#78200 From: "reverendaggacitto" Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 9:59 pm Subject: Gandhabba/Gandhabba/Gandhabba reverendagga... Ven.Dhammanando Thank You so mutch for the correction!(M.N.#38 NOT #36!) i would have sworn it was #36! The Pali Commentaries define gandhabba as a being that has just passed away...Ven.Gotama discusses it as a condition for BIRTH. GOSH! sounds like reincarnation to me! A BEING that has just passed away. An evolving self or tathaagatagarbha type notion pulled out of thin air? i with ALL due respect would beg to differ. Thank you so mutch for your attention on this matter! May the Buddha's,Deva,and Angel's bless ALL of you! bhikkhu aggacitto/aka reverend aggacitto #78201 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 10:04 pm Subject: Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon kenhowardau Hi Howard, I'm sorry that my post was so badly written. At the time of posting they always seem quite clear, but when I read them back afterwards I often have to wonder what on earth I was on about! :-) -------------- KH: > >Which came first? Was there a conventional reality which then had to be explained by a theory of ultimate reality? Or was there an ultimate reality which then had to be explained by a theory of conventional reality? I believe the latter. > > > Howard: Me, too. :-) > KH: > > And so I have no trouble believing that citta can experience a dhamma that has just fallen away. > > > Howard: I consider that a non sequitur. > ----------------- Let me rephrase it. In the reality described by the Abhidhamma, citta can directly know a dhamma that has just fallen away. That is how is it is! I don't care how hard it might be to believe. I don't care if conventional logic says it is impossible. That is how it is in the ultimate reality described by the Abhidhamma. As they say in your country: "Deal with it!" "Get over it!" :-) ------------------------ H: > In any case, what has just fallen away does not exist, and it thus cannot be an object of consciousness. ------------------------ But if it is immediately taken as an object of consciousness then perhaps we could say it still exists to that extent.(?) I don't know. All I know is, according to the Abhidhamma a just-fallen-away dhamma can become the object of consciousness. ----------------------------------- <. . .> KH: > > That is the way it is in ultimate reality! The fact that there might not be an exact equivalent in conventional reality does not worry me **one iota.** > > > Howard: I'm not talking about "conventional reality," but about reality. What has fallen away has, in reality, ceased and no longer exists. It is fiction. It is not present, not current, not existent. > ------------------------------------ Which reality would that be? It is not the one described in the Abhidhamma. To the extent that a just-fallen-away dhamma can become an object of consciousness it is not non-existent. ---------------- H: > Don't you always say that there is only the present citta? ---------------- Now you are talking about two different things. A just-fallen-away dhamma has finished performing its functions. A presently arisen dhamma has not. ---------------------- <. . .> H: > > > I have no vested interest or preferred "outcome" in whether the "problem" I see is real or not. > > > KH: > > Those among us who believe in an eternal soul have a vested interest, don't they? > > > Howard: What in the world does that have to do with what is being discussed? ---------------------- Consider it an aside. It seems to me that Ven Thanissaro's teachings (that the Buddha did not teach no-self) are being strongly supported at DSG these days. Not by you, I know, but by several others. ------------------------------ H: > In any case, as for souls, I have no truck with any such, eternal or not. You DO know that, don't you? ------------------------------- Yes. -------------------- H: > > For them it is imperative that the Abhidhamma be discredited. Or at least, it is imperative that the Abhidhamma not be considered "the actual words of the Buddha." > > > Howard: I don't understand why you make such a point. Who are you talking about? -------------------- I was still talking about the externalists among us. Not about you. However, you do occasionally assert that the Abhidhamma is "not the word of the Buddha" and so, perhaps my criticisms do apply to you to some extent. Why would anybody question the authenticity of the Abhidhamma and the ancient commentaries? It seems to me they must be swayed by something more than just the writings of a few linguistic historians. There must be an ulterior motive. But perhaps I have said enough about that for now. :-) Ken H #78202 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 11:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dr han tun, sarah and nina nilovg Dear Dr. Manish, Op 6-nov-2007, om 20:41 heeft vipassana_infonet het volgende geschreven: > I am not running away.... > where do I run away from the ti-lakkhana? facing the 3 signs 'as it > is' is vipassana! -------- N: Thank you for your kind post. I like the above very much! I have been thinking of you. Sarah showed me in India your reply to me. This is a forum where we all share dhamma, we are really learning. If two people have a discussion it is also of interest to others, we can all learn! Do not deprive us of this opportunity to learn, please. There is nothing that we should hide. Your questions to me were mainly about a sotapanna who attained cessation, nirodha samaapatti, but this is not true. Only anaagaamis and arahats who have developed both jhaana and vipassanaa can attain it. But now a general remark: should we not share with each other what we learn from the present moment being anattaa? A subject such as nirodha