recall MN 39 is helpful in this regard.) I think we know for ourselves whether or not there is more calm when those factors predominate, and whether it supports deeper concentration. Metta, Phil #77443 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Oct 16, 2007 3:52 am Subject: What is Heat? bhikkhu0 Friends: What is the Heat 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 Heat? The Element of Heat may be internal, one's own, or it may be external. And what is one's own Element of Heat? Whatever in one's own person or body, there is of kammically acquired heat or hotness, such as that whereby one is heated, warmed up, metabolic active, consumed, burning, scorched, that which digests, chemically breaks and absorbs, what has been eaten, drunk, chewed, & tasted: this is called one's own internal Element of Heat. Now, whether it be one's own Element of Heat, or whether it be the external Element of Heat, as fires and suns, they are both only the Element of Heat. One should therefore understand, according to the utter reality & 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 permanent property, this is not safe... This is not pleasure, this is not happiness, this is also only suffering... In order to induce releasing disillusion with attractive warm objects... Whether internal or external, whether alive or dead, present or not... Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka * http://What-Buddha-Said.net #77444 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:25 am Subject: Spirals Again (Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions.) upasaka_howard Hi, Phil (and Scott, Jon, and all) - In a message dated 10/16/2007 5:37:08 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: Hi Howard, Scott and all --- In > There are suttas in the Anguttara Nikaya that show them to be mutually > (positively) conditioning. I've written about that before when discussing > "spiral development" with Jon. > ---------------------------------------------- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > There is also the following from the Upanisa Sutta which shows calm as > support for concentration: Also good to note, I think, the various suttas that lay out ( alone or in varying combinations) virtue, non-remorse and sense control as support for concentration, which is in turn support for insight. Sorry I can't give the exact references, don't have my books with me - they've been quoted often enough here anyways. If anyone doubts that there are such suttas, please post an inquiry and someone will post them, I'm sure. (Most of the ones I'm thinking of are in AN, though if I recall MN 39 is helpful in this regard.) I think we know for ourselves whether or not there is more calm when those factors predominate, and whether it supports deeper concentration. Metta, Phil ================================== Phil, you may have in mind such material as I referred to in the old post of mine that I copy below. (The "circling back" I refer to shows, among a number of other things, the mutual dependency of concentration and calm.) With metta, Howard ________________________________ From: upasaka@a... Date: Tue Jul 16, 2002 9:35 am Subject: Jon/ More on Spirals Re: [dsg] Re: Vism study - role of jhanas in enlightenment Hi again, Jon - I just read the first two suttas from the book of tens in the A. Nikaya, and they are quite relevant to what we were discussing (growing out of VI, 50). In the first of these, the Buddha puts forth the following chain of conditionality: Virtuous ways of conduct -> Non-remorse -> Gladness -> Joy -> Serenity -> Happiness -> Concentration of the mind -> Knowledge and vision of things as they really are -> Revulsion and dispassion -> Knowledge and vision of liberation. This, of course, is quite similar to the content of VI, 50. What is interesting to me is the material of the very next sutta, the second sutta of the book of tens. It puts forward the very same chain of conditionality as above, but, at the end *circling back* to virtuous ways of conduct once again. And then the sutta closes with the following: "Thus, monks, the preceding qualities flow into the succeeding qualities; the succeeding qualities bring the preceding qualities to perfection, for going from the near shore to the far shore." This is exactly the spiral conditionality that I was suggesting, and is, of course, in harmony with both of our understandings that all the factors affect each other. With metta, Howard #77445 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:41 am Subject: Re: From James: So sorry and so disappointed... :-(( rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > I am so sorry and so disappointed that I cannot participate more fully > in DSG lately. Look forward to hearing from you again later James. #77446 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:58 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. indriyabala Hi KenH, - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > > Great post, Azita, internet cafes bring out the best in you! :-) > It is true that the best posts are quite often those that are written while we are away from books and references. Tep ==== #77447 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:25 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (68) nichiconn Dear Friends, Part 15: Commentary on the verses of Therii Caapaa from the section on 20 or so verses: On verses: 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. 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]. 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. txt: Eta.m kho labbhamamhehiiti eta.m padakkhi.nakara.na.m pu~n~na.m amhehi tava daatu.m sakkaa, na nivattana.m, pubbe viya kaamuupabhogo ca na sakkaati adhippaayo. Te vajjanti tava vandana.m vajja.m vakkhaami. Soti kaa.lo, addasaasiiti addakkhi. Satthudesanaaya.m saccakathaaya padhaanattaa tabbinimuttaaya abhaavato "dukkhan"ti-aadi vutta.m, sesa.m vuttanayameva. 308. This is indeed proper for us means: it is possible for us to give this merit from circumambulation to you. Returning, as before, and enjoyment of sensual pleasures is not possible. That is the meaning. I should utter your [greeting] means: I should utter, I will repeat, your greeting. 309. He means: Kaa.la. He saw (addasaasi) means: he saw (addakkhi). 310. Through the instruction of the Teacher, through his talk on the [four noble] truths, because of the absence of his [Upaka's] release, pain, etc is said. The meaning of the rest has been explained.* *For v.310, "pain ... stilling of pain" see Th-a II, p.205 ad vv. 491f., and cf. Thii vv.186 (p.209) {Sis49, Caalaa} and 321 (p.291) {Sis69, Sundarii}. For v.311, "the three knowledges," see the commentaries above on vv.26 (p.48) {Citaa, Sis23} and 65 (p.98) {Bhaddaa Kaapilaanii, Sis 37}. For "done the Buddha's teaching," see Th-a I 85 ad v.24. Caapaatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa ni.t.thitaa. Here ends the commentary on the verses of Therii Caapaa. === peace, connie #77448 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:28 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. scottduncan2 Dear DC, Thanks for your excellent reply: DC: "Here, I wish to concentrate on the last sentence: "Citta has its own characteristics as do the cetasikas."..."sabhaava"."Attano sabhaava.m dhaarentiiti dhammaa" meaning "Dhammas are so called because they bear their own nature"..."Dhariiyanti attano paccayehi dhammaa." "Dhammas are so called because they are causally conditioned or borne by their (causes) and conditions."... For me two defintions for the same "thing" spells out trouble. You will also note the word "attano" in both these defintions..." Scott: May I ask the source of the Pali noted above? These two definitions are complementary. Both support anatta. What does 'attano' signify to you? "...Another thing I am wary about. A discussion of the "Dhamma theory" is not feasible within a short e-m like this. However, if you think it is worth we can start from the beginning. How profitable is that, I am not sure. This "Dhamma theory" was not propounded by the Buddha." Scott: We can start from the beginning, DC. That's where I am anyway, so we may as well, eh? Anything to study Dhamma and the slower the better, really. Just one sutta here though, but many refer to paramattha dhammas, SN 1 Bhikkhuniisamyutta 5.9 Selaa: "Just so the aggregates and elements, And these six bases of sensory contact, Have come to be dependent on a cause; With the cause's breakup they will cease." Scott: In this is mentioned all the conditioned paramattha dhammas ('the aggregates: citta, cetasika; 'elements': materiality; 'these six bases': materiality), as well as the fact of conditionality. DC: "...I have seen defintions like the 'citta knows'. Once we use the word "knows" aren't we postulating "atta"? It reminds me of Descartes: "T think, therefore I am"..." Scott: No, to say that a dhamma has a characteristic is not to postulate 'atta'. Rather it is to say that, for example, when there is 'knowing' this is because citta is present and, while present, 'knows'- this is its 'nature' or characteristic. Citta doesn't 'know that it knows', that is, citta is not 'self-aware' - that would be 'atta', in my view. There is just 'knowing' at that moment and then citta falls away. You might try to explain things in terms of 'no-characteristics' (the apparent antithesis of your point) and see how far you get... DC: "...In what sense is nibbaana real, according to Abhidhamma?" Scott: Nibbaana is considered to be paramattha dhamma, and is 'real' in that sense. DC: "agreed, that is the abhidhammic analysis. But my way of describing reality is different. My education is in mathematics and sciences. To give my desciption I need to go there--to maths or science. Would it make sense to you if I explain my understanding of reality through a mathematical explanation? Forgive me for asking this question. If I write in that language, it could be misconstrued?..." Scott: I appreciate the question, DC. I hope you don't mind that I would rather pass on mathematical explanations. This doesn't mean others might not be interested. For me, if the explanations were meant to be given using the language of mathematics, then this would have been how they would have been delivered in the first place. My only interest is in learning Dhamma as it has come down to us. I find that recourse to conventional non-Dhamma for an understanding of Dhamma only leads to confusion and cannot be relied upon to straighten views. DC: "...In any given act, there will be millions and millions of cittas arising. Are there cittas without an object in Abhidhamma. If not we have cittassa ekaggata as a permanent condition. Of course, this is a logical conclusion. What do you say?" Scott: Yes, millions and millions of cittas arising and ceasing. There are no cittas without object. Cittass'ekaggataa arises conascently with each and every moment of consciousness ('millions and millions of cittas arising'). It falls away each time as well, so no question of 'a permanent condition'. Sincerely, Scott. #77449 From: "Sukinder" Date: Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:49 am Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. sukinderpal Hi Alex, Sorry for the delay in responding. ============== > 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? Alex: 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). Sukin: There is no necessary reason for a layperson / married to change his status after becoming a Sotapanna or Sakadagami. But wrong view can't arise. Siddhatta was clearly looking for answers when he decided to leave the palace and follow the practices that he did. I can't imagine someone to be following a practice without some kind of view involved. If with Siddhatta Right View didn't arise, then Wrong View must have. ============= Alex: 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. Sukin: Wrong View is Wrong View and wrong practice is wrong practice. It is not a question of extreme, but a question of not being the Middle Way. "Going to a pub and hanging around with pals" is *not* a practice, but plain desire. ============== Alex: 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. Sukin: I've only heard of a layperson who became a Sotapanna after drinking alcohol. I don't think that it is possible for an ariyan to have any intention to drink. ============== Alex: A sotapanna is incapable of wrong speculative views (Gotama quickly rejected Alara and Udakka) and strong enough moral transgressions which lead to hell. Sukin: Quickly is too long, a Sotapanna would not even be attracted to the idea. ============== Alex: 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). Sukin: I don't know the name, but I think he became an Arahatta just after the knife was inserted. ============== Alex: Also textual evidence suggests that the famous 4 messangers story is NOT Gotama's story anyway. It is Yasa's (or Buddha Vipassi) story. Sukin: So if it turns out that in fact this was Gotama's story, you agree that the encounter with the Divine Messengers is significant in that it reflects the fact that Gotama had at the time, yet to become enlightened? ============== Alex: 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). Sukin: Someone who discovered the Path and set the Wheel rolling. The initiator of the present Sasana. Had he been a Sotapanna, he would have been a disciple of Buddha Kassapa. The paramis he developed would be that of a Savaka and not of a Buddha. ============== Alex: 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? Sukin: It is said that the Bodhisatta had to perfect one of the paramis in his last life (Adhitthana, I think). In any case he would have had to be involved in such practices prior to his enlightenment wouldn't he? If you question about the last life, what about the ones close to that, do you suppose that no wrong practices were involved in any of those? I mean after all, 4 AK and 299,999 MK is as long, why did Right View not arise then? Regarding kamma ripening, wrong practice is `cause' and not result. ============== Alex: 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. Sukin: And yet a Sotapanna is said to have at most only seven lives to go… ============== Alex: This all is GOOD NEWS as it bridges a gap between Arahat and Bodhisatva stage. Sukin: The Mahayana ideal is already quite misleading, in trying to find common ground and putting forward these ideas, I think one is only adding to the confusion. Metta, Sukin #77450 From: "Sukinder" Date: Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:51 am Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. sukinderpal Hi Swee Boon, Sorry for the delay in responding. =============== > 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? Swee: 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.) Sukin: Putting aside any evidence that you may have come across, is there some reason why you feel inclined to such a perspective? Is the fact of the Buddha being a putthujana in his last life prior to his enlightenment a problem for you? If so how and why? =============== Swee: 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. Sukin: Do you mean by "knowledge" here, something other than panna? Since Wrong View has been eradicated, he can't be going out looking for answers, can he? Could he be following those practices without a wrong understanding of the Path? =============== Swee: 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. Sukin: I don't know how true this story is. But even if it were, one possible explanation is that Sakka may loose the memory of the Teachings, but certainly not the "understanding". Even though he does not remember what he learnt in `words', in asking the Buddha for the Teachings, I think he "knows" what he wants. The Bodhisatta had to arrive at the 4NT, not having done so before this. Sakka however, had already arrived at the 4NT; he approached the Buddha knowing what the latter stood for, and there would have been no "doubt" at all. In other words he didn't approach the Buddha `seeking for answers' but to hear what he knew to be of value, again. Who wouldn't value hearing the Dhamma from the Buddha! But there may be another explanation for this, I don't know….:-/ =============== Swee: 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. Sukin: I don't know what you mean by "knowledge of the intricate formulation of the NEP". But certainly, Sariputta would never have had `wrong understanding of the Way' would he? ============== Swee: 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. Sukin: I am not sure about this. If one is indeed born a Sotapanna, then I think he would have come upon the Teachings anyway. In any case, it may be that he does not have very deep understanding as do higher Ariyans (your intricate formulation of the NEP…?), however neither would he have any *misunderstanding* of the present moment. I think that we may be underestimating the panna of a Sotapanna! Why would such great panna have the kind of limitations? ============== Swee: 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. Sukin: Practice is practice, if it involves wrong understanding of the Path, this is something not possible of a Sotapanna. ============== Swee: 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. Sukin: And the Path can only be the NEP, if it is not this, then it must be Wrong Practice, no matter what it is aimed at. =============== Swee 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. Sukin: I just opened my MN to read this, but found out that it was too long to do so at this time. Could you point out the relevant parts to me? Metta, Sukin. #77451 From: Dieter Möller Date: Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. moellerdieter Hi Howard, you wrote: (D: I think, the claim that 'concentration occurs in every mind state' is questionable Our usual state of mind is scattered due to the multiple of sense impressions , though they may appear always a priority of focus, presenting some kind of concentration, it is not the concentration -Samadhi - in the Buddhist sense, is it?) H: I suspect there is *some* degree of concentration at all times there is consciousness, though the degree required for what is typically called "samadhi" is not the norm D: guessing , you somehow agree .. with difficulties in detail .. ;-) H: As for the state of mind being scattered due to a multiplicity of sense impressions, I don't think that is exactly correct. I do believe that only one dhamma is present to consciousness at any moment, so there is no multiplicity. D: the multiplicity is within the here-and-now situation , passa .. whether only 'one dhamma is present at any moment ', is for our impression and reaction so important as to know e.g. that the movie we watch consists of a fast squence of single pictures, isn't it? H: I think the mind being "scattered" amounts to an inclination to switch to another sense object due to an aversion to the present object or craving for an object of a different sort, and supported by some cetasikas that weaken attention (e.g., sloth & torpor, or excitement). D: sounds to me that you refer to passa-vedana -tanha , don't you? Interesting to see the relation with the training of mindfulness part 3 and 4 of the Maha Satipatthana Sutta. extract just for recalling (D.N. 22, transl. by Thanissaro Bhikkhu: (C. Mind) "And how does a monk remain focused on the mind in & of itself? There is the case where a monk, when the mind has passion, discerns that the mind has passion. When the mind is without passion, he discerns that the mind is without passion. When the mind has aversion, he discerns that the mind has aversion. When the mind is without aversion, he discerns that the mind is without aversion. When the mind has delusion, he discerns that the mind has delusion. When the mind is without delusion, he discerns that the mind is without delusion. "When the mind is restricted, he discerns that the mind is restricted. When the mind is scattered, he discerns that the mind is scattered. When the mind is enlarged, he discerns that the mind is enlarged. When the mind is not enlarged, he discerns that the mind is not enlarged. When the mind is surpassed, he discerns that the mind is surpassed. When the mind is unsurpassed, he discerns that the mind is unsurpassed. When the mind is concentrated, he discerns that the mind is concentrated. When the mind is not concentrated, he discerns that the mind is not concentrated. When the mind is released, he discerns that the mind is released. When the mind is not released, he discerns that the mind is not released. "In this way he remains focused internally on the mind in & of itself, or externally on the mind in & of itself, or both internally & externally on the mind in & of itself. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the mind, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the mind, or on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to the mind. Or his mindfulness that 'There is a mind' is maintained to the extent of knowledge & remembrance. And he remains independent, unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the mind in & of itself." D. Mental Qualities) "And how does a monk remain focused on mental qualities in & of themselves? [1] "There is the case where a monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the five hindrances. And how does a monk remain focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the five hindrances? There is the case where, there being sensual desire present within, a monk discerns that 'There is sensual desire present within me.' Or, there being no sensual desire present within, he discerns that 'There is no sensual desire present within me.' He discerns how there is the arising of unarisen sensual desire. And he discerns how there is the abandoning of sensual desire once it has arisen. And he discerns how there is no further appearance in the future of sensual desire that has been abandoned. (The same formula is repeated for the remaining hindrances: ill will, sloth & drowsiness, restlessness & anxiety, and uncertainty.) "In this way he remains focused internally on mental qualities in & of themselves, or externally on mental qualities in & of themselves, or both internally & externally on mental qualities in & of themselves. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to mental qualities, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to mental qualities, or on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to mental qualities. Or his mindfulness that 'There are mental qualities' is maintained to the extent of knowledge & remembrance. And he remains independent, unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the five hindrances. [2] "Furthermore, the monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the five clinging-aggregates. And how snip " with Metta Dieter #77452 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter - In a message dated 10/16/2007 12:21:54 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, moellerdieter@... writes: Hi Howard, you wrote: (D: I think, the claim that 'concentration occurs in every mind state' is questionable Our usual state of mind is scattered due to the multiple of sense impressions , though they may appear always a priority of focus, presenting some kind of concentration, it is not the concentration -Samadhi - in the Buddhist sense, is it?) H: I suspect there is *some* degree of concentration at all times there is consciousness, though the degree required for what is typically called "samadhi" is not the norm D: guessing , you somehow agree .. with difficulties in detail .. ;-) ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Or, one could say I disagree, though not in an extreme way. ;-) -------------------------------------------------- H: As for the state of mind being scattered due to a multiplicity of sense impressions, I don't think that is exactly correct. I do believe that only one dhamma is present to consciousness at any moment, so there is no multiplicity. D: the multiplicity is within the here-and-now situation , passa .. whether only 'one dhamma is present at any moment ', is for our impression and reaction so important as to know e.g. that the movie we watch consists of a fast squence of single pictures, isn't it? -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm not following you here, Dieter, The phassa (contact) is always with a single object, the selected object being determined by kamma and other conditions. ---------------------------------------------- H: I think the mind being "scattered" amounts to an inclination to switch to another sense object due to an aversion to the present object or craving for an object of a different sort, and supported by some cetasikas that weaken attention (e.g., sloth & torpor, or excitement). D: sounds to me that you refer to passa-vedana -tanha , don't you? ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Sure. ----------------------------------------------- With metta, Howard #77453 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. dcwijeratna Dear Scott, Many thanks for your prompt reply. I will reply that in a couple of days. Here's some food for thought. ================================================================================ As to the relation of the teachings of the Abhidhamma to those of the Sutta Pitaka, two very apt comparisons given in a conversation by the late Venerable Pelene Vajiranana, Maha-Nayakathera of Vajirarama, Colombo, may be added, in conclusion: The Abhidhamma is like a powerful magnifying-glass, but the understanding gained from the Suttas is the eye itself, which performs the act of seeing. Again, the Abhidhamma is like a medicine container with a label giving an exact analysis of the medicine; but the knowledge gained from the Suttas is the medicine itself which alone is able to cure the illness and its symptoms, namely craving rooted in ignorance, and the suffering caused by it./. (from the book "ABHIDHAMMA STUDIES: Researches in Buddhist Psychology") This quote is from Ven. Nyanatilokas book, most important Sri Lankan Abhidhammika of the last century (German by birth). The full article can be downloaded from "Buddhanet" There are one or two points that need to be kept in mind: Abhidhamma Studies is actually a short commentary on Dhammasa.nganii. Above quote is in the introduction or the preface. The latest edition of the book carries an introduction by Bhikkhu Bodhi, another abhidhammika. So the quote is not from the opposing camp. Ven Nyanatiloka calls Abhidhamma Pi.taka "Philosophical collection". The Buddha had no time for philosophy. If you treat Dhamma as philosophy then you deny the Buddha's Enlightenment. Then of course, we can even compare Karl Marx with the Buddha or Sigmund Freud. [My point of view is different from the above. I do not claim it to be the right view. But I'll defend my position logically and rationally.] Actually the best overview of Abhidhamma Pi.taka is in the Encyclopedia of Buddhism. I'll send you are reply in about two days. Sorry for the delay. I am having a few other things to attend to. Kind regards, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77454 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Tue Oct 16, 2007 11:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. dcwijeratna Dear Tep You addressed Azita(and DC on October 13. 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 ? DC: From what I have read, the Buddha never spoke to human beings in the language of abhidhamma. So we wouldn't know what to do? In another place in your quote you mentioned about the word 'see'. Is the reference ot sutta pi.taka and the Pali is "passati"? If "passati" it means "cakkhu vi~n~naa.na", I think. D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77455 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:51 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. indriyabala Hi DC (and other friends), - This is a short poem for you ;-)) You have proved yourself again As a wise, precise & disbelieving friend. So in this message I am going to follow your style To write my "disbelieving" reply for you. My reply follows your message below ................................................. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, DC Wijeratna wrote: > > Dear Tep > > You addressed Azita(and DC on October 13. > > 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 ? > > DC: From what I have read, the Buddha never spoke to human beings in the language of abhidhamma. So we wouldn't know what to do? > > In another place in your quote you mentioned about the word 'see'. Is the reference ot sutta pi.taka and the Pali is "passati"? If "passati" it means "cakkhu vi~n~naa.na", I think. > > > D. G. D. C. Wijeratna > .................................... My good man DC : T: How do you know that the Buddha "never spoke to human beings in the language of abhidhamma"? T: Most educated Buddhists know that the Buddha taught the "original" Abhidhamma to the Chief Disciple Sariputta. T: IMHO the Patisambhidamagga, the Arahant Sariputta's most important discourse, and his Sangiti Sutta are based on the Abhidhamma. But please do not be "too wise" and ask me to prove this or prove that again, because this time I only want to give you an opinion with no proof. [Take it or leave it, my friend.] http://www.buddhistinformation.com/ida_b_wells_memorial_sutra_librar y/sangiti_sutta.htm T: Now about 'passati', the following is taken from the PTS Dictionary. The second meaning is what I used in the previous message of mine. ....................... PTS: Passati 1. to see -- Pres. passati Vin i.322; S i.69, 132, 198; ii.29; Sn 313, 647, 953, 1063, 1142 (cp. Nd2 428); Pv i.23; Miln 218; PvA 11, 102; 2. to recognise, realise, know: only in combn with jaanaati (pres. jaanaati passati; ppr. jaanam passam): see jaanaati. 3. to find Sn 1118 (=vindati patilabhati Nd2 428b); J iii.55; Pv ii.99. ....................... Tep ==== #77457 From: "colette" Date: Tue Oct 16, 2007 2:48 pm Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. ksheri3 HI Scott, Lets see if I can finish this. BTW, in my 1st response last night I made a statement that the mind CAN BE CONDITIONED as if it were LEATHER. I meant to say that leather is stiff at first, in the begining, but after oils have been applied, ADDED (makes an aggregate doesn't it, a composite is an aggregate as well, huh), it becomes soft and supple, not some and supple. Now lets get down to brass tax, shall we. > Sammohavinodanii, p.93 (Here's where I was coming from): > > "The earth, fire and air elements are the tangible-data element only. colette: what makes "earth, fire and air" "tangible-data"? they are only names for concepts. ------------------------------------------------- > The water element and the space element are the mental-data element > only. colette: I wish I could remember what I was learning about the Longde practices. I haven't gone back to dig into those concepts since I've gotten sidetracked by Zen & Pureland plus Dhyanas. Water, in my view, seems more akin to earth AND fire does go with air but I can't see giving them "tangible" status. Can you grab and/or possess FIRE and/or AIR? The concept of space is WIDE-RANGING, huh? Space can be that which is the objective of OBSCURATIONS. For instance if I consider you an OBSCURATION THEN I can rest assured that your objective is to distract or deter me from attaining a goal or objective of my own, progress or evolution. Now, I can transform you (see transformation of consciousness) but this is slight-of-hand, by your own NATURE, I am at a loss to do anything that could stop or discontinue that nature. --------------------------------------------- The consciousness element is a term summarising the seven > consciousness elements beginning with eye-consciousness" > > Scott: In other words, aapo-dhaatu is not tangible, rather mental, > hence not 'perceived' in the sense that 'hardness' is perceived. colette: perceptions are awareness are they not? Cognition is that awareness in action, is it not? Cognition, in its state of dependence, REQUIRES both NAME & FORM to manifest that which is cognized. ---------------------------------------------------- > > Scott: A 'word' is sound, therefore ruupa. colette: I THINK YOU'VE LOST YOU BLOODY MIND? In no way can a tangible object be considered a "word". Words are labels, names(see Name & Form). A word, being a sound, is NOTHING GREATER THAN A VIBRATION OR VIBRATORY CONDITION. -------------------------------------- A 'gesture' is the result > of movement of the 'body', therefore ruupa. colette: wow, do you get off into Never-Never Land, maybe you've seen those monkey's that the Wizard has in his orchards. I know that when I take on the appearance of the Cheshire Cat, well, it's obvious then that you know ALICE IN WONDERLAND. Why do soooooooo many shirts that need stuffing, find that the educational manufacturing facility can only send them stuffing that "makes good gestures" or "gestures of good faith", for instance they offer not to murder hostages in exchange for monetary wealth or they offer to give a speach at fine clubs like the Knights of Columbus or the rotory club or the U.N. or to Congress or to THE STATE OF THE UNION or, but no matter how you look at it these actions as "gestures" ARE NOT RUPA. A person can feel the results or effects of these mind-only gestures fitting in the hole designated as Nama. ------------------------------------------ Well, I've spent a half an hour and must get to research. I must say that for you EVERYTHING HAS TO BE RUPA BEFORE IT CAN BE NAMA, in fact you sound as though you are a closet christian attempting to manifest christianity within the buddhist doctrine since you want everything to be seen as rupa before you lay the cards you've "palmed", slipped up your sleeve out of sight, donw on the group THAT these objects, things, rupa, are the resultant condition of a "creationist god" who was sooooo nice that he wasn't and isn't a pussy or a woman, and that because he sports a phallus, he saw it fit to make you wealthy so that you could leed all the sheep to venereal disease. Sheep herding got lonely way back when but luckily those associates of Moses got the burning desire the next morning huh? toodles, colette #77458 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:38 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Reply to Tep indriyabala Hi Elaine (Nina, Sarah, Scott, Sukin, KenH and other Abhidhammikas), - Thank you for formulating your reply in the "ultimate sense". Because it is outside my "conventional" worldling domain, I cannot help you at all. But I am confident that we will get some "real" help from other knowledgable members who live in the conventional world soon. >Tep: 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) ? Elaine: 'when the Right Condition arises, we will know automatically because the "Right Effort" will arise by itself, "Right Concentration" will arise by itself, and probably "Right Mindfulness" will also arise by itself.' T: I am confused here, Elaine. Right effort is a conditioned dhamma, isn't it? If it is a conditioned dhamma, then how can it automatically arise? [Are you kidding me?] ............................ E: You don't need to "force yourself to do anything" because when the "Right Conditions" arises, the "knowing will know" by itself and you can take your "self" out of the equation. No?? T: Boy, that doubly-twisting question is much more interesting ! So now my first confusion becomes doubly twisted too. {:<( But I see your point : the pa~n~na that knows by 'itself' does not know 'my self' (i.e. it sees 'no Tep'). Now, since there is 'no self' in the pa~n~na that knows 'not self', and since the 'naama & ruupa' that 'I' have deludedly taken as 'me, and mine' are 'not self' either, then it seems there is no way I can take my self out of the equation. You're right, the equation has completely trapped me with delusion in the 'no self' loop ! ......................... E: Ahhhh, actually I don't understand everything that I have typed above but ..... I'll live with it and try not to force myself to anything too much, just keep daily mindfulness and when the "right conditions" come, something in the mind will click and it will know - and it will do things by itself ((whatever that means)). T: That is very convenient, although falsely reassuring. ......................... E: I don't neccessary believe in the Right Conditions thingy but I try my best to be mindful, e.g. being aware of my speech, actions and thoughts, I guess that's good enough. T: It is good, but it may not be enough. ....................... E: I hope someone in DSG can correct my views of "Right Conditions", if they are wrongly described. Thank you. T: I hope so too, so that I too may find a way out of the doubly- twisted self loop. Tep ==== P.S. Please ignore the previously sent message that mistakened 'equation' with 'question'. #77459 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:41 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. scottduncan2 Dear DC, I'm looking forward to your reply. DC: "...Actually the best overview of Abhidhamma Pi.taka is in the Encyclopedia of Buddhism..." Scott: Even better is to dive in and grapple with the real thing, in my opinion. Sincerely, Scott. #77460 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue Oct 16, 2007 8:47 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Reply to Tep kenhowardau > > Hi Elaine (and Tep), For what it's worth, I think your views of "Right Conditions" are spot on. You say you don't necessarily believe those views but that you will 'try your best to be mindful' - i.e., you will try to be ready for when the right conditions come along. I think you are describing two very different types of Dhamma practice here. The first one is the intellectual understanding of what is found in the texts. That is, that realities come and go by conditions and not at the command of a controlling self. The second practice is, in my opinion, not found in the texts at all, and it is quite at odds with the first one. It seems to be saying that ongoing mindfulness (some kind of readiness for satipatthana) occurs at the command of a controlling self, rather than when conditions permit. Is that what you are saying? Ken H #77461 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Oct 17, 2007 12:15 am Subject: e-card en route to Savatthi, Jetavana sarahprocter... Dear Friends, I wrote an earlier e-card from Delhi which may be found and send later(!!) Members of the group bumped in Delhi having to travel later and miss the night in the hotel, 150 pieces of luggage missing (later retrieved) which meant long delays at both Bangkok and Delhi airports with lots of reminders of khanti parami (perfection of patience), a lost coach in Agra which meant some didn't get to see the Taj Mahal (other than those of us who opted for a dhamma discussion instead anyway), a 10 hour bumpy bus journey yesterday tp visit Sankasia (where the Abhidhama is said to have been taught to Sariputta),which turned out to be 15 hrs, signs of sickness around, but everyone in remarkably good spirits and the reminders about thinking and dreams and this moment help a lot too. This morning a nice discussion in Lucknow...lots on moha and ditthi and right understanding. Sukin, I raised your point again about seeing the Buddha and Peter also re-rised it today. KS's comment in Agra when I read it out (about seeing the Buddha as a condition for panna etc) was to ask 'who?'. In other words (as I understood), if we think terms of someone listening to the Buddha, then or now, it's all 'someone'. Later, she said the question (as read out) indicated a lack of understanding of anatta. Today, when Peter asked more, she stressed that it just depends on the cittas at the time and accumulations - a lot of understanding or no understanding at all. Btw, Sukin, I passed on your regards to friends and several wished you were with us. Off to Savatthi (and Jetavana) shortly....as you know, the 5 minute call which I've just been given can mean another 2 or 3 hrs to round everyone up...but I'd better sign off! Metta, Sarah p.s. behind with reading, but look f/w to catching up later. Nina and Lodewijk well and send their regards! ======== #77462 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:48 pm Subject: What is Motion? bhikkhu0 Friends: What is the Motion 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 then, is the Element of Motion? The Element of Motion may be one's own internal, or it may be external... What is one's own internal Element of Motion? Whatever there is in one's own person or body of kammically induced motion, movement or mobility, such as the upward, downward, in & out going motions, movements, & flows, in stomach, intestines, blood-&-lymph-vessels, and nerves, heart-beating, in- and out-breathing, etc: This is one's own internal Element of Motion... Now, whether it be one's own Element of Motion or whether it be the any external Element of Motion such as storms and tides, they are both merely the Element of Motion. One should therefore understand, according to the utter reality & 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 permanent property, this is not safe... This is not pleasure, this is not happiness, this is also only suffering... In order to induce releasing disillusion with attractive warm objects... Whether internal or external, whether alive or dead, present or not... Clinging to any kind of Motion, whether internal or external, is Suffering... 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 Motion is a manifestation of microscopic kinetic energy! In all forms of materiality coexists all 4 primary elements in graduation. In water, the element of fluidity is dominating at ambient temperature. When frozen into ice, the solidity element becomes the dominant aspect. In stone, the element of solidity is domination at ambient temperature. When melted into lava, the fluidity element becomes the main feature... Here one thus realizes, that it is the presence or absence of Heat defined by temperature, that determines the relative degree of manifestation of the two other elements: Solidity and Fluidity. Similarly: In stone is the element of Motion is not dominant at normal temperatures, but if at very high temperatures (association with the element of Heat) evaporated into a gas, then the element of motion becomes dominant even in stone... In air the element of motion is apparent at ambient temperatures (wind) but if frozen into fluid or even a solid, at very low temperatures then this element of motion diminishes its influence. All 4 are interdependent! The 4 primary elements creates and conditions each other like the 4 legs on a chair... They are inseparable & always act as a unified immanense. Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka * <....> #77463 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Wed Oct 17, 2007 12:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. dcwijeratna Dear Scott, Dear DC, You wrote: >Scott: Even better is to dive in and grapple with the real thing, in my opinion. ------------ DC: No objection. Let's take stock. There are seven books in the Abhidhamm pi.taka. I am sure you know the lot so I will not enumerate them. But to give an example of the size of Dhammasa.ngani (English Translation) is 364 pages. But it is very difficult to go through without Atthasaalinii--Buddhaghosa's commentary on it. This only treats the Dhammas; the conditional relations (p.tthaana) are two hefty volumes. That is why I suggested that we look at the Encyclopedia to get some idea what it is all about. Now to another aspect. Mrs. Rhys Davids who translated Dhammasan.ganii to English called it "Buddhist Psychological Ethics". So be aware that we will enter the world of psychology. I think that it is very instructive for us to go through at least her "Introductory Essay". Mrs Rh D says: "Its aim is to systematize or formulate certain doctrines, or at least to emumerate and define a number of scattered terms or categories of terms, occuring in the great books of dialogues and sundry discourse entitled the Nikaayas of the Sutta Pi.taka. The whole point of view, psychological and philosophical, adopted in them is, in our Manual, taken for granted. The technical terms used in them are used in it as if its hearers, subsequently its readers, would at once recognize them. No one acquainted with these books, and with the Dhamma-San.ganii, will hesitate in placing the latter, in point of time, after the Nikaayas." The above passage give a lot of important information about Dhs. But it is also suggests that one should have a clear idea of the 'psychology and philosophy' of the Suttas to understand Dhs. What are your thoughts on that? Now this book is called Dhammasa.nganii. We'll start by trying to attack the concept of Dhamma in the Sutta Pi.taka. What is your opinion on that? Happy hunting! Kind regards, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77464 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:58 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. scottduncan2 Dear DC, Thanks for the good ideas here: DC: "No objection. Let's take stock. There are seven books in the Abhidhamm pi.taka. I am sure you know the lot so I will not enumerate them. But to give an example of the size of Dhammasa.ngani (English Translation) is 364 pages. But it is very difficult to go through without Atthasaalinii--Buddhaghosa's commentary on it. This only treats the Dhammas; the conditional relations (p.tthaana) are two hefty volumes. That is why I suggested that we look at the Encyclopedia to get some idea what it is all about." Scott: I wonder if we could figure out a way to nice and slowly go through Dhammasa"nga.ni and Atthasaalini together? I have copies of both. Pa.t.thaana is glorious and amazing and so deep - maybe for later (like other life-times - just kidding). At any rate, I take the commentaries of Buddhagosa to be credible. I don't so much go for modern commentators if I don't have to. After going through these two volumes we could tackle Vibha"nga and Sammohavinodanii. Man, will we be around long-enough for this? DC: "...Now to another aspect. Mrs. Rhys Davids who translated Dhammasan.ganii to English called it "Buddhist Psychological Ethics". So be aware that we will enter the world of psychology. I think that it is very instructive for us to go through at least her 'Introductory Essay'." Scott: We could start with that, DC, good idea. I've read the essay. Now, about this 'world of psychology'. I've lived in that world. I'm a clinical psychologist and have read much in the realm of psychoanalytic theory. Although academics can classify Abhidhamma as 'early psychology' and even be correct, this is not how I read it. I read it as Dhamma. And Dhamma is Dhamma. Not psychology or physics or mathematics. I'm a bit of a purist here I guess... DC: "...The above passage give a lot of important information about Dhs. But it is also suggests that one should have a clear idea of the 'psychology and philosophy' of the Suttas to understand Dhs." Scott: Since I see Dhamma as Dhamma, and Abhidhamma as Dhamma and suttas as Dhamma, then its all Dhamma. I don't think Dhamma is philosophy or psychology - that is, it was not taught as such. But you know this. Let's keep sizing this up and come with a little corner for discussion. DC: "...We'll start by trying to attack the concept of Dhamma in the Sutta Pi.taka. What is your opinion on that?" Scott: Sorry, what does this mean? Do you mean 'dhamma' or Dhamma? Sincerely, Scott. #77465 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:15 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (69) nichiconn Dear Friends, Part 1 of 14 13. Viisatinipaato XIII. The Section of the Groups of Twenty [Verses] 4. Sundariitheriigaathaava.n.nanaa 4. The commentary on the verses of Therii Sundarii txt: Petaani bhoti puttaaniiti-aadikaa sundariyaa theriyaa gaathaa. Ayampi purimabuddhesu kataadhikaaraa tattha tattha bhave viva.t.tuupanissaya.m kusala.m upacinantii ito ekati.msakappe vessabhussa bhagavato kaale kulagehe nibbattitvaa vi~n~nuta.m patvaa ekadivasa.m satthaara.m pi.n.daaya caranta.m disvaa pasannamaanasaa bhikkha.m datvaa pa~ncapati.t.thitena vandi. Satthaa tassaa cittappasaada.m ~natvaa anumodana.m katvaa pakkaami. Pruitt: The verses beginning Lady, formerly [when you caused] your sons who had passed away [to be eaten] are Therii Sundarii's. She too performed meritorious deeds under previous Buddhas and accumulated good [actions] in various lives as [her] basis for release. Ninety-one aeons ago, at the time of the Blessed One Vessabhuu, she was born in the home of a [good] family. One day after she came of age, she saw the Teacher going on his alms round. With her mind favourably disposed towards him, she gave alms food and paid homage with the fivefold prostration. The Teacher, recognizing the trust in her mind, rejoiced [in her good deed] and went away. RD: She too, having made her resolve under former Buddhas, and heaping up good of age-enduring efficacy in this and that rebirth, was reborn thirty-one aeons ago, when Vessabhu was Buddha, in a clansman's family. One day she ministered to the Master with alms, and worshipped him, and he perceived her believing heart, and thanked her. txt: Saa tena pu~n~nakammena taavati.msesu nibbattitvaa tattha yaavataayuka.m thatvaa dibbasampatti.m anubhavitvaa tato cutaa aparaapara.m sugatiisuyeva sa.msarantii paripakka~naa.naa hutvaa imasmi.m buddhuppaade baaraa.nasiya.m sujaatassa naama braahma.nassa dhiitaa hutvaa nibbatti. Tassaa ruupasampattiyaa sundariiti naama.m ahosi. Pruitt: Then, through that meritorious deed, she was born in the Taavati.msa realm. As long as she lived there, she enjoyed diven attainments[s]. When she died, she journeyed on only in happy existences again and again and [acquired] matured knowledge. In this Buddha era, she was born in Baaraa.nasii as the daughter of a braman named Sujaata. Because of the perfection of her beauty, she was named Sundarii ("Beautiful"). RD: After celestial and other happy rebirths, her knowledge having come to maturity, she was, in this Buddha-age, reborn at Benares as the daughter of Sujaata, a brahmin. Because of her perfect form they called her Sundarii (Beauty). txt: Vayappattakaale cassaa kani.t.thabhaataa kaalamakaasi. Athassaa pitaa puttasokena abhibhuuto tattha tattha vicaranto vaasi.t.thittheriyaa samaagantvaa ta.m sokavinodanakaara.na.m pucchanto "petaani bhoti puttaanii"ti-aadikaa dve gaathaa abhaasi. Therii ta.m sokaabhibhuuta.m ~natvaa soka.m vinodetukaamaa "bahuuni puttasataanii"ti-aadikaa dve gaathaa vatvaa attano asokabhaava.m kathesi. Ta.m sutvaa braahma.no "katha.m tva.m, ayye, eva.m asokaa jaataa"ti aaha. Tassa therii ratanattayagu.na.m kathesi. Pruitt: When she came of age, her younger brother died. Her father, overwhelmed with grief for his son, went about here and there. He met Therii Vaasi.t.thii, and asking about how to dispel his grief, she spoke the two verses beginning Many hundreds of sons, and she explained her own state of freedom from grief. Hearing that, the brahman asked, "Noble lady, how did you become free from grief?" The therii explained the triple gem. RD: When she grew up, her younger brother died. Her father, overmastered by grief, and going to and fro, met the Therii Vaasi.t.thii *362 When she asked him what afflicted him, he answered as in the first two verses. Wishing to allay his grief, she spoke the next two verses, and told him of her own griefless state. The brahmin asked her: 'How, lady, did you become free from grief (a-sokaa)?' The Therii told him of the Three Jewels, the Refuges. *362 See Ps. li. === ref: *CAF Rhys Davids: Psalms of the Sisters, with the Chronicle from the Commentary by Dhammapaala entitled 'The Elucidation of the Highest Meaning'. PTS 1909 @ http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/davids/psalms/psalms.html *Wm Pruitt: The Commentary on the Verses of the Theriis: Theriigaathaa-A.t.thakathaa, Paramatthadiipanii VI by Aacariya Dhammapaala. PTS 1999 *txt/cy: vri cscd, tipitaka.org === to be continued, connie #77466 From: Sobhana Date: Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Reply to Tep shennieca Hi Tep, KenH, all, "Conventionally" speaking, I try to practise daily mindfulness in taking care of my speech, actions and thoughts. Is there anything wrong with this statement? There is a sutta where Buddha taught his son Rahula the right actions, speech and thoughts, the Buddha was using conventional terms while speaking to his son. I think it is the Rahulovada sutta and I am refering to that sutta when I say "taking care of speech, actions and thoughts". I know Buddhism is confusing but I hope one day I can experience nama-rupa through meditation. I can't understand nama-rupa by reading books and from dhamma discussion. Maybe not right now, but hopefully in the future I can understand a little bit more. ~~~~~ Something off-topic ~ I just received a call from my IVF coordinator, my second FET (frozen embryro transfer) didn't take. I was already prepared to hear the bad news because I used two HPT yesterday and it was negative. But my heart still hurt a bit, my eyes don't sting but my ears feel hot right now, it's weird (it's as if the rupa has a mind of it's own, but it doesn't, does it?). We've decided to go for our 2nd IVF with gestational surrogacy, that's our last resort. Conventionally speaking, I'm "hoping" everything will go well but in truth, there is absolutely nothing we can hope for because everything is conditioned, and I totally understand that. :(( #77467 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:16 am Subject: Perfections Corner (27) nichiconn Dear All, This is the continuation of Chapter 7: The Perfection of Truthfulness, 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. ------------------------------ Akusala dhammas arise because of their appropriate conditions. If sati arises, it can at such moments be aware of the characteristic of akusala dhamma and in this way akusala can be given up. We should not delay being aware of the characteristic of the dhamma that naturally appears so that it can be known as it is. When akusala appears and there is awareness of it, we can immediately abandon it. We have a great deal of defilements and without the support of the perfections it is impossible to penetrate the four noble Truths, to become a "streamwinner", sotaapanna, who will not be reborn more than seven times before the attainment of arahatship. Even Saariputta, who had pa~n~naa of the degree of a chief disciple, developed the perfections during one incalculable period and a hundred thousand aeons so that he could become a sotaapanna. Since he had accumulated the perfections for such a long time, he could become an arahat fifteen days after he had attained the stage of sotaapanna. The perfection of truthfulness is truthfulness or sincerity in developing kusala, with the aim to eradicate defilements. If there is no truthfulness with regard to the development of kusala, defilements cannot be eradicated. Truthfulness in the development of kusala with the aim to eradicate defilements begins with truthfulness with regard to the Triple Gem. We should be truthful and honest with ourselves while we consider in what way we show our reverence, respect and confidence towards the Triple Gem. Do we sincerely have respect and confidence in the Buddha, the Exalted One, when we see a Buddha statue? We can test our truthfulness with regard to the Triple Gem, if we are aware of our thoughts when we see a Buddha statue. Do we take refuge in the Triple Gem with truthfulness? We may think of the excellent qualities of the Buddha with respect, reverence and esteem. Or, when we see a Buddha statue, do we ask for favours such as protection, possessions, praise or a position of honour? We should know ourselves as we really are. We should be truthful, and we should not ask for gains and favours. We should be intent to apply the Dhamma while we show respect to our Teacher, the Exalted One. We can be truthful in the application of the Dhamma as taught by the Buddha. In this way we truly take our refuge in the Triple Gem. ===to be continued, connie #77468 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. dcwijeratna Dear Scott, I am so pleased to learn that you are a clinical psychologist. First, about this: ========================== >>DC: "...We'll start by trying to attack the concept of Dhamma in the Sutta Pi.taka. What is your opinion on that?" >Scott: Sorry, what does this mean? Do you mean 'dhamma' or Dhamma? ............. Well, you are a purist!!! So much the better. My fault. I meant dhamma--as defined in Sutta Pi.taka. The reason is abhidhamma is abhi + dhamma. So I think we need to understand what it means. When people talk of abhidhamma, they usually mean Abhidhamma Pi.taka; one of the Three Baskets of the Theravaada canon. Therefore, the equation abhidhamma = dhamma could lead to some difficulties. I think it most probably would be a better idea start without any preconceived ideas. [But again it doesn't matter. I have nothing to sell. I only wish to have good rational discussion, because it improves my own understanding.] Now I want to point out one thing. People who discuss the evolution of the Abhidhamma Pi.taka identify three strata. First, represented by books like Pa.tsambhidhaamagga. Then the Seven Abhidhamma books, and finally the Commentaries and other handbooks like Abhidhammattha Sangaha. There have been additions to the Dhamma at each stage. There is a more compelling reason: We have to postulate that Dhamma (I am used to writing Dhamma to mean the teaching of the Tathaagata) as the 'truth'. Anything, that doesn't conform to that teaching, we have to treat as not-Dhamma. Or at least flag them as not dhamma. If you treat dhamma, abhidhamma, suttas, all these as dhamma what do we do when there are contradictions? Have you got a copy of the Abhidhamma Studies by Ven. Nyaanponika? That is an excellent summary of Dhs. Now two question. As a psychologist what is your opinion on the body-mind-brain relationship? What is your attitude to knowledge? But let's make a start. Since you have also no objection to reading the introductory essay of Mrs. Rh D, I'll send comments on it, just one at a time, (this is hard work). By the way, I don't agree with Mrs Rh D on anything she has to say about Dhamma. But she was an excellent translator. Thanks for good company. With mettaa, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna P.S. mettaa means 'friendliness' #77469 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Reply to Tep dcwijeratna Dear Sobhana, I refer to your post dated October 17. I am perplexed by the following: .......... >Sobhana: "Conventionally" speaking, I try to practise daily mindfulness in taking care of my speech, actions and thoughts. Is there anything wrong with this statement? There is a sutta where Buddha taught his son Rahula the right actions, speech and thoughts, the Buddha was using conventional terms while speaking to his son. I think it is the Rahulovada sutta and I am refering to that sutta when I say "taking care of speech, actions and thoughts". ............ What made you ask ".... Is there anything wrong with this statement?" I thought that's what the Buddha taught for 45 years. Even from his "parinibbaana-ma.ncaka" He exhorted the monks "Appamaadena sampaadetha" That is not to do any evil actions. By the way Rahulaavoda Sutta [Ambala.t.thikaaraahulovaada Sutta, MN 61] has another important teaching. The basic criteria for deciding between right and wrong. If what you do by word, deed, etc. if doesn't harm you and the other, then do it. So before doing any action you should reflect, while doing, and after doing you should reflect whether the above criterion has been satisfied. The Buddha always used conventional terms when speaking. There is a single sutta anywhere where he spoke abhidhamma. I wish you all the best in your endeavour to take care of speech, actions, and thoughts. If you succeed so much as 10%, you are extraordinary. May the Triple Gem Bless you, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna P. S. I find it very difficult. My mind starts running around without telling me. #77470 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. dcwijeratna Dear Tep, I thoroughly enjoyed your post. I'm little involved today. I have to prepare to teach some silly thing tomorrow mornig. Theory of two truths in Abhidhamma philosophy. So first thing tomorrow evening I'll write back. With lots of mettaa, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna P. S: Buddhist (sutta) definition of belief is amuulikaa saddhaa or blind faith. #77471 From: Dieter Möller Date: Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. moellerdieter Hi Howard, you wrote: (H: As for the state of mind being scattered due to a multiplicity of sense impressions, I don't think that is exactly correct. I do believe that only one dhamma is present to consciousness at any moment, so there is no multiplicity. D: the multiplicity is within the here-and-now situation , passa .. whether only 'one dhamma is present at any moment ', is for our impression and reaction so important as to know e.g. that the movie we watch consists of a fast squence of single pictures, isn't it?) -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm not following you here, Dieter, The phassa (contact) is always with a single object, the selected object being determined by kamma and other conditions. . D: let us go slowly to find misunderstandings/ possible disagreement: Passa (pre-conditioned by 6 sense base and the khandas ..etc) , means contact with the sense base. Passa presents our here-and -now (citta 'refined') to which we react by feeling . Kamma forces are the director what is presented and selected by quality due to pleasant, unpleasant feelings (vedana). Lust and aversion play the next part , followed by clinging.. Please explain to me, what you mean by 'one dhamma is present at any moment ' (B.T.W.: The term dhamma is so often used that it leaves doubt sometimes due to its multiple meanings) H: I think the mind being "scattered" amounts to an inclination to switch to another sense object due to an aversion to the present object or craving for an object of a different sort, and supported by some cetasikas that weaken attention (e.g., sloth & torpor, or excitement). D:For me part 3 of the Maha Satipatthana Sutta ' When the mind is scattered, he discerns that the mind is scattered' , means absent-minded , lost in 'some life story' , no concentration /focus /attention for a prority . At that state one or several of 5 hindrances -being part of the cetasikas - are present . The claim 'concentration occurs in every mind state' is questionable therefore . Where do you disagree? With Metta Dieter #77472 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:55 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. indriyabala Dear DC, - Thank you for promising to write me a reply tomorrow. However, the following one-and-a-half sentence got my attention. >DC: >I have to prepare to teach some silly thing tomorrow morning. Theory of two truths in Abhidhamma philosophy. T: Do you have a class to teach and why is the "Theory ..." a silly thing to teach? Besides, who are the unfortunate students you are going to teach the silly stuff? BTW Does the term 'blind faith' imply wrong faith? Tep ==== #77473 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter - In a message dated 10/17/2007 12:52:13 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, moellerdieter@... writes: Hi Howard, you wrote: (H: As for the state of mind being scattered due to a multiplicity of sense impressions, I don't think that is exactly correct. I do believe that only one dhamma is present to consciousness at any moment, so there is no multiplicity. D: the multiplicity is within the here-and-now situation , passa .. whether only 'one dhamma is present at any moment ', is for our impression and reaction so important as to know e.g. that the movie we watch consists of a fast squence of single pictures, isn't it?) -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm not following you here, Dieter, The phassa (contact) is always with a single object, the selected object being determined by kamma and other conditions. . D: let us go slowly to find misunderstandings/ possible disagreement: Passa (pre-conditioned by 6 sense base and the khandas ..etc) , means contact with the sense base. Passa presents our here-and -now (citta 'refined') to which we react by feeling . ------------------------------------------------ Howard: It's the coming together (or co-occurrence) of sense consciousness, sense door, and sense object. I think of it as the coming together of sense consciousness and corresponding sense object via the corresponding sense door. And, yes, this conditions feeling, and the feeling conditions recognition. -------------------------------------------- Kamma forces are the director what is presented and selected by quality due to pleasant, unpleasant feelings (vedana). Lust and aversion play the next part , followed by clinging.. Please explain to me, what you mean by 'one dhamma is present at any moment ' (B.T.W.: The term dhamma is so often used that it leaves doubt sometimes due to its multiple meanings) -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Exactly one dhamma (rupa or nama) is object of consciousness at any given time. There will also be present as aspects of the current mind state a variety of concomitant mental operations and features. ------------------------------------------------- H: I think the mind being "scattered" amounts to an inclination to switch to another sense object due to an aversion to the present object or craving for an object of a different sort, and supported by some cetasikas that weaken attention (e.g., sloth & torpor, or excitement). D:For me part 3 of the Maha Satipatthana Sutta ' When the mind is scattered, he discerns that the mind is scattered' , means absent-minded , lost in 'some life story' , no concentration /focus /attention for a prority . At that state one or several of 5 hindrances -being part of the cetasikas - are present . --------------------------------------------------- Howard: That being lost in thought isn't a lack of concentration, but a lack of mindfulness. Being lost in thought or in sloth& torpor is, as I see it, what sati guards against. When lost in thought, concentration, albeit not *right* concentration, could well be very strong it seems to me. ---------------------------------------------------- The claim 'concentration occurs in every mind state' is questionable therefore . -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Even when there is weak attention and minimal mindfulness, I suspect there is still at least a minimal degree of concentration in play. With literally zero concentration, the mind would be close to no mind at all, it seems to me. ------------------------------------------------- Where do you disagree? ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Please see the foregoing. ;-) I do wish that some Abhidhammikas here who have considered *details* of matters would come in on this. ---------------------------------------------- With Metta Dieter ======================= With metta, Howard Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (96) #77474 From: "colette" Date: Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:19 am Subject: Samadhi a "Resultant Condition" ksheri3 Good Morning Group, Last night I woke up at 2:40 a.m. and was shivering beyond belief. I had kicked off the covers. After I returned to "under the covers" I found that I felt the immediate response of the warmth from my body being trapped and resurculated to me which I cognized, YET, I still shivered. I shivered for about a half hour where I recognized that my body had adopted a response to the cold and needed time to reposition itself for the warmth. Two seperate conditions at the same time, no? Way back when, circa 2004, I was re-forming my consciousness to work with groups on the web and trying to understand THEIR concepts on "ceremonial magic" so that I could apply THEIR theories to works so that I can see, witness, how they, the theories, work. Whether good bad or neither. I found a piece by Aliester Crowley or one of the founding members of the Golden Dawn that stated that a person needs to have a life outside of the practices of ceremonial magic. A few years later I was speaking with Bill Heidrick, former secretary of the O.T.O., and he assured me that this is the case: a person cannot immerse themselves in this too long without distraction. Me, as brash, as full of vim & vigar as I am, as headstrong as I am, DIS- CONTINUE my operations, HA! Well, it just so happens that I ran into this thing called The Dhyana Sutra, yes, it's a new aspect of the sutras for me, but since I recognize it as a tantric aspect of the teachings, AND that my abitities and practices are of the shamanistic traditions I therefore apply it mostly to the Bon traditions. I'm very close to the edges of buddhism, theosophy, hinduism, etc, similar to a massive crossroads where all roads travel through a single point. In this practice "censorship" is advised and it is a censorship specifically aimed at quenching the sense desires. When I first read these I thought to myself, humorously, "rather paranoid, very much like the zealot of the kabbalah, but now have seen something: Notwithstanding the annoyances which the gratification of sensual diesires brings to us we go on craving for these desires." "As these five sensual desires are gratified by anyone, he only becomes more intensely excited. It is like a burning house, the more fuel is added the hotter the flames become. Or if the sensual desires are not gratified by anyone and he still clings to them, he is like a dow gnawing at rotten bone. In my respect I cognized these concepts as being what I termed in my WESTERN ESOTERIC PRACTICES as being "the lust for results". This is what I was speaking of at the begining where a practicioner becomes consumed with results for their operations and more often than not, becomes deluded by the ritual and it's minor effects on the ab ilities it has to transform this thing we call reality. In closing I've been accosted by some EXTREMELY CONSERVATIVE AND BLIND ROBOTS of the western esoteric traditions/mysteries, concerning my relationship to a Austin Osman Spare (I continually go on rants praising Spare's "Cermon of the Hypocrit") and am continually pigeon holed into his lot, WHICH IS NOTHING MORE THAN THE COMPLETELY IGNORANT AND BLIND ROBOTS OF a theology and tradition taking on the form of decreptit old woman sitting in their pews as if they were members of the Soviets police the KGB or the Nazi's police the Gestapo, and it is their job to monitor how much every person deposits in the basket of the "bagman" after having communion with god, and we all know the questions I have about the practices of having communion with this phallic god, nevertheless, these old women are there for the soul purpose of making sure that if a person got a raise from a corporation then the gang, the mob, the congregation, the parish, gets it's percentage of that raise -- extortion for those of you ignorant of this practice -- which makes these old women and the people that aspire to become like these old women nothing more than SNITCHES, INFORMERS, "EYES WITHOUT A FACE" Billy Idol, etc. Which leads me to what this supposed "Dyhana Sutra" says: "The continual sufferings of birth and death are due to your sensual desires and lusts. When these, your children, are grown, they become your enemies and all your laborious work has been in vain and after the last breath you are buried in the grave. How foul is your dead body; how putrid is a dead corpse! Its nine cavities yiled stinking fluids, but you, oh fool, cling to it as does a maggot to excrement. However, you who are wisest, realikzing the body's emptiness and transiency, will not be enslaved by the allurements of its desires but rising free from their fascinations will find your true Nirvana. You should follow the teaching of the Buddha and, as you sit in Dhyana should count the breathing momnet by moment with all your mind and heart. This is the practice of the earnest Bhikkhu." Is there a sutra with such a passage? Hinderances, yikes, I can't wait to land this one! toodles, colette #77475 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:29 am Subject: Leaving for Texas upasaka_howard Hi, all - We're leaving tomorrow for a Dallas & San Antonio vacation with both of our sons & their families. We'll be back next Wednesday. I will likely have little or no internet access while away - so any posts directed to me will be replied to only after our return. With metta, Howard #77476 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:46 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, DC Wijeratna wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > I thoroughly enjoyed your post. > > I'm little involved today. I have to prepare to teach some silly thing tomorrow mornig. Theory of two truths in Abhidhamma philosophy. > > ... Hi DC, If I remember correctly, this was the topic of discussion when you first joined DSG. Do you have a copy of Sarah's post to you (76213)? I think you should take it to your lecture. ------- <. . .> S: > . . . The footnote (224) to M.Walshe's translation adds: "...In MA (ad MN 5: Anagana Sutta). the following verse is quoted...: "Two truths the Buddha, best of all who speak, declared: Conventional and ultimate - no third can be. Terms agreed by usage of the world; Words of ultimate significance are true in terms of dhammas. Thus the Lord, a Teacher, he Who's skilled in this world's speech , can use it, and not lie." -------- I think we ordinary people tend to "lie" when we use the world's speech. What I mean is, we use terms such as 'I' 'you' 'he' and 'she' with the idea that we are talking about real entities. Despite our Dhamma studies we are still a long way from fully understanding that there are really only namas and rupas. Is that the way you see it? Ken H #77477 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. dcwijeratna Dear Tep, I was getting ready to go for my talk. But your e-m was too tempting. So here I go. You wrote: Dear DC, - Thank you for promising to write me a reply tomorrow. However, the following one-and-a-half sentence got my attention. >DC: >>I have to prepare to teach some silly thing tomorrow morning. Theory of two truths in Abhidhamma philosophy. >T: Do you have a class to teach and why is the "Theory ..." a silly thing to teach? Besides, who are the unfortunate students you are going to teach the silly stuff? >BTW Does the term 'blind faith' imply wrong faith? Tep ==== DC: 1) I am assisting some university students, studying for the B.A. degree. One subject they have to take up is "Early Buddhist Philosophy." Philosophy of Early Buddhist schools. There is general consensus that sectarian Buddhism, that is teachings of different schools, after the first Schism, or the first division of the Sangha, is philosophy. Theravaada abhidhamma is in that category. 2) Now to the important point "... why is the 'Theory ..." a silly thing to teach?" theory A theory is something not verified: for example, Darwins theory of evolution. Here is the defintion of the word from the Oxford Dictionary: "supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, " It is "silly" because according to the Teachings of the Buddha, "Truth is one"; you can't have two truths. Moreover, learning these things are useful for passing exams; but no contribution to the achievement of the goal--ending dukkha. I might have used the term 'fun'. Now to "BTW ..." What does BTW mean?" I am not sure, could you please explain it. As to the question, the answer is: no, no such implication. "Blind faith" faith was intended to convey the fact it was baseless, rootless, or foundationless or that it is not knowledge. By the way right and wrong are loaded terms. Normally, they have ethical implications. But when it comes to knowledge, one most probably use it in the sense of true/false. What is your defintion of knowledge? Lots of mettaa, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77478 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:03 pm Subject: Purified Virtue, Straight Views, and Mindfulness indriyabala Hi Scott, DC, Han, and James (and other friends), - Can the four foundations of mindfulness be successfully developed when we have not had a "purified virtue" and "straight views" ? According to the SN 47.16, the answer is 'No'. Uttiya: It would be good, lord, if the Blessed One would teach me the Dhamma in brief so that, having heard the Dhamma from the Blessed One, I might dwell alone, secluded, heedful, ardent, & resolute. The Buddha: In that case, Uttiya, you should purify what is most basic with regard to skillful mental qualities. And what is the basis of skillful mental qualities? Well-purified virtue & views made straight. Then, when your virtue is well-purified and your views made straight, in dependence on virtue, established in virtue, you should develop the four frames of reference... Then, when in dependence on virtue, relying on virtue, you develop the four frames of reference, you will go beyond the realm of Death. [end of quote] A difficulty is in how we should interpret "purified virtue" and "straight views". What do you suggest? Tep ==== #77479 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Purified Virtue, Straight Views, and Mindfulness dcwijeratna Dear Tep, A quick one: Here is how I understand it. The whole path emanates from sammaadi.t.thi. Visusddhimagga: "sile pati.t.thaaya naro sapa~n~no citta.m ..." Whole of the Visuddhimagga is based on this gaatha. On the foundation of virtue you start developing the mind. Moreover, developement of the sati comes after the development of sammaa ajiva. That is the end of virtue. Read the Satipa.t.thaana sutta. At the very beginning. You'll find the answer to your question. "Ekayano aya.m bhikkave, maggo, .... satima vineyya loke abhijjhaa domanass.m" "This is the sole way for the purification of beings, .... ardent, clearly comprehnding and mindful, having overcome covetousness and grief concerning the world." D. G. D. C. Wijeratna P.S. Now read the sutta and don't try any abhidhammic explanations. #77480 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:01 pm Subject: Re: Reply to Tep kenhowardau Hi Elaine, ------------- E: > "Conventionally" speaking, I try to practise daily mindfulness in taking care of my speech, actions and thoughts. Is there anything wrong with this statement? ------------- No, it's fine! But is it what the Buddha taught? Or is it just good- old-fashioned common decency? --------------------------- E: > There is a sutta where Buddha taught his son Rahula the right actions, speech and thoughts, the Buddha was using conventional terms while speaking to his son. I think it is the Rahulovada sutta and I am refering to that sutta when I say "taking care of speech, actions and thoughts". ---------------------------- Remember, the Buddha taught anatta (no self). There are lots of other people who teach us how to speak, act and think, but none of them teaches there is no self who speaks, acts or thinks. Therefore, every word of the Buddha's teaching has to be understood differently from other teachings. If you ever find yourself thinking "this part of the Dhamma is quite ordinary," think again. :-) Every word of the Dhamma needs to be understood in terms of satipatthana (right understanding of conditioned namas and rupas). ---------------------------------------- E: > I know Buddhism is confusing but I hope one day I can experience nama-rupa through meditation. I can't understand nama-rupa by reading books and from dhamma discussion. Maybe not right now, but hopefully in the future I can understand a little bit more. ----------------------------------------- Yes, I hope you do too. But reading and discussing are the only ways in which direct right understanding can be developed. Contrary to popular opinion the texts make no mention of meditation in that regard. Good luck with your IVF program. I know everyone at DSG will be wishing you all the best. Ken H > Something off-topic ~ I just received a call from my IVF coordinator, my second FET (frozen embryro transfer) didn't take. I was already prepared to hear the bad news because I used two HPT yesterday and it was negative. But my heart still hurt a bit, my eyes don't sting but my ears feel hot right now, it's weird (it's as if the rupa has a mind of it's own, but it doesn't, does it?). > > We've decided to go for our 2nd IVF with gestational surrogacy, that's our last resort. Conventionally speaking, I'm "hoping" everything will go well but in truth, there is absolutely nothing we can hope for because everything is conditioned, and I totally understand that. :(( #77481 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:26 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. scottduncan2 Dear DC, Thanks for the reply: DC: "Well, you are a purist!!! So much the better...My fault. I meant dhamma--as defined in Sutta Pi.taka. The reason is abhidhamma is abhi + dhamma. So I think we need to understand what it means...There is a more compelling reason: We have to postulate that Dhamma (I am used to writing Dhamma to mean the teaching of the Tathaagata) as the 'truth'. Anything, that doesn't conform to that teaching, we have to treat as not-Dhamma. Or at least flag them as not dhamma. If you treat dhamma, abhidhamma, suttas, all these as dhamma what do we do when there are contradictions?" Scott: I had a very nice conversation last year with a local Sri Lankan monk by the name of Bhikkhu Seelanandanda. It was following his kind performance of a brief ceremony for my deceased wife. We were discussing Abhidhamma, and he was mentioning how he focuses only on Dhamma and how it is all Dhamma. DC: "Have you got a copy of the Abhidhamma Studies by Ven. Nyaanponika? That is an excellent summary of Dhs." Scott: Thanks and no, I don't have a copy of this book. I'm studying Dhammasa"nga.ni on its own, with the Commentary. DC: "...As a psychologist what is your opinion on the body-mind-brain relationship?" Scott: My apologies, I don't think much of myself 'as a psychologist'. I'll answer briefly but prefer to study Dhamma (which psychology never will be). The body, mind, and brain form a seamless unity when it comes to experience (the realm of psychotherapy) and hence the distinction is unnecessary. Worldly psychology does not treat with realities since 'mind', 'brain', and 'body' are considered as wholes and real, whereas they are in fact, concepts. DC: "What is your attitude to knowledge?" Scott: That which is called 'insight' in relation to the knowledge one gains through the process of psychotherapy is purely conceptual and entirely conventional. DC: "But let's make a start. Since you have also no objection to reading the introductory essay of Mrs. Rh D, I'll send comments on it, just one at a time, (this is hard work). By the way, I don't agree with Mrs Rh D on anything she has to say about Dhamma. But she was an excellent translator." Scott: Okay, DC. I don't look to Mrs. RD as a teacher either but as a start to looking at Dhammasa"nga.ni, it will be interesting. Sincerely, Scott. #77482 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:45 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (69) nichiconn Dear Friends, Part 2 13. Viisatinipaato 4. Sundariitheriigaathaava.n.nanaa txt: Atha braahma.no "kuhi.m satthaa"ti pucchitvaa "idaani mithilaaya.m viharatii"ti ta.m sutvaa taavadeva ratha.m yojetvaa rathena mithila.m gantvaa satthaara.m upasa"nkamitvaa vanditvaa sammodaniiya.m katha.m katvaa ekamanta.m nisiidi. Tassa satthaa dhamma.m desesi. So dhamma.m sutvaa pa.tiladdhasaddho pabbajitvaa vipassana.m pa.t.thapetvaa gha.tento vaayamanto tatiye divase arahatta.m paapu.ni. Pruitt: Then the brahman asked, "Where is the Teacher?" and having heard, "He is residing now in Mithilaa," he immediately hitched up his chariot and went to Mithilaa in the chariot. He approached the Teacher and paid homage. He exchanged friendly greetings and having made conversation, he sat down on one side. The Teacher taught him the Doctrine. When he heard the Doctrine, he gained faith and went forth. He established insight, and striving and making effort, he attained the state of Arahatship on the third day. RD: 'Where,' he asked, 'is the Master?' 'He is now at Mithilaa.' So the brahmin drove in his carriage to Mithilaa and sought audience of the Master. To him the Master taught the Norm; and he believed, and entered the Order, attaining Arahantship on the third day, after strenuous effort in establishing insight. txt: Atha saarathi ratha.m aadaaya baaraa.nasi.m gantvaa braahma.niyaa ta.m pavatti.m aarocesi. Sundarii attano pitu pabbajitabhaava.m sutvaa, "amma, ahampi pabbajissaamii"ti maatara.m aapucchi. Maataa "ya.m imasmi.m gehe bhogajaata.m, sabba.m ta.m tuyha.m santaka.m, tva.m imassa kulassa daayaadikaa pa.tipajja, ima.m sabbabhoga.m paribhu~nja, maa pabbajii"ti aaha. Saa "na mayha.m bhogehi attho, pabbajissaamevaaha.m, ammaa"ti maatara.m anujaanaapetvaa mahati.m sampatti.m khe.lapi.n.da.m viya cha.d.detvaa pabbaji. Pabbajitvaa ca sikkhamaanaayeva hutvaa vipassana.m va.d.dhetvaa gha.tentii vaayamantii hetusampannataaya ~naa.nassa paripaaka.m gatattaa saha pa.tisambhidaahi arahatta.m paapu.ni. Pruitt: Then his charioteer too the chariot and went to Baaraa.nasii and told the brahman's wife the news concerning him. When Sundarii heard her father had gone forth, she asked her mother, "Mother, may I go forth too?" Her mother said, "Whatever wealth there is in this house belongs to you. You are the heiress of this family. Receive all this wealth and enjoy it. Do not go forth." "I have no need of wealth," [Sundarii replied]. "I shall go forth, mother." And obtaining permission from her mother, she abandoned that great prosperity like a lump of phlegm and went forth. And going forth, she became a trainee, increased insight, and striving and making effort, through the maturing of the prerequisites, because her knowledge reached maturity, she attained the state of Arahatship together with the [four] discriminations. RD: But the charioteer drove his chariot back to Benares, and told the brahminee what had taken place. When Sundarii heard of it, she asked her mother, saying: 'Mother, I too would leave the world.' The mother said: 'All the wealth in this house belongs to you. You are the heiress of this family. Take up your heritage and enjoy it. Go not forth.' But Sundarii said: 'Wealth is no use to me. Mother, I would leave the world;' and, bringing the mother to consent, she abandoned her great possessions like so much spittle, and entered the Order (at Benares). And studying and striving because of the promise in her and the maturity of her knowledge, she attained Arahantship, with thorough grasp of the Norm in form and meaning. ===tbc, connie #77483 From: "nidive" Date: Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:17 am Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. nidive Hi Sukin, IMO, Right View of a sotapanna is not as refined as the Right View of a sakadagami. A sotapanna simply does not have the same level of Right View as a sakadagami with regard to sensuality or ill will. A sotapanna may engage in extreme austerities to abandon sensuality, but because of his glimpse into nibbana, he internally knows (after practicing) if such & such an austerity is capable of leading to awakening, to dispassion, to cessation. Swee Boon #77484 From: "Sukinder" Date: Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:32 am Subject: Re: Response to DC Part 3. sukinderpal Dear DC, Sorry for the delay in responding. There will be some snipping off. ============================================== ==== >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. S=> People come in from different "views" during discussions. However much of the time, discussions don't touch upon this most important aspect of the Dhamma, or if they do, soon drift off to other areas. It is so easy to get carried away by concepts, I do all the time! However often, no matter there is agreement or disagreement, these seem to be of little consequence. Was I trying to avoid the issue? I don't know, but surely not because there was no answer, but perhaps I was trying to direct your attention to what is more important to consider? ================= DC: 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? S=> What does one discusses anything from? Do we only state our own understanding of the matter or do we also determine and discuss the other person's understanding of it as well? I don't see the problem, but perhaps I am missing your point? ================= > Sukin: 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. S=> Aren't you now coming to a conclusion about my understanding? Do you do this with some special ability? ;-) I think that we can discuss without having to believe absolutely, that we are right about the other person. I realize that the way I state my opinions it sounds as if I am so sure of myself, and true, there is lots and lots of mana involved. In general however, I am never certain about my evaluation of the other person's comments at all. As regards my pointing out what I perceive to be the other person's `wrong view', I only say it as I see it, but never with any confidence about my own level of understanding, which I can't help but consider to be quite superficial. In the end I don't even know myself, so how can I claim to know other people?! But that's OK I guess, because in discussions not only do we learn from our own considerations, but we also act as mirrors for each other….. With this allow me to elaborate on my previous comment about the 17 Citta per Rupa issue. I felt that you were targeting something which could not be proven nor was meant to be. Of course you have made up your mind about the Abhidhamma being the work of `unenlightened scholar monks', and this is why you question as to how they could have known such details. In another post I told you that I too started the Abhidhamma with the belief about it being of later origin. I guess then, that the real problem concerns "View", namely how we are inclined to interpret the Dhamma, be this from reading the Sutta, the Vinaya or the Abhidhamma. You happen to hold a view which does not agree with the Abhidhamma / commentarial interpretation, and I happen to agree with it. Insisting that only the Sutta and Vinaya are the direct Teachings of the Buddha is therefore a statement about one's own preferred interpretation of the Dhamma. This is why, of all the stories and explanations for and against the Abhidhamma, you pick out just those ones which suits you. So when you question the 17 citta per rupa thing, this is not a problem about what the actual fact might be, but about your "need" to question this at all. And my pointing you to present moment realities was not an avoidance or saying that "I don't know", but a reminder about what in fact is more important to consider. And this is not something we get from reading the Abhidhamma alone, but the Suttas and Vinaya also give out the same message, only this is hard to discern without help from the Abhidhamma. I guess the Abhidhamma has to make sense at some level, otherwise how would one be interested in it. And once when delved into, there will be matters we won't be able to comprehend at first. But this should remind us about our own lack of understanding rather than being a fault of the Abhidhamma. And as we go by what we `do' understand, suttamaya and cintamaya panna, even if in the meantime no thought was given to it, things start to fall in place and suddenly we may begin to have some understanding of those matters which previously we didn't. But I guess so far, nothing from the Abhidhamma has clicked for you. Perhaps any little interest that you do have is about how different concepts in the Abhidhamma could support your present interpretation of the Dhamma. As far as I can see however, yours is an interpretation conditioned by Self View. Your acceptance of the Abhidhamma will therefore never happen unless there is a complete change in perspective. And here is where the real resistance is. The threat of Abhidhamma is a threat to "Self". Sutta / Vinaya vs. the Abhidhamma perspective is hence only an excuse, perhaps even something to hide behind. As far as I am concerned, there is only "one" perspective, that of Dhamma. In this regard, there is absolutely no conflict between any parts of the Three Baskets. ===================== DC: 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. S=> "Realities" is that which are directly known by developed panna in a way that concepts can't be known. Nibbana is known by the 8 Lokuttara cittas. Citta, cetasika and rupa are known by satipatthana, vipassana and some probably by the very developed panna of Arahats and Buddhas. That there are some realities not ever known directly, is not a problem. Enlightenment is not a consequence of knowing *all* realities enumerated in the Abhidhamma. It is a matter of the "development of understanding", and this means that what under normal circumstance would be the object of avijja, tanha and miccha ditthi, are now to be the object of "Samma Ditthi", with the support of other kusala dhammas, of course. So it does not mean knowing such things as the `life span of rupas', but rather that rupas are of certain characteristics, functions, cause and manifestation. And with regard to achieving peace and happiness, I'm sure you have asked yourself "what is the cause of suffering / dukkha?" And here lies our difference in interpretation of the Dhamma. You seem to interpret the Noble Eightfold Path as being constituted of separate practices to follow, which can be grouped into Sila, Samadhi and Panna. I on the other hand, see it as being a reference to a moment of "understanding" a paramattha dhamma. In other words, the development of Satipatthana / Vipassana without such ideas as first having to fulfill Sila, and then to develop Samadhi. ==================== >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. S=> Regarding the first question, nothing comes to mind. But I will say, as suggested in the beginning of this post, "view" is of prime importance. If we understand for example, that the problem is in the ignorance and wrong view of present moment realities, then I believe the most fruitful discussions are ones that encourage "understanding" the present moment. Were everyone here to accept this, there may be no need to ever argue at all! ;-) Arguments are usually due to being `lost in concepts', forgetting that the purpose of study is to better understand the presently arisen dhamma. So no formula for arguments from me, but that we do this at all, is what needs to be understood better and better. Regarding "dealing with the real world", what you call `real', I consider `unreal'. But yes we do need to relate to experiences conceptually not only when interacting with the so called "conventional world", but also when we otherwise think about things. There is no problem in thinking about these `unrealities', the problem is when instead we take them for "real"! In other words the problem is when Wrong View is involved. When for example we take the findings of science to be informative of "reality", *this* is a problem. Science and every other way of thought other than Dhamma, is built entirely upon `concepts'. Any enquiry made and study taken goes only so far as the associated tanha, with or without wrong view, will allow. No knowledge and understanding of dhammas are ever gained. However this does not mean that we should avoid studying such subjects. They do have practical application in the conventional world. So long as we remember and understand that this does not lead to any understanding of the Dhamma, it should be fine. Besides, were it not for science, would we have the internet today? ;-) In dealing with day to day activities, the same principle more or less applies. It is fine that you and I decide to write posts to each other, and this involving much thinking in terms of people, things and situations. The problem is only when all this is associated with `self view'. And it usually is! ====================== > Sukin: 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. S=> Other religions has a story about dhammas, but not Dhamma. Their version of dhammas is filtered through `self view'. They may even appreciate to some extent, the distinction between kusala dhammas and akusala dhammas, but they will not know about ignorance particularly as manifested in Wrong View. It is only when dhammas are understood without self view that they begin to be seen "as they truly are". When other religions say "don't lie", they may have some idea about the danger in lying and corresponding value of honesty, however they are very happy to go about controlling their behavior with strong self view. They have no idea about `lying' and `speaking the truth' being in fact conditioned realities. So are their teachings in line with Buddha Vacana? I don't think so. DC, this is already too long a post and so I've decided to leave out the rest. If you however need me to respond to anything else, please let me know. Metta, Sukin. #77485 From: Dieter Möller Date: Thu Oct 18, 2007 9:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. moellerdieter Hi Howard, you wrote: 'Howard: Exactly one dhamma (rupa or nama) is object of consciousness at any given time. There will also be present as aspects of the current mind state a variety of concomitant mental operations and features. D: seemingly I still ´misunderstand you..possibly 'ultimate vs conventional '..(?) our conventional reality/consciousness exists of a multitude of material /mental phenomena .. therefore I said whether only 'one dhamma is present at any moment ', is for our impression and reaction so important as to know e.g. that the movie we watch consists of a fast squence of single pictures. It is something else when we practise medition and concentrate on a single object ... so the 'scattered ' state turns into mind -collectiveness (as a synonym for the samadhi practise 6/7/8). Howard: That being lost in thought isn't a lack of concentration, but a lack of mindfulness. Being lost in thought or in sloth& torpor is, as I see it, what sati guards against. D: I think it is not possible to separate concentration and mindfulness. you need concentration for being mindful, to know what you are doing you need to pay attention..concentrating on something ..contemplating about.. otherwise the usual somehow absent-minded situation appears, as it is said (S.N. XII 61) ..But of that which is called mind, is called thought, is called consciousness, one moment arises as another ceases continually both day and night. Just as a monkey wandering in a big forest seizes a branch and letting go of it seizes another: similarly, bhikkhus, of that which is called mind, is called thought, is called consciousness, one moment arises as another ceases continually both day and night.' Howard: When lost in thought, concentration, albeit not *right* concentration, could well be very strong it seems to me. D: the word 'lost' refers to you , i.e. you are absent..it isn't right concentration as you say, because samadhi is an act of will, even that to be present as a pure observer. (usually we can only recall dreams , don't we?) Howard : (D: The claim 'concentration occurs in every mind state' is questionable therefore .) Even when there is weak attention and minimal mindfulness, I suspect there is still at least a minimal degree of concentration in play. With literally zero concentration, the mind would be close to no mind at all, it seems to me. D: I would call that the survival program.. but as I said 'questionable '..not ' wrong' we may agree that is easier to use the term 'concentration ' in the sense of samadhi practise. Howard: (D: Where do you disagree?) ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Please see the foregoing. ;-) D: ok .. ok? ;-) Howard: I do wish that some Abhidhammikas here who have considered *details* of matters would come in on this. D: in particular when we can keep theory in context with possible experience.. with Metta Dieter P.S. wishing you a nice trip to Dallas (how many miles? :-) ) and best wishes for your family especially Sophie) #77486 From: Sobhana Date: Thu Oct 18, 2007 9:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Reply to Tep shennieca Hi KenH, all, KenH: ...reading and discussing are the only ways in which direct right understanding can be developed. Contrary to popular opinion the texts make no mention of meditation in that regard. E: I believe in the effectiveness of meditation, sorry. The Theravada temple that I go to emphasize 3 things- dana, sila, and bhavana. That temple also teaches Mahasi Sayadaw meditation method. My teachers Ven. Sujiva and the late Ven. Suvanno always say that Vipassana Bhavana is the Only method that can "cleanse" the mind and Only through vipassana can one uproot greed, hatred and delusion. Meditation practise has always been emphasized because Buddha himself gained Enlightenment through meditation. Every other method which people claim can lead to enlightenment and "seeing" nama-rupa is a bit suspicious. But I agree that there are some people who can understand nama-rupa through reading books. In Buddha's days, I think Ven. Sariputta became a Sotapanna by hearing 2 verses of a dhamma talk, right? So, some people already have a lot of good accumulations and they don't need meditation to gain enlightenment. But as far as I know, my teachers have always encouraged formal meditation. It is easy to say, go meditate, but in reality it is really hard to do. I haven't been to a retreat for 15 years. :(( I really want to go for a 3-month retreat. I didn't make full use of the time that I had when I was at my last retreat and I was a bit disappointed. I also hope that the right conditions will arise again and I will be able to go for another retreat soon. I believe that, to really know "yourself" or to know the "notself" is by watching the rising and falling of the abdomen, or the breath, and directly knowing the "uncontrollability" of the rupa. Realizing anicca is the first glimpse into realizing anatta. Anicca is a very important Buddhist teaching, but people somehow are more fascinated by anatta. I wasn't very interested in anatta until I went to E-sangha forum and everyone talks about anatta all the time. To me, talking about anatta feels like talking about the taste of an apple, when I don't know what an apple taste like, and I don't like talking about anatta because I don't know what it is. But it is good to be able to explain the basics of anatta, but experiencing anatta is a totally different thing. ~~~~~~ I'm feeling better today but there is still a lot of sighing going on. It is difficult to watch the feelings of sadness but they are momentary and they will go away, I'm sure they will, because everything is impermanent. :)) :(( Buddhism is a wonderful religion. I aspire to be a Buddhist till the end of time, till Nibbana is achieved. #77487 From: Sobhana Date: Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Reply to Tep shennieca Hi DC, Thanks a lot for your reply. I really like what you wrote. :)) DC: Even from his "parinibbaana- ma.ncaka" He exhorted the monks "Appamaadena sampaadetha" That is not to do any evil actions. By the way Rahulaavoda Sutta [Ambala.t.thikaaraa hulovaada Sutta, MN 61] has another important teaching. The basic criteria for deciding between right and wrong. If what you do by word, deed, etc. if doesn't harm you and the other, then do it. So before doing any action you should reflect, while doing, and after doing you should reflect whether the above criterion has been satisfied. The Buddha always used conventional terms when speaking. There is a single sutta anywhere where he spoke abhidhamma. E: I am not familiar with the Abhidhamma and I find it difficult to understand. But I love the suttas especially Rahulovada Sutta. The Buddha's last words to "strive on heedfully" is an extremely important advice, if only I could follow it. Urgh. My mind is too monkey-like to meditate, too many distracting thoughts, but I hope it'll calm down after a few sittings. I just have to get used to it. The mind needs training, it needs to be cleansed. hahah :D Thank you. :)) #77488 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:04 am Subject: What is Consciousness? bhikkhu0 Friends: What is the Consciousness of any Mentality? The Blessed Buddha has explained consciousness as: A: Definitions: What, now, is consciousness? There are six kinds of consciousness (viññÄ?na-khandha): 1: Consciousness of form is visual consciousness, 2: Consciousness of sound is auditory consciousness, 3: Consciousness of smell is olfactory consciousness, 4: Consciousness of taste is gustatory consciousness, 5: Consciousness of touch is tactile consciousness, 6: Consciousness of thought is mental consciousness. SN: 22:56 B: Causation by Dependent Origination: The arising of consciousness is dependent upon specific conditions... Without presence of these conditions, no consciousness will ever emerge... Consciousness is named after the conditions upon which it is dependent! Consciousness, whose arising depends on the encounter of eye & forms, is called visual consciousness. Consciousness, whose arising depends on the ear & sounds, is called auditory consciousness. Consciousness, whose arising depends on the nose and smells, is called olfactory consciousness. Consciousness, whose arising depends on the tongue and tastes, is called gustatory consciousness. Consciousness, whose arising depends on the meeting of the body or skin and touches is called tactile consciousness. Consciousness, whose arising depends on mind meeting a mental object, state, idea or thought is called mental consciousness. MN 38 The central role of active Attention: Even though the eye is intact, if external form does not fall within the field of vision, then no attentive combination of eye & form takes place, therefore there will not emerge any visual consciousness. Or even though external form actually fall within the field of vision, yet if no attentive combination of eye & form takes place, there will neither emerge any visual consciousness. Only if, the eye is intact, external form fall within the range of vision, & attentive combination of eye & form takes place, then there arises the corresponding phenomenon of visual consciousness. (Similarly so with the other 5 kinds of consciousness) MN 28 C: Dependency on the other four Clusters of Clinging: It is impossible for anyone to explain the passing out of one existence, and the entering into a new process of existence during transmigration, or the initiation, growth, increase, and development of consciousness, independently of form, feeling, perception, and mental construction... SN 22: 53 D: Consciousness is constructed & causes a duality: Naming & Forming: The Origin of Consciousness is the arising of Mental Construction... The Ceasing of Mental Construction also ceases Consciousness... The Origin of Name-&-Form is the arising of Consciousness... The Ceasing of Consciousness also ceases Name-&-Form... MN 9 Only this silencing stilling is Peace, is Bliss, is Freedom… Comment: Like space has no essence in itself beyond being 'spacious', but can contain, accommodate, hold, & include all material phenomena, then similarly has consciousness no essence in itself beyond being 'aware' of all the mental phenomena it can manifest, display, show, exhibit, expose, express, create and reveal. It defines & establishes being... It is momentary and vanishes instantly after it has arisen. It is Not an abiding presence, entity, soul, I, me, ego, core, nor any identity... Apart from conditions, there is nothing arising as or in consciousness... All forms of consciousness are impermanence, suffering, and no-self, whether it is past, future or present, gross or subtle, arisen internally in oneself or externally in others, inferior or exalted, far or near... Buddha likened consciousness to a deceiving trick: A made-up Illusion... Consciousness is like a burning pit of hot embers one should not enter! For more on consciousness see: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/In_Dependence_on_Contact.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/The_Selfless_Camera.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/The_Leash.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Like_Foam.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Ego-Projection.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/By_Nature.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Origin.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Without_Wavering.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/What_are_the_5_Clusters_of_Clinging.htm Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka * http://What-Buddha-Said.net Consciousness is the crucial element of existence! #77489 From: "ehasas500" Date: Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:12 am Subject: Wheel of life ehasas500 hello dsg members. This is what i understand to be the message of Buddha. The paramis developed by Buddha enabled him to see the consequences of action (volition – body, speech, thought) on the minds of individuals. The paramis mean acting in ways which is contrary to the habits of a large majority of people; meaning that while others may be full of hatred i will dwell with a mind free from hatred, while others may be full of greed i will dwell with a mind free from greed, while others will be foolish i will carefully consider all my actions and will evaluate whether those were beneficial to one and all. In this way Buddha was able to dispel his ignorance of the truth of suffering. He understood that because people do not see this truth of suffering, they engage in unproductive action. So to guide others out of their ignorance he exhorted them to be aware of the suffering which arises in their body-mind complex. Then the task is to engage in action which will bring an end to this suffering. Depending on right action ignorance can end. End of ignorance means one will not crave for a new body at the time of death. With birth comes disease, old age, death, suffering. No birth means no death, no suffering. Contact with any object produces feeling whether based in body (cold, humid....) or that based in mind (like the pleasantness while reading a book one likes). When one focuses on the impermanence of all objects then the tendency to crave for feelings is destroyed. An arhat dwells in equanimity no matter what feelings (whether pleasant, neutral, unpleasant) are there to experience. What i can not figure out is that, in the case of non-arhats, how this chain -- feeling > craving > clinging > becoming -- is explained in terms of cetasikas. Feeling is vedana cetasika. Craving is probably lobha cetasika [but what happens when feeling is an unpleasant or neutral one]. And finally what namas does abhidhamma indicate to be clinging and becoming? Any help will be highly appreciated. Cheers. #77490 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Thu Oct 18, 2007 12:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Reply to Tep dcwijeratna Dear Sobhana, Many thanks for your kind words. You wrote: >E: I am not familiar with the Abhidhamma and I find it difficult to understand. But I love the suttas especially Rahulovada Sutta. The Buddha's last words to "strive on heedfully" is an extremely important advice, if only I could follow it. Urgh. My mind is too monkey-like to meditate, too many distracting thoughts, but I hope it'll calm down after a few sittings. I just have to get used to it. The mind needs training, it needs to be cleansed. hahah :D ................... DC: Re: "I am not familiar with the Abhidhamma and I find it difficult to understand." It doesn't matter at all. I haven't seen a single sutta reference, where anybody achieved anything through abhidhamma. So no need to worry about that matter. .................. DC: Re. "The Buddha's last words to "strive on heedfully" is an extremely important advice, if only I could follow it. Urgh. My mind is too monkey-like to meditate, too many distracting thoughts, but I hope it'll calm down after a few sittings. I just have to get used to it. The mind needs training, it needs to be cleansed. hahah :D" ................................. DC: The Buddha's mission was to bring peace and happiness for this world. Dukkha and its eradication. For that he gave us a method. The Noble Eightfold Path. The Noble Eightfold Path was actually for monks--really for monks who have left home for homelessness, disgusted with worldly life. For us householders, I presume, you are also a householder, he indicated a simpler path. Householders really cannot pursue the Noble Eightfold Path. It is a 24 hour job. Moreover, those who cannot even leave home, how can they leave the world? So for householders the Buddha indicated a simpler path. Now this path, one must travel by oneself--you cannot get anywhere by studying, reading, writing dhamma or listening. That is also a 24 path. What is simple is all you need to do is to observe the five precepts without breaking them. You see the Buddha used words like 'brahmacariya' 'dhammacariya': a life of purity, a life of righteousnness, to describe the path. You can get a full description about this in the Dhammika sutta of the Sutta Nipata. The mind training comes very much later in the path. In the Noble Eightfold Path it starts at 'sammaa vaayaama' sixth item. Don't worry about your mind being monkey-like. Taming oneself proceeds as follows: First control the bodily and verbal actions. When you do that, you have peace with the environment. You have nothing to worry and nothing to repent. This means not breaking the five precepts. This means you never kill, hurt, lie etc. Your actions are always motivated according to the Rahulovaada criteria. (By the way mettaa) At first, you will find it difficult, if you have been used to say: swatting mosquitoes or something like that, you will forget sometimes that you have undertaken the precepts and kill it. Nothing to despair. All you need to do is to do some reflection (the one after the act) and then analyse that situation carefully and find a method to avoid that in the future. Well, like that you keep on increasing day by day the quality of your precept. But if you justify the killing, mosquitoes bring malaria or some such justification, then there is no improvement. But I can assure you with improvement, your happiness, and well-being increase. It is better for you to observe one single precept than memorising the whole of the Tipitaka--the Buddhist canon. About mind control: If you want to control your mind, that is the second stage of your training, you must have completed the 1st stage. Just look at like this. Four 23 and half hours of the day you allow your mind a free rein. Allow the fellow to do what he wants; next half hour to behave perfectly. It doen't work like that. Mind is a creature of habit. Imagine what will happen to you that you need to 'operate' your breathing. It goes on perfectly without your intervention. Many other things say driving, a more practical example, or learning any other skill, All these activities must become habits of the mind. Same with the observing the precepts. One fundamental fact is, if you want to control your mind, you will never be able to control it. Because there is wanting--tanha. When you are at peace with the world, the mind will get concentrated the moment you sit down to it. It is a causal process. Well, I wrote all this because, I felt many sincere seekers are being dissuaded by this talk of Abhidhamma anatta and so. These concepts you can never ever understand by talking, discussing or arguing about them. But if you follow the path you will start understanding them little by little. Now, if by any chance, if you need any further clarification or you require the exact sutta references, pleas do come back. To help in that would be my pleasure. On the other hand, if I have intruded on your valuable time, please just ignore this. May you get the peace that you aspire to, [The ultimate peace is nibbaana--Eta.m santa.m, eta.m pa.niita.m] With lots of mettaa D. G. D. C. Wijeratna P.S. Metta is just being friendly #77491 From: Sobhana Date: Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Reply to Tep shennieca Hello DC, Thank you for your reply. It is a pleasure to read what you wrote! :)) With metta, Elaine Chin #77492 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:02 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Reply to Tep kenhowardau Hi Elaine, --------------- > > KenH: ...reading and discussing are the only ways in which direct right understanding can be developed. Contrary to popular opinion the texts make no mention of meditation in that regard. > > E:> I believe in the effectiveness of meditation, sorry. The Theravada temple that I go to emphasize 3 things- dana, sila, and bhavana. That temple also teaches Mahasi Sayadaw meditation method. ----------------- I don't want to disavow you of your chosen beliefs. I do hope, however, that you will at least have a look at the ancient texts. You might be interested in seeing how *they* describe dana, sila and bhavana. ---------------------------- <. . .> E: > Meditation practise has always been emphasized because Buddha himself gained Enlightenment through meditation. Every other method which people claim can lead to enlightenment and "seeing" nama-rupa is a bit suspicious. ------------------------------ Buddhas (as Bodhisattas) devote immeasurable time and countless lives to the development of right understanding (of the conditioned world). It is this understanding that leads to enlightenment. Sitting with one leg crossed over the other while counting in-breaths and out- breaths will never do that. ----------------------------------------------- E: > But I agree that there are some people who can understand nama- rupa through reading books. In Buddha's days, I think Ven. Sariputta became a Sotapanna by hearing 2 verses of a dhamma talk, right? So, some people already have a lot of good accumulations and they don't need meditation to gain enlightenment. ----------------------------------------------- Yes, but the process is basically the same for everyone. There is only one way out of suffering, and that is by the development of right understanding. Right understanding accumulates in the course of many lifetimes through repeated hearing, considering and application of the true Dhamma. ------------------------------ E: > But as far as I know, my teachers have always encouraged formal meditation. It is easy to say, go meditate, but in reality it is really hard to do. I haven't been to a retreat for 15 years. :(( I really want to go for a 3-month retreat. I didn't make full use of the time that I had when I was at my last retreat and I was a bit disappointed. I also hope that the right conditions will arise again and I will be able to go for another retreat soon. I believe that, to really know "yourself" or to know the "notself" is by watching the rising and falling of the abdomen, or the breath, and directly knowing the "uncontrollability" of the rupa. Realizing anicca is the first glimpse into realizing anatta. ------------------------------- You could spend every awake moment of your life concentrating in that way and still be no nearer to enlightenment. It doesn't work. And the blame for it's not working is always put on the meditation student - never on the teacher or on the method itself. It is just like the American self-help industry that I was telling Phil about. People love to hear the promises that are made: "Follow these easy steps and all these wonderful, wonderful things will happen to you!" They don't happen. The customers secretly know they will never happen, but they love to hear the promises. And so they keep coming back to buy more and more books and to attend more and more over-priced seminars. Am I right, or am I right? :-) Glad to hear you are feeling better today. I hope my rambling hasn't put an end to that. :-) Ken H #77493 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:26 pm Subject: Award for Dali Lama buddhatrue Hi All, I'm really surprised that Bush has spoken so strongly against the Chinese to give the Congressional Gold Medal to the Dali Lama. I was starting to think that Bush was a complete idiot, but now I'm not so sure (maybe 90% idiot?? ;-)). Metta, James #77494 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Reply to Tep dcwijeratna Dear Ken H (and Elaine), This is an intrusion. Hope you wouldn't mind. I thought I would add my two cents worth to your discussion with Elaine. You wrote to Elaine: >Hi Elaine, ------------ --- >> > KenH: ...reading and discussing are the only ways in which direct right understanding can be developed. Contrary to popular opinion the texts make no mention of meditation in that regard. > > ---------------------------------- DC: Re. The first sentence above. To me, the situation appears to be little more complex. If one doesn't hear, the Dhamma (or read), there is no way of getting to know about it. Exceptions to this are the Buddha's and the Pacceka Buddha's. They are the discoverers of the path. But for us pacceka Buddhas's not very useful, because they don't make the Dhamma known to others (teach). One more point: There appears to two levels of right understanding: a 'worldly right understanding' and a 'supra-mundane right understanding'. Worldly right understanding is what is called in the "kammassakaa sammaa-di.t.thi"-Acceptance of the kamma and its result basically, texts mention this as "atthi dinna.m, ...etc." The second variety is usually described as the knowledge of the four noble truths. This level of right understanding results in the state of stream-entry (sotapanna). Re. The second sentence above: For the first level, there is no need of meditation. But there is one limitation about that. That will not take you to the second level--supramundane. This becomes clearer, if you look at the path from the perspective of sila->samaadhi-> pa-n~naa. The first level of right understanding is associated with siila (virtue). Samaadhi (right concentration) is the transition from siila to pa~n~naa (wisdom). The second level of right understanding is associated with Pa~n~naa (wisdom). It is by meditation that you develop samaadhi. Finally, meditation is not required for "mundane right understanding", but "supramundane right understanding" is not possible without samaadhi. This understanding is on the basis of the suttas. Of course, I might have misunderstood. ............................... E:> I believe in the effectiveness of meditation, sorry. The Theravada temple that I go to emphasize 3 things- dana, sila, and bhavana. That temple also teaches Mahasi Sayadaw meditation method. ------------ ----- For Elaine: Yes, I agree with you--that daana, siila, bhaavanaa is the path. That is explicitly given as the householder's path in the Anguttara Nikaya. It is what we have been taught, for may be 2300 years, by the Sangha of our country. Let me just also tell you what we have learnt about how the Buddha taught his listeners. The Buddha would first deliver what is called the "graduated discourse" (aanupubbii katha). This is how it is described: "daanakathaa, siilakathaa, saggakathaa, kaamaana.m aaddinav.m ...." When the the understands that the mind (through his higher powers of understanding-- (a~n~naasi)) of the listener is really ready for 'understanding', the Buddha would deliver the 'teaching peculiar to the Buddha's' (saamukka.msikaa desanaa). Please check with your monks at the Temple. They can explain the details of these things. Let me say that, your understanding, as far as my understanding goes, is perfectly in accordance with the Dhamma--the teaching of the Buddha, the way it has been taught by the monks. That is good reason to say "Sa.ngha.m sarana.m gacchaami." Consider this as the greatest blessing. "Sukho buddhaana.m uppaado sukhaa saddhammadesanaa" ............... ------------ --------- ------- >>Ken H: Buddhas (as Bodhisattas) devote immeasurable time and countless lives to the development of right understanding (of the conditioned world). It is this understanding that leads to enlightenment. Sitting with one leg crossed over the other while counting in-breaths and out- breaths will never do that. ......... DC: I agree with your second sentence. But what is the basis of your statement? But there is another way of looking at these things also. If one wished to understand the theory of relativity, one should start by learning to count. ------------ --------- --------- --------- -------- E: > But I agree that there are some people who can understand nama- rupa through reading books. ............ DC: According to our tradition, that is impossible. Ask the monks. I don't see the need for the Buddha to prescribe siila, samaadhi, pa~n~naa if that is possible. ------------ --------- --------- --------- -------- >Ken H: > It is just like the American self-help industry that I was telling Phil about. People love to hear the promises that are made: "Follow these easy steps and all these wonderful, wonderful things will happen to you!" They don't happen. The customers secretly know they will never happen, but they love to hear the promises. And so they keep coming back to buy more and more books and to attend more and more over-priced seminars. Am I right, or am I right? ........... DC: You are right, you are right. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- With kind regards, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77495 From: Sobhana Date: Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Reply to Tep shennieca Hi KenH, E: I believe that the people who are able to go for meditation retreats and meditate well (with some results after the retreat) have already accumulated paramis, many, many lifetimes in the past. So, they may be nearer to Nibbana because they are already following in the footsteps of the Buddha, so to speak. I have never heard of a monk (in modern times or in the past) who walks around and read books and gained enlightenment. Is there any monk in Buddha's time who were able to do that? Even Ven. Ananda had to push himself very hard to meditate, in fact, he meditated too strenously and only when he was tired and slowly put his head on the bed and relaxed a bit, that he attained Nibbana because there was a balance in the faculties. (sorry I cannot explain this very well, but there has to be a balance in the faculties, e.g. energy versus concentration faculties have to be balanced). As for myself, I think I am in the process of accumulating more paramis, so hopefully my next life, I will be able to meditate better and gain Nibbana then. ---------------------------------------------- KenH: Buddhas (as Bodhisattas) devote immeasurable time and countless lives to the development of right understanding (of the conditioned world). It is this understanding that leads to enlightenment. Sitting with one leg crossed over the other while counting in-breaths and out-breaths will never do that. ------------------------------------------------ E: What is Right Understanding? How do the Bodhisattas develop them? ----------------------------------------------- KenH:I don't want to disavow you of your chosen beliefs. I do hope, however, that you will at least have a look at the ancient texts. You might be interested in seeing how *they* describe dana, sila and bhavana. ----------------------------------- E: I'm sorry, I don't understand this. Ancient text describe dana, sila and bhavana differently? How? What are these ancient texts? ---------------------------------- KenH:There is only one way out of suffering, and that is by the development of right understanding. Right understanding accumulates in the course of many lifetimes through repeated hearing, considering and application of the true Dhamma. ------------------------------- E: Again, what is Right Understanding and how do you apply the true Dhamma? What is the true Dhamma? (sorry, I have to unlearn and learn Buddhism again from your point of view). ----------------------------- KenH: You could spend every awake moment of your life concentrating in that way and still be no nearer to enlightenment. It doesn't work. And the blame for it's not working is always put on the meditation student - never on the teacher or on the method itself. ------------------------------------- E: How would you make it work? I agree that the teacher may not be suitable for the student, just like everything in life, you need to find a near-perfect match and the same with method too. Each person have different tendencies. Like one story, Sariputta taught a monk to meditate on the foulness of the body and the monk went to meditate on corpse but it didn't work for him. Then, the Buddha saw with his divine eye that the monk in his past life was a garland maker and he is used to seeing beautiful things. I forgot the next part of the story. I think the Buddha made something beautiful and then made it wilt and then the monk understood the impermanent nature of things and then he gained enlightenment. So, teacher and method is a tricky thing. --------------------------- KenH:It is just like the American self-help industry that I was telling Phil about. People love to hear the promises that are made: "Follow these easy steps and all these wonderful, wonderful things will happen to you!" They don't happen. The customers secretly know they will never happen, but they love to hear the promises. And so they keep coming back to buy more and more books and to attend more and more over-priced seminars. ----------------------- E: These people are ignorant about greed, hatred and delusion. Like all puthujjana, I think I am in that group of people too. How about you? Are you out of that loop already? #77496 From: Sobhana Date: Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Reply to Tep shennieca Hi DC, Thank you for your reply. You wrote very well about mundane and supra-mundane Right Understanding. Thank you. Buddhism is the only religion I know of and I've heard about Kamma and the 4 noble truths when I was 10 and started reading Ven. Nyanaponika (the german monk) dhamma book at 12. (it must be due to accumulations from the past, which I am very, very grateful for.) And I agree totally with what you wrote. Sorry if I sound like I'm boasting about my religious background, I don't mean it. ((blush)) I kinda know what is right understanding but when I ask KenH about Right Understanding, I just want to know his view of right understanding. :)) I have to confess that I broke the fourth precept. When I said: E: > But I agree that there are some people who can understand nama-rupa through reading books. ............ I lied.... I have a feeling that a few DSG members believe that reading books can lead to supra-mundane right understanding. I had to agree so that I could fit into this group. Now that I know that you have different opinion, I would like to come out of the closet - I don't believe reading books will get us to enlightenment either. I hope DSG members won't mind.... I'm thinking aloud, hmm, maybe I don't fit in here..but I think it's ok to read about other people's opinions on Buddhism. :)) #77497 From: Sobhana Date: Thu Oct 18, 2007 9:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Award for Dali Lama shennieca Hi James, I hate to say this, but the reason B.u.s.h gave the gold medal isn't because he cared much about Buddhism, I think he did it just to pi.ss-off some country (u know which one, right?). Sorry, if this is about po.li.tic.s. You really believe it is about Buddhism? Sorry about the dots, I'm a bit paranoid, if you know what I mean. #77498 From: "gazita2002" Date: Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:14 am Subject: Re: Response to DC Part 1. gazita2002 Hello DC' I actually answered this but it seems to have disappeared into cyberspace. I think my internet time had expired just as I hit the send button :-( --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, DC Wijeratna wrote: > > Dear Azita, > > I have quoted this from your post to Tep, October 14, 2007 8:51:37 AM > > "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." [Original of this must be a previous post..] > > I agree with the above statement of yours. It would be easier to analyse this statement further, if you would give an example of a phenomenon that all of us familiar with. Azita; how about seeing or hearing at this present moment. Cittas that experience an object - visible object or sound - and then fall away immediately. I think most of us are familar with that -no? Because of ignorance we take what is a very fleeting moment and put a whole great story to it. What do you think? Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. #77499 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:10 am Subject: The Anatta Doctrine! bhikkhu0 Friends: The Anatta Doctrine is the core of Buddhism! Individual existence, as well as the whole world, is in absolute reality nothing but a process of ever changing phenomena, which all is included in the five groups of existence: Form, Feeling, Perception, Construction & Consciousness! This process has gone on from time immemorial, before birth, and also after one's death it will continue for an endless period of time, as long, and as far, as there are causing conditions feeding it! These five groups of phenomena in no way constitute an ego-entity, enduring personality, same self or inner soul neither when taken separately nor when combined... Neither can any identity or substance be found 'outside' of these all embracing groups of phenomena. In other words, the five groups of existence are not-self or no-self = anatta, nor do they belong to a self = anattaniya. In view of the impermanence & the conditionality of all existence, a belief in any form of self must be evaluated as an illusion. Why so? Self must stay the 'same' in order to remain a true self. But nothing here or there ever stays the same! All is transient & impermanent! Secondly: Self must be in control to be called a self. But no self can control causality... Things arise & cease - despite whatever self - due to conditions... Since nothing stays the 'same' as an identical indentity, no thing can be self! Since nothing is in full control even of itself or any other, no thing can be self! Just as what we designate by the name car, has no existence apart from axle, wheels, motor, chassis, and so forth, or as the word house is only a convenient designation for various materials such as cement, clay, wood etc. put together in a specific way so as to close a portion of space. Apart from these materials there is no separate 'house entity' in existence! In exactly same way is that, which we call a 'being' or 'individual', or 'person', or by the name 'I' or 'Me' nothing but an ever changing mixture of physical & mental phenomena, made up of the above mentioned five groups and has as such no real existence in itself. This is, in brief, the anatta doctrine of the Buddha: The teaching that fathoms that all existing dead or alive is void (suñña) of a permanent self or substance! It is the fundamental Buddhist doctrine, not found at all in any other religious or philosophical system. To comprehend it fully, not only in a neat abstract and intellectual way, but by constant reference to actual experience, is indeed an indispensable condition for the true understanding of the Buddha-Dhamma and for the realization of its goal: NibbÄ?na... Yeah! Venerable Nyanatiloka Thera: Born 1922 in Germany. Died 1957 on Ceylon. For more on Anatta = No-Self see: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Anatta_No_Self.htm Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka * http://What-Buddha-Said.net #77500 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Fri Oct 19, 2007 4:56 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (69) nichiconn Dear Friends, Part 3 13. Viisatinipaato 4. Sundariitheriigaathaava.n.nanaa txt: Tena vutta.m apadaane- "Pi.n.dapaata.m carantassa, vessabhussa mahesino; ka.tacchubhikkhamuggayha, buddhase.t.thassadaasaha.m. "Pa.tiggahetvaa sambuddho, vessabhuu lokanaayako; viithiyaa sa.n.thito satthaa, akaa me anumodana.m. "Ka.tacchubhikkha.m datvaana, taavati.msa.m gamissasi; chatti.msadevaraajuuna.m, mahesitta.m karissasi. "Pa~n~naasa.m cakkavattiina.m, mahesitta.m karissasi; manasaa patthita.m sabba.m, pa.tilacchasi sabbadaa. "Sampatti.m anubhotvaana, pabbajissasi ki~ncanaa; sabbaasave pari~n~naaya, nibbaayissasinaasavaa. "Ida.m vatvaana sambuddho, vessabhuu lokanaayako; nabha.m abbhuggamii viiro, ha.msaraajaava ambare. Pruitt: As it is said in the Apadaana: Having offered a ladleful of alms food to the Great Sage Vessabhuu as he was going on his alms round, I gave it to the Best of Buddhas. After accepting it, the Fully Awakened One Wessabhuu, the Leader of the World, the Teacher, standing in the street, rejoiced [in that good deed] of mine: "By giving a ladleful of alms food, you will go to the Taavati.msa realm. You will rule as the chief queen of thirty-six deva kings. "You will rule as the chief queen of fifty wheel-turning monarchs. You will always obtain everything you wish for in your mind. "After experiencing sucess [of this sort], you will go forth, possessing nothing, and through full understanding of all the taints, you will be quenched, without taints." Having said this, The Fully Awakened One Vessabhuu, the Leader of the World, the Wise One, went up into the sky like the king of geese in the sky. txt: "Sudinna.m me daanavara.m, suyi.t.thaa yaagasampadaa; ka.tacchubhikkha.m datvaana, pattaaha.m acala.m pada.m. "Ekati.mse ito kappe, ya.m daanamadadi.m tadaa; duggati.m naabhijaanaami, bhikkhaadaanassida.m phala.m. Well given was that excellent gift of mine; well sacrificed was the attainment of giving [that gift]. After giving that ladleful of alms food, I arrived at the unshakable place. In the thirty-one aeons since I gave that gift, I am not aware of [birth in] any realm of misery. This is the consequence of that gift of alms food. {{"Kilesaa jhaapitaa mayha.m.pe. kata.m buddhassa saasanan"ti; =}} "Kilesaa jhaapitaa mayha.m {, bhavaa sabbe samuuhataa; naagiiva bandhana.m chetvaa, viharaami anaasavaa. "Svaagata.m vata me aasi, buddhase.t.thassa santike; tisso vijjaa anuppattaa, kata.m buddhassa saasana.m. "Pa.tisambhidaa catasso, vimokkhaapi ca a.t.thime; cha.labhi~n~naa sacchikataa,} kata.m buddhassa saasanan"ti. My depravities are burnt out, {all [future] births are completely destroyed. Having severed my bonds like an elephant, I live without taints. Welcome indeed was the presence of the Best of Buddhas to me. I have attained the three true knowledges. I have done the Buddha's teaching. The four discriminations and also the eight liberations are mine. I have realized the six direct knowledges.} I have done the Buddha's teaching. ===tbc, connie #77501 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 19, 2007 5:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter -    Catching a few minutes for email before riding from Plano, TX (a Dallas suburb) to San Antonio. -----Original Message----- From: Dieter Möller To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. Hi Howard, you wrote: 'Howard: Exactly one dhamma (rupa or nama) is object of consciousness at any given time. There will also be present as aspects of the current mind state a variety of concomitant mental operations and features. D: seemingly I still ´misunderstand you..possibly 'ultimate vs conventional '..(?) our conventional reality/consciousness exists of a multitude of material /mental phenomena .. therefore I said whether only 'one dhamma is present at any moment ', is for our impression and reaction so important as to know e.g. that the movie we watch consists of a fast squence of single pictures. It is something else when we practise medition and concentrate on a single object ... so the 'scattered ' state turns into mind -collectiveness (as a synonym for the samadhi practise 6/7/8). ------------------------------------- Howard: I'm not clearly following you. Yes, at moments we have, say, a sound as object. These may be interspersed with moments at other sense doors, including mind door. There may be rapid switching back & forth. IMO, when the sound extends for a relatively long time without other intervening objects, or when the mind frequently returns to "the same" sound, we can say that the mind is "concentrated on the sound". I believe that the factor that tends to make such "sticking" with an object occur is the one-pointedness cetasika. -------------------------------------- Howard: That being lost in thought isn't a lack of concentration, but a lack of mindfulness. Being lost in thought or in sloth& torpor is, as I see it, what sati guards against. D: I think it is not possible to separate concentration and mindfulness. -------------------------------------- Howard: I think they can certainly be distinguished. Moreover, I think that wrong concentration can occur without mindfulness, as when engrossed in some akusala phenomena or thinking. ---------------------------------------- you need concentration for being mindful, to know what you are doing you need to pay attention..concentrating on something ..contemplating about.. otherwise the usual somehow absent-minded situation appears, as it is said (S.N. XII 61) ..But of that which is called mind, is called thought, is called consciousness, one moment arises as another ceases continually both day and night. Just as a monkey wandering in a big forest seizes a branch and letting go of it seizes another: similarly, bhikkhus, of that which is called mind, is called thought, is called consciousness, one moment arises as another ceases continually both day and night.' Howard: When lost in thought, concentration, albeit not *right* concentration, could well be very strong it seems to me. D: the word 'lost' refers to you , i.e. you are absent..it isn't right concentration as you say, because samadhi is an act of will, even that to be present as a pure observer. (usually we can only recall dreams , don't we?) --------------------------------- Howard: Not all samadhi is an act of conscious will, as I see it. --------------------------------- Howard : (D: The claim 'concentration occurs in every mind state' is questionable therefore .) Even when there is weak attention and minimal mindfulness, I suspect there is still at least a minimal degree of concentration in play. With literally zero concentration, the mind would be close to no mind at all, it seems to me. D: I would call that the survival program.. but as I said 'questionable '..not ' wrong' we may agree that is easier to use the term 'concentration ' in the sense of samadhi practise. Howard: (D: Where do you disagree?) ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Please see the foregoing. ;-) D: ok .. ok? ;-) Howard: I do wish that some Abhidhammikas here who have considered *details* of matters would come in on this. D: in particular when we can keep theory in context with possible experience.. with Metta Dieter P.S. wishing you a nice trip to Dallas (how many miles? :-) ) and best wishes for your family especially Sophie) -------------------------------------- Howard: Thanks, Dieter. The family is fine, and Sophie is wonderful. Charming and unusually beautiful. There is some problem with absorbing nutrients, though, that will have to be quickly looked into. =================================== With metta, Howard #77503 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Fri Oct 19, 2007 5:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. dcwijeratna Hi Ken H, Thank you very much for your kind suggestion. I dug up Sarah's post and restudied it meticulously. Here are my comments. ============================================================================== > Ken H: If I remember correctly, this was the topic of discussion when you first joined DSG. Do you have a copy of Sarah's post to you (76213)? I think you should take it to your lecture. ............................... DC: I must confess that I didn't take it to the class. I hope you'll forgive me for that. But I felt it would not have been proper. ________________ Before I proceed to Sarah's post, I want to say a word about the following: S: > . . . The footnote (224) to M.Walshe's translation adds: "...In MA (ad MN 5: Anagana Sutta). the following verse is quoted...: "Two truths the Buddha, best of all who speak, declared: Conventional and ultimate - no third can be. Terms agreed by usage of the world; Words of ultimate significance are true in terms of dhammas. Thus the Lord, a Teacher, he Who's skilled in this world's speech , can use it, and not lie." -------- I think we ordinary people tend to "lie" when we use the world's speech. What I mean is, we use terms such as 'I' 'you' 'he' and 'she' with the idea that we are talking about real entities. Despite our Dhamma studies we are still a long way from fully understanding that there are really only namas and rupas. Is that the way you see it? .......................... DC: No. I have a different opinion. When we talk about 'I' 'you' etc. we are talking about real people. For us what is real is what we can perceive through our senses. We don't have the ability to see naama and ruupa. Simple, isn't it? ..................... Now to the verse you have quoted: We do not translate that 'verse' that way. Actually, there are three verses. Here I give the Pali: duve saccaani akkhaasi sambuddho vadata.m varo sammuti.m paramattha~nca tatiiya.m nuupalabbhati. san.kethavacana.m sacca.m lokasammuti kaaranaa paramatthavacana.m sacca.m dhammaana.m bhuutakaara.naa. tasmaa vohaarakusalassa lokanaathassa satthuno sammuti.m voharantassa musaavaado na jaayati. We understand it as follows: 1. The Buddha declared two truths (saccaani). They are 'sammuti' and 'paramattha'. There is no third [truth]. 2. sanketa -word (sanketavacana.m) is true, the reason is 'sammuiti'. paramattha-word is true. The reason is reality of the dhammas. 3. Therefore, because of the skilful-expression of the Buddha, when expressing 'sammuti' [words] 'musaavaada' does not arise. Notes: In the first sammuti and paramattha are truths. In the second, sanketa-word is true because it is sammuti, and paramatta word is true because it is real. So how can one ascribe reality only to one? So this whole thing is obscure to me In Pali sacca is used both as an adjective and a nt. noun: truth. adj. true; real. Sammuti: The word is a compound formed from sa.m + mutimantu (sensible) Thus consensual comes closest to the original Pali meaning. Walshe uses 'conventional'; can be used but it has the meaning conformity to tradition, which, to me, is not appropriate in the context. paramattha: This is a compound of para.m and attha. Para.m has the following meaning (Dictionary): other; another; foreign; alien; outsider. Attha: welfare; gain; wealth; need; want; use; meaning; destruction. The word 'para' is a common word in the Suttas, usually in the following sense: paraloka, other world, paraayana, to crossover to the other side (world); the other side of the river (of sa.msaara) and so on an so forth. Parama is a the superlative of parama, dictionary gives: superior; best; excellent. So parama is really the "excellent other". Of course, the word had been used to mean just "superior" etc. Actually the meaning of parama is similar to 'ariya'. Walshe's translation as 'ultimate', however, does not fit the context. The ultimate doesn't have the sense of other. They are two different categories. As you can see attha has no meaning resembling "truth". It is used in the Suttas, with the above dictionary meanings. Paramattha, if one were to give a meaning to it would mean--Nibbana. The translation of the third stanza, is not acceptable at all. In this, there is one word in the nominative that is: 'musaavaado'. And that should go with the verb 'jaayati'. But in Walshe, The Subject is the 'The Lord, the Teacher, and so 'the Lord, can use it and not lie. This we feel is a grievous error. Why grievous? It changes the causal language, 'musaavaada arises', to 'The Lord, can use and not lie'--the language of 'i', 'me', and mine. Or the language of atta and brahman or god and substance. There is one more issue I wish to discuss. The whole thing relates to the Buddha's use of the language. It has nothing to do with "the ultimate truth" or "the transcendental" or God postulated in other religions. The word for the real is "yathaabhuuta" and "tatha". These words are used in describing the dhammas. (dhammaana.m bhuutakaaranaa- By the way, the word used in the Kathaavatthu A.t.thakathaa is tatha). And dhammas are not the dhammaa of the Abhidhammika. That has the simple meaning of sa.nkhata dhammas. So does not include nibbaana. One more comment sacca in Buddhism is generally used with respect to statements (vacana, vaada etc.). If a statement is true then it is sacca, if a statement is not true, then it is musaa. The simple meaning of the three stanzas is: The Buddha can use words, with their ordinary meanings without getting confused or confusing others. Now you'll understand why I couldn't take Nina's post to the class. Dear Ken H, I wrote all this stuff not to argue or prove my case. I took your letter as bit of friendly advice. I hope you would take this in the same spirit. I also would like to bring to your notice something. Understanding the meaning of these three stanzas, took me over six hours, with all my background knowledge. Last year, we spent almost six months studying the Agga~n~na sutta of the digha nikaaya. But I notice that DSG posts quotes straight from "Dhammasa.nganii" "Pa.tthaana". For the last 100 years or so we only had one monk who was considered the last word in Abhidhamma. His name was Ven. Rerukaane Chandawimala. He translated the Pa.t.thaana into Sinhala, our native tongue. Now, I'll make a small confession and stop. I am still trying to understand the First Noble Truth. Kind regard, DC #77504 From: "Phil" Date: Fri Oct 19, 2007 6:41 am Subject: Seeking sutta on heartwood philofillet Hi all Trying to track down a sutta I heard a talk on once. It's about the heartwood, the outer bark, the branches and leaves etc. Some people get the branches and leaves (representing virtue, I think) and are content and don't progress any further etc. (It isn't one of the suttas in which talking to another venerable is compared to talking to the Buddha using the heartwood simile as a stock passage....) ...can anyone point me to the sutta in question? Thanks in advance. Metta, Phil #77505 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Oct 19, 2007 8:30 am Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. truth_aerator Hi Sukinder, I was busy and didn't have the time to catch up. Here some replies. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinder" wrote: >> > Sukin: There is no necessary reason for a layperson / married to > change his status after becoming a Sotapanna or Sakadagami. /// Priorities change and one becomes more and more dissatisfied with "home life". >>> But wrong view can't arise. Siddhatta was clearly looking for answers when > he decided to leave the palace and follow the practices that he did. >>>>>>> He was looking for a practical way out. >>> >> I can't imagine someone to be following a practice without some kind of view involved. If with Siddhatta Right View didn't arise, then Wrong View must have. >>>>> We don't know everything which was going on in his head. He may have had "intuition" which helped him stop his ascetic practices (which were COMMONLY ACCEPTED IN THOSE TIMES) and leave his 2 "teachers". > ============= > Sukin: Wrong View is Wrong View and wrong practice is wrong > practice. It is not a question of extreme, but a question of not being the >>> He may have had basic Right (perhaps intuitive( View, but it was not perfected yet. Question: What happens when a sotopanna gets reborn as a human. Does a little 1 yr old child ALWAYS can recite Dhamma? No. He will most likely have intuition to search for the Dhamma. >>> > Middle Way. "Going to a pub and hanging around with pals" is *not* a practice, but plain desire. >>>>> To ordinary people it IS a misguided practice of dealing with stress. > > ============== > Alex: > 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. > > Sukin: I've only heard of a layperson who became a Sotapanna after > drinking alcohol. I don't think that it is possible for an ariyan to have any intention to drink. >>>>> Intention and strong (yet uneradicated defilements are different). > > ============== > Alex: > A sotapanna is incapable of wrong speculative views (Gotama quickly > rejected Alara and Udakka) and strong enough moral transgressions > which lead to hell. > > Sukin: Quickly is too long, a Sotapanna would not even be attracted to > the idea. >>>> That is why he didn't stay there for long. He may have not known immeadetely all the views of Alara & Udakka. In those times teachers usually revealed only small portions of their teaching at a time. >> ============== > Alex: > Also textual evidence suggests that the famous 4 messangers story is > NOT Gotama's story anyway. It is Yasa's (or Buddha Vipassi) story. > > Sukin: So if it turns out that in fact this was Gotama's story, you agree > that the encounter with the Divine Messengers is significant in that it > reflects the fact that Gotama had at the time, yet to become > enlightened? >>> Enlightment generally means Arahatship. Sotopannaship is not yet full enlightment. > ============== > Alex: > 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). > > Sukin: Someone who discovered the Path and set the Wheel rolling. > The initiator of the present Sasana. > Had he been a Sotapanna, he would have been a disciple of Buddha > Kassapa. The paramis he developed would be that of a Savaka and not > of a Buddha. >>>>> Which was a view held by a certain Buddhist schools. Probably not without sufficient reason to hold it. > Sukin: And yet a Sotapanna is said to have at most only seven lives to > go… >>>>> After he died he may have went strait to Tusita heaven from which he was reborn on Earth. Lots of Metta, Alex #77506 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 19, 2007 8:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Seeking sutta on heartwood upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - ??? Perhaps you want the following: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.138.than.html With metta, Howard #77507 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 19, 2007 8:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Seeking sutta on heartwood upasaka_howard Hi again, Phil -    More likely you want MN 72, which includes the following: "When this was said, the wanderer Vacchagotta said to the Blessed One: "Master Gotama, it is as if there were a great sala tree not far from a village or town: From inconstancy, its branches and leaves would wear away, its bark would wear away, its sapwood would wear away, so that on a later occasion — divested of branches, leaves, bark, & sapwood — it would stand as pure heartwood. In the same way, Master Gotama's words are divested of branches, leaves, bark, & sapwood and stand as pure heartwood." #77508 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Fri Oct 19, 2007 9:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Seeking sutta on heartwood dcwijeratna Dear Upasaka, There are two suttas in the MN, cuulasaropama and mahaasaaropam. By the sound of it, it must be in the Opamma vagga, (Tatiya Vagga): MN 29 and 30. See whether it fits the bill. Mettaa, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77509 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Fri Oct 19, 2007 10:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. dcwijeratna Dear Gazita, Thanks for your post. You wrote: >>Azita; how about seeing or hearing at this present moment. Cittas that experience an object - visible object or sound - and then fall away immediately. I think most of us are familar with that -no? Because of ignorance we take what is a very fleeting moment and put a whole great story to it. What do you think? .............................................. Here is my understanding of the matter, according to the Suttas. Principle 1. There is only the present. [I don't know whether it is a moment or two or what is the duration of the moment. I am not using it in the sense of theory of moments (khanavaada) of the Abhidhamma. The past is gone. Future unborn. In other words, now is the only reality. The rest is all in your mind. You don't need to look at any books for that. Just think about that. Then you'll stand it. Principle 2. You get knowledge (of the world including yourself), through the sensedoors. Six of them inclusive of the mind. There is no other knowledge. Rest is wishful thinking, imagination running riot. Now when you say you 'see', there visual consciousness. That is cakkhu-vi~n~naa.na. This is very simple, If you close your eyes, there is no visual consciousness. When you have visual-consciouness (your eyes are open) something may catch your attention, because of its colour or some other thing. Say you are driving along a street, you pass so many buildings, without a glance. But something, say, a bill-board catches your eye. That is you pay attention. Then you recognise it. Along with that comes your emotional reaction to it. You like it, don't like it or you are neutral. Now you start a thinking process. With that, generally speaking, your seeing business is finished. Because your mind is busy thinking. "That is a nice car, I must buy it, but I don't have money." Now all these things happen so fast, it is very difficult to say one happens after the other. They seem to happen simultaneously. But the thinking stage is definitely after the other processes. Does this make sense to you? If so please let me know. I'll then send you the relevant sutta references and if necessary the Pali. Once and forever, forget something: "cittas that experience" Here you make the citta 'I'. Cakkhu vi~n~naa.na is a causal process--cakkhu.m pa.ticca ruupe ca uppajjati cakkhuvi~n~naana.m. If your eyes are open seeing happens. It is the recognition stage that 'I' intrudes. Like/dislike is relative to 'I'. That is delusion. This is one of the most difficult suttas in the canon. If you are with me up to this point, then we'll proceed. You can't understand these things by reading books. You need to sit in a quiet corner and look at your mind. You can start by closing your eyes and checking the first process. Then follow through. If you are not convinced. Then let's see what is your difficulty. Let me give an example that like/dislike is dependent on the 'I'. Do you have a favourite colour? Well you'll know somebody who hates that colour. But the colour is colour, there is nothing more to it. Incidentally, that is the sabhaava of abhidhamma. A colour blind peroson sees red as green and viceversa. Life is purposeless!!! It is a causal process. Anatta is the characterstic of causal proceses. There is a purpose because of 'I'. Realise that then all your unhappiness goes away. So be of good cheer as you say. The Buddha is always depicted with a happy and pleasant face in statues. mettaa, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77510 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Reply to Tep dcwijeratna Dear Elaine, I am so pleased to with your very kind remarks. I have a kindred soul. >Elaine: Buddhism is the only religion I know of and I've heard about Kamma and the 4 noble truths when I was 10 and started reading Ven. Nyanaponika (the german monk) dhamma book at 12. DC: Read his "the Heart of Buddhist Meditation", if you want to know the meaning of meditation. And for a general understanding of Dhamma, at a higher level "Path to Deliverance" by his teacher, Ven. Nyanatiloka. >Elaine: I have to confess that I broke the fourth precept. DC: You didn't 'confess' you acknowledged the transgression of one of the training precepts. [Confession is a bad word to use with its Christian connotations of sin and...] Now that is the first step. But there is one more step. Now you should reflect upon it and determine what causes it. And then find out how to avoid breaking the precept, if a similar situation occurs in the future. Then you take the precept again. that is how you keep perfecting your siila sampada. One day may be it will be perfect. Do you know what happens then? May you get there soon With mettaa, MMMMnn D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77511 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Oct 19, 2007 2:50 pm Subject: Re: Reply to Tep indriyabala Hi DC (and Elaine, Kenh), - The following dialogues are taken from your message #77494: 1. E: > But I agree that there are some people who can understand nama-rupa through reading books. ............ DC: According to our tradition, that is impossible. Ask the monks. I don't see the need for the Buddha to prescribe siila, samaadhi, pa~n~naa if that is possible. 2. E:> I believe in the effectiveness of meditation, sorry. The Theravada temple that I go to emphasize 3 things- dana, sila, and bhavana. That temple also teaches Mahasi Sayadaw meditation method. ------------ ----- DC: For Elaine: Yes, I agree with you--that daana, siila, bhaavanaa is the path. That is explicitly given as the householder's path in the Anguttara Nikaya. .................. T: 1. The DSG Abhidhammaikas have chanted over and over that reading and discussing the Abhidhamma (with commentaries) are all they do in order to develop pa~n~naa (right understanding) of the satipatthana. They often claim that siila, samaadhi, and pa~n~naa are gradually developed together without anapanasati or any "formal" meditation or practices being taught by monks. Are they right? Are they right? ;-)) T: 2. Are you saying that there are two paths: 'daana, siila, bhaavanaa' for householders and the 'noble eightfold path' for monks? I wonder if you think no householders are qualified to practice according to the noble eightfold path (e.g. see MN 117, Maha- cattarisaka Sutta). P.S. In another post you asked me to define nama-rupa as if you did not know the term. You also asked me to define knowledge, etc., even though you already knew the their meanings. I am not sure I understand your intention. Tep === #77512 From: "vipassana_infonet" Date: Fri Oct 19, 2007 2:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] FOR ALL DSG MEMBERS. vipassana_in... respected mr d c wijeratna and other dsg members, what I wrote was something very simple - something that should be simply understood. many of us come from different traditions and backgrounds. all I meant was that I do not cling to any particular school and as such my views may simply be taken as that of a person who is a seeker of truth - a student of truth and is not (blindly)bound to the confines of any particular school/tradition of thought. the previous statement and even this one - means no offense to anyone and should be read with the simplicity, with which it was written. with regards to all. dr manish agarwala --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, DC Wijeratna wrote: > > To: dr manish agarwala > > This is a response to your "FOR ALL DSG MEMBERS" > > The fourth paragraph of the above capationed post is: > "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. It is difficult to understand the significance of "I believe in truth". Is "truth" something to be believed in? > > 2. Does the expression "may my views be taken in that sense..." imply "may my views be taken as my beliefs" > ? > > A clarification would make it easier to understand the post under discussion. > > A DSG MEMBER > #77513 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:38 pm Subject: Re: Response to DC Part 1. kenhowardau Hi DC, I appreciate the time and effort you have spent in writing this reply. I must admit, however, that Pali translation is not my field. I really can't comment on any of the technical aspects you are discussing here. Skipping ahead to the end of you post: ----------- DC: >I also would like to bring to your notice something. Understanding the meaning of these three stanzas, took me over six hours, with all my background knowledge. Last year, we spent almost six months studying the Agga~n~na sutta of the digha nikaaya. But I notice that DSG posts quotes straight from "Dhammasa.nganii" "Pa.tthaana". For the last 100 years or so we only had one monk who was considered the last word in Abhidhamma. His name was Ven. Rerukaane Chandawimala. He translated the Pa.t.thaana into Sinhala, our native tongue. -------------- I must confess again that, despite my best efforts, I cannot see the point you are making. Sorry. Now, back to the beginning: ------------ KH: > > I think we ordinary people tend to "lie" when we use the world's speech. What I mean is, we use terms such as 'I' 'you' 'he' and 'she' with the idea that we are talking about real entities. Despite our Dhamma studies we are still a long way from fully understanding that there are really only namas and rupas. Is that the way you see it? .......................... DC: No. I have a different opinion. When we talk about 'I' 'you' etc. we are talking about real people. For us what is real is what we can perceive through our senses. ------------ This, surely, must be the crux of the matter. I think you have taken the Abhidhamma out of the Dhamma. That is like taking the fish out of the tuna. The Abhidhamma and the Dhamma are one and the same. Or, to put it another way, when the Dhamma is properly understood it is Abhidhamma. ----------------------- DC: > We don't have the ability to see naama and ruupa. Simple, isn't it? ---------------------- No, I can't agree. We do have the ability to perceive namas and rupas. We have the ability, for example, to see visible rupas. In fact, visible rupas are all we ever see. The problem is that we ordinary folk do not have the ability to perceive namas and rupas WITH RIGHT UNDERSTANDING. Why not? Because right understanding (panna, samma-ditthi) is a conditioned dhamma. And, in our case, the panna that directly knows namas and rupas has not been conditioned to arise. The people you say we "perceive through our senses" are not really perceived through the senses at all. (I am referring here to the five sense doors.) Seeing consciousness sees only visible rupa. It never sees people or places (etc). People and places are concepts. Concepts are created and perceived at the mind door. The "real people" you say we perceive do not really exist outside our thinking. --------------------------------- DC: > Now to the verse you have quoted: -------------------------------- As I was saying, I am not qualified to argue about Pali translations. I feel sure there will be Pali experts who agree with Walshe's translation, and who can argue in favour of it just as persuasively as you have argued against it. So, what am I to do? I would say I am to understand that verse in the light of all the other verses in the Pali Canon. And I have no doubt whatsoever that the Pali Canon teaches anatta (no-self). Therefore, I have no doubt whatsoever that when the Buddha spoke in terms of 'I, you, people (etc)' he was using those terms purely by way of conventional designation. It is the responsibility of the listener to understand the Buddha's teaching in terms of the five khandhas (conditioned namas and rupas). Ken H #77514 From: "Phil" Date: Fri Oct 19, 2007 4:36 pm Subject: Re: Seeking sutta on heartwood philofillet Thanks D.C and Howard and all Yes, it was MN 29 and MN 30 I was thinking of. Another question - when there is a "Greater Discrouse" and a "Shorter Discourse" on a topic, as there is in this case, is there always a certain relationship between the two, for example the shorter discourse being laid out in terms more suitable for a worldling, etc? Again, thanks in advance. Metta, Phil #77515 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Fri Oct 19, 2007 9:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Reply to Tep dcwijeratna Dear Tep, "Ayubovan", ["May you live long" --That is the traditional greeting"] Here are some comments on your post. 1. DSG Abhidhammikas >T: 1. The DSG Abhidhammaikas have chanted over and over that reading and discussing the Abhidhamma (with commentaries) are all they do in order to develop pa~n~naa (right understanding) of the satipatthana. They often claim that siila, samaadhi, and pa~n~naa are gradually developed together without anapanasati or any "formal" meditation or practices being taught by monks. Are they right? Are they right? ;-)) ......................... DC: Dear Tep, your question is a difficult one to answer, but I'll make an attempt and then we'll see. First, I'll change the question to "Are they right in accordance with the teachings of the Buddha?" This little addition to your question has enormous significance. Without that, the question cannot be answered. Because the situation is each one is holding an opinion, a mere view, in short, "a belief'', "a faith". There is absolutely, no way, of determining the truth-falsity or right and wrong of any belief by rational discussion. One important example, is, arguments for and against "God". There are only arguments for and against, no conclusions. I'll make this more concrete. All theistic religions have a God. But they fight bitterly, maintaining that one's own God is the only real one, others are all false. However, it is possible, to rationally discuss, Abhidhamma, Theravaada, and Mahaayaana, Zen or Chan, Yogaacaara or Madyamika, or Sabbatthivaada and so on, provided that agreement can be reached that all these are derived from the original teachings of the Buddha. To put it differently, the original teaching of the Buddha (the Dhamma) is the truth. Then we can compare, the beliefs that are claimed to have been derived from the Dhamma, with the Dhamma. So all we can say is whether 'Any claim about dhamma' is in accordance with the Dhamma. Now, all available historical, textual, philological, anthropological evidence points out to the fact that Abhidhamma is a later development. We normal human beings accept such evidence as true. But some people don't accept even that. There are people, who hold that, Abhidhamma is Dhamma. In fact, Buddhavacana. Such views are not tenable in the light of evidence. So that is a belief. And as I have argued in the first paragraph, rational discussion is not possible. Here, I'll make an assumption that the closest we can get to the Buddhavacana is Pali Nikayas (Aagamas in Chinese translations), they are the oldest surviving records of the teachings of the Buddha. With these assumptions, I'll attempt to answer the question? The fundamental teaching of the Buddha, is the Four Noble Truths. The basic source for this is Dhammacakkappavattana sutta. It starts by saying that the Buddha realized (abhisa.mbuddhaa) the "Middle Way" (majjhimaa pa.tipadaa), that will lead to Nibbana. This pa.tipadaa is a practice. This can easily be seen from the context. It is the middle-practice that is compared with kaamasukhallikhaanu-yoga and attakilamathaanu-yoga. And yoga, I am sure, is not learning. It is way of living and conducting your life. So sammaa di.tthi is the first step in the path. And to get their what you need to do is to develop saddhaa. That is accept the Enlightenment of the Buddha on the basis of evidence or accept the Buddha as the Teacher (satthaa); on the kind of 'evidence' acceptable to ordinary human beings. And after that acceptance, all the Dhamma you need is the five precepts. And accept that not on the basis of your own experience. If you kill you will be hung, If you lie, you will be jailed, if you make advances to your neighbor's you'll end up with six-inches of steel, if you come home drunk, your wife will kill you. Really, these are simple rules of moral behaviour accepted by virtually every society. In short you accept: good actions are followed by good result (now and in the future), evil actions (kamma) by evil results or the "Law of Kamma". Now, to another aspect. The "theoretical" explanation of the Four Noble Truths is dependent-arisiong. In fact it is more famous among scholars as the Central Conception of Buddhism. It strarts with: avijjaa paccaya sankhara. That is all being in samsaara are deluded-they cannot see the cause of dukkha. That is why they are in sa.msaara. So how can you get sammaa di.tthi by reading books. For that you need to start on the path. So DSG abhidhammikas statements are not in accordance with the Dhamma. ---------------------------- >T: 2. Are you saying that there are two paths: 'daana, siila, bhaavanaa' for householders and the 'noble eightfold path' for monks? I wonder if you think no householders are qualified to practice according to the noble eightfold path (e.g. see MN 117, Maha- cattarisaka Sutta). ................. DC: No there is only one path, but your speed of travel is different. Say, you want to go from Colombo to London; well, you can go by plane, ship, or even swim and walk. But forget, many never want to go to London. They prefer to go to the Middle-East--where you can get a good job and enjoy life. The Compassionate Buddha taught for all these people. For those who are disgusted, the bhikkhu, The Noble Eightfold fold Path. For those who are not yet ready to leave home, the daana-siila-bhaavana. The difference can be seen if you look at the full path as siila-samaadhi--pa~n~naa. House holders remain withing siila and samaadhi. Those who cross over to pa~n~naa are ariyas and headed for nibbaana. Now one more clarification. siila-samaadhi--pa~n~naa are causal processes. So if you perfect siila, whether you are a householder or a bhikkhu, the result is samaadhi. Similarly, samaadhi-pa~n~naa. By the way, househoder by defintion holds houses--that is he is attached. you can't be attached and at the same time detached. You can go up to (and including) an anaagaami. If you become a non-returner, then you can't stay at home. .............................................. P.S. In another post you asked me to define nama-rupa as if you did not know the term. You also asked me to define knowledge, etc., even though you already knew the their meanings. I am not sure I understand your intention. DC: I am sincerely very sorry about that. First let me assure you that my intention was a good one. I'll explain. sometimes, I don't straight-away tell my opinion. When I do that, sometimes, I find that, it is accepted uncritically. But if I get them committed first, then they will defend their position and results in a more fruitful discussion. Well in the future I'll do this. I'll put my position first and then ask for your opionion, comments etc. That is a promise. Now to your two questions: I asked you about naama-rupa because in all religious traditions naama and ruupa are separate things. One is the mind and the other is the body. In science too, mind and the body (the living beings ) are separate. But in the Dhamma, nama-ruupa is one. Unfortunately because of our upbringing we unconsciously try to discuss these things as if these things are different and entities. Just look at a few posts in the DSG. It is this fundamental distinction I want to bring about by asking that question. Now you'll forgive me. About knowledge--Again knowledge in the Dhamma is not what we call 'knowledge'. What we call knowledge is, in Dhamma, sa~n~naakkhandha. Sa~n~naa is based on the 'I' and avijjaa. Are you with me? May the Triple Gem Bless you, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna My dear Tep: I was terribly upset. My first impression was that I have caused some mental pain (cetasika dukkha). That is something I never want to do. But then, as I was writing the reply, I thought, that, may be, you were just asking the questions for information. With that I have been able to develop some equanimity towards the issue. But "May be I have hurt Tep, my friend, still lurks somewhere in the depths of mind." But, I would be most grateful, if you would forget about that (if there ever was such a thing) #77516 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Oct 19, 2007 10:37 pm Subject: Just Passing Bubbles! bhikkhu0 Friends: Imploding Vacuum Personality: Void of Self! The Blessed Buddha explained the flowing transience of existence as void: Suppose a man with good sight observed the many bubbles on the Ganges river as they drifted along, by carefully watching and examining them all. Then after he had carefully examined them, they would appear to him as empty, evanescent, and unsubstantial. In exactly the same way does the Bhikkhu observe all the material phenomena, all feelings, all perceptions, all mental constructions, & all states of consciousness, whether they be past, present, or future, far or near. By carefully watching, analysing & examining them all, they appear to him as empty, void, & without a self... Source (edited extract) SN 22:95 Comment: If feeling a bit nausea or dizziness or fear when rigorously attempting to comprehend egolessness, then one is going in the right direction... Worth noticing is that one cannot ever loose a self that never was there! For more on this universality of selfless impersonality (anatta) see: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/The_Anatta_Doctrine.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Anatta_No_Self.htm Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka * http://What-Buddha-Said.net Ownerlessness is a universal characteristic of being! #77517 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:58 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (69) nichiconn Dear Friends, Part 4 13. Viisatinipaato 4. Sundariitheriigaathaava.n.nanaa txt: arahatta.m pana patvaa phalasukhena nibbaanasukhena ca viharantii aparabhaage "satthu purato siihanaada.m nadissaamii"ti upajjhaaya.m aapucchitvaa baaraa.nasito nikkhamitvaa sambahulaahi bhikkhuniihi saddhi.m anukkamena saavatthi.m gantvaa satthu santika.m upasa"nkamitvaa satthaara.m vanditvaa ekamanta.m .thitaa satthaaraa katapa.tisanthaaraa satthu orasadhiitubhaavaadivibhaavanena a~n~na.m byaakaasi; athassaa maatara.m aadi.m katvaa sabbo ~naatiga.no parijano ca pabbaji; saa aparabhaage attano pa.tipatti.m paccavekkhitvaa pitaraa vuttagaatha.m aadi.m katvaa udaanavasena- 313. "petaani bhoti puttaani, khaadamaanaa tuva.m pure; tuva.m divaa ca ratto ca, atiiva paritappasi. 314. "Saajja sabbaani khaaditvaa, sataputtaani braahma.nii; vaase.t.thi kena va.n.nena, na baa.lha.m paritappasi. Pruitt: Then having attained the state of Arahatship, she dwelt in the happiness of the fruition state and the happiness of quenching. Afterwards, she asked her preceptor for permission, saying, "I wish to roar the lion's roar in the Teacher's presence." She left Baaraa.nasii and went to Saavatthi together with many bhikkhuniis. She approached the Teacher, paid homage to the Teacher, and stood to one side. Having been welcomed by the Teacher, she revealed her perfect knowledge, making clear that she was the legitimate daughter of the Teacher, etc. Then, beginning with her mother, all the group of her relatives and her retinue went forth. Afterwards, looking ovr her own attainment, she made the verses beginning with those spoken by her father her solemn utterance, and she repeated these verses: [Sujaata:] 312. Lady, formerly [when] you caused your sons who had passed away to be eaten, you mourned excessively day and night. 313. Today, when you have caused seven children in all to be eaten, brahman lady Vaase.t.thii, why do you not mourn greatly? RD: Dwelling thereafter in the ease of fruition and the bliss of Nibbana, she thought: 'I will utter a Lion's Roar *363 before the Master.' And asking permission of her teacher, she left Benares, accompanied by a great following of Bhikkhuniis, and in due course came to Saavatthii, did obeisance to the Master, and stood on one side. Welcomed by him, she declared her A~N~NAA by extolling her relation to him as the 'daughter of his mouth,' and so on. Thereupon all her kinsfolk, beginning with her mother, and their attendants, renounced the world. She, reflecting on her attainment, and using her father's utterances in her own Psalm, exulted as follows: Sujaata. Dame of the brahmins, thou too in the past - Thou knowest - 'twas thy little babes *364 Death robbed And preyed upon; and thou all night, all day Madest thy bitter wail. Vaasi.t.thii, say! (312) How comes it that to-day thou, who hast lost So many - was it seven? - all thy sons, No more dost mourn and weep so bitterly? (313) *363 An idiomatic phrase for a paean or congratulatory or proclamatory speech. Cf. the two discourses so named, Majjhima N., i., pp. 63. ff. *364 Vaasi.t.thii, it will be remembered, is in her legend represented as losing but one child. The Commentary, undaunted by this discrepancy, explains it by the grief-distracted state of the father. Her name is that of a brahmin gens - the Vaase.t.thas - yet she is not called a brahmin in her own legend. On the other hand, her individual point of view regarding the Dhamma is very consistently reproduced. Dr. Neumann, ignoring the Commentary as elsewhere, sees in Vaase.t.thii, or Vaasi.t.thii, the family name of Sundarii, introducing a very baffling complication into the dramatic simplicity of the Psalm qua ballad. ===to be continued, connie #77518 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:59 am Subject: Perfections Corner (28) nichiconn Dear All, This is the continuation of Chapter 7: The Perfection of Truthfulness, 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. ------------------------------ After the Buddha, the Exalted One, finally passed away, the Dhamma became the teacher in his stead. Truthfulness to the Dhamma means studying it with sincerity, with the aim to have correct understanding of it. We should not study the Dhamma with the aim to gain something, to acquire honour or praise, but only to have correct understanding of it. We should develop right understanding of the realities which appear so that defilements can be eradicated and ignorance abandoned. The temple is a dwelling place, a place where we can hear the Dhamma and study it. It does not belong to the monks but it belongs to the Triple Gem. Because of confidence in the excellent qualities of the Triple Gem, temples are built as dwelling places, places where the Dhamma can be studied. We should always consider which ways of paying honour and respect to the Triple Gem are truly beneficial. We read in the "Illustrator of Ultimate Meaning" (Paramatthajotikaa), Commentary to the Minor Collection (Khuddakapaa.tha), of the Khuddakanikaaya, in the Commentary to the "Good Omen Discourse" (Mangala Sutta) about the first Council. We read that the venerable Mahaa-Kassapa, the venerable Upaali, the venerable Aananda and the other arahats, fivehundred bhikkhus in all, met for the first rehearsal of the Dhamma Vinaya, near the door of the Sattapa.n.ni Cave, on the slopes of the Vebhaara Rock, in Raajagaha. We read that when certain deities saw the venerable Aananda sitting in the seat for (anouncing) the True Dhamma, surrounded by the group of those who had attained mastery (in it), they had the following thought: " 'This venerable one, the Videhan Seer, is the Blessed One's natural heir as a shoot of the Sakyan clan, and he was five times signalized in the Foremost-in-this (Discourse) and possesses the Four Wonderful and Marvellous Ideas that make him dear and precious to the four kinds of assembly {*}; so surely, after inheriting the kingdom of the Blessed One's True Dhamma, he has become an Enlightened One.' Knowing with his mind the thoughts in those deities' minds, he did not connive at such misattribution to him of non-existent special qualities. Consequently, in order to show his own discipleship, he said: 'Eva.m me sutta.m. Eka.m samaya.m bhagavaa Saavatthiya.m viharati Jetavane Anaathapi.n.dikassa aaraame...' which means: Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Saavatthii in Jeta's Wood, Anaathapi.n.dika's Park..." {*}The four kinds of assembly are monks, nuns, men and women lay followers. They rejoice when seeing Aananda, rejoice when hearing him preach, and they are ill at ease when he is silent (Dialogues of the Buddha, no. XVI, 145. These words were spoken by the venerable Aananda, more than twothousand and fivehundred years ago. If we today just hear the words, "Thus have I heard", we are impressed by the thoughts of the venerable Aananda who on the occasion of the first rehearsal made it clear that he was only a disciple. That is why he said, "Thus have I heard". He did not speak his own words, because he was not the Exalted One. He was only a disciple and had heard these words from the Exalted One. When Buddhists hear the words, "Thus have I heard", even after more than twothousand and fivehundred years have passed, enthusiasm and joy can arise because they have an opportunity to hear these words again. Thus, they can consider the Buddha's teachings when he was dwelling in the Jeta Grove or at other places. ===to be continued, connie #77519 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. dcwijeratna Dear KenH, Thanks for your quick reply. Some short comments on that: >KenH: I appreciate the time and effort you have spent in writing this reply. I must admit, however, that Pali translation is not my field. I really can't comment on any of the technical aspects you are discussing here. ................................ DC: I have not made myself clear. Sorry about that. I gave the Pali translation to show that Walshe's translation is not exact and not for you to comment on the technical aspects. I gave all those details to make it easy for you to see why I consider Walshe's translation is inaccurate. ---------------------------------------- >>DC: Understanding the meaning of these three stanzas, took me over six hours, with all my background knowledge. Last year, we spent almost six months studying the Agga~n~na sutta of the digha nikaaya. But I notice that DSG posts quotes straight from "Dhammasa.nganii" "Pa.tthaana" . For the last 100 years or so we only had one monk who was considered the last word in Abhidhamma. His name was Ven. Rerukaane Chandawimala. He translated the Pa.t.thaana into Sinhala, our native tongue. >KenH: I must confess again that, despite my best efforts, I cannot see the point you are making. Sorry. ............... DC: I am sorry too. What I was trying to show you was the difficulty in translating these ancient texts. Any way my fault. -------------------------------- KH: > > I think we ordinary people tend to "lie" when we use the world's speech. What I mean is, we use terms such as 'I' 'you' 'he' and 'she' with the idea that we are talking about real entities. Despite our Dhamma studies we are still a long way from fully understanding that there are really only namas and rupas. Is that the way you see it? ............ ......... ..... >>DC: No. I have a different opinion. When we talk about 'I' 'you' etc. we are talking about real people. For us what is real is what we can perceive through our senses. ------------ >KenH: This, surely, must be the crux of the matter. I think you have taken the Abhidhamma out of the Dhamma. That is like taking the fish out of the tuna. The Abhidhamma and the Dhamma are one and the same. Or, to put it another way, when the Dhamma is properly understood it is Abhidhamma. ................................................................................\ ..................................................... DC: Great you have hit the nail on the head. But, as mentioned above by me, I have not been able to perceive namas and rupas; neither anybody I am personally acquainted with. But you seem to posses the ability. You have exercised it here also: "I think you have taken Abhidhamma out of the Dhamma". Then you make with that special ability, the statements: "The Abhidhamma and the Dhamma are one and the same. ..." It will be difficult for us to have meaningful communication. When you see what I write on your screen, do you consider the letters as real? Well you can't if you go by your own statements. ------------ --------- -- DC: > >We don't have the ability to see naama and ruupa. Simple, isn't it? ............. >KenH: No, I can't agree. We do have the ability to perceive namas and rupas. We have the ability, for example, to see visible rupas. In fact, visible rupas are all we ever see. The problem is that we ordinary folk do not have the ability to perceive namas and rupas WITH RIGHT UNDERSTANDING. Why not? Because right understanding (panna, samma-ditthi) is a conditioned dhamma. And, in our case, the panna that directly knows namas and rupas has not been conditioned to arise. DC: In the first paragraph you say: We do have the ability to perceive namas and rupas. In the second paragraph. you say; we ordinary folk do not have the ability to perceive namas and rupas. Such statements we call contradictions, and they invalidate all arguments. Re. The argument: "because right understanding (panna, samma.di.t.thi), is totally beyond me. According to Abhidhamma, Citta, cetasika and rupa are all conditioned dhammas. So we cannot understand in anyway or something like that. In the last sentence the words: "pannaa that directly knows dhammas". Here in this clause pannaa is the subject. and 'knows' is a verb. Humans communicate through language used according to grammar. By making panna the subject doer, you make panna the subject.With this the teaching of the Buddha as we know is finished. It is the substition of the word panna for 'I' or calling atta panna--a mere designation. ------------ --------- --------- --- >KenH: So, what am I to do? I would say I am to understand that verse in the light of all the other verses in the Pali Canon. DC: Yes, I would suggest that you read a book like Ven. Nyantiloka's Path to Delieverance or Ven. Rahulas "What the Buddha Taught" He has explained all the Dhamma we ever need, if our aim is to learn something that is beneficial to us in this world and in the world beyond. ....................... >KenH: And I have no doubt whatsoever that the Pali Canon teaches anatta (no-self). Therefore, I have no doubt whatsoever that when the Buddha spoke in terms of 'I, you, people (etc)' he was using those terms purely by way of conventional designation. .................. DC: Yes, the only language that people can understand. .............................. >KenH: It is the responsibility of the listener to understand the Buddha's teaching in terms of the five khandhas (conditioned namas and rupas). ................................ DC: According to the Sutta Pi.taka many listeners understood without ever hearing tabout the Pancakkhanda. What the Buddha really taught was the Noble Eightfold path. To "understand" that you need to follow the path and when you are a sotapanna-stream-enterer, you "understand". D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77520 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:59 am Subject: Re: Reply to Tep indriyabala Anubovan, my friend DC (and all)- I am about to leave home and be on the roads (traveling) again for one day and one night, but your very kind and sincere message -- especially the P.S. part of it -- is the reason I am writing this message now. Let me respond to the P.S. first, and I'll write a full reply whenever I am back home again (it is not a certainty, however). > D. G. D. C. Wijeratna > > My dear Tep: I was terribly upset. My first impression was that I have caused some mental pain (cetasika dukkha). That is something I never want to do. But then, as I was writing the reply, I thought, that, may be, you were just asking the questions for information. With that I have been able to develop some equanimity towards the issue. But "May be I have hurt Tep, my friend, still lurks somewhere in the depths of mind." But, I would be most grateful, if you would forget about that (if there ever was such a thing) > Tep: It is my turn to sincerely apologize to you, DC. Sorry to know that you were "terribly upset". Nice people are like you, too kind and sometimes, too sensitive. You were absolutely right that Tep always asked just because he wanted to know. It was confusing (not much, though) to me why you had to ask for definitions of several common words, and the "quiz" seemed to go on and on ! He was not hurt or upset, or both. It is a common problem in any discussion group anywhere; it is not Tep's or DC's problem. Clarification done on the list, and sometimes off the list, is necessary to correct a misunderstanding. It is indeed a human's communication problem, but nothing to worry about. Thank you very much for letting me know your thoughts. I believe we can be real good friends for a long time to come. You know, I have the same friendly thought about every DSG member too, believe it or not ! This group is great even when they disagree. Imagine how wonderful it would be, one day, when we all agree on everything about both the dhammas and the Dhamma. Best wishes, Tep ==== #77521 From: Dieter Möller Date: Sat Oct 20, 2007 9:36 am Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. moellerdieter Hi Howard, you wrote: Howard: 'I'm not clearly following you. Yes, at moments we have, say, a sound as object. These may be interspersed with moments at other sense doors, including mind door. There may be rapid switching back & forth. D: The point I wanted to make - from a practical angle-is that our usual day-by-day consciousness is presented by a situation which is a compound of the 6 senses. The (sense) object of our attention is , like a changing foreground, embeded in the here-and-now situation. At least so it appears to us... The rapid switching back & forth will only be recognised when the mind is calm(er), like the movie projector runs at low speed...agreed? Howard: IMO, when the sound extends for a relatively long time without other intervening objects, or when the mind frequently returns to "the same" sound, we can say that the mind is "concentrated on the sound". I believe that the factor that tends to make such "sticking" with an object occur is the one-pointedness cetasika' D: you mean by one-pointedness cetasika, the mental quality which allows the state? Howard (D: I think it is not possible to separate concentration and mindfulness.) -------------------------------------- I think they can certainly be distinguished. Moreover, I think that wrong concentration can occur without mindfulness, as when engrossed in some akusala phenomena or thinking. D: here I can't follow you .. acc. to my dictionary the meaning of 'concentrate' is bringing together, focus one's attention on .. the meaning of 'mindful' giving thought and attention to .. both terms sound to me be rather synonym .. though -I.M.O. - concentration tends towards exclusivity whereas mindfulness to openess ' what is going on' ( as well in respect to the 8th and the 7th element of the N.P.) To distinguish both by right and wrong , i.e. wholesome and unwholesome is an additional factor (abhidhammic) of consideration Howard: (D: the word 'lost' refers to you , i.e. you are absent..it isn't right concentration as you say, because samadhi is an act of will, even that to be present as a pure observer. (usually we can only recall dreams , don't we?) --------------------------------- Howard: Not all samadhi is an act of conscious will, as I see it. D: agreed not all , but as a factor of the path training it is, isn't it? with Metta Dieter #77522 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:22 pm Subject: Re: Reply to Tep kenhowardau Hi Elaine, I think most of us know from our Dhamma studies that there are no permanent (lasting) beings or things in the real world. There are only fleeting dhammas. So, knowing that, why would we *want* anything for the future? Why would we want to become enlightened (if there is no "we" to become enlightened)? I think the common reaction to this sort of question is, "Don't be silly! If you take anatta too literally you will never do anything." And so most Buddhists continue the way they did before they ever heard of anatta. It makes no difference to their Dhamma practice. In fact, their Dhamma practice is indistinguishable from the practices of groups (various New Age religions, for example) that do not believe in anatta. --------- <. . .> E: > I have never heard of a monk (in modern times or in the past) who walks around and read books and gained enlightenment. Is there any monk in Buddha's time who were able to do that? Even Ven. Ananda had to push himself very hard to meditate, in fact, he meditated too strenously and only when he was tired and slowly put his head on the bed and relaxed a bit, that he attained Nibbana because there was a balance in the faculties. (sorry I cannot explain this very well, but there has to be a balance in the faculties, e.g. energy vers us concentration faculties have to be balanced). ------------------ Don't worry about not being able to explain very well. I am in the same boat. Somehow, I have to explain the conventional story you have given of Ananda trying very hard to "do" something (to become an arahant in time for the Great Council). If there were really only fleeting dhammas (and no Ananda) why would there be this story of his "trying to do something?" But, as it turns out, the answer comes to mind quite easily. All I have to do is remember the Dhamma: "Mere conditioned phenomena exist!" Sure, it seems as if there are people trying to do things - sometimes succeeding, sometimes failing. That is the nature of phenomena: Mental phenomena think in terms of stories - people, places and things to do. But actually, when Ananda put forth right effort to quickly become an arahant there were only conditioned dhammas. That is the way they were conditioned to arise. Ananda would have been under no misapprehension that he could somehow control the stream of conditioned dhammas. There is no such control! To give an even more striking example, 'Bodhisatta' and 'Buddha' are also just conventional designations. We are tremendously grateful to the original Bodhisatta for making his vow and, and for going through that huge ordeal, and we are grateful for the Buddha's teaching. But, actually, it was all just a matter of dhammas - arising, functioning and falling away the way they were conditioned to do. That doesn't prevent genuine feelings of gratitude from arising because feelings, too, are conditioned dhammas. Getting back to what you were saying: there are some stories (of people and things to do) that naturally go with Dhamma practice. They include stories of people listening to good friends who relate the Dhamma. They include stories of people considering what they have heard, asking questions, clarifying, and understanding how the Dhamma applies to the present-moment reality. But where, in the original Pali texts, are there any stories of formal vipassana meditation? Where are the instructions to (for example) quieten the mind and concentrate on how the in-breath is followed by an out-breath thereby revealing anicca? They are not there! Their absence must seem very strange to formal meditators. But it is not strange to me. In fact, I would be most perplexed to find anything of that kind in the texts because it would contradict what is *actually in there.* --------------------- <. . .> KenH: > > I don't want to disavow you of your chosen beliefs. I do hope, however, that you will at least have a look at the ancient texts. You might be interested in seeing how *they* describe dana, sila and bhavana. >> E: > I'm sorry, I don't understand this. Ancient text describe dana, sila and bhavana differently? How? What are these ancient texts? ---------------------------------- I am referring to the Pali Tipitaka and its ancient commentaries. According to them, dana is not the story of one person handing a gift to another person. It actually refers to certain kusala cittas and cetasikas that may be arising during the period of time when such stories are said to be taking place. In such a period of time all sorts of namas and rupas are presenting themselves at the sense doors. Some of the namas may be kusala, some akusala, while others will be purely functional. This is the meaning of Dhamma practice (satipatthana): When a monk is performing an act of dana he knows that action *as it really is:* when he is performing an action of anger he knows that action *as it really is:* when he is performing an action known as walking he knows . . (and so on). In all of this there are only dhammas. There is no monk who deliberately (as an act of actual control) tries to practice satipatthana. Satipatthana happens if the conditions for its happening have been put in place. There is no control. There was really no Ananda and no control over the arising of arahant path- citta. It just looked - from the conventional viewpointthat - as if there were. I'm going on a bit! Better leave it there. :-) Ken H #77523 From: Sobhana Date: Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Reply to Tep shennieca Hello DC and Tep, all, Awww, both of you wrote with such sincerity, it touched my heart..... :-)) This is a really nice place for dhamma discussion. :-)) In my opinion, the abhidhamma would make more sense for meditators because the stuffs that are described in the abhidhamma can only be experienced “in detail" by meditators. Meditators who are deep in concentration and mindfulness can "see" the arising and passing away of the cittas (I am taking a guess here that experienced meditators are able to describe how the nama and rupa arises and falls away). It is impossible for me to know what the advanced meditators experience, because I'm not there yet. A few people say that they understand citta and cetasika, but I don't know how these citta and cetasikas can be "fully understood" by someone who is doing normal daily activities without doing meditation. Understanding the abhidhamma brings about mundane right understanding which is…mundane, but the stuffs that are described in the abhidhamma is written by someone who has achieved supra-mundane right understanding. Don't you agree? When a meditator has achieved some supra-mundane right understanding, then the abhidhamma is verifying or substantiating what s/he already knows. Meditation is equaled to "direct experience" and if a person has not meditated before, s/he will not understand what I’m talking about. I think the abhidhamma should be studied in tandem with meditation. One of my dhamma friends told me that it is better to meditate first and then read the book later, but I think it is ok to read the book and meditate (not at the same time, of course), as long as during the meditation, the meditator is able to let go of names and concepts and just watch the realities go by without getting attached to the stuffs that are written in the book. P/s: My meditation is like an uphill walk, it is a struggle, maybe the mundane understanding of the abhidhamma would ”expedite” the supra-mundane attainment?? maybe or maybe not?? (((unsure))). What do you guys think? #77524 From: Sobhana Date: Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Reply to Tep shennieca Hi KenH, If you are able to understand "no Ananda", "no you", and "no I" then you have reached further along in the path than many, many people, and I am happy for you. :-)) The way that I am practising Buddhism right now, is by trying my best to be mindful, and once in a while try to perform an act of kindness, and trying to understand the sutta in "conventional" terms. I cannot see the things that are beyond what I can perceive, maybe next time when my mind's eye is opened... I can see "no Ananda", "no you" and "no me". But right now, I can only perceive that my nama and rupa is jumbled together, but hopefully one day I will realize that the nama is a separate entity from the rupa. I hope to have direct understand of the "arising and passing away of the dhammas", I'm not there yet, but one day... I hope I will. #77525 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Sat Oct 20, 2007 7:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. dcwijeratna Dear Scott, Sorry for the delay. I got distracted for a while. Here I give, two quotes which I think are important: "But they would certainly teach something respecting such points, as pre-Aristotelian logical methods, and the procedure followed in one or more schools for rendering students conversant with the concepts in psychology, ethics and metaphysic accepted or debated by the culture of the age." Here I want to focus on the word 'metaphysic'. This is How RhD sees Dhs; as a philosophy; but philosophy is speculation; theories, doctrines and so forth. But for me, the Buddha-word is not mere speculation, it was the consequence of his Enlightenment. I think you see the same way. But I want to make sure. This is how I look at it: If the teaching of the Buddha is a philosophy, then it doesn't make sense for me to study it. I might as well spend my time spending computers, which I enjoy very much. It doesn't matter, either way, with one proviso. If we are looking it as a philosophy we need to look at only the consistency of its statements. There are no ultimate truths--truth is always defined w.r.t. reality in Eastern religions. In Buddhism, yathaabhuuta, tatha and so on. You remember I asked you about your knowledge of maths or science. This is the reason. Let me put it like this. I hope I won't make a mess of it. If we are studying Freudian psychology, then we are not going to bother what Jung had to say on that subject. What are your thoughts? "Closer study of the work will, I believe, prove less ungrateful, more especially if the conception of it as a student's manual be kept well in view. The method of the book is explicative, deductive; its object was, not to add to the Dhamma, but to unfold the orthodox import of terms in use among the body of the faithful, and, by organizing and systematizing the aggregate of doctrinal concepts, to render the learner's intellect both clear and efficient." This little passage in a way summarises the meaning of Abhidhamma in Dhs. I understand it as as follows: 1. Dhs is a student't manual--the student here refers to scholar-monks, who instead of meditating spent there time in studying the texts. 2. The method of the book is explicative, 3. Its deductive 4. Object was not to add to the Dhamma. This, I think is very important. Please think about it clearly. A fair amount of controversies surround Abhidhamma because of later additions. 5. Organizing and systematizing; generally, scholars of Abhidhamma agree this was the basic motivator for the style. What are your reactions? Now just one or two points about your post. >Scott: My apologies, I don't think much of myself 'as a psychologist' . I'll answer briefly but prefer to study Dhamma (which psychology never will be). The body, mind, and brain form a seamless unity when it comes to experience (the realm of psychotherapy) and hence the distinction is unnecessary. Worldly psychology does not treat with realities since 'mind', 'brain', and 'body' are considered as wholes and real, whereas they are in fact, concepts. DC: I am with you on 'seamless unity'. Second sentence, there is a real, unreal distinction. So we need to clarify what we mean by real/unreal. This is my understanding: Only reality is experience, or more accurately, what one perceives. To experience we must have 'something' external to us. A subject and an object. That is how we perceive the world. How do you see it? >>DC: "What is your attitude to knowledge?" >Scott: That which is called 'insight' in relation to the knowledge one gains through the process of psychotherapy is purely conceptual and entirely conventional. DC: I agree. I want to connect up with the earlier. What we experience is what we know. Now this contrasts with worldly knowledge. Because "worldly knowledge" admits knowledge by learning education etc. Here we make an assumption: that the teacher has actually seen. But there are situations where nobody has personally verified. Could such instances be considered as knowledge? How should we proceed? >Scott: Okay, DC. I don't look to Mrs. RD as a teacher either but as a start to looking at Dhammasa"nga. ni, it will be interesting. DC: We have started now; I have put the first item in the agenda. Kind regards, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77526 From: Sobhana Date: Sat Oct 20, 2007 11:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Reply to Tep shennieca Hi KenH, Something that you wrote sounds very much like "fatalism with a twist". KenH: But actually, when Ananda put forth right effort to quickly become an arahant there were only conditioned dhammas. That is the way they were conditioned to arise. Ananda would have been under no misapprehension that he could somehow control the stream of conditioned dhammas. There is no such control! ---------------------------- E: I don't understand this sentence "That is the way they were conditioned to arise". How do you understand it, can you please explain it in conventional terms like Who, What, Why, When and How:- 1. Who conditions it? 2. What conditions it? 3. Why is it conditioned in such a way? 4. When is it decided those conditions arise? 5. How is it conditioned? If Ananda didn't know that these conditions were ready for him, then all this happened "by chance, and through some coincidental conditions?" Don't say that it has been developed over many lifetimes. I mean, those past lifetimes, how did the "correct or right conditions arise for the attainment of Nibbana". It really is coincidental ??? Hmmphh... strange. #77527 From: "Sukinder" Date: Sun Oct 21, 2007 1:08 am Subject: Re: Response to DC Part 1. sukinderpal Hi DC and Azita, DC, I realize that you have yet to reply to some of my posts, but this just caught my attention and I would like to respond to it. Azita, I will be representing you here, but this I do because I believe that we have more or less the same understanding of Dhamma. Hope you both don't mind. ================= DC: Once and forever, forget something: "cittas that experience" Here you make the citta 'I'. Cakkhu vi~n~naa.na is a causal process--cakkhu.m pa.ticca ruupe cauppajjati cakkhuvi~n~naana.m. Sukin: If citta is a causal process, how is the statement "cittas that experience" not in line with this fact? Isn't it the function of citta that it "experiences" an object? Or are you saying that we need to also mention that cittas is conditioned by the object and base etc.? ================= DC: If your eyes are open seeing happens. Sukin: Here you are referring to "concept", a long chain of thought and not to any causal relationship between dhammas! In this particular relationship, seeing consciousness is dependent on the eye base and not on this "self"-charged idea of "opening one's eyes". True this can in fact simply be a `pointer' to the realities of seeing, eye-base and visible object dependency. But it can also be completely misleading, esp. for those who are liable to take conventional actions / situations for real. The Abhidhamma precision, points to the fact of eye-base as well as seeing consciousness, both being conditioned by past kamma. This is reflective of the fact of Anatta and no control. "Opening one's eyes" on the other hand, gives the impression of "willful action", a *cause* rather than *result*. One could then go away with the impression that "seeing" can arise by intention. And this wouldn't be Dhamma. When Azita refers to seeing, she understands it to be a conditioned reality beyond control, such that even while the physical eye remains open, seeing is just one of the many realities arising and falling away. In between are other realities like, hearing, sound, thinking etc. She is not fooled into thinking that seeing arise *all the time* during which this conceptual `eye' is open. On the other hand, someone else who may not know better, he could go away thinking that `seeing' is happening all the time, and that what is seen is people and things. This could then be the basis for believing that to be `mindful', is to be mindful of `concepts'. But all the while in between, other realities arise and fall away, and the understanding that could otherwise have arisen, namely that there is so much ignorance and that dhammas are anatta and beyond control, he misses out on this and instead goes away with increased atta sanna /atta ditthi, false sense of "knowing" and idea of "control". But of course Azita knows better. ;-) ================== DC: It is the recognition stage that 'I' intrudes. Like/dislike is relative to 'I'. That is delusion. Sukin: Here you seem to make the distinction between seeing and thinking. But it looks like that you do not realize that ignorance, wrong view, tanha etc., can arise well before there is any recognizing of objects as people and things. And Azita knows this as well. ================== DC: This is one of the most difficult suttas in the canon. If you are with me up to this point, then we'll proceed. You can't understand these things by reading books. Sukin: You can't understand Dhamma and dhammas *without* reading / hearing about it. True you will understand it better through direct experience. However this will not happen if the understanding at the intellectual level is *wrong*! If for example one were to take literally your description of "opening one's eyes" as being causal of "seeing" to happen, without taking into account kamma / vipaka and other `conditions', any practice taken would invariably be "wrong". Likewise, if we were `advised' to just sit and observe, without any correct understanding about Sati of Satipatthana being anatta, and what in fact the panna of this level *knows*, one will follow the wrong path of "Self observing conventional realities" and then attributing to "intention" a characteristic and function it does not in fact have! ================== DC: You need to sit in a quiet corner and look at your mind. You can start by closing your eyes and checking the first process. Sukin: Above you reacted to "cittas that experience" with the statement "Here you make the citta 'I'". I see Azita's statement as being reference to a conditioned reality by way of function, which can lead to further understanding of "Anatta". But here you are referring to a concept of "self", one that can make things happen! This is thinking of "wholes" that lead one to pay more attention to the situation of ""I" sitting in a quiet corner and "looking" at "own" mind". In other words you are encouraging the perception of the non-existent "I" who is an *agent* deciding to `sit' and further to be seriously having to choose between "quiet and non-quiet" place and unquestioningly to then take "looking" to be fruitfully *knowing* of yet another concept called "mind". And further, in being asked to close her eyes, Azita is being told that "seeing" can't be known or is somehow harder to know than other realities that arise when `meditating'?!!! Fortunately, I know Azita enough to know that she won't be taking this advice. Rather than being influenced by an "attachment to result" and hence be drawn into this idea of yours, she knows that the development of understanding can take place even now. Besides she knows this much to recognize expressions of gross Sakkya ditthi. ================== DC: Then follow through. If you are not convinced. Then let's see what is your difficulty. Sukin: Sorry to be blunt here, but this is creating a scenario for the typical meditator / teacher relationship, the blind to be led by the blind. If this doesn't work, try that, if that doesn't work, try this. Some time at some point, due to conditions, the `illusion of result' sets in and this is because the student will surely have much wrong view and infinite supply of tanha accumulated. But of course Azita, even though she too has lots of accumulated akusala, she knows not to be drawn into someone else's "story" about how Sati and Panna might be developed, in "time". She knows that thinking about development in terms of the past and future and "doings", is exactly due to there having never been any appreciation of the present moment being *conditioned* and *anatta*! ================== DC: Let me give an example that like/dislike is dependent on the 'I'. Do you have a favourite colour? Well you'll know somebody who hates that colour. But the colour is colour, there is nothing more to it. Incidentally, that is the sabhaava of abhidhamma. A colour blind peroson sees red as green and viceversa. Sukin: Are you now trying to convince her that seeing experiences "particular color"? Azita knows that seeing only experiences `visible object' and therefore it makes no difference if there is color blindness. Visible object remains only visible object, namely "that which is experienced by seeing consciousness". ================== DC: Life is purposeless!!! It is a causal process. Anatta is the characterstic of causal proceses. There is a purpose because of 'I'. Realise that then all your unhappiness goes away. Sukin: Sorry, but panna is not concerned about happiness / unhappiness. It sees the drawback in Avijja and the great benefit of Vijja. The Vijja is of the 4NT, and the Dukkha of the first NT is not "unhappiness" but the nature of *all* conditioned realities, including what you call happiness. ================= DC: So be of good cheer as you say. Sukin: This "good cheer" comes with understanding and not optimism based on a projected idea. ================= DC: The Buddha is always depicted with a happy and pleasant face in statues. Sukin: Hasitupada is the product of very great panna. And it is a rootless kiriya citta which arises I believe, quite rarely. The Buddha taught for us to *understand* Dukkha and not to look at his smiling image and project our ignorance, craving and wrong view into it. You said that you didn't mind before, so I took the liberty to be frank here. Metta, Sukin. #77528 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun Oct 21, 2007 2:17 am Subject: Re: Response to DC Part 1. kenhowardau Hi DC, --------- DC: > It will be difficult for us to have meaningful communication. When you see what I write on your screen, do you consider the letters as real? Well you can't if you go by your own statements. --------- People who believe the Abhidhamma do NOT, as a consequence, lead dysfunctional lives. We don't walk in front of speeding cars chanting "Cars do not exist! Cars do not exit!" Nor do we have trouble reading computer screens, thinking, "What letters? What screen?" --------------- > > > DC: > >We don't have the ability to see naama and ruupa. Simple, isn't it? > > KenH: No, I can't agree. We do have the ability to perceive namas and rupas. We have the ability, for example, to see visible rupas. In fact, visible rupas are all we ever see. The problem is that we ordinary folk do not have the ability to perceive namas and rupas WITH RIGHT UNDERSTANDING. Why not? Because right understanding (panna, samma-ditthi) is a conditioned dhamma. And, in our case, the panna that directly knows namas and rupas has not been conditioned to arise. > > > DC: In the first paragraph you say: We do have the ability to perceive namas and rupas. In the second paragraph. you say; we ordinary folk do not have the ability to perceive namas and rupas. Such statements we call contradictions, and they invalidate all arguments. ------------- You seem to have missed the words I put in capital letters: "WITH RIGHT UNDERSTANDING." Throughout our daily lives we continually see visible rupas, hear audible rupas, smell olfactory rupas, taste gustatory rupas, feel [three types of] haptic rupas, and mentally experience many kinds of namas and rupas. The trouble is, we don't directly understand those conditioned dhammas. If we think about them at all is with the idea of lasting entities (people, places, things etc). We don't directly know them as fleeting dhammas. Dhamma students know them indirectly, but only a fortunate few ever have the direct understanding known as satipatthana or vipassana. -------------------------------- <. . .> DC: > In the last sentence the words: "pannaa that directly knows dhammas". Here in this clause pannaa is the subject. and 'knows' is a verb. Humans communicate through language used according to grammar. By making panna the subject doer, you make panna the subject. With this the teaching of the Buddha as we know is finished. It is the substition of the word panna for 'I' or calling atta panna--a mere designation. ------------------------------- If I understand you correctly, you are saying that namas and rupas do not really exist. You think anything that exists (for example, any nama that experiences an object) must be atta. Have I understood you correctly? You wouldn't be the first person to have claimed that the Buddha taught "nothing exists." But that is far from a correct understanding of his teaching. It is patently clear to me (from my Dhamma studies) that the Buddha taught the absolute existence of dhammas - both conditioned and unconditioned. There are even one or two suttas in which he is specifically asked that question.(e.g., SN22:94 Flowers:) ------------------- <. . .> KH: > > Therefore, I have no doubt whatsoever that when the Buddha spoke in terms of 'I, you, people (etc)' he was using those terms purely by way of conventional designation. DC: > Yes, the only language that people can understand. -------------------- I think you will find there were two ways in which the Buddha taught. There was the way of conventional designation (I, you, tree etc) and there was the way of unconventional designation (citta, cetasika, rupa etc). Both ways were perfectly understandable, and still are. Is there anything in the Abhidhamma that you consider beyond human comprehension? ----------------------------------- > >KenH: It is the responsibility of the listener to understand the Buddha's teaching in terms of the five khandhas (conditioned namas and rupas). > DC: According to the Sutta Pi.taka many listeners understood without ever hearing about the Pancakkhanda. What the Buddha really taught was the Noble Eightfold path. To "understand" that you need to follow the path and when you are a sotapanna-stream-enterer, you "understand". ------------------ The Noble Eightfold Path *is* Pancakkhanda (the five khandhas). It is a particular form of the five khandhas that is unique to the Noble Ones (the ariyans). It is vinnana-khandha (magga-citta), sankhara khandha (the ten path factors plus about twenty other cetasikas), sanna-khandha (sanna-cetasika), vedana-khandha (vedana-cetasika) and rupa khandha (I can't recall offhand exactly which rupas are present in a moment of magga-citta). I know you reject most of the ancient texts, but can you agree that this is how the NEP is described in the Theravada Tipitaka? Ken H #77529 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Oct 21, 2007 1:31 am Subject: Devoured by Delight! bhikkhu0 Friends: Deceiving Sensuality: Empty of Happiness! The Blessed Buddha explained all the phenomena of existence as a pain: Whoever delights in forms, feelings, perceptions, mental constructions, and in whatever kind of consciousness, also delights in plain Suffering! Whoever delights in Suffering, cannot ever be freed from Suffering... I tell you: So is it really! SN 22:29 INAPPROPRIATE Why laugh ? Why party ? Always is the world burning. In darkness do you not seek light? How can you find delight and laughter Where there is burning without end? In deepest darkness you are wrapped! Why do you not seek for the light? Dhammapada 146 THE FRAGILE FRAME See this painted puppet, one big mass of sores, a diseased frame of skin drawn upon bones, once possessing many evil thoughts, a thing much regarded & beloved, yet of neither stable nor lasting nature ... Look at this puppet here, well rigged up, A heap of many sores, piled up, Diseased, and full of greediness, Unstable, and impermanent! Dhammapada 147 ONLY A FORM This body is worn out, a fragile form, a nest of disease, a rotting mass of deception since its life surely ends in Death ... Devoured by old age is this frame, A prey to sickness, weak and frail; To pieces breaks this putrid body, All life must truly end in death! Dhammapada 148 Blissful is solitude for one who is content, learned & who see True Dhamma. Blissful is harmlessness towards all beings without exception. Blissful is freedom from any sensual urge whatsoever. Yet, the supreme Bliss, is the elimination of the abysmal conceit “I amâ€?!’ Udana – Inspiration: II – 1 Comment: Yes there is pleasure in the world. But it always goes away & turns into pain! Taking delight means urging back here by rebirth and thus also more deaths! All This - whatsoever - is Suffering: Such is the 1st Noble Truth: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_1st_Noble_Truth_on_Suffering.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Sour_Sense_Sources.htm Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka * http://What-Buddha-Said.net Dissatisfaction is an inevitable characteristic of being! Devoured by Delight! #77530 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Sun Oct 21, 2007 5:36 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (69) nichiconn Dear Friends, Part 5 13. Viisatinipaato 4. Sundariitheriigaathaava.n.nanaa txt: 315. "Bahuuni puttasataani, ~naatisa"nghasataani ca; khaaditaani atiita.mse, mama tu~nha~nca braahma.na. 316. "Saaha.m nissara.na.m ~natvaa, jaatiyaa mara.nassa ca; na socaami na rodaami, na caapi paritappayi.m. 317. "Abbhuta.m vata vaase.t.thi, vaaca.m bhaasasi edisi.m; kassa tva.m dhammama~n~naaya, gira.m bhaasasi edisi.m. Pruitt: [Vaase.t.thi:] 314. Many hundreds of sons, and hundreds of groups of relatives of mine and yours have been caused to be eaten in the past, brahman. 315. Knowing the escape from birth and death, I do not grieve or lament, nor do I mourn. [Sujaata:] 316. You speak such a truly amazing utterance, Vaase.t.thii. Whose doctrine do you know that you say such a thing? RD: Vaasi.t.thii. Nay, brahmin, many hundreds of our babes, And of our kinsfolk many hundred more, Have we in all the ages past and gone Seen preyed upon by Death, both you and I. (314) But I have learnt how from both Birth and Death A way there is t' escape. Wherefore no more I mourn, nor weep, nor make my bitter wail. (315) Sujaata. Wondrous in sooth, Vaasi.t.thii, are the words Thou speakest! Whose the doctrine thou hast learnt? Whence thine authority for speech like this? (316) txt: 318. "Esa braahma.na sambuddho, nagara.m mithila.m pati; sabbadukkhappahaanaaya, dhamma.m desesi paa.nina.m. 319. "Tassa brahme arahato, dhamma.m sutvaa niruupadhi.m; tattha vi~n~naatasaddhammaa, puttasoka.m byapaanudi.m. 320. "So ahampi gamissaami, nagara.m mithila.m pati; appeva ma.m so bhagavaa, sabbadukkhaa pamocaye. Pruitt: [Vaase.t.thii:] 317. That Fully Awakened One, brahman, near the city of Mithilaa, teaches the Doctrine to living creatures for the abandonment of all pain. 318. I have heard that Arahat's Doctrine that is without basis for rebirth, brahman, [and] knowing the true Doctrine there, I have thrust away grief for my sons. [Sujaata:] 319. I too shall go near the city of Mithilaa. Perhaps that Blessed One may release me from all pain. RD: Vaasi.t.thii. 'Tis He, the Very Wake, the Buddha, He Who late, hard by the town of Mithilaa, Did teach the Norm, brahmin, whereby All that hath life may put off every ill. (317) When I, O brahmin, when I heard the Arahant Reveal the Doctrine of the Non-Substrate, *365 Forthwith the Gospel sank into my heart, And all my mother-grief fell off from me. (318) Sujaata. Then I too straight will go to Mithilaa, If haply the Exalted Buddha may Me, even me, release from every ill. (319) *365 Nirupadhi - i.e., of how to live so as to undo the conditions or bases for rebirth. The following line reads literally: 'I, being one who had understood the Gospel, dispelled my child-grief then and there.' ===tbc, connie. #77531 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Oct 21, 2007 8:54 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Reply to Tep indriyabala Dear DC (Elaine and others) - Now that I am back home, let me complete the reply to your message #77515. It is a good essay you wrote on 'practice in accordance with the Dhamma', although IMHO it is partly opinionated. The essence of your essay consists of the following points. 1. DC: There is absolutely, no way, of determining the truth-falsity or right and wrong of any belief by rational discussion. One important example, is, arguments for and against "God". 2. DC: However, it is possible, to rationally discuss... (and) compare the beliefs that are claimed to have been derived from the Dhamma, with the Dhamma. So all we can say is whether 'Any claim about dhamma' is in accordance with the Dhamma. 3. DC: There are people, who hold that, Abhidhamma is Dhamma. In fact, Buddhavacana. Such views are not tenable in the light of evidence. So that is a belief. And as I have argued in the first paragraph, rational discussion is not possible. 4. DC: sammaa di.tthi is the first step in the path. And to get their what you need to do is to develop saddhaa. That is accept the Enlightenment of the Buddha on the basis of evidence or accept the Buddha as the Teacher (satthaa).. so how can you get sammaa di.tthi by reading books. For that you need to start on the path. 5. So DSG abhidhammikas statements are not in accordance with the Dhamma. 6. .. in all religious traditions naama and ruupa are separate things. One is the mind and the other is the body. In science too, mind and the body (the living beings ) are separate. But in the Dhamma, nama-ruupa is one. Unfortunately because of our upbringing we unconsciously try to discuss these things as if these things are different and entities. ................ T: (1. and 2.) Rational views can be right if they are supported by truths. Thus an argument against the Almighty God, the Creator, is considered as "right" by Buddhists because the Buddha rejected the view of the Creator. But non-Buddhists, of course, reject the Buddhists' argument against the Creator. So they (Buddhists and non- Buddhists) may never reach the same conclusion about God. Yet, even when we narrow the domain of discussion down to just comparing views/beliefs, that are derived from the Buddha's Teachings, with the (original) Teachings, people still have lots of disagreements. This is because the non-ariya discussers' inability to see the dhammas 'the way they truly are' is inter-twined with their attaanudi.t.thi. The Venerable Nanamoli explained best. Nanamoli: These two levels — the self-view and the I-sense — are respectively what are called the '(lower or immediate) fetter of views' (di.t.thi-sa"myo jana) and the '(higher or remoter) fetter of conceit' (maana-sa"myo jana). The first is abandoned with the attainment of the first stage of realization (the path of stream- entry) while the second is abandoned only with the fourth and final stage (the path of arahantship: see DN 33). It may be noted here in parenthesis that the rendering of maana by "pride," though not wrong, severs the semantic relationship with ma~n~nati and ma~n~nanaa, which it is most important to preserve intact for the understanding of this situation. [see DSG message #76046] T: (3. and 4.) The Abhidhamma-Pitaka is extremely profound and hugely important, because it analytically expounds various meanings and relationships of the dhammas (although not detailed enough). As such the Abhidhamma is of great value to people who possess in-depth knowledge of the Vinaya- and Suttanta Pitaka as the foundation, in my humble opinion. A careful study of the Dependent Origination, the 24 pacayas, the 18 dhatus, the 89 vinnanas, the 14 modes of occurrence of consciousness(citta-vithi), and the 52 cetasikas in the Visuddhimagga has convinced me that only the Buddha could have formulated the Abhidhamma. The Abhidhamma did not come easy -- it was the consequence of the Great Sage's thorough review of the dhammas that earlier had led Him to the Awakening. So, nobody should ever think of the Abhidhamma as not being the Buddha's discovery. There are several (related) ways to attain the sammadi.tthi, and they are given in MN 9 (a discourse of the Arahant Sariputta). MN 117 adds more depth to the analysis of right view. T: I have no comment for 5. and 6. I think a DSG Abhidhammikas' reply, if they are interested to repond to your remark, is going to be much better than mine. ................ >DC: About knowledge--Again knowledge in the Dhamma is not what we call 'knowledge'. What we call knowledge is, in Dhamma, sa~n~naakkhandha. Sa~n~naa is based on the 'I' and avijjaa. Are you with me? T: No, I am not, DC. I am with the great Arahant Sariputta's 73 kinds of 'knowledge' (~naana) in the Patisambhidamagga : Treatise I, On Knowledge. These are not worldly-based knowledges (e.g. automotive design; Theory of Relativity; etc.). Thank you so much for sharing your vast Buddhism knowledge with me. Tep === #77532 From: Ken O Date: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. ashkenn2k HI Wijeratna its been a long time, someone excites me to speak out :-) DC: In the first paragraph you say: We do have the ability to perceive namas and rupas. In the second paragraph. you say; we ordinary folk do not have the ability to perceive namas and rupas. Such statements we call contradictions, and they invalidate all arguments. KO: there is no contradictions, just different answers to the context. When we say we do have the ability to understand, if not why learn buddhism in the first place. When ordinary folk was mentioned, it was meant to see nama and rupas in the ultimate reality and not convention reality and that was refering to the Nobles Ones. Do ask any questions because I did not follow your discussions closely with Ken H and Scott, if you do not mind, pse question back again. Because of you, I would stay for while in DSG Cheers Ken O #77533 From: Ken O Date: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. ashkenn2k Hi Howard and Dieter H: I think the mind being "scattered" amounts to an inclination to switch to another sense object due to an aversion to the present object or craving for an object of a different sort, and supported by some cetasikas that weaken attention (e.g., sloth & torpor, or excitement). KO: When the mind is scattered, it is referring to predominace restlessness cetasika, it is moha rooted and unprompted:-). Sloth and torpor would only arise in prompted hence cannot be in the scattered. Excitement is a general word, are we refering to lobha which comes with pleasant feelings. When aversion or lobha arise, restlessness will arise but it is subordinate, not a predominace factor. Cheers Ken O #77534 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. dcwijeratna Hi Ken O, Many thanks for your resonse. I reproduce your post below: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- its been a long time, someone excites me to speak out :-) DC: In the first paragraph you say: We do have the ability to perceive namas and rupas. In the second paragraph. you say; we ordinary folk do not have the ability to perceive namas and rupas. Such statements we call contradictions, and they invalidate all arguments. KO: there is no contradictions, just different answers to the context. When we say we do have the ability to understand, if not why learn buddhism in the first place. When ordinary folk was mentioned, it was meant to see nama and rupas in the ultimate reality and not convention reality and that was refering to the Nobles Ones. Do ask any questions because I did not follow your discussions closely with Ken H and Scott, if you do not mind, pse question back again. Because of you, I would stay for while in DSG --------------------------------------------------------------------------------\ ------ Here are my observations: In the kind of reasoning we use, when a statement such as: "We do have the ability to perceive namas and rupas." is considered as a perfectly general statement. In other words, it applies to all situations. That is why the second statement is a contradiction because it admits that "We do not have have the ability ....". By learning you can't understand Buddhism. It can be done only by travelling the path. That is the Fourth Noble Truth. So if you maintain that we can understand it by learning, then it is not in accordance with the Dhamma. (The Four Noble Truths). May I add here: The Buddha was not looking for knowledge. The Buddha was searching for Ultimate peace and happiness. What is the meaning you attach to "ultimate reality"; or even just reality? I ask this question because, unless we can agree on the meaning of terms we can't communicate. Just to pique you, may I mention that ultimate reality is su~n~na (emptyiness) according to Madhyamika philosophy. If you are interested, come back, I'll give you some more examples. Frankly, I don't remember the question. I don't keep them and follow up as such. If something catches my eye and I have some difficulty in understanding that I raise a question and then forget about it. I have no wish to convert anybody or win an argument. If you look at the introductory portion of the Brahmajaala, the Buddha has told us (at least me) how to react to any statement. D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77535 From: Dieter Möller Date: Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. moellerdieter Hi Ken O, Howard, thanks for your feedback.. much appreciated in order to get better understanding of Abhidhamma terms in context with practical experience.. As you quoted Howard , I 'll wait for his response before commenting .. with Metta Dieter #77537 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Reply to Tep dcwijeratna Dear Tep, I am not going to write an "essay", I'll be very brief. 1. About 73 kinds of ~na.na. That includes the ~naa.na of the Buddha that nobody else possesses. So it is not relevant to our discussion. We are looking at the concept of knowledge. They are mere concepts for me. I have never experienced most of them. By the way how you understand sa~n~n~aa? More,importantly when you send me the definition of the English word 'knowledge'. Otherwise you are talking of 73 kinds of naana and I am talking of soemthing else. 2. Nature of Abhidhamma. Abhidhamma is an attempt by non-ariyans to explain the Dhamma. Abhidhamma (when interpreted as Dhamma) it was preached by the Buddha, but not all the stuff in the Abhidhamma Pi.taka, especially the stuff in the A.t.thakatha and other texts. 3. The Buddha has said that "the Dhamma is atakkaavacara", you can't arrive at knowledge through rational arguments. And you can't get any of them by reading books. I know many university professors who can quote from the Tipitaka at will and explain also. They should be arahants. 4. But all the different ways boil down to the the same thing. Pa.ticca-samuppada. Metaa, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77538 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Oct 21, 2007 11:23 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Reply to Tep indriyabala Hi DC, - Out of your four comments I am only interested in the first. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, DC Wijeratna wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > I am not going to write an "essay", I'll be very brief. > > 1. About 73 kinds of ~na.na. > That includes the ~naa.na of the Buddha that nobody else possesses. So it is not relevant to our discussion. We are looking at the concept of knowledge. They are mere concepts for me. I have never experienced most of them. > By the way how you understand sa~n~n~aa? More,importantly when you send me the definition of the English word 'knowledge'. Otherwise you are talking of 73 kinds of naana and I am talking of soemthing else. > > 2. Nature of Abhidhamma. Abhidhamma is an attempt by non-ariyans to explain the Dhamma. Abhidhamma (when interpreted as Dhamma) it was preached by the Buddha, but not all the stuff in the Abhidhamma Pi.taka, especially the stuff in the A.t.thakatha and other texts. > > 3. The Buddha has said that "the Dhamma is atakkaavacara", you can't arrive at knowledge through rational arguments. And you can't get any of them by reading books. I know many university professors who can quote from the Tipitaka at will and explain also. They should be arahants. > > 4. But all the different ways boil down to the the same thing. Pa.ticca-samuppada. > T: I am unexpectedly surprised by your reply that all these 73 knowledges are "the ~naa.na of the Buddha that nobody else possesses". Just to make sure that we are talking about the same things, could you please list just 10 of these knowledges (out of the total 73) for me to look at? BTW (= by the way), please also explain why these 10 ~naa.na , that you are going to present as examples, are only the Buddha's knowledges? In the Patisambhidamagga book the knowledges #1 - # 67 are grouped together under the heading "Knowledge Shared by Disciples", and those from #68 - # 73 are grouped under the heading "Knowledge Not Shared by Disciples". Looking forward to your kind reply. Thank you many times, DC. Tep === #77539 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Sun Oct 21, 2007 11:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Reply to Tep dcwijeratna Dear Tep, This is what I wrote: "1. About 73 kinds of ~na.na. > That includes the ~naa.na of the Buddha that nobody else possesses. So it is not relevant to our discussion. We are looking at the concept of knowledge. They are mere concepts for me. I have never experienced most of them. The intent is: The 73 ~naana that you have mentioned includes ~naa.na of the Buddha which nobody else posseses. Well, altogether 73; some only the Buddha has; therefore we don't have them etc. It is difficult for me to imagine how you missed it. For a moment, I thought I have made another blunder. Even now I am not certain. But that is what I meant. You can read it that way if you had missed "that includes" or it is not in your copy or something. But I am very sorry. I am making such a lot of blunders I have to respond quite slowly. Mettaa, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77540 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Oct 21, 2007 11:56 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Reply to Tep indriyabala Dear DC, - When a (two-way) communication flows smoothly, it makes us feel great. But sometimes, like everything else, it just stops working. > > DC: The intent is: The 73 ~naana that you have mentioned includes ~naa.na of the Buddha which nobody else posseses. Well, altogether 73; some only the Buddha has; therefore we don't have them etc. It is difficult for me to imagine how you missed it. For a moment, I thought I have made another blunder. Even now I am not certain. But that is what I meant. You can read it that way if you had missed "that includes" or it is not in your copy or something. But I am very sorry. I am making such a lot of blunders I have to respond quite slowly. > T: The case is closed. Don't worry about it, friend. Let's talk again another time. Cheers ! Tep === #77541 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Oct 21, 2007 12:10 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Reply to Tep indriyabala Hi Elaine (and DC), - I do appeciate your compliment because it came from the one who practices sincerity too. As to "DSG is a really nice place for dhamma discussion", I think I agree with that to some extent. Thank you for following three comments that I feel are partly supported by your meditative, 'direct knowing' experience. ............... E: 1. Meditators who are deep in concentration and mindfulness can "see" the arising and passing away of the cittas (I am taking a guess here that experienced meditators are able to describe how the nama and rupa arises and falls away). I think it is ok to read the book and meditate (not at the same time, of course), as long as during the meditation, the meditator is able to let go of names and concepts and just watch the realities go by without getting attached to the stuffs that are written in the book. Meditation is equaled to "direct experience" and if a person has not meditated before, s/he will not understand what I'm talking about. 2. A few people say that they understand citta and cetasika, but I don't know how these citta and cetasikas can be "fully understood" by someone who is doing normal daily activities without doing meditation. 3. Understanding the abhidhamma brings about mundane right understanding which is…mundane, but the stuffs that are described in the abhidhamma is written by someone who has achieved supra-mundane right understanding. ............... T: 1. Before the seeing the "arising and passing away" phenomena of ruupa, citta and cetasika the meditator must attain a mental single- pointedness as described in MN 119, for example. "Breathing in long, he discerns that he is breathing in long; or breathing out long, he discerns that he is breathing out long. Or breathing in short, he discerns that he is breathing in short; or breathing out short, he discerns that he is breathing out short. He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to the entire body and to breathe out sensitive to the entire body. He trains himself to breathe in calming bodily fabrication (the breath) and to breathe out calming bodily fabrication. And as he remains thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, any memories & resolves related to the household life are abandoned, and with their abandoning his mind gathers & settles inwardly, grows unified & centered. This is how a monk develops mindfulness immersed in the body." T: 2. The Arahant Sariputta in the Patisambhidamagga described how the citta and cetasikas (or, cognizance with an object) may be fully understood (through investigation of the three characteristics) as follows. Ptsm I, On Knowledge: 296. Cognizance with materiality as its object arises and dissolves. Having reflected on that, he contemplates the dissolution of that cognizance. 'He contemplates': how does he contemplate? He contemplates as impermanent, not as permanent; he contemplates as painful, not as pleasant; he contemplates as not self, not as self; he becomes dispassionate, he does not delight; he causes greed to fade away, he does not inflame it; he causes cessation, not arising; he relinquishes, he does not grasp. When he contemplates as impermanent he abandons perception of permanence; When he contemplates as painful he abandons perception of pleasure; When he contemplates as not self he abandons perception of self; when he becomes dispassionate he abandons delight; when his greed fades away he abandons greed; when he causes cessation he abandons arising; when he relinquishes he abandons grasping. Cognizance with feeling as its object arises ... [complete as above] ... Cognizance with perception as its object arises ... Cognizance with formations as its object arises ... Cognizance with consciousness as its object arises and dissolves. ... [complete as above] ... when he relinquishes he abandons grasping. Cognizance with eye as its object arises ... [and so on with each of the 201 ideas listed in para #5 up to] ... Cognizance with ageing-and-death as its object arises ... [complete as above] ... when he relinquishes he abandons grasping. 3. There are several authors of the Abhidhamma books who are/were not ariyans. The original Abhidhamma "stuff" was taught by the Buddha to the Chief Disciple Sariputta, according to the Theravada literature. Tep === #77542 From: Sobhana Date: Sun Oct 21, 2007 12:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. shennieca Hi KenH, all, KenH: I think you will find there were two ways in which the Buddha taught. There was the way of conventional designation (I, you, tree etc) and there was the way of unconventional designation (citta, cetasika, rupa etc). Both ways were perfectly understandable, and still are. Is there anything in the Abhidhamma that you consider beyond human comprehension? ------------------------------- E: When you say something is "conventional", you are talking about the things that we can perceive through our senses. The "I" "you" "tree", these are the things that we can physically see, right? When you talk about "unconventional" designation such as citta and cetasika, you are using the word "unconventional" because these are the things that can only be experienced through wisdom (panna), right? Is it possible to have “wisdom” arising from scholastic understanding? Sometimes I take a step back and wonder; "maybe" it could be possible. Why am I being fickle-minded and sometimes think it is possible and sometimes not. I remember the story of the bats that became Sariputta's 500 disciples, who gained enlightenment by listening to the abhidhamma. In their past lives, the bats heard another Buddha recite the abhidhamma in a cave. So, when they were born as human beings and heard the abhidhamma again, they understood it right away. ((It is really difficult to verify stories like this, but... it's been documented and it’s up to the individual whether to believe it or not)). I think, I believe that story, so maybe there are a few "gifted people" who are able to understand the abhidhamma without doing formal meditations and I sincerely believe that dsg members have this special ability. As for other people who don't have this special gift, doing meditation practice is the recommended way to truly understand citta and cetasika. Metaphorically speaking, studying the Dhamma & the Abhidhamma is like reading a chemistry book, in theory. Going to the laboratory and actually doing the experiment (meditation) is the practical part. For non-gifted people, studying the Abhidhamma (in theory) is not equivalent to going to the lab (meditation) and getting first-hand experience of the whole experiment. I think getting enlightened is like the "practical" part of the Buddhist practice, you have to do the lab work for yourself. But, like the story of the bats, I believe that maybe there are some people who have the ability to “get” the whole lab experience just by reading the theory, without actually going to the lab. KenH, although it is difficult (actually, almost impossible) for me to comprehend all that you wrote, I believe that you know what you are writing about. #77543 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Oct 21, 2007 1:11 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. truth_aerator --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Dieter Möller wrote: understanding of Abhidhamma terms in context with practical experience.. > As you quoted Howard , I 'll wait for his response before commenting .. > > with Metta Dieter Hi Dieter, "The reason the Buddha taught the Abhidhamma in the deva world rather than in the human realm, it is said, is because in order to give a complete picture of the Abhidhamma it has to be expounded from the beginning to the end to the same audience in a single session. Since the full exposition of the Abhidhamma requires three months, only devas and Brahmas could receive it in unbroken continuity, for they alone are capable of remaining in one posture for such a length of time. " - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/abhiman.html So what chances do we have? I don't know about you, but I am neither Deva nor Brahma. Lots of metta, Alex #77544 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Oct 21, 2007 1:18 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. scottduncan2 Dear DC, Thanks for the reply: DC: "...Here I want to focus on the word 'metaphysic'. This is How RhD sees Dhs; as a philosophy; but philosophy is speculation; theories, doctrines and so forth. But for me, the Buddha-word is not mere speculation, it was the consequence of his Enlightenment. I think you see the same way. But I want to make sure. This is how I look at it: If the teaching of the Buddha is a philosophy, then it doesn't make sense for me to study it. I might as well spend my time spending computers, which I enjoy very much." Scott: Yeah, I don't study Dhamma from the perspective of the academic or the philosopher (since I am neither yet tend towards both if you catch my drift). I do take Mrs. RD to be writing her essay squarely embedded in her context of being both an Academic and a Philosopher. And not just that but being firmly ensconced in both her historical and her cultural context - that of a, say, Victorian Academic and Philosopher. So, do I care if Mrs. RD says 'metaphysics'? Not a whit. This is why I don't read her essay to study Dhamma. I don't even read Dhammasa"nga.ni to 'study' dhammas, if you follow, since this 'study' occurs according to conditions, is 'carried out' naturally by impersonal dhammas with impersonal dhammas as object and occurs or doesn't occur irregardless of what 'one' is doing or thinks 'one' is doing. I read Dhammasa"nga.ni (or a sutta) as one who is reading something. I'm fully aware that by reading I'm soon thinking and take all that with a fairly sizeable grain of salt. I read Dhammsa"nga.ni to learn of the way in which dhammas are listed and meant as spoken of in Dhamma. The argument that Abhidhamma is 'highly abstract' or 'overly theoretical' or having to do with things 'beyond the physical senses' or that which is 'above and beyond the physical reality' is, I think, both trite and beside the point. DS: "...It doesn't matter, either way, with one proviso. If we are looking it as a philosophy we need to look at only the consistency of its statements. There are no ultimate truths--truth is always defined w.r.t. reality in Eastern religions. In Buddhism, yathaabhuuta, tatha and so on. You remember I asked you about your knowledge of maths or science. This is the reason. Let me put it like this. I hope I won't make a mess of it. If we are studying Freudian psychology, then we are not going to bother what Jung had to say on that subject." Scott: The 'ultimate truth' (paramattha sacca) is not so easily dismissed. ["Tatha (adj.)...(being) in truth, truthful; true, real; Yathaa (adv.)...as, like, in relation to, after (the manner of); Bhuuta [pp. of bhavati...grown, become; born, produced; nature as the result of becoming..."] Defined with respect to 'reality' as you put it (see below where I address this) would necessitate some stand taken on what is 'real'. I take Dhammasa'nga.ni to be listing 'realities' and thus to be demonstrating the entities by which one can meaningfully adduce something called 'ultimate truth'. I don't agree, therefore, that to be looking at Dhammasa"nga.ni, for example, is to be looking at 'philosophy'. This may be you making the point that you think Abhidhamma is *just* philosophy. Now the whole question of Freud or Jung doesn't seem applicable because these refer to conventional thinkers differing on convention matters. If, by way of analogy you wish to suggest that discussing Abhidhamma differs from discussing Dhamma as much as discussing Freud differs from discussing Jung, then I get the point. To combine the two points thus far, you seem to be saying that there is no point in studying Abhdhamma because its just philosophy. DC: "'Closer study of the work will, I believe, prove less ungrateful, more especially if the conception of it as a student's manual be kept well in view. The method of the book is explicative, deductive; its object was, not to add to the Dhamma, but to unfold the orthodox import of terms in use among the body of the faithful, and, by organizing and systematizing the aggregate of doctrinal concepts, to render the learner's intellect both clear and efficient.' "This little passage in a way summarises the meaning of Abhidhamma in Dhs..." Scott: This little passage is the opinion of Mrs. RD. To suggest that it 'summarises the meaning of Abhidhamma in Dhs' is to go well beyond the fact that it remains the conjecture of a Victorian scholar, no matter her brilliance. DS: "1. Dhs is a student's manual--the student here refers to scholar-monks, who instead of meditating spent there time in studying the texts..." Scott: An opinion. And a polemical one ('...who instead of meditating spent there time in studying the texts'.) DS: "..2. The method of the book is explicative, 3. Its deductive..." Scott: The point being? DS: "...4. Object was not to add to the Dhamma. This, I think is very important. Please think about it clearly. A fair amount of controversies surround Abhidhamma because of later additions..." Scott: Polemics. DS: "...5. Organizing and systematizing; generally, scholars of Abhidhamma agree this was the basic motivator for the style." Scott: More of the same. DC: "I am with you on 'seamless unity'. Second sentence, there is a real, unreal distinction. So we need to clarify what we mean by real/unreal. This is my understanding: Only reality is experience, or more accurately, what one perceives. To experience we must have 'something' external to us. A subject and an object. That is how we perceive the world. How do you see it?" Scott: Remember you were asking my opinion about matters psychological. From a Dhamma point of view there is naama and there is ruupa. Naama *is* experiencing; ruupa is not. DC: "...What we experience is what we know. Now this contrasts with worldly knowledge..." Scott: This *is* 'worldly knowledge', or a description thereof. 'We' don't experience anything. What 'we' think 'we know' is not that which was taught as Dhamma. DC: "...Because 'worldly knowledge' admits knowledge by learning education etc. Here we make an assumption: that the teacher has actually seen. But there are situations where nobody has personally verified. Could such instances be considered as knowledge? How should we proceed?" Scott: We shift out of polemics, we bypass essays written by interesting Victorian scholars, and we go straight to a study of Dhammasa"nga.ni! Sincerely, Scott. #77545 From: "Sukinder" Date: Sun Oct 21, 2007 4:30 pm Subject: Re: Response to DC Part 1. sukinderpal Hi DC (and Azita), I just read my post to you again and realized that I made a mistake in the below. > ================== > DC: Let me give an example that like/dislike is dependent on the 'I'. Do > you have a favourite colour? Well you'll know somebody who hates that > colour. But the colour is colour, there is nothing more to it. Incidentally, > that is the sabhaava of abhidhamma. A colour blind peroson sees red as > green and viceversa. > > Sukin: Are you now trying to convince her that seeing > experiences "particular color"? Azita knows that seeing only > experiences `visible object' and therefore it makes no difference if there > is color blindness. Visible object remains only visible object, > namely "that which is experienced by seeing consciousness". S=> You were apparently saying the same thing I did, i.e. about seeing experiencing only color / visible object. I didn't pay good attention and read into your statement something that wasn't there. Sorry. But of course as I said in the same post, I think attachment arises well before there is any idea of `I', people and things. Perhaps you may also like to distinguish between the `self' of mana, tanha and of ditthi…? ============== Also in the below I think I took you out of context. > ================== > DC: > Life is purposeless!!! It is a causal process. Anatta is the characterstic of > causal proceses. There is a purpose because of 'I'. Realise that then all > your unhappiness goes away. > > Sukin: Sorry, but panna is not concerned about happiness / > unhappiness. It sees the drawback in Avijja and the great benefit of > Vijja. The Vijja is of the 4NT, and the Dukkha of the first NT is > not "unhappiness" but the nature of *all* conditioned realities, including > what you call happiness. S=> You probably meant by `all your unhappiness goes away' to be the same as the `end of dukkha'? Sorry for this as well. Metta, Sukin #77546 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:52 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Reply to Tep kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sobhana wrote: > > Hi KenH, > > If you are able to understand "no Ananda", "no you", and "no I" then you have reached further along in the path than many, many people, and I am happy for you. :-)) > Hi Elaine, I think you are having a joke at my expense. :-) OK, maybe I do think the "no control" perspective on the Dhamma is superior to all others. But I am under no illusions about having attained a level of progress along the path. My level of understanding is no different from yours. We are both new to the Dhamma, and we are both learning more about it every day through reading, considering and taking part in discussions. When I first joined DSG I had been practising various types of formal Buddhist meditation over a period of 26 years. But then, for the first time, I learned about the Abhidhamma and the ancient commentaries. This was a turning point in my Buddhist life. I saw that, in some ways, Dhamma practice was just like music practice or football practice. Music practice involves hitting the right note at the right time over and over again until it happens naturally. Dhamma practice involves hearing, considering and understanding in the right way over and over again until happens naturally. Unlike music or football practice, Dhamma practice is very, very, very hard. It is not something we can switch on or off at will. We could spend all day trying to study, consider and discuss in the right way without succeeding for one moment (without hitting a right note one time). And I am talking about right intellectual understanding: imagine how much harder it would be to practise *direct* right understanding (satipatthana)! To quote the late Ven Dhammadharo: "One moment of real awareness in one lifetime - very rich man . . ." I have two more posts from you to catch up on, thanks very much, so I might leave you with the paragraph that quote comes from. It is from a talk entitled 'Be Here Now' and it can be found at: http://abhidhamma.org/contents.htm Ken H "Q.: Is there any concentration involved? "Bhikkhu: Yes, there is always concentration. There is concentration with each moment of consciousness. There is right concentration if there is no intention to take awareness which does not last anyway and put it somewhere. Just a moment of awareness and then be aware again of another object. You can't keep your awareness here or there. That is wrong concentration. Remember, the whole aim is to see anatta, uncontrollability. Not to see controllability. So much patience is required to start straight and to keep going right. We have to let go of all our ideas of having awareness. We have to drop all our ideas that we are going to do it right this time, we are going to do it straight, we are going to have it now, we are going to be aware of this or that. At those moments there is no awareness. One moment of real awareness in one lifetime- very rich man because it is right and it will condition more of the same. Countless moments of wrong awareness and you are not only not wealthy, you are getting poorer every moment, because you are accumulating more and more wrong understanding. This will make it more likely to have more wrong understanding in the future. So, right understanding, not intention, is the condition for awareness to arise. Right understanding is not only one of the factors of the eightfold Path, it is the first factor." #77547 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. dcwijeratna Dear Scott, I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post. Now, it raises so many issues, that I would take, if you don't mind, one issue at a time. The first point is: Dhamma study Here is our conversation so far: ........................ DC: "...Here I want to focus on the word 'metaphysic' . This is How RhD sees Dhs; as a philosophy; but philosophy is speculation; theories, doctrines and so forth. But for me, the Buddha-word is not mere speculation, it was the consequence of his Enlightenment. I think you see the same way. But I want to make sure. This is how I look at it: If the teaching of the Buddha is a philosophy, then it doesn't make sense for me to study it. I might as well spend my time spending computers, which I enjoy very much." Scott: Yeah, I don't study Dhamma from the perspective of the academic or the philosopher (since I am neither yet tend towards both if you catch my drift). I do take Mrs. RD to be writing her essay squarely embedded in her context of being both an Academic and a Philosopher. And not just that but being firmly ensconced in both her historical and her cultural context - that of a, say, Victorian Academic and Philosopher. So, do I care if Mrs. RD says 'metaphysics' ? Not a whit. DC: We have agreement re. Mrs. RhyD. What I wanted to tell was the fact that her "Introduction", need to be discussed in the light of her attitude to the subject. And, especially, that her comments w.r.t. Dhamma has to be taken in that light. But if we are studying Dhammasa.nganii, we are studying a piece of ancient text. Here, her comments regarding: the history of the book, its relation to the Teachings of the Buddha, etc. are of importance. What we have been taught is that all schools of Abhidhamma, claim their origin to the Buddha. and they have sometimes diametrically opposing theories. Now, in order to convince ourselves that Dhammasanganii is the genuine article, we need to look at its history author etc. .............. >Scott: This is why I don't read her essay to study Dhamma. I don't even read Dhammasa"nga. ni to 'study' dhammas, if you follow, since this 'study' occurs according to conditions, is 'carried out' naturally by impersonal dhammas with impersonal dhammas as object and occurs or doesn't occur irregardless of what 'one' is doing or thinks 'one' is doing. I read Dhammasa"nga. ni (or a sutta) as one who is reading something. I'm fully aware that by reading I'm soon thinking and take all that with a fairly sizeable grain of salt. ................ DC: The first sentence, I agree. I think we agreed Dhamma as the teaching of the Buddha. But the second long sentence is little bit difficult and requires further clarification and definition. Here, you have used the plural "dhammas". I believe, that you are referring to dhammas as units of experience. Is that the case? But what is now being referred to as "the Dhamma theory" in Abhidhamma, is a later development. ................ DC: Now I want to focus on the words, "this 'study' occurs according to conditions". The assumption behind this is that things happen according to dependent-arising (pa.ticca samuppada). That is what the phrase means to me. Did you use in that sense? I think that assumption is crucial. It provides the theoretical framework for our study. We should really have no misunderstandings on this in order to proceed. So, I await your comments on the matter. This discussion is interesting and I am enjoying and learning a lot. Kind regards, DC #77548 From: Sobhana Date: Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Reply to Tep shennieca Hi KenH, KenH: I think you are having a joke at my expense. E: It wasn’t a joke and I am sorry if I have been insensitive you. I hope we can still continue with our energetic discussion, I'd like to take this opportunity to learn the Dhamma from DSG, as much as possible. The Buddha said ekayano maggo (the only way for the purification of beings) in the Mahasatipatthana sutta is by establishing “awareness” of the body (kaya), feelings (vedana), mind (citta) and contents of the mind (dhamma). This purification will eradicate the “root conditions” for greed, hatred and delusion from arising (i.e. when there is no fuel, the fire will not burn). Bhante Dhammadharo is right, “One moment of real awareness in one lifetime - very rich man because it is right and it will condition more of the same”; may Bhante Dhammadharo attain the bliss of Nibbana. I hope we can still continue with our Dhamma studies and discussion with good cheer. #77549 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Oct 22, 2007 12:05 am Subject: eCard from India -- Sarah's (long-delayed) eCard from Delhi jonoabb Hello all After almost a week with no chance of access to the internet, we are now in Benares for visits to Saranath, site of the teaching of the first sermon to the 5 ascetics. Here is a message Sarah wrote to the list when we were in Delhi last Monday. Regards to all jon ************************************ Dear Friends, lots of dramas already.... Bkk airport yest....chaos, flight overbooked, 20 or 30 volunteers were requested to wait for the 1.30 a.m. flight more than 12 hrs later....which would mean arriving in Delhi at around 6 a.m. for a 7 a.m. departure for the long trip to Agra....:-/ Some good folk were happy to do this, but more confusion, more delays, more tests of patience.... Eventually the scheduled flight left an hour or so late....we arrived in Delhi to find about 100 pieces of luggage had been left behind. Large numbers of people had nothing but what they were wearing.....long, long delays.... But sitting in the back of our bus, K.Sujin was quietly talking in Thai to a few Thai men, Jon and later Nina (who joined us at a restaurant)about how what appears at the eye-door is different from what appears to be seen (and so on for the other door-ways). Sati-sampajanna to be developed anytime, no matter the worldly conditions. Practise is not a matter of doing....just understand the reality now! 7 a.m. departure calling... metta, Sarah p.s sukin - quickly saw your note, many thx for telling us about your further chat with the Mexicans. I'll tell KS and also raise more on your qu/point in Agra if approp... let's see what conditions hold for us today! ---------- Sarah ***************************************************** #77550 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Oct 22, 2007 12:41 am Subject: eCard from India - Benares jonoabb Hello All A quick note from me. We are all glad to have arrived in the relative comfort of Benares after several days of long journeys and short overnight stops, although we did have 2 nights is Sravasti, where Jetavanna is located, and the visits to that site were very pleasant. From Sravasti it was a long drive to Lumbini (in Nepal) and then the next day to Kushinara (back in India) at the place of the Buddha’s parinibbana. We arrived here in Benares late last night. This morning we did the short drive to Sarnath to visit the Maha-Bodhi Society premises in which the relics are housed, and to offer lunch and robes to about 120 monks of various nationalities (of Mahayana as well as Theravada ordination) at the associated vihara. This afternoon we go back to Saranath again to pay respects at the stupa which marks the site of the first sermon, and to have some Dhamma discussion. Will try to post some more from the hotel here. My laptop seems to have pretty much given up the ghost, so we have to get to the hotel’s business centre to get a message out. Jon #77551 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Oct 21, 2007 11:51 pm Subject: The 3 Divine Messages! bhikkhu0 Friends: Have Observed, yet failed to pay Attention! During Transmigration downwards the YÄ?ma deva asks one this: Did you never see in this world a man or woman, eighty, ninety, or a 100 years old, frail, crooked as a gable-roof, bent down, resting on crutches, with tottering steps, shaking, far from young, with broken teeth, grey & scanty hair or bald, wrinkled, with black blotched limbs? Did that sight never make you think, that you also will become old, & cannot escape it? Did you never see in this world a man or a woman who, being sick, ailing, and grievously ill, fumbling in own filth & excrement, lifted up by some and put to bed by others? And did that sight never make you think that you also inevitably will become sick, & that you cannot ever escape it? Did you never see in this world the corpse of a man or a woman, 1, 2 or three days dead, swollen up, pale bluish-black, smelling & half-rotten? Did that repulsive sight never make you realize, that you indeed also inevitably will meet death, disintegrate and that you cannot escape it? Source: (edited excerpt) AN 3:35 Comment: Despite observing Suffering one self-deceives: 'It will not come to me'! Paying attention to these 3 divine messengers can lift out of Samsara... All in this World, whatsoever, is Suffering: This is the 1st Noble Truth: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_1st_Noble_Truth_on_Suffering.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_4_Noble_Truths.htm Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka * http://What-Buddha-Said.net Self-Deception is a common characteristic of being! #77552 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:24 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. scottduncan2 Dear DC, Thanks for the reply (I enjoy the discussion as well): DC: "We have agreement re. Mrs. RhyD. What I wanted to tell was the fact that her "Introduction", need to be discussed in the light of her attitude to the subject. And, especially, that her comments w.r.t. Dhamma has to be taken in that light. But if we are studying Dhammasa.nganii, we are studying a piece of ancient text. Here, her comments regarding: the history of the book, its relation to the Teachings of the Buddha, etc. are of importance. What we have been taught is that all schools of Abhidhamma, claim their origin to the Buddha. and they have sometimes diametrically opposing theories. Now, in order to convince ourselves that Dhammasanganii is the genuine article, we need to look at its history author etc." Scott: I disagree, DC. You might be disappointed in my apparent lack of care regarding 'authenticity' but this is not in the least relevant to me vis-a-vis the Theravadin Abhidhamma. If the texts are considered to be one of the three baskets, which they are, then that's good enough for me. I think we need to examine reality and see if the 'reality' described in, say, Dhammasa"nga.ni conforms. We also need to examine where the 'reality' described in Dhammasa"nga.ni is also described in the Suttas, and in what way. DC: "...Here, you have used the plural "dhammas". I believe, that you are referring to dhammas as units of experience. Is that the case? But what is now being referred to as "the Dhamma theory" in Abhidhamma, is a later development." Scott: I meant to refer to the objects of satipa.t.thaana and to bhaavanaa. Let's forget 'later developments'. Everything is a 'later development'. This conversation is a 'later development'. Let's forget 'the dhamma theory'. DC: "Now I want to focus on the words, "this 'study' occurs according to conditions". The assumption behind this is that things happen according to dependent-arising (pa.ticca samuppada). That is what the phrase means to me. Did you use in that sense?" Scott: Again, 'this study' is what I refer to as 'bhaavanaa' or mental development as in satipa.t.thaana. I meant to refer to conditional relations (not pa.ticca samuppaada) as set out in Pa.t.thaana and in reference to the complex interactions of the 24 conditions - as conditioning dhammas, conditioned dhammas and as forces. These are implied in pa.ticca samuppaada, but not fully described, since another point was being made there, I believe. Rather than worrying about authenticity and what not, I vote we set up a Dhammasa'nga.ni Corner and proceed to go slowly through the text, looking to the suttas and to the commentaries as needs be. I have copies of Dhammasa"nga.ni and Atthasaalini, as well as access to the Pali, so we can have some good study for a long time on this one. Sincerely, Scott. #77553 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:53 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (69) nichiconn Dear Friends, Part 6 13. Viisatinipaato 4. Sundariitheriigaathaava.n.nanaa txt: 321. "Addasa braahma.no buddha.m, vippamutta.m niruupadhi.m; svassa dhammamadesesi, muni dukkhassa paaraguu. 322. "Dukkha.m dukkhasamuppaada.m, dukkhassa ca atikkama.m; ariya.m ca.t.tha"ngika.m magga.m, dukkhuupasamagaamina.m. 323. "Tattha vi~n~naatasaddhammo, pabbajja.m samarocayi; sujaato tiihi rattiihi, tisso vijjaa aphassayi. 324. "Ehi saarathi gacchaahi, ratha.m niyyaadayaahima.m; aarogya.m braahma.ni.m vajja, pabbaji daani braahma.no; sujaato tiihi rattiihi, tisso vijjaa aphassayi. 325. "Tato ca rathamaadaaya, sahassa~ncaapi saarathi; aarogya.m braahma.ni.mvoca, 'pabbaji daani braahma.no; sujaato tiihi rattiihi, tisso vijjaa aphassayi. Pruitt: [Narrative:] 320-321. The braman saw the Buddha, completely released, without basis for rebirth. The Sage who has reached the far shore of pain taught him the Doctrine - pain, the arising of pain, and the overcoming of pain, the noble eightfold path leading to the stilling of pain. 322. Knowing the true Doctrine there, he found pleasure in going forth. After three nights, Sujaata attained the three knowledges. [Sujaata:] 323. Come, charioteer. Go, take back this chariot. Bid the brahman lady good health [and say], "The brahman has now gone forth. After three nights, Sujaata has attained the three knowledges." [Narrative:] 324. And then taking the chariot and one thousand pieces too, the charioteer bade the brahman lady good health [and said], "The brahman has now gone forth. After three nights, Sujaata has attained the three knowledges." RD: The brahmin went; he saw the Awaken'd One, Th' Emancipated, Him in whom No base is found for rebirth, and from Him, The Seer, Him who hath passed beyond all ill, (320) He heard the Norm: the Truth of Ill, and how Ill comes, and how Ill may be overpassed, E'en by the Ariyan, the Eightfold Path, That leadeth to the abating of all Ill. *366 (321) Forthwith the Gospel sank into his heart. He left the world, he chose the homeless life. On the third night of contemplation rapt, Sujaata touched and won the Threefold Lore. *367 (322) 'Come, charioteer, now drive this chariot home! Wish thy good mistress health, the brahminee, And say: "'The brahmin hath renounced the world. On the third night of contemplation rapt Sujaata touched and won the Threefold Lore."' (323) And so the driver took the car and purse Of money home, and wished his mistress health, And said: 'The brahmin hath renounced the world. On the third night of contemplation rapt Sujaata touched and won the Threefold Lore.' (324) *366 Ps. lix. 186. *367 See Ps. xxii. n. ..to be continued, connie #77554 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:59 am Subject: RE: [dsg] An Introduction to Buddhism- 2 dacostacharles Hi James, I admire what you are doing. I have been threading to do this now for over 5 years, and I spent over 10 years preparing. But I still have done nothing - writer's block. I have been playing with it (a tiny taste) on my kungfu school's web site (www.white-crane.dk ). Now to you: The first thing I noticed was in line one: "... class in Aryan society named ..." You should explain Aryan or drop it. People may get confused. They may think you mean an early "Nazi" society. Coming from the US, the only time I ever heard the word was in connection to Hitler's views. Charles DaCosta _____ From: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of buddhatrue Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 09:38 To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: [dsg] An Introduction to Buddhism- 2 Hi All, An Introduction to Buddhism by Ven. Dr. H. Saddhatissa THE BUDDHA: A prince of the warrior class in Aryan society named Siddhattha Gotama #77555 From: "colette" Date: Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:27 am Subject: Re: Award for Dali Lama, cause & effect? ksheri3 Good Morning Howard, Why Howard, are you not open to attack, here? "...surprised that Bush has spoken so strongly...", have you NOT SEEN THE MOVIE "Single White Female"? The Passive/Agressive personality draws the unsuspecting in by it's "putty-like", jello-like, consistancy: it lacks substance, a backbone, a spine. Once the victim has entered then it's just a matter of getting the pot up to a rolling boil before Hanzel & Gretel are added to the soup base. lol ... toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi All, > > I'm really surprised that Bush has spoken so strongly against the > Chinese to give the Congressional Gold Medal to the Dali Lama. I was > starting to think that Bush was a complete idiot, but now I'm not so > sure (maybe 90% idiot?? ;-)). > > Metta, > James > #77556 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. dcwijeratna Dear Scott, Dear DC, Thanks for the reply (I enjoy the discussion as well): From your e-m: ....................... DC: "We have agreement re. Mrs. RhyD. What I wanted to tell was the fact that her "Introduction" , need to be discussed in the light of her attitude to the subject. And, especially, that her comments w.r.t. Dhamma has to be taken in that light. But if we are studying Dhammasa.nganii, we are studying a piece of ancient text. Here, her comments regarding: the history of the book, its relation to the Teachings of the Buddha, etc. are of importance. What we have been taught is that all schools of Abhidhamma, claim their origin to the Buddha. and they have sometimes diametrically opposing theories. Now, in order to convince ourselves that Dhammasanganii is the genuine article, we need to look at its history author etc." Scott: I disagree, DC. You might be disappointed in my apparent lack of care regarding 'authenticity' but this is not in the least relevant to me vis-a-vis the Theravadin Abhidhamma. If the texts are considered to be one of the three baskets, which they are, then that's good enough for me. I think we need to examine reality and see if the 'reality' described in, say, Dhammasa"nga. ni conforms. We also need to examine where the 'reality' described in Dhammasa"nga. ni is also described in the Suttas, and in what way. ................. DC: Re. "We also need to examine where the 'reality' described in Dhammasa"nga. ni is also described in the Suttas, and in what way." Can I please have a few clarifications regarding this statement. 1. What do you mean by the word 'reality' and how do you judge whether it is reality? You have used one within single quotes and the other without them. What is the difference? 2. Do I understand you to say that, we look for confirmation of Dhammasanganii in the Suttas? --------------------------------------------- Quote from your e-m: >>DC: "...Here, you have used the plural "dhammas". I believe, that you are referring to dhammas as units of experience. Is that the case? But what is now being referred to as "the Dhamma theory" in Abhidhamma, is a later development. " >Scott: I meant to refer to the objects of satipa.t.thaana and to bhaavanaa. Let's forget 'later developments' . Everything is a 'later development' . This conversation is a 'later development' . Let's forget 'the dhamma theory'. ............................. DC: Again I kindly request some clarifications. 1. Is the repetition there an indication that you are irritated? In that case I am very sorry. 2. Re. "I meant to refer to the objects of satipa.t.thaana and to bhaavanaa." Well that is novel definition of dhammas. May be you have informed me earlier and I have forgotten. Do you wish to use that as the definition of dhammas? 3. Re. Let's forget 'the dhamma theory'. Bhikkhu Bodhi writes: "The Abhidhamma teaching in the Dhammasanganii, ...(1) an underlying ontology framed in terms of bare ontological factors called dhammas....." This is the sense in which I used dhammas. So the clarification I wish here is: "Are you saying, let's forget Dhammasnagani?" 4. A little clarification on my part. You would notice that I used the words: "But what is now being referred as "the Dhamma theory". I thought of giving some information, which I thought would be useful later. I am sorry, about that. I think I understand your attitude: to study the Dhammasanaganii (I am not sure of that now) without any reference to anything anybody done before. Could you please clarify this to me because we are not used to studying texts that way. We always start from where the others have left off. -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>DC: "Now I want to focus on the words, "this 'study' occurs according to conditions". The assumption behind this is that things happen according to dependent-arising (pa.ticca samuppada). That is what the phrase means to me. Did you use in that sense?" >Scott: Again, 'this study' is what I refer to as 'bhaavanaa' or mental development as in satipa.t.thaana. I meant to refer to conditional relations (not pa.ticca samuppaada) as set out in Pa.t.thaana and in reference to the complex interactions of the 24 conditions - as conditioning dhammas, conditioned dhammas and as forces. These are implied in pa.ticca samuppaada, but not fully described, since another point was being made there, I believe. ........................... DC: Ok, this one is clear. So your position is that you want to study "bhaavanaa' or mental development as in Satipa.t.thaana. I was under the impression that you wnated to study "Dhammasanganii". Rather than worrying about authenticity and what not, I vote we set up a Dhammasa'nga. ni Corner and proceed to go slowly through the text, looking to the suttas and to the commentaries as needs be. DC: Thanks for the invitation. But I need some of the clarifications I requested above. Those clarifications would allow me to judge whether I have the ability and background to undertake such a task. Kind regards, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77557 From: "Sukinder" Date: Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:58 am Subject: Re: Response to DC Part 1. sukinderpal Hi DC, (Ken O and Ken H), Perhaps I should wait for you to respond to my other posts and not butt into your discussions with others. But then you may have come to a conclusion that I am beyond repair (and you may even be right about this), and therefore decide not to bother to. But some questions have come to mind as a result of reading this part of your reply to Ken O which I wish to see answers for. ================= DC: In the kind of reasoning we use, when a statement such as: "We do have the ability to perceive namas and rupas." is considered as a perfectly general statement. In other words, it applies to all situations. That is why the second statement is a contradiction because it admits that "We do not have have the ability ....". Sukin: I think what you are saying is that the "perception of nama and rupa" implies the *understanding* of nama and rupa, and this is why you find Ken H's statement to be self-contradictory. Am I right? If this is indeed your understanding, perhaps what needs to be discussed is whether this is in fact correct. Remember Sanna arises with *every* citta. ================= DC: By learning you can't understand Buddhism. Sukin: This seems to me a very strange conclusion, especially coming from someone so motivated to study the Texts himself. Do you not see difference in levels of understanding? What do you think of these concepts, "Suttamaya panna – Cintamaya panna – Bhavanamaya panna"; and of "Pariyatti – Patipatti – Pativedha"; and of "Saccannana - Kiccannana – Katannana"? Also, do you see a difference between being attracted to the views of other religions / philosophy and to Dhamma? Is this not related to "understanding / view"? ================= DC: It can be done only by travelling the path. That is the Fourth Noble Truth. So if you maintain that we can understand it by learning, then it is not in accordance with the Dhamma. (The Four Noble Truths). Sukin: How am I, someone who has just read this statement of yours, supposed to react? I grant you this much, that what you state about the difference between book knowledge and direct experience, every Tom, Ken, Dick and Sukin will understand and so there is no need to elaborate further. But the 4NTs and the 4th NT, is this so readily understood? Of course you don't think so, after all you are saying that just "reading" involves *no* understanding at all. So how am I to proceed? What is the missing element that because this being absent, I am having such a hard time with all this? What is it about the N8FP that I seem to be missing, that makes it hard for me to just "follow" it? Am I reading Right View, Right Thought, Right Effort, Right Livelihood etc. wrongly, perhaps not able to connect the dots? I am sure you are not asking me to go by "faith" since you have spoken so much against such an attitude. So are you in fact saying that all this involves `logical reasoning' and that because of attachment to view (as influenced by the Abhidhamma) I am incapable of simple reasoning? Have I somehow made a wrong logical deduction from what I have read? Do you see my confusion? Perhaps you need to spell things out more clearly…? Metta, Sukin. #77558 From: Dieter Möller Date: Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. moellerdieter Hi Alex.. Howard ,K O, you wrote: 'The reason the Buddha taught the Abhidhamma in the deva world rather than in the human realm, it is said, is because in order to give a complete picture of the Abhidhamma it has to be expounded from the beginning to the end to the same audience in a single session. Since the full exposition of the Abhidhamma requires three months, only devas and Brahmas could receive it in unbroken continuity, for they alone are capable of remaining in one posture for such a length of time. " - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/abhiman.html So what chances do we have? I don't know about you, but I am neither Deva nor Brahma.' D: another question would be :who should be really concerned to get a COMPLETE picture of the Abhidhamma other than Deva or Brahma..? At our level there may be details of interest , for example to see clearer about states of consciousness by identifying categories of our experience. K O corresponded to that idea , so why not trying to find points of common understanding for mutual benefit when there are at least some chances ? with Metta Dieter #77559 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:49 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Reply to Tep kenhowardau KenH, ------------- E: > Something that you wrote sounds very much like "fatalism with a twist". -------------- I know what you mean. But don't you get that impression quite often when you're studying Dhamma? Aside from any mere opinions I may have written, doesn't the teaching of anatta and conditionality sound like fatalism? I think we all get that impression from time to time. And so we tend to swing the other way and interpret the Dhamma as a teaching of 'free will' and 'controlling self.' It's a very winding path we follow - constantly steering one way and then over correcting the other. :-) In my case there seems to be only one solution. As I was saying earlier, I simply have to remember one thing. The Dhamma is the a way of understanding namas and rupas. Just for a moment, put aside thoughts of "Where do I fit into the scheme of things?" and see the Dhamma as a teaching of impersonal namas and rupas. ----------------- > > KenH: But actually, when Ananda put forth right effort to quickly become an arahant there were only conditioned dhammas. That is the way they were conditioned to arise. Ananda would have been under no misapprehension that he could somehow control the stream of conditioned dhammas. There is no such control! > E: I don't understand this sentence "That is the way they were conditioned to arise". ----------------- As the Buddha continually explained (e.g., in the Sabba Sutta and various Loka Suttas) there are only the namas and rupas that are arising in the present moment at one of the six doors. Throughout his life the Buddha taught the nature of those namas and rupas, their cause, their cessation, and the path leading to their cessation. That means he taught the way the dhammas of the present moment were conditioned to arise. Ananda's arahant-magga-citta was essentially the same as the citta that is arising now. It arose because of conditions (because of other namas and rupas), not because of a controlling self. ------------------------- E: > How do you understand it, can you please explain it in conventional terms like Who, What, Why, When and How:- 1. Who conditions it? 2. What conditions it? 3. Why is it conditioned in such a way? 4. When is it decided those conditions arise? 5. How is it conditioned? -------------------------- This reminds me of the Brahmajala Sutta where it addresses such questions as, "Do beings exist? Do they not exist? . . both? neither?" The only way to satisfactorily answer such questions is to describe the various namas and rupas and to show in relation to each of them, "There is no being here." Ken H PS: There are still a couple of your posts that I want to respond to. And don't worry about making jokes at my expense. I love to find humorous ways of describing formal meditation (for example). And so it's only fitting that I get as good as I give. :-) #77560 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Oct 22, 2007 3:00 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Reply to Tep kenhowardau Hi All, Actually, my previous message was meant to be addressed to Elaine, not to myself. :-) Ken H #77561 From: "Charles Thompson" Date: Mon Oct 22, 2007 3:36 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Leaving for Texas dhammasaro Howard, I hope you have/had a great trip. I am finally "catching up" on my e-mail here in Bangkok. Never got to the foundation as I could not speak to someone in English. Dr. Tun was helpful in giving me the website; but, refused my invitation to accompany my planned visit to the foundation. Perhaps, I will just drop in next time - unannounced!! Is that acceptable??? Within 24 hours, I will be at the new Bangkok airport to return to USA - Philly this time. My home is just outside and west of San Antonio, in the "Hill Country." metta (maitri), Chuck #77562 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:53 pm Subject: Re: eCard from India - Benares indriyabala Hi Jonathan, - I am glad to learn about your journey to the historical places of the great Buddha. I am also very pleased for the merits you received from giving lunch and robes to the monks. Sadhu! Are those relics in the Maha-Bodhi Society premises from the remains of the Buddha and some arahants? BTW do these relics look different from ordinary cremated bones, or not? Your report of the travel events is brief but very rich with good information. I appreciate learning that even though Lumbini (the birthplace of the Buddha) and Kusinara (the place of His parinibbana) are so far apart, yet you all have the spirit (and physical strength) to visit both places several times already. How did it feel to have Dhamma discussion at the site of the first sermon ? Thank you very much for the nice report. Tep === #77563 From: Sobhana Date: Mon Oct 22, 2007 6:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Reply to Tep shennieca Hi KenH, KenH: But don't you get that impression quite often when you're studying Dhamma? Aside from any mere opinions I may have written, doesn't the teaching of anatta and conditionality sound like fatalism? E: Does the teaching of anatta sound like fatalism? No, not really... I’ve never equated anatta with fatalism, anatta does not mean “no control and no freewill”. I think it is some other religion that says that we cannot change our destiny because of no control and no freewill. One of my Hindu friends says that when their time is “up” they will go to Nirvana automatically (I have no idea how that time-frame is decided but they believe that they will get to Nirvana ~ someday) but my Hindu friend could be wrong. I think Buddha said we have the ability to attain Nibbana “here and now” if we follow the Noble 8-fold path. We have to put in right effort in following the path (I know, it is easier said than done). And I’m taking a guess that you’ll say- “right effort arises by itself” – that, I don’t know how to verify whether it is true or not. My thinking is - if we wait around for our “right conditions” to arise before we can put in “Right Effort”, then I don’t know how long we have to wait, till the time is right for Nibbana to come to us (?) unless, if that is what you believe, then I have nothing to say. I think we have to create good conditions for ourselves; we have to keep on doing good deeds and accumulate good kamma, so that when our bad conditions decide to arise, it will get diluted a bit and we’d suffer less. As for anatta, from what I understand, anatta means that the “I” is not made up of one solid glob of self or “soul”, a human being is made up of separate entities of mentality and materiality. If we can observe these two separate entities through wisdom (panna), then our sense of selfishness and self-centeredness will be reduced - automatically; understanding anatta also means letting go of our egoistic-ness. That’s how I understand anatta, but I could be totally wrong. I cannot believe that the Buddha taught "no freewill". #77564 From: "gazita2002" Date: Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:07 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. gazita2002 hello DC. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, DC Wijeratna wrote: > >>Azita; how about seeing or hearing at this present moment. Cittas > that experience an object - visible object or sound - and then fall > away immediately. I think most of us are familar with that -no? > > Because of ignorance we take what is a very fleeting moment and put > a whole great story to it. What do you think? > .............................................. > > Here is my understanding of the matter, according to the Suttas. > > Principle 1. There is only the present. [I don't know whether it is a moment or two or what is the duration of the moment. I am not using it in the sense of theory of moments (khanavaada) of the Abhidhamma. The past is gone. Future unborn. In other words, now is the only reality. The rest is all in your mind. You don't need to look at any books for that. Just think about that. Then you'll stand it. > > Principle 2. You get knowledge (of the world including yourself), through the sensedoors. Six of them inclusive of the mind. There is no other knowledge. Rest is wishful thinking, imagination running riot. > > Now when you say you 'see', there visual consciousness. That is cakkhu-vi~n~naa.na. This is very simple, If you close your eyes, there is no visual consciousness. When you have visual-consciouness (your eyes are open) something may catch your attention, because of its colour or some other thing. Say you are driving along a street, you pass so many buildings, without a glance. But something, say, a bill-board catches your eye. That is you pay attention. Then you recognise it. Along with that comes your emotional reaction to it. You like it, don't like it or you are neutral. Now you start a thinking process. With that, generally speaking, your seeing business is finished. Because your mind is busy thinking. "That is a nice car, I must buy it, but I don't have money." Now all these things happen so fast, it is very difficult to say one happens after the other. They seem to happen simultaneously. But the thinking stage is definitely after the other > processes. > > Does this make sense to you? azita: yes and I think this would make sense to most thinking people. However, I think you are grossly over estimating the Buddhas Teaching. Cakkuvinnaana is not simple. It is citta - one consciousness moment- citta-kkhana. One such moment is said in the commentaries, to be of inconceivably short duration. {buddhist dictionary} AN 1 10 the Buddha said "Nothing monks, do I know that changes so rapidly as consciousness. Scarcely anything may be found that could be compared with this so rapidly changing consciousness". > Once and forever, forget something: "cittas that experience" azita: your not suggesting that I forget about something that the Buddha has taught, surely, are you? Here you make the citta 'I'. azita: yes, if at that moment there is micchaditthi or sakyaditthi. If there was right understanding, sammaditthi, at that very moment, then no taking citta for 'I' - or even 'eye'. I believe that if there is some theoretical understanding of Buddhas teaching, then there is a chance that there will develop a deeper understanding of his teaching. To think that this is simple is misrepresenting the Buddha and very unwise thing to do. Patience, courage and good cheer, azita #77565 From: "gazita2002" Date: Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:21 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. gazita2002 Hello KenH, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: azita: When I read suttas about beings gaining final liberation, > > it > > > > > > reminds me just how very far away from 'me' that is. > ------------------- > > I think I know what you mean. I am always reluctant to think in > terms of *my* state of mental development *my* chances of becoming > enlightened and that sort of thing, but I think you are talking > about something very different. azita: yes, thats why I put "me" in italics. Even with a beginners understanding we can know how 'dense' ignorance really is, we live in a total fog of ignorance most of the time. When we read sutta descriptions of > magga cittas we can know that they are infinitely more noble than > the uninstructed worldling cittas that make up our daily lives. > > And that's fine. It's actually a nice thing to understand. There is > no need to get a complex about our ordinary cittas. They are > not our selves. They are not anybody else's selves either. They are > just fleeting dhammas, arising and falling away by conditions. azita: I think I have to hear this over and over and over again for even an inkling of the truth of reality. > A: > That journey > > > can start now this very moment, it cant start anywhere else than > > > right here right now. > --------------------------- > > If it does it is because there were conditions for it. And if it > doesn't it is because there weren't conditions for it. Either way, > there are only dhammas coming and going. azita: well stated, friend, and this is where my patience, courage and good cheer comes in. Patience, courage and good cheer, azita #77566 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. dcwijeratna Dear Sukin, Thank you for your e-m addressed to me and Ken O and Ken H. Here, I am not commenting at length on the individual issues raised. But on the thrust of the whole argument embodied in your questions. Before I start, I must congratulate you on spelling out the issue so clearly. I shall reformulate the queries you have raised and clarifications as follows: (These are formulated in ordinary English, which we use to communicate) 1. I have argued against faith 2. I say that knowledge is not possible 3. I say 'one need to travel the path' 4. One need knowledge of the path to travel 5. No. 4 (One need knowledge to travel the path) is not possible in view of No. 2 I hope the above is a reasonably clear statement of your position. My response is based on this understanding. But before we go further we need to agree on a few ground rules. 1. That we are normal human beings. That is puthujjana. 2. We get knowledge only through our five senses. [The sixth sense is really memory has stored our previous experiences. I can think of only something that I that I have experienced previously. 3. The world is only what we get of knowledge through our five senses. 4. And that is the real world for us. 5. When we get knowledge (experience), we really have only the experience [This is really a very difficult point to understand. Let me see whether I can explain what I mean. Say you are looking at a photograph of somebody. If it is a good photograph, the impression that it creates is same as that created by the person. That is why you say it is so and so's photograph. As far as the other senses are concerned the situation is clearer. For example, a piece of music you like, I don't like. Why is this so, the physcial experience is the same but not the emotional experience. I hope you get the ides] If not, please comeback. 5. Reality is only what we have knowledge of through experience. [That is if we make any statement about thing we didn't experience then it is a belief. It is not knowledge, nor real. For example, the other world is not real or a belief for me.] 6. These have the following implications: That we human beings cannot have absolute knowledge. It is relative. The Buddha called this avijjaa. 7. The world we perceive is subject to anicca, dukkha and anatta. Now all the above statements are in accordance with what is considered the Buddhavacana or the original teachings of the Buddha. What it is for a matter of historians of religion. We need to reach an agreement on the above points, if I am to justify my previous statements. This is my opinion: I feel you have a genuine interest to study what the Buddha taught. Then please think about the carfully and deeply. If you are convinced then proceed. The argument here is simple. We are human beings. If we want understand the world, the first step is to understand the limits to our knowledge. The messages that go up and down tells me that most people are not aware of that. So that is why we need to make this explicit and reach agreement. Otherwise we shall never gain any knowledge. I shall be most grateful if you would go through each point very carefully again. With mettaa, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77567 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:43 pm Subject: Endless is Samsara! bhikkhu0 Friends: One can Escape the Suffering of Samsara! The Blessed Buddha once said: Inconceivable is the beginning of this Samsara; not to be discovered is any first beginning of beings, who, blinded by ignorance and ensnared by craving, are hurrying, and hastening through this round of rebirths... Source: (edited excerpt) SN 3:35 Some Comments: Samsara is the crushing wheel of existence, which literally is meaning 'perpetual wandering': A sea of life & death ever restlessly heaving up & down, the symbol of this never-ending process of ever again & again being born, growing old, becoming weak & sick, suffering, and dying... More precisely put: Samsara is the unbroken sequence of re-arisings of combinations of the momentary events of the 5-fold cluster of clinging, which constantly changing from moment to moment, follow continually one upon the other, through inconceivable periods of time. A single life constitutes only a tiny microscopic fraction of these trillions of eons... In order to comprehend the 1st noble truth, one must therefore gaze long and contemplate upon this Samsara, upon this frightful sequence of ever rebirth mostly in lower painful forms, and not merely upon one single lifetime, which may sometimes not seem very painful until aged... The term Suffering: Dukkha in the first noble truth therefore refers not only to painful bodily & mental feelings, caused now by displeasing contacts & impressions, but it comprises in addition every thing creating suffering or which is liable to produce it later... The truth of Suffering teaches that, owing to the universal law of impermanence, even high and sublime states of happiness are subject to change and destruction, and that all states of existence therefore ultimately are unsatisfactory... Without exception they all carry in themselves the seeds of suffering! 'Du' means bad. 'Kha' means state. Dukkha thus means 'Bad State'... Samsara is a Bad State of Suffering. NibbÄ?na is a Good State of Peace! Source (edited excerpt): The Word of the Buddha: Venerable Nyanatiloka MahÄ?thera. http://www.pariyatti.com/book_404201.html All in this World, whatsoever, is Suffering: This is the 1st Noble Truth: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_1st_Noble_Truth_on_Suffering.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_4_Noble_Truths.htm For details on this Round of Rebirths: Samsara see: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/s_t/samsaara.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Samsara.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Endless_Round.htm Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka * http://What-Buddha-Said.net Samsara is an endless Time-Ocean of Suffering! #77568 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:45 am Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. scottduncan2 Dear DC, Thanks for the reply: DC: "1. What do you mean by the word 'reality' and how do you judge whether it is reality? You have used one within single quotes and the other without them. What is the difference?" Scott: In the Maatikaa (The Table of Contents) of Dhammasa"nga.ni, for example, we read the first entry, which, in the English is: "1. States that are good, bad, indeterminate." The Pali is "kusalaa dhammaa, akusalaa dhammaa, abyaakataa dhammaa". This is what I mean by 'realities' - dhammaa. DC: "2. Do I understand you to say that, we look for confirmation of Dhammasanganii in the Suttas?" Scott: We look to see how the realities (dhammaa) listed in Dhammasa"nga.ni are shown in the Suttas, and vice-versa, I suppose. DC: Again I kindly request some clarifications. 1. "Is the repetition there an indication that you are irritated? In that case I am very sorry." Scott: Of course not, DC, just my idiosyncratic 'literary' style - meant to demonstrate how little I care for arguments based on authenticity of texts. 2. "Re. 'I meant to refer to the objects of satipa.t.thaana and to bhaavanaa.' Well that is novel definition of dhammas. May be you have informed me earlier and I have forgotten. Do you wish to use that as the definition of dhammas?" Scott: See above, and yes I do wish to use that definition. Bhaavanaa (mental development) occurs from moment to moment and involves dhammaa. The objects of satipa.t.thaana are dhammaa - realities. DC: "3. Re. Let's forget 'the dhamma theory'. Bhikkhu Bodhi writes: 'The Abhidhamma teaching in the Dhammasanganii, ...(1) an underlying ontology framed in terms of bare ontological factors called dhammas.....' This is the sense in which I used dhammas. So the clarification I wish here is: 'Are you saying, let's forget Dhammasnagani?'" Scott: Of course not! Didn't I say we should start a Dhammasa"nga.ni Corner? I mean let's forget theories altogether. I don't think the dhammaa are theoretical entities - quite to the contrary they are the only realities which can be developed. DC: "4. A little clarification on my part. You would notice that I used the words: "But what is now being referred as "the Dhamma theory". I thought of giving some information, which I thought would be useful later. I am sorry, about that. I think I understand your attitude: to study the Dhammasanaganii (I am not sure of that now) without any reference to anything anybody done before. Could you please clarify this to me because we are not used to studying texts that way. We always start from where the others have left off." Scott: Well, if you have something we should certainly look at it, but yeah, I mean, lets just go through the text in a sort of bare-bones fashion. I did mean to use Atthasaalinii, which is the 'official' commentary, but I'm not too into modern commentators. DC: "Ok, this one is clear. So your position is that you want to study "bhaavanaa' or mental development as in Satipa.t.thaana. I was under the impression that you wanted to study "Dhammasanganii"." Scott: I *do* want to study Dhammasa"nga.ni. By 'satipa.t.thaana' I mean to refer to the application of mindfulness and this refers either to 'sati' and 'pa~n~naa' (I think) as the operative mental factors and to every state (dhamma) which it object. Sincerely, Scott. #77569 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:53 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (69) nichiconn Dear Friends, Part 7 13. Viisatinipaato 4. Sundariitheriigaathaava.n.nanaa txt: 326. "Eta~ncaaha.m assaratha.m, sahassa~ncaapi saarathi; tevijja.m braahma.na.m sutvaa, pu.n.napatta.m dadaami te. 327. "Tuyheva hotvassaratho, sahassa~ncaapi braahma.ni; ahampi pabbajissaami, varapa~n~nassa santike. 328. "Hatthii gavassa.m ma.niku.n.dala~nca, phiita~ncima.m gahavibhava.m pahaaya; pitaa pabbajito tuyha.m, bhu~nja bhogaani sundarii; tuva.m daayaadikaa kule. 329. "Hatthii gavassa.m ma.niku.n.dala~nca, ramma.m cima.m gahavibhava.m pahaaya; pitaa pabbajito mayha.m, puttasokena a.t.tito; ahampi pabbajissaami, bhaatusokena a.t.titaa. 330. "So te ijjhatu sa"nkappo, ya.m tva.m patthesi sundarii; utti.t.thapi.n.do u~ncho ca, pa.msukuula~nca ciivara.m; etaani abhisambhontii, paraloke anaasavaa. Pruitt: [Sundarii's mother:] 325. Hearing that the brahman has the triple knowledge, I give you this horse and chariot and one thousand pieces too, a full bowl [as a present for bringning good news]. [The Charioteer:] 326. Keep the horse and chariot and the one thousand pieces too, brahman lady. I too shall go forth in the presence of the One Who Has Excellent Wisdom. [Sundarii's mother:] 327. Abandoning elephants, cows and horses, jewels and rings, and this rich domestic wealth, your father has gone forth. Enjoy [this] wealth, Sundarii. You are the heiress in the family. [Sundarii:] 328. Abandoning elepants, cows and horses, jewels and rings, and this delightful domestic wealth, my father has gone forth, afflicted by grief for his son. I too shall go forth, afflicted by grief for my brother. [Sundarii's mother:] 329. May the intention that you seek prosper, Sundarii. Leftover scraps and gleanings [as food], and a rag from a dustheap as a robe - enduring with these, [you will be] free from taints in the next world. RD: Sundarii's Mother. For this that thou hast heard, O Charioteer, And tellest: that the brahmin hath attained The Threefold Lore, no half-gift give I thee. *368 Take thou the chariot, take the horses both, And take a thousand pieces for thy pains. (325) 'Let them remain thine own, O brahminee, Horses and chariot and the thousand coins, For I, too, have a mind to leave the world, Near him of chiefest wisdom to abide.' (326) 'But thou, my Sundarii, now that thy father hath gone forth, *369 Leaving his home, renouncing all his great estate - Cattle and horses, elephants, jewels and rings - Dost thou at least come to thine own! Thou art the heir Of this thy family. Do thou enjoy thy wealth.' (327) 'Cattle and horses, elephants, jewels and rings - Ay, all that goes to make this fair and broad estate Hath he put far from him, my father dear, And left the world, afflicted for his son. I, too, afflicted at my brother's death, I have a mind like him to leave the world.' (328) 'May this, then, thine intention, Sundarii, Thy heart's desire, be crowne'd with success! The food from hand to mouth, *370 glean'd here and there, The patchwork robe - these things accomplishe'd Will purify in other after-world Whate'er has poisoned life for thee in this.' *371 (329) *368 Lit., I give thee a full bowl. *369 For this and one half the next verse (327, 328) the Pali verses become redundant. Two are irregular in metre, one has an additional half s'loka. No gloss, apparently, has crept into the text. Conceivably the redundancy may be intentionally used to express the abundance of her heritage - that papa~nca to which the higher life, as a simplification, selection, elimination, stood in sharp contrast. *370 See verse 349 n. Lit., food left over, scraps. *371 Tradition places this speech in the mother's mouth. Dr. Neumann's guess ascribes it to the Bhikkhunii who receives Sundarii into the Order. But the whole tone of it, especially the last sentiment - paraloke anaasavaa - is that of the laity's point of view. The mere routine to sustain life becomes a tapas to win future compensations. No word is said of the real object of the religious life - the training of the mind and emotions. And salvation here and now-di.t.thadhamme anaasavaa-was the goal of those entering the Order. Cf. Ps. lxx. 349, ff for the Sister's point of view. In this Psalm I follow the Commentary, which does not interrupt the little drama with its expositions, but gives them separately. ==to be continued, connie #77570 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:53 am Subject: Perfections Corner (29) nichiconn Dear All, This is the continuation of Chapter 7: The Perfection of Truthfulness, taken from the book "The Perfections Leading to Enlightenment" by Sujin Boriharnwanaket and translated by Nina van Gorkom. Questions, comments, or different opinions are welcome. ------------------------------ We read further on: [in the "Illustrator of Ultimate Meaning"] "Meanwhile the five hundred Arahants and many thousand deities applauded the venerable Aananda, saying 'Good (saadhu), good', while there was a great earth-tremor with a rain of various kinds of flowers falling from the sky and many other manifested marvels, and in many deities a sense of urgency arose (with the thought) 'What we heard in the Blessed One's presence is now reproduced in his absence too!' " The Buddha had finally passed away and the arahats who were present at the first Council for the rehearsal of the teachings had heard these words before. However, even though the words they heard were spoken in the past and they would not hear them any more in the presence of the Blessed One, there was yet an opportunity to hear the Dhamma again. This fact can be recollected with reverence to the Triple Gem by all listeners today. Although these events occurred a long time ago, each time we hear the Dhamma we can see its benefit and we can understand that the accumulation of kusala in the past is the condition for the kusala vipaaka which is hearing the Dhamma again in this life. Aananda consoled people who were disappointed at not seeing the Blessed One, assuring them that this was not a teaching of a dead teacher, but that the very Dhamma Vinaya was their teacher. By the words, eva.m me sutta.m, thus have I heard, the venerable Aananda wanted to console the Buddhists in times to come, who may feel dismay that they cannot see the Buddha in person. However, we should remember that what we hear is not the teaching of a dead teacher, but that the Dhamma Vinaya is now our teacher. We shall know whether the Buddha is our real teacher if we listen, consider and follow the right practice. When the venerable Aananda spoke the word, eva.m, meaning: thus, he demonstrated the excellence of the teaching, because there should be a person who teaches and also a person who listens. There cannot be a listener without a teacher. Just by the word eva.m, thus, he demonstrated the excellence of the teaching. When he said, me sutta.m, I have heard, he demonstrated the excellence of the discipleship. This disciple was the venerable Aananda, not someone else. The venerable Aananda, the disciple who was five times signalized in the Foremost-in-this (Discourse), said, eva.m me sutta.m, thus have I heard. When he said, eka.m samaya.m, on one occasion, he demonstrated the excellence of the time, the time when he heard the teaching of the Dhamma. We should remember that the excellence of the time to hear the Dhamma is now. It is not easy to find the opportunity to hear the Dhamma. When people have important tasks to fulfil they cannot listen to the Dhamma, but they hear other things. With the words, eka.m samaya.m, on one occasion, the venerable Aananda demonstrated the excellence of the occasion to hear the teaching of the Dhamma. ===to be continued, connie #77571 From: "Sukinder" Date: Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:36 am Subject: Re: Response to DC Part 1. sukinderpal Hi Elaine and Ken, I would like to express some opinions if you don't mind. ================== E: Is it possible to have "wisdom" arising from scholastic understanding? Sometimes I take a step back and wonder; "maybe" it could be possible. Why am I being fickle-minded and sometimes think it is possible and sometimes not. Sukin: It seems that this kind of situation is common to putthujanas like us. We have accumulated not only so much wrong understanding, but also a little right understanding along the way. That we are motivated to continue with our interest and study of the Texts is because we do perceive to some extent, its usefulness. I think the problem is when there is too much concern about getting results. Here we then make the distinction between `book knowledge' and `direct understanding' and decide to get on with the latter. But perhaps the mistake is in the making of this distinction to begin with? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to distinguish between `direct understanding' and that of `intellectual *understanding*'? We may then come to appreciate that these two are in fact directly related and dependent on each other? I think what most people have in mind when considering this is *knowledge* rather than *understanding*. And by knowledge I think they refer to something close to "gathering information". When they are therefore faced with this question of intellectual vs. direct understanding, what comes to their mind about the former is that it *knows* only "words / ideas" and that the latter knows "characteristic of dhammas". They therefore think that in the one `no' understanding is involved and that in the other, understanding is the *end result* of the particular kind of knowledge. Is this how you see it? I think rather, that the study and practice of Dhamma involves the "development of wisdom" from start to finish and never at any point, is there a need to push aside hearing about and considering the Teachings. As you may have had some glimpse of, the value of study is not in the gathering of information, but rather the understanding of how the different concepts apply to our moment to moment experiences. These concepts are not abstractions to be manipulated in our minds, though some like the Paticcasamuppada will remain mostly so for me for a looong time to come. There is a level of understanding which is Pariyatti, and if this is the closest that we ever come to understanding dhammas, so be it. After all there is *no other way* but to patiently go along with what is conditioned to arise at the moment, isn't it? If on the other hand in our eagerness to have direct experience, we bypass whatever arise now and instead follow some "idea of practice", does this sound to you like the right cause for the appropriate result? Does it not actually exhibit the characteristic of Tanha? And can tanha lead to Panna? Because of accumulations for both right and wrong understanding of Dhamma, we do get swayed by arguments, sometimes this and sometimes that way. But I hope you will agree that there is much in the Dhamma that we don't understand but which could be, even if only intellectually. Also you will have noticed that with repeated hearing and considering, we understand things better and better. Is this not valuable? Besides one does not have to take what is read and discussed about, as mere accumulation of ideas. In fact I would suggest not trying too hard to understand, let alone memorize anything. After all dhammas alone perform their functions and it does not help when `self' comes into the picture trying to make things happen. With the correct attitude, study can be seen as taking place quite naturally. If there is no understanding and this is known, already there may be a level of understanding and this accompanied by a corresponding level of detachment. And isn't this great? :-) Also with this attitude one will see that `patipatti' too must happen in the same way, i.e. naturally! =============== E: As for other people who don't have this special gift, doing meditation practice is the recommended way to truly understand citta and cetasika. Metaphorically speaking, studying the Dhamma & the Abhidhamma is like reading a chemistry book, in theory. Going to the laboratory and actually doing the experiment (meditation) is the practical part. For non-gifted people, studying the Abhidhamma (in theory) is not equivalent to going to the lab (meditation) and getting first-hand experience of the whole experiment. I think getting enlightened is like the "practical" part of the Buddhist practice, you have to do the lab work for yourself. But, like the story of the bats, I believe that maybe there are some people who have the ability to "get" the whole lab experience just by reading the theory, without actually going to the lab. Sukin: Do you now see that the mistake might be in thinking in terms of "experience" instead of the "development of understanding"? There is no "special gift"; everyone has to experience the N8FP. This however involves hearing the Dhamma, association with the wise and practice in accordance to the Dhamma i.e. Satipatthana, in other words, the Pariyatti – Patipatti relationship. It is not as some seem to think, a matter of "focusing on the present moment reality". This and the idea re: Sila -> Samadhi -> Panna, so common amongst meditators are in fact "abstractions" got as a result of a wrong understanding of Dhamma. Also when someone here speaks against the idea of meditation, he is not saying that he himself has attained any level of direct understanding. He is speaking at a level of concepts only, the same as you and every other mediator does. He is however referring to the understanding (intellectual) of Dhamma from which comes the conclusion that *there are only dhammas*, no persons, no beings etc. It is dhammas that hear, associate with the wise, study and practice. Therefore any suggestion otherwise, such as that which is reflected in the "meditation" position, is seen as wrong. In that position, there is taking of people and situations for "real" and hence determinative of wisdom arising and being developed. Furthermore, this is projected into the future and results in no attention ever being paid to the fact that dhammas arise and fall now and these can and must be studied. Elaine, I am not sure if I've correctly represented the views expressed here. In any case, I hope this has at least given you some food for thought. With metta, Sukin. Ps: Elsewhere you alluded to the fact that we as putthujanas perceive people and things and that is what we must go by. Whatever we "seem" to perceive, the purpose of our studying the Dhamma is to know what in fact really goes on during those moments. This knowing, intellectual thought it be, becomes part of the process of the development and gradual straightening of "View". And though it be a far cry from direct understanding, is the necessary precursor to it and is in itself very useful. Are you by any chance suggesting that we should not go by this understanding and instead continue reacting in the way we always have, namely as if people and things are real? #77572 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:09 am Subject: E-card from Varanasi sarahprocter... Dear Friends, As Jon has mentioned, (I think), we spent yesterday at Sarnath. After the morning ceremonies of listening to the momks chanting the Dhammacakkhappavattana Sutta, viewing the relic and offering Sangha Dana, in the afternoon, we had a relaxed English discussion at our hotel, followed by the walking around the stupa in Sarnath with candles and then a Thai discussion on the lawns at this spot where the Buddha taught the first disciples. I wandered around the lawns and ruins with a friend, fed the deer and chatted to beggar children who, as usual, followed us everywhereƒº. A friend mentioned in the discussion this morning that she has felt overwhelmed at times by all the noise, colours, Indian life, long journeys, blaring bus horns, discussions and so on. Sometimes it may seem that there is a lot more sound and visible object and other sense impressions, but of course the rupas appearing are all equally short and it¡¦s only the thinking and perversions that make them seem to last, that make them into ¡¥wholes¡¦ and which mix up the various door-ways. We also had more discussion about ¡¥being natural¡¦, following natural accumulations. If we have any idea of ¡¥doing¡¦ anything now in order to develop awareness, ¡¥self¡¦ is there again, leading us along the wrong path. So any dhammas arising now are conditioned, are impermanent, are anatta¡K¡Kit really is just a matter of understanding and being aware of seeing now, visible object now, other dhammas appearing now, regardless of circumstances, no matter whether we are at the stupa in Sarnath listening to Dhamma or watching t.v. at home in our living rooms. Memories of beautiful (but, oh so very long) journeys along bumpy back roads (sometimes dirt tracks) to Savatthi and Jetavana, to Kusinara, to Lumbini. Small, poor villages full of laughing, friendly folks, rice fields, lotus ponds, buffalo lakes, festivals full of colour¡K..all dreams now. The holy sites in these places are now beautifully conserved and of course we are so very fortunate to visit them with a group of Buddhists who really appreciate the opportunity and are so full of joy to pay their respects at them. Jon and several others have had fevers and been a little sick during the last few days, some tummy disorders too, but generally most people have stayed well this trip including myself! An unusual experience for me¡K.:-)) Tomorrow we head off for Bodh Gaya for our last 3 nights with a side-trip to Rajghir (Vulture¡¦s Peak, the Bamboo Grove and so on) before flying home (via Bangkok). Nina and Lodewijk are keeping fairly well, but it is an arduous trip and they say it¡¦s their last one. They and other Thai friends who are around 80 yrs old and do these trips without complaint set a most inspiring examples to the rest of us. We¡¦ve also had a film crew with us, filming as we go. Nina, Jon and a couple of other friends were interviewed for a series on Thai television. So lots of activity all the time! In case I don¡¦t have a chance to send an e-card from Bodh Gaya (our computer is still not working and there is very little opportunity to pop out to internet cafes if they can be found ¡V quite impossible when we were in Savatthi, Lumbini and Kusinara), I¡¦ll just say I¡¦m looking forward to properly catching up with DSG and posting more on return home after a good rest!! We¡¦ve appreciated the many good threads which we¡¦ve seen in our absence. Metta, Sarah p.s Azita, I passed on your kind regards and Tep, appreciated all your good wishes. I¡¦m sure Nina will be writing more in her own time and perhaps other friends like Chris will also add some impressions. Han ¡V I have a special gift for when I next see you: some fine beads presented to us by the bhikkhus in the temple when we saw the relic in Sarnath. ======== #77573 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: eCard from India - Benares jonoabb Hi Tep Many thanks for your interest in my eCard. You aksed about having Dhamma discussion at the site of the firest sermon. Hearing and reflecting on the teachings in the place where the Master first expounded the teachings is an inspiring experience. (At the same time, it is in essence not different from any other moment, in the ultimate sense of being experiences through the six doorways ;-)) --- Tep Sastri wrote: > > Hi Jonathan, - > > I am glad to learn about your journey to the historical places of the > great Buddha. I am also very pleased for the merits you received from > giving lunch and robes to the monks. Sadhu! I'm glad you and others are able to share in the occasion. > Are those relics in the Maha-Bodhi Society premises from the remains > of the Buddha and some arahants? BTW do these relics look different > from ordinary cremated bones, or not? A very small piece of bone, generally accepted as being one of the few remaining relics of the Buddha himself. I'm not really familiar with the appearance of ordinary cremated bones, so cannot comment on this point. > Your report of the travel events is brief but very rich with good > information. I appreciate learning that even though Lumbini (the > birthplace of the Buddha) and Kusinara (the place of His parinibbana) > are so far apart, yet you all have the spirit (and physical strength) > to visit both places several times already. > > How did it feel to have Dhamma discussion at the site of the first > sermon ? > > Thank you very much for the nice report. I'll try to share more from Bodh Gaya or, more likely, after our return to Hong Kong on the weekend. Jon #77574 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter -    We'll be flying back home later today. Just reading a few emails from the bottom of the email mountain right now! ;-) -----Original Message----- From: Dieter Möller To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 11:36 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. Hi Howard, you wrote: Howard: 'I'm not clearly following you. Yes, at moments we have, say, a sound as object. These may be interspersed with moments at other sense doors, including mind door. There may be rapid switching back & forth. D: The point I wanted to make - from a practical angle-is that our usual day-by-day consciousness is presented by a situation which is a compound of the 6 senses. ----------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, a mental recapitulation of highlights. Actually a mind-door construction, I think. Most of the material directly observed (independent of conceptualization) flies under the radar of "registering". That is, it is largely subliminally noted, and not "consciously" registering. ------------------------------------------ The (sense) object of our attention is , like a changing foreground, embeded in the here-and-now situation. At least so it appears to us... The rapid switching back & forth will only be recognised when the mind is calm(er), like the movie projector runs at low speed...agreed? ----------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, and even then only if the mind is well trained to observe at that level. ---------------------------------------- Howard: IMO, when the sound extends for a relatively long time without other intervening objects, or when the mind frequently returns to "the same" sound, we can say that the mind is "concentrated on the sound". I believe that the factor that tends to make such "sticking" with an object occur is the one-pointedness cetasika' D: you mean by one-pointedness cetasika, the mental quality which allows the state? --------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. Conventional concentration is, IMO, the sticking with the same object (or very similar objects) throughout a somewhat extended stream of mind states, whereas the *cetasika* called "concentration" is, I believe, the operation that "inclines the mind" towards such sticking. --------------------------------------- Howard (D: I think it is not possible to separate concentration and mindfulness.) -------------------------------------- I think they can certainly be distinguished. Moreover, I think that wrong concentration can occur without mindfulness, as when engrossed in some akusala phenomena or thinking. D: here I can't follow you .. acc. to my dictionary the meaning of 'concentrate' is bringing together, focus one's attention on .. the meaning of 'mindful' giving thought and attention to .. ---------------------------------------- Howard: I understand mindfulness as the operation which maintains "presence" in the sense of fostering the avoidance of getting lost in thought, excitement, or sloth & torpor. That isn't the same as tending to stick with "the same" object, which is how I understand "concentration". -------------------------------------- both terms sound to me be rather synonym .. though -I.M.O. - concentration tends towards exclusivity whereas mindfulness to openess ' what is going on' ( as well in respect to the 8th and the 7th element of the N.P.) To distinguish both by right and wrong , i.e. wholesome and unwholesome is an additional factor (abhidhammic) of consideration Howard: (D: the word 'lost' refers to you , i.e. you are absent..it isn't right concentration as you say, because samadhi is an act of will, even that to be present as a pure observer. (usually we can only recall dreams , don't we?) --------------------------------- Howard: Not all samadhi is an act of conscious will, as I see it. D: agreed not all , but as a factor of the path training it is, isn't it? ---------------------------------- Howard: It's *cultivation* is certainly partly the result of conscious will, and often momentary concentrating is such a conscious activity. -------------------------------- with Metta Dieter ============================= With metta, Howard #77575 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. dcwijeratna Dear Scott, Thanks for your prompt response. Here is the first topic of your response. -------------------------------------------- >>DC: "1. What do you mean by the word 'reality' and how do you judge whether it is reality? You have used one within single quotes and the other without them. What is the difference?" >Scott: In the Maatikaa (The Table of Contents) of Dhammasa"nga. ni, for example, we read the first entry, which, in the English is: "1. States that are good, bad, indeterminate. " The Pali is "kusalaa dhammaa, akusalaa dhammaa, abyaakataa dhammaa". This is what I mean by 'realities' - dhammaa. --------------------------------------------------- DC: Normally that is called experience or phenomenon. But no harm, we leave out the word realities as it has other connotations. See below: (1) Now dhammas are what human beings experience through sense-faculties. (2) According to Dependent-arising, beings travel through samsaara because they have avijjaa (delusion) also called moha. In other words human beings (puthujjana as opposed to ariya) are not capable of seeing reality. (3) That conflicts with with the general meaning of reality. Is my understanding ok? Kind regards, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77576 From: Sobhana Date: Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. shennieca Hi Sukin, all, Thank you for expressing your opinion, I appreciate your lengthy post. E: When you say, “dhammas arise and fall”, can you describe it in your own words, exactly "how" it arises and "how" it falls away? Do you see where dhamma come from and where it goes to? A question like where does the dhamma come from and where it goes to, is a wrongly put question, I know - but I’d like to hear your experience of the various ways how dhammas arises and falls away (I’m taking a guess that it is various ways, it could be only one way). I think, I know a little bit about the feelings of pain arising and falling (I can't really see the minute detaila yet) but I can describe the rough observation of pain. Pain, when it is watched closely, it does not feel painful, it changes, for example, sometimes the pain becomes a prickly sensation; sometimes it feels hot, sometimes it’s cold; it comes and it goes away, sometimes slowly, sometimes fast; the painful area is sometimes expanding and sometimes contracting; it feels like the pain area moves about; etc. etc, there are many manifestations of pain and I have forgotten some of it but I can describe it because I have experienced it (I’m not trying to boast of anything because it is not an achievement). Only when there is some concentration (samadhi), I can watch it from a detached-mode and observe how pain changes in its own way. This observation is interesting (but not always), because when I’m restless and tired, I become the same thing as my pain and it feels very painful and difficult. May I know, when you say the “dhammas arise and fall”, what is your personal experience of the arising and falling of the dhamma? Can you describe in detail how this dhamma arise and how it falls? ------------------------------ Sukin: If on the other hand in our eagerness to have direct experience, we bypass whatever arise now and instead follow some "idea of practice", does this sound to you like the right cause for the appropriate result? Does it not actually exhibit the characteristic of Tanha? And can tanha lead to Panna? E: I wouldn’t want to call the eagerness to practise meditation, “tanha”, there is another Pali word which means good desire, I can’t remember it off-hand now. But I know what you mean; it is difficult to differentiate these subtle feeling, this desire to attain Nibbana may become greed and I agree that it is difficult to balance greed vs. good desire. But most of the time, I feel that I don’t have enough “sense of urgency” and instead of greed, it has become laziness, which is worse. #77578 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Dieter) - -----Original Message----- From: Ken O To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 11:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. Hi Howard and Dieter H: I think the mind being "scattered" amounts to an inclination to switch to another sense object due to an aversion to the present object or craving for an object of a different sort, and supported by some cetasikas that weaken attention (e.g., sloth & torpor, or excitement). KO: When the mind is scattered, it is referring to predominace restlessness cetasika, it is moha rooted and unprompted:-). ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Well, for me, saying "restlessness cetasika" doesn't add to my understanding of "scattered mind". I think we are all familiar with the state of "scattered mind". It is a mind that tends to fly to anything other than what is present. Often, it seems to me that it is rooted in craving and/or aversion, and clearly a scattered mind is a murky mind. ----------------------------------------------- Sloth and torpor would only arise in prompted hence cannot be in the scattered. -------------------------- Howard: My point was that a mind afflicted by sloth & torpor is a weakened mind. It is fragile and vulnerable, and then ignorance, craving, and aversion can easily hold sway, causing a scattered state. -------------------------- ?Excitement is a general word, are we refering to lobha which comes with pleasant feelings. When aversion or lobha arise, restlessness will arise but it is subordinate, not a predominace factor. Cheers Ken O ========================== With metta, Howard #77579 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Leaving for Texas upasaka_howard Hi, Chuck - -----Original Message----- From: Charles Thompson To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 5:36 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Leaving for Texas Howard, I hope you have/had a great trip. ----------------------------- Howard: Thanks! :-) It's been great. We're flying back this evening. ----------------------------- I am finally "catching up" on my e-mail here in Bangkok. Never got to the foundation as I could not speak to someone in English. Dr. Tun was helpful in giving me the website; but, refused my invitation to accompany my planned visit to the foundation. Perhaps, I will just drop in next time - unannounced!! Is that acceptable??? Within 24 hours, I will be at the new Bangkok airport to return to USA - Philly this time. My home is just outside and west of San Antonio, in the "Hill Country." metta (maitri), Chuck ============================== All the best, Howard #77581 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. dcwijeratna Dear Gazita, I am reroducing below the last portion of your e-m. ------------------------------------------------------------ >azita: yes and I think this would make sense to most thinking people. However, I think you are grossly over estimating the Buddhas Teaching. Cakkuvinnaana is not simple. It is citta - one consciousness moment- citta-kkhana. ------------------------------------------------------------- DC: How do I understand the above paragraph. If you can kindly clarify these I would be grateful: a) estimate over what? b) Have I misunderstood the Buddha's teaching? ----------------------------------------------------------- >Gazita: One such moment is said in the commentaries, to be of inconceivably short duration. {buddhist dictionary} AN 1 10 the Buddha said "Nothing monks, do I know that changes so rapidly as consciousness. Scarcely anything may be found that could be compared with this so rapidly changing consciousness" . ------------------------------------ DC: Is this the reason for your statement about "over estimating"? Do I understand that what is in the commentaries is the 'correct estimate'? Now about AN 1 10: I understand it differently. "naaha.m bhikkave a~n~na.m ekadhamma.m samanupassaami ya.m eva.m lahuparivatta.m yathaida.m citta.m. yaava~ncida.m bhikkave upamaapi na sukaraa yaava lahuparivatta.m cittanti." That is the Pali. The word that is translated as changes rapidly is 'lahuparivattam.' So what does the change refer to: From one citta to another. Not the duration of the citta from its birth to its death. If you say it is the duration; dhyaanic states are not possible. ------------------------------------------ > Once and forever, forget something: "cittas that experience" azita: your not suggesting that I forget about something that the Buddha has taught, surely, are you? ........................ DC: The Buddha, never taught as far as I know, any such thing. Please give me the reference. ................................... Here you make the citta 'I'. >>azita: yes, if at that moment there is micchaditthi or sakyaditthi. If there was right understanding, sammaditthi, at that very moment, then no taking citta for 'I' - or even 'eye'. ........................... DC: Sakkaayadi.t.thi is always present until one becomes a stream-enterer. So moments do not arise. miccha-di.t.thi is the opposite of sammadi.t.thi. One has michhaadi.t.thi only if one indulges in the 10 akusala kammas. ......................... Gazita>I believe that if there is some theoretical understanding of Buddhas teaching, then there is a chance that there will develop a deeper understanding of his teaching. To think that this is simple is misrepresenting the Buddha and very unwise thing to do. --------------------- DC: To think that theoretical understanding will help you is a mistake. All the understanding you need is to accept the Buddha as your teacher and then observe the five precepts. To understand that is to observe without the slightest break. That is far more difficult than memorising the whole of Tipitaka. Let me give an example of not breaking under any circumstances. There was a paddy-cultivator. One day he went to the jungle to cut some trees and he had an axe with him. On the way he met a bhikkhu. He thought he would worship him. The bhikkhu administered the five-precepts to him. In the jungle a python caught him--entwined him. He had the axe with him and he could have killed the serpent. But he remembered that he had taken the five precepts and threw the axe away. Well there are many such stories in the literature. Hope that will give you the idea. All of us know the five precepts. But we break them don't we? Can you say you understand that? You understand an yet you kill, you don't understand and kill? How do you interpret understanding then? To be able to repeat the five precepts from memory. Please do think about this. It will be for your benefit for a long time, as the suttas say. D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77582 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. dcwijeratna Dear Sobhana The word(s) you have forgotten. chanda.m janeti vaayamati viriya.m aarabhati citta.m pagga.nhaati padahati. D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77583 From: Sobhana Date: Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. shennieca Hi all, One of my replies to Sukin didn't turn up in my e-mail, I'll post it again. --------------------------------- Hi Sukin, Sukin: This and the idea re: Sila -> Samadhi -> Panna, so common amongst meditators are in fact "abstractions" got as a result of a wrong understanding of Dhamma. E: Your statement that it is Wrong Understanding, is weighty. I'm not saying whether you are right or wrong because I have no way to verify it. But, I really believe and have faith that sila -> samadhi -> panna is Right Understanding of the Dhamma. Actually, I hope that I can experience it for myself one day. Buddha said ehi passiko, come and see, so I'll take the challenge and see it for myself. But when you made that weighty statement, have you personally experienced it and verified that it is wrong? Which sutta says that it is Wrong Understanding? I have to repeat to myself again, that I really, really have faith, sila -> samadhi -> panna is Right Understanding (eventhough I don’t have direct experience of it yet). ------------------------------------ Sukin: Furthermore, this is projected into the future and results in no attention ever being paid to the fact that dhammas arise and fall now and these can and must be studied. E: If the dhamma arise and fall can be studied and it works for you, it is good. But I still have no idea how dhamma can be understood from studying. Maybe I am misunderstanding you, how do you study the Dhamma? -------------------------------------------- Sukin: Are you by any chance suggesting that we should not go by this understanding and instead continue reacting in the way we always have, namely as if people and things are real? E: I think people and things are real, they are a conventional reality, which is a reality. (I don’t want to get into philosophy, but I think humans are real, they are made from nama and rupa realities, two realities merge together doesn’t make an unreal thing, I think). I don’t want to get into logic argument and other stuffs because I don’t understand it. #77584 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Oct 23, 2007 2:21 pm Subject: Re: eCard from India - Benares buddhistmedi... Hi Jon, - I look forward to reading another e-report when you get back to Hongkong. Ordinary cremated bones are small bone-fragments mixing with white or grayish sand-like powder. Relics of the arahants (e.g. Moggallana and Sariputta) I have seen in the Nana-samvara-ram Temple (near Bangkok) are crystal-like materials. So I asked the question because I wanted to verify an old belief among Thai Buddhists that only relics of the arahants are crystal-like (i.e. colorful, glassy beads). >Jon: Hearing and reflecting on the teachings in the place where the Master first expounded the teachings is an inspiring experience. (At the same time, it is in essence not different from any other moment, in the ultimate sense of being experiences through the six doorways ;- )) T: Do you mean that your sensing experiences through the six doorways "in the ultimate sense" are nothing different from those of any non-Buddhist ? If the answer is 'yes', then the ultimate sense is not different from the conventional sense ! Right? {:>). Tep === #77586 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:11 pm Subject: fatalism? nichiconn Hi Elaine, No logical arguments from me! Life seems more enjoyable as an endless dance or play (natta) than ongoing debate. The puppet assumes or takes up (atta) a role or character that is spread over (upatta) it's performance as it plays out the part as commanded (aa.natta) within the confines of the rest of the story on this peculiar worker's platform or watch tower (a.t.ta). Are we taken in by it all? We wear out our little red shoes yet keep on dancing on stumps if we don't guard against it & the story or music is the stronghold (attalaka). peace, connie #77587 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:24 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. buddhistmedi... Hi DC (and Elaine, Sukin ...), - So, you too are interested in the conversation between Elaine and Sukin. > DC (telling Elaine): > The word(s) you have forgotten. > > chanda.m janeti vaayamati viriya.m aarabhati citta.m pagga.nhaati padahati. > > T: Did you take the above Pali text, for example, from the Buddha's definition of Right Effort ? "And what is right effort? There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen... for the sake of the abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen... for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen... (and) for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This is called right effort." [DN 22] T: And so it should be very clear to anyone that the 'bhikkhu' must diligently make an effort with a "good desire"(chanda) to restrain his mind so that any un-arisen akusala dhamma has no chance to arise. On the other hand, without the good desire to arouse persistence and exert an intent to abandon any arisen akusala dhamma, he would never be able to avoid any evil quality that has arisen, etc. Tep === #77588 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:56 pm Subject: Dhs Corner nichiconn Dear Scott, DC, DC: ...Mrs. Rhys Davids who translated Dhammasan.ganii to English called it "Buddhist Psychological Ethics". So be aware that we will enter the world of psychology. Connie: Well, she named her "Manual" something like that, but in the full subtitle, gives the more literal "Compendium of States or Phenomena", which is closer to U Kyaw Khine's "Enumeration of the Ultimate Realities" as well as suggestive, perhaps, of a wider ground than 'the science of mind and behaviour' covers. I think you've pretty well decided to leave Mrs. RD's personal opinions out of it, but if you're still thinking about going through a translator's introduction, Khine's might be more suitable. After a few pages on Abhidhamma in general, he moves on to the Dhammasa'nga.ni and pretty much just addresses the method of the book itself and isn't, for me, as hard to follow. I'm sorry, DC, but I'm having a hard time buying that you "have nothing to sell". Actually, I'm convinced none of us "start without any preconceived ideas" and think one of the reasons to 'study' is to disabuse ourselves of them. peace, connie #77589 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:53 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. scottduncan2 Dear DC, Thanks for the reply: DC: "Normally that is called experience or phenomenon. But no harm, we leave out the word realities as it has other connotations." Scott: I don't leave it out. I define it as I have stated and you want to define it otherwise. DC: "(1) Now dhammas are what human beings experience through sense-faculties." Scott: Imprecise, but... DC: "(2) According to Dependent-arising, beings travel through samsaara because they have avijjaa (delusion) also called moha. In other words human beings (puthujjana as opposed to ariya) are not capable of seeing reality." Scott: Now this is polemical. First of all, I already made note of the fact that I'm not referring to D.O. but to Conditional Relations. May I ask why you have returned to D.O.? I can talk about how I see the two to differ if you wish. Secondly, the next point is entirely nonsensical since if you go by it, you are in fact stating that the development of dhammas to the point of experiencing Nibbaana as a reality is not possible at all. We are not discussing concepts here, DC. I don't think you yet can see the difference between reality and concept - even theoretically. If you wish to re-state this doctrine, and prefer not to discuss Dhammasa"nga.ni, please just say so. I don't mind either way. (3) "That conflicts with with the general meaning of reality." Scott: I'm afraid this is going in circles, DC. DC: "Is my understanding ok?" Scott: It is not mine. You can be the judge of whether its ok. Sincerely, Scott. #77590 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhs Corner dcwijeratna Dear Connie, Thank you for your e-m. I want to respond it as follows: 1. Your suggestion is not acceptable to me, for two reasons: (1) generally, PTS editions of the Pali Texts and there translations are the standards you use as source material. (2) A more practicla one, I don't have a copy of that. 2. Regarding the last para of your e-m I want to make an observation: I don't remember where I stated that nor have I any wish to recall that. All I can say is that it must have been a part of some conversation and in response to some specific issue. It has no relevance outside that conversation, and was not intended for others. Further, "if you mean by 'hard time buying ....' that you have some difficulty in agreeing with the statement, then that is a valid and meaningful statement. But on the other hand, if you are questioning my intentions, it is outside the scope of this discussion. Moreover, you don't KNOW my mind. So I will disregard that. Thank you very much for the contribution. Kind regards, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77591 From: han tun Date: Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] E-card from Varanasi hantun1 Dear Sarah and Jon, Sarah wrote: “I have a special gift for when I next see you: some fine beads presented to us by the bhikkhus in the temple when we saw the relic in Sarnath.” Han: Thank you very much. So thoughtful of you! I will treasure the beads as they will have very special meaning for me being from Sarnath. I also admire Nina and Lodewijk for their saddha and khanti in joining this extremely arduous trip. I wish them well. With metta and best wishes, Han #77592 From: "colette" Date: Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:24 pm Subject: Re: fatalism? ksheri3 Hi Connie, Interesting post! You open MANY DOORS OF THOUGHT, how yogacara of you! LOL I always knew there was Yogacara in evereybody in this group, it just has to be raised to consciousness, lol. I appreciate how you brought out the CONCEPT of "the puppet" since that is the entire crux of the Western theological construct. Their edifice or temple is useless without the hallucination to worship. goodnight. gotta go. toodles, colette #77593 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Wed Oct 24, 2007 12:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. dcwijeratna Dear Scott, Thank you for your e-m. I am in particular interested in the following. "If you wish to re-state this doctrine, and prefer not to discuss Dhammasa"nga. ni, please just say so. I don't mind either way." My reply to the above is: "I prefer not to discuss Dhammasa"ngani (with you)." Thank you for the entertaining discussion. I learnt a lot. D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77594 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:21 pm Subject: The 4 Oceans! bhikkhu0 Friends: One can Escape the Suffering of Samsara! The Blessed Buddha once said: The flood of tears that all beings have shed, while weeping and wailing upon this loong way, hurrying and hastening through this endless round of rebirths, while forced together with the disliked, & separated from anything liked, is far greater than all the water of the four oceans! So long have you lamented the death of your father & mother, of sons, of daughters, brothers, & sisters. While you were thus wretched by all this misery, agony, & anguish you have surely shed more tears upon this immensely loong way, than there is water in the four oceans... The flood of blood that all beings have shed, having been beheaded, or stabbed or injured during this long way, through billions of rebirths as punished killer, murderer, or soldier is far greater, than all the water in the 4 oceans! So long have you been caught as robber, thief, & adulterer & beheaded as punishment, truly more blood has flowed along this vastly long way, than there is water in all the four oceans even when summed... But how is this possible? Inconceivable is the beginning of this Samsara; not to be discovered is any first beginning of beings, who, being blinded by ignorance and ensnared by craving, have been hurrying and hastening through many repeated rebirths... In this way have you & all other beings long been suffering, been tortured, experienced disasters & tragedies, and filled many graveyards full with bones! This truly, is long enough to be dissatisfied with all forms of existence, is long enough to turn away and free your self from all that suffering, that awaits in the future... Source: (edited excerpts) SN 15:1+3+13 From: The Word of the Buddha: Venerable Nyanatiloka MahÄ?thera. http://www.pariyatti.com/book_404201.html All in this World, whatsoever, is Suffering: This is the 1st Noble Truth: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_1st_Noble_Truth_on_Suffering.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_4_Noble_Truths.htm For details on this Round of Rebirths: Samsara see: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/s_t/samsaara.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Samsara.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Endless_Round.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/The_Samsaric_Round.htm Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka * http://What-Buddha-Said.net Oceans of tears & blood have we all shed in Samsara! #77595 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed Oct 24, 2007 3:54 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. scottduncan2 Dear DC, DC: "...Thank you for the entertaining discussion. I learnt a lot." Scott: You're welcome. Sincerely, Scott. #77596 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. dcwijeratna Dear Tep, You wrote the following: [I have inserted my observations, comments, where I thought it would be useful] ====================================== Hi DC (and Elaine, Sukin ...), - So, you too are interested in the conversation between Elaine and Sukin. DC: It was a spontaneous reaction. I thought she was groping for a word. This happens to me quite often also. Fortunately, I remembered. So I just tried to help her. > DC (telling Elaine): > The word(s) you have forgotten. > > chanda.m janeti vaayamati viriya.m aarabhati citta.m pagga.nhaati padahati. > > T: Did you take the above Pali text, for example, from the Bdddha's definition of Right Effort ? DC: Yes, "sammaa vaayaama" But you get the same under the name "sammappadhaana". See Sangitii. There Walshe as translated it as 'will'. I would say this is a better term. Less emotional than desire and fits the context better. In other contexts desire is more appropriate. Here is an instance: "chandaa dosaa bhayaa mohaa, yo dhamma.m ativattati, nihiiyati tassa yaso kaalapakkheva chandimaa." I give you the translation of Walshe: Desire and Hatred, fear and folly: He who breaks the law through these, Loses all his fair repute Like the moon at waning-time. This is in the Advice to Siglaka (DN 31). Here the desire, I think is the proper word. Dear Tep, to me this verse represents the essence of Buddha dhamma for a decision-maker. I was attracted to it so much I had it under the glass on my table. Whenever, I had to take an important decision, I would go through and test my decision again the four criteria mentioned above. Test it out. Then you'll know. In effect this is a shortened form for kaamacchandha. (desire greed, tanhaa etc.) When you see chanda alone, always be careful. It could be either chanda or kaamacchandha. Well, let me put it finally in the form I understand. Chanda is will, determination, the desire to accomplish anything. Dhamma is life. Not texts. With mettaa, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna P.S. Tomorrow is poya-day. Are you observing the five precepts? #77597 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:52 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (69) nichiconn Dear Friends, Part 8 13. Viisatinipaato 4. Sundariitheriigaathaava.n.nanaa txt: 331. "Sikkhamaanaaya me ayye, dibbacakkhu visodhita.m; pubbenivaasa.m jaanaami, yattha me vusita.m pure. 332. "Tuva.m nissaaya kalyaa.ni, theri sa"nghassa sobhane; tisso vijjaa anuppattaa, kata.m buddhassa saasana.m. 333. "Anujaanaahi me ayye, icche saavatthi gantave; siihanaada.m nadissaami, buddhase.t.thassa santike. 334. "Passa sundari satthaara.m, hemava.n.na.m harittaca.m; adantaana.m dametaara.m, sambuddhamakutobhaya.m. 335. "Passa sundarimaayanti.m, vippamutta.m niruupadhi.m; viitaraaga.m visa.myutta.m, katakiccamanaasava.m. Pruitt: [Sundarii to her preceptor:] 330. Noble lady, the divine eye has been purified for me while still a trainee. I know my previous lives, where I lived before. 331. Relying on you, lovely one, beauty of the Order of Therii's, I have obtained the three knowledges. I have done the Buddha's teaching. 332. Permit me, noble lady, I wish to go to Saavatthi. I shall roar a lion's roar in the presence of the excellent Buddha. [Sundarii to herself:] 333. Sundarii, see the Teacher, golden coloured, with golden skin, the Tamer of the Untamed, the Fully Awakened One, who has no fear from any quarter. 334. See Sundarii coming, completely released, without basis for rebirth, rid of desire, unfettered, her task done, without taints. RD: Sundarii. I've trained me, Lady, in the threefold course. *372 Clear shines for me the Eye Celestial. I know the how and when I came to be Down the long past, and where it was I lived. (330) To thee I owe it, O thou noble friend, Thou loveliest of the Therii Sisterhood, That I the Threefold Lore have gotten now, And that the Buddha's will hath been obeyed. (331) Give to me, Lady, thy consent, for I Would go to Saavatthii, so that I may Utter my 'lion's roar,'-my 'Hail, all hail!'- In presence of the Buddha, Lord and Chief. *373 (332) See, Sundarii, the Master fair in hue, His countenance as fine gold, clear and bright, Him who is All-enlightened, Buddha, Best, Tamer of untamed, never tasting fear. (333) And see, O Master, Sundarii, who comes To tell thee of Emancipation won, And of the right no more to he reborn. Who hath herself from passion freed Unyoked from bondage, loosened from the world. Accomplished now is her appointed work, And all that drugged her heart is purged away. *374 (334) *372 Cf. Ps. xlv. 104. *373 So Sundarii went with Bhikkhuniis to Saavatthii, and, entering the Vihaara, saw the Master sitting on the Seat of Doctrine. And, thrilled with a glory of joy and gladness, she said a verse, as if to herself. *374 It is clear from this affirmation - viz., that she was Anaasavaa - that Sundarii was Arahant. Curiously, hers is the sole case where the attainment is not explicitly recorded. She is only said to be tevijjaa. To be Anaasavaa was the sixth and last stage in vijjaa or pa~n~naa or abhi~n~naa. Thus she spoke, declaring her A~N~NAA, by way of expressing her joy. Then the Master, to relieve her nervousness, asked her: 'But whence comest thou? and wherefore? and who is this Sundarii?' Then she made answer: 'Lo! from Benares. . . .' ===to be continued, connie #77598 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:11 am Subject: One has miccha-di.t.thi only if.... was Re: Response to DC Part 1. philofillet Hi DC, Azita and all Just want to note the following for my future reference by posting this. May ask about this at a later date. > miccha-di.t.thi is the opposite of sammadi.t.thi. One has michhaadi.t.thi only if one indulges in the 10 akusala kammas. Thanks for all the deep and interesting discussions, everyone. I'm happy to be lurking for a change. I find it makes for clearer meditation and "pondering" (as a sutta in AN puts it) when one hasn't been shooting off his mouth the way I usually do. (the sila > non- remorse > concentration principle at work?) Metta, Phil #77599 From: Ken O Date: Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. ashkenn2k Hi Howard > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Well, for me, saying "restlessness cetasika" doesn't add to my > understanding of "scattered mind". I think we are all > familiar with the state of "scattered mind". It is a mind that > tends to fly to anything other than what is present. Often, it > seems to me that it is rooted in craving and/or aversion, and clearly a scattered mind is a murky mind. > ----------------------------------------------- k: Because of restlessness, that is why the mind is scattered be it surbodinated. all unwholesome dhammas would have restlessness as one of the cetasikas. Scattered mind is does not have an inverse relationship with ekaggata, as all citta needs ekaggatta to focus on an object. > -------------------------- > Howard: > My point was that a mind afflicted by sloth & torpor is a > weakened mind. It is fragile and vulnerable, and then ignorance, craving, and aversion can easily hold sway, causing a scattered state. > -------------------------- k: hmm, sloth and torpor is a hindrance, but they are not the roots. They do not condition akusala to arise. It is the taints that condition the akusala. a scattered mind is about conditioned by akusala and not about sloth and torpor. Kind regards Ken O