samaapatti is too far away. Let us rather discuss seeing, attachment to what is seen, hearing, etc. This is the only way to penetrate the ti-lakkhana. You speak of time constraint. Well, I have the same. I cannot answer posts immediately. I was thinking of your 25 questions. So much happened meanwhile, when in India, and people lost track. Maybe you can post them one at a time. I do not know now which ones were answered. But I can see that you are very interested at the study of the Dhamma, and I appreciate this. Nina. #78203 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 12:12 am Subject: Abhidhamma, to DC. nilovg Dear DC, I read with interest your dialogue with Sarah on the Abhidhamma. Sarah showed me your post about your education telling us how your mother taught you the Pali words to pay respect. I found it a very moving report and appreciate the education you received from your parents. You said that the Abhidhamma was considered just for learned monks, and now I understand your background much better. People think usually of the books of Abhidhamma Pitaka or the Abhidhammatta sangaha. But, as Kh Sujin often said: Abhidhamma is not in the book. It is about the realities occurring now, and the investigation of them helps us to better understand anattaa. We could study step by step what the Abhidhamma actually teaches. This cannot be explained in one post. I shall transcribe a discussion we had in India, called India I. If you have time you could read it, although not everybody can read all posts. Is it not useful to know more about the citta at this moment? Kusala cittas and akusala cittas alternate and so easily we may take for kusala what is akusala. Abhidhamma deals with our life at this very moment and this is most helpful. Nina. #78204 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 12:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] seeking emotional comfort? nilovg Dear Connie, thank you. This is very appropriate. The Tiika to Vis. 202 I am studying now refers to the four Truths and the sutta 'Setting in motion the wheel of Dhamma'. Nina. Op 7-nov-2007, om 5:16 heeft L G SAGE het volgende geschreven: > PPn xvi, 16 : > And the first truth is vile because it is the haunt of many > dangers, and it is empty because it is devoid of lastingness, > beauty, pleasure, and self, conceived by rash people. #78205 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 12:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Paging Nina? nilovg Dear Colette, I can be paged, ha, ha. But forgive me if I do not answer all posts, this is beyond me. My forces are limited, I am old. Thanks for your kind words. Op 6-nov-2007, om 7:02 heeft colette het volgende geschreven: > mostly I laugh at > everything since I've been seriously unloaded upon since 1980 and > there certainly is no end in sight thus I might as well laugh until > the coranor signs my death certificate. ------ N: You keep on thinking of the past, of your trauma 1980, and I do understand. We can learn that this is anattaa, beyond control. You are lucky to have come across the Buddha's teachings. He taught us to learn more about the present reality and not dwell so much on the past. We all think of sad events in the past, such as the loss of dear people, or some tragic event in the family. It is so human. What is past is past, but the thinking of it now is a present reality. Let us know more about it. Thinking is a citta that is conditioned. There can be thinking with dosa or with some understanding. Kamma produces results in the form of desirable or undesirable experiences through the senses. You may still feel bodily discomfort. Not other people caused this, it is the result of kamma. If there is aversion it is akusala and this will make the sorrow worse. We can learn that kamma causes bodily sickness, not other people, not events. There is bodily suffering, but understanding of kamma and result can help us not to add more to mental suffering. Nina. #78206 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 12:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Alan Driver's Funeral - final installment nilovg Dear Sarah, thank you very much. I just highlight what I find very helpful. Op 6-nov-2007, om 11:16 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > S: But it's helpful to hear about all kinds of kusala, including > calmness, > because we don't know what opportunity there will be for what kind of > kusala. There cannot be satipatthana at every moment. It's better than > having lobha or dosa. > > KS: That's why we should always develop awareness and right > understanding > and metta too and all the four brahma viharas. ------- N: I like her insistance to wlays develop right understanding, and not forget the brahma vihaaras. -------- > > J: When I see the bones it's another reminder for a sense of urgency. > > KS: One clings to the elements of rupa as mine but what one > considers as > mine is just that. So what one takes as the most important thing in > one's > life is nothing, just soil or dirt and it can help the considering > of the > rupa at this moment too because we can separate the whole body as > minutely > as that - as heaps of dirt. Even now, it's only different heaps of > dirt -------- N: This reminds me that all the ruupas of the body now, all of them fall away. Just like dust or dirt. We keep on forgetting this, keeping on thinking of the whole body. BTW Sarah, you mentioned before that some disturbing thing happened. Was that the letting go of the ashes in the water? Nina. #78207 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 1:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (4) nilovg Dear Han, yes, correct. All this was treated in the Visuddhimagga series, Ch XVII. Many details. Which kamma, habitual or one of the other kinds produces rebirth, that nobody can find out. But rebirth is produced so long as there is ignorance. Nina. Op 7-nov-2007, om 4:21 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > Thus I consider: “When one of the three maranaasanna > nimittas strikes the corresponding sense-door the > maranaasanna vithi starts to flow and one of the > kamma-catukkas functions as maranaasanna-javanas, and > these are followed by cuti-citta. After the > dissolution of cuti citta the person dies.” > > ------------------------------ > > I wanted to know whether my above consideration was > correct. > Khun Sujin said that it was correct. #78208 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 1:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma, Suttas & Meditation dcwijeratna Dear Alex, I wish to add my "Two cents worth" to the following request of yours. "After all, how many people in Buddha's time mastered Abhidhamma first and then Meditation from which they've gained Arahatship? The Suttas are of course a must, since they contain deep meditation instructions (I like girimananda sutta a lot). But hundreds if not thousands of pages of AP??? Any comments, suggestions, opinions on this matter?" What I give below may be considered as "vohaara dhamma." That is agreed by people who study "History of Buddhism. Mine is not a direct response as such. I am giving an "opinion" but not a personal one. It is what is considered as knowledge by the world. 1. At the First Council (sangiiti), only Dhamma and Vinaya were recited. Dhamma by Ven. Ananda and Vinaya by Ven. Upali. 2. They were arranged in five nikaayas--not pi.takas. 3. There is no Abhidhamma Pi.taka mentioned there in. 4. But it is now believed that Maatikaas (the topics of the subjects) were recited at the First Council. 5. They quote examples of Sangiiti and Dassuttara in the DN as examples, and the occurrence of the term maatikaadhara--bearer of maatikaas. 6. About 100 years after the Mahaaparinibbaana of the Buddha, a Second Council was held. 7. According to Theravaada tradition, it was the result of the Vajjian bhikkhus wanting to change some minor rules. 8. If you look at these rules closely you will note they are not that 'minor'. That was really a movement towards "kaamasukhallikaanuyogs", or deviation from the middle path. It is also clear even by that time there were few arahants. 9. Eighteen years later, the First Schism occurred and the Sangha divided into two: Theravaada and Mahaasaanghika. The poeple who were more interested in "Kaa..yoga" joined this group. This mahaasaanghika was the forerunner of Mahaayaana texts. 10. There is evidence in the Northern texts, that a brahmin called Mahaadeva challenged the arahat concept-that is that they can fall back etc. 11. This is further evidence that arahants were quite scarce even by that time. 12. A third council-purely a theravaadin affair--took place about another 100 years later. The Abhidhamma Pi.taka came to light during this council. In fact the fifth book of Abhidhamma-kathaavatthu was composed by Ven. Moggaliputtatissa after this council. 13. By this time the Sangha has split into 18 schools. 13. Now, the sutta pi.taka and the vinaya rules of all the 18 schools, really whatever is extant, show a remarkable resemblance. 14. The story with the Abhidhamma Pi.taka. Only pi.takas belonging to three schools remain. They are: Theravaada, Saravastivaada and Saariputta Abhidhamma-sastra. The first two are fundamentally different. There is little information regarding the third--it is available only in Chinese. 15. It is this difference that "conslusively" establish that Abhidhamma is a later creation. Why was it created? [From here ideas are mine. So please feel free to find fault with the arguments] 16. First it was a task of collection, classification and systematization of the dhammas. 17. Then it was an attempt to explain the dhammas--the maatikas. 18. The Sangha after the Buddha became a rich monastic institution. 19. In order to maintain its superiority, it had to able to teach Dhammas. 20. Unfortunately, they were not arhants and had no clue to the dhammas and wrote these books in order to explain and to maintain there prestige on the basis of their "understanding." 21. In the case of some of the Sarvastivaada books the names of authors are given but not in the case of Theravaada abhidhamma books except kathaavatthu. 22. Even in traditional Sri Lanka, where I come from, these books were for the scholar monks. Nobody else had any use for them. All the Dhamma they needed they got from I should say Dhammapada, Dhammapada.t.thakathaa and the Jaataka.t.thkathaa. This thing is too long already. Please consider these as information. I haven't given you references because the historical stuff is common knowledge. However, Encyclopedia of Buddhism, Sri Lanka Government can confirm virtually everything I have written. Hope this will be of some use to you. D. G. D. C. Wijeratna P. S. There could be quite a few mistakes. I just typed it in. So please bear with me. #78209 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 1:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon nilovg Hi Tep (and Howard), Op 7-nov-2007, om 3:00 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > I agree with you because these 3 points are the same as what I have > learned from the suttas and Abhidhamma-pitaka. ------- N: Another point brought up by you was: can there be direct awareness of past khandhas. And I agree: no. Only present realities, paramattha dhammas, can be objects of awareness and understanding. When speaking about present, I mean, awareness can arise in a following process and be aware of what just recently has fallen away. Howard referred to this. Of course, a citta with dosa must have fallen away and then after that there can be kusala citta with pa~n~naa that understands the dosa that just fell away. Its characteristtic can be known. Otherwise we could not follow the Buddha's advice in the satipatthana sutta: as to Mindfulness of citta, Mindfulness of dhamma, including the hindrances. Nina. #78210 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 1:59 am Subject: India 1. nilovg Dear friends, India 1. This is an extract of a discussion held in a Thai Temple that is in the process of being constructed, near Rajagaha. We just had lunch in a restaurant near this temple and here a group of Malaysians from Padang was waiting in the hall. When a Thai friend saw that they were holding my ‘Abhidhamma in Daily life” she pointed out that I was standing nearby and this resulted in a happy meeting, like we were old friends, having known each other for a long time. We were actually waiting for Kh Sujin to go to the Thai temple and it was because of conditions that we could meet at that moment. The Abbot of the temple was very kind and hospitable, and he attended our discussion with interest. Kh Sujin said: < All dhammas are anattaa. This must be firmly established, otherwise we think that it is ‘I’ who can exert control over realities. For example, there is an idea of ‘I’ at the moment of seeing, ‘I see’; at the moment of hearing, there is an idea of ‘I hear’. Seeing is conditioned, it arises; without conditions there could not be seeing at all.> N: During the discussion Kh Sujin emphasized many times what we had learnt from books: if there would not be visible object impinging on the eyesense, there could not be seeing. Seeing appears and this means that it has arisen. When considering this more we gain more understanding of the fact that seeing is a conditioned dhamma, not my seeing. Kh Sujin: *********** Nina. #78211 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 2:01 am Subject: Re: The teaching on aeons philofillet Hi Robert > Aren't patience and samvega both aspects of viriya? Interesting point. I will look into this, thanks. Metta, Phil #78212 From: Dieter Möller Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 3:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Tathagatagarbha/Gandhabba moellerdieter Hi DC, no problem at all ..looking forward to further discussions /exchange .. with Metta Dieter #78213 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 4:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) jonoabb Hi Alex Alex wrote: > Hello, Jon, Robert, Dieter, Tep and all, > > ... > > Here is a good paragraph about "self issue" written by Ven. > Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Regardless of your opinion of him - what he wrote > is pure Gold. > > ------ > A more fruitful line of inquiry is to view experience, not in terms > of the existence or non-existence of the self, but in terms of the > categories of the four noble truths, which §51 identifies as the > truly proper subject of appropriate attention. > I agree that the *question of the existence or non-existence of a self* can be seen as a different issue to the teaching on *not-self as a characteristic of conditioned dhammas* as given in suttas such as SN 22:59 (cited in the next sentence of the article). > If we look at the way > the Buddha phrases questions about not-self [SN 22.59, MFU, pp. 79- > 80] in the context of the duties appropriate to the four noble truths > [§195], we see that they function as tools for comprehending stress > and abandoning the attachment and clinging that function as its > cause. Thus they help bring about the ending of the mental effluents. > However, I don't agree with the characteristic of the teaching on the not-self characteristic of conditioned dhammas as a *tool for comprehending stress and abandoning the attachment and clinging that function as the cause of stress*. I see the teaching on not-self as part of the teaching on the way things truly are, knowledge of which is necessary in order to gain enlightenment. I see each of the 3 characteristics as being part of the teaching in the same way. > Rather than asking, "Do I exist?" one should ask, "Is this mine? Is > this me? If these things are regarded as me or mine, will there be > suffering?" These questions, when properly answered (No, No, and > Yes), can lead directly to the phenomenological mode and on to > release from attachment and from suffering and stress. Thus they are > worth asking. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part2.html > #part2-g > I'm would not see such asking "Is this mine?", etc as having anything to do with "release from attachment, suffering and stress" as taught by the Buddha. That release comes only from the development of awareness and insight, as I read the teachings. Thanks for bringing up the article. Happy to discuss further. Jon #78214 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 5:03 am Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Thanks for the reply: A: "In his last life before he fully awakened, he spent 6 years of various practices. Eventually he found how to properly tune himself and gained full enlightment in 12+ hours. Also maybe I was too quick here... He probably worked hard in Buddha Kassapa Sassana and maybe in Tusita heaven afterwards." Scott: You were too quick, I think. Aeons. Incalculable aeons, Alex. There is no 'probably' about the length of preparation being infinitely longer than six years! A: "Regarding Arahatship: a) 7 Days can be enough to go from Pujjana to Arahatship: 570. "Wise One, this is the eighth day, after we took your refuge. Within seven nights we are tamed in your dispensation..."A bhikkhu endowed with these five factors gaining the training from the Thus Gone One in the morning, for whatever cause sons of clansmen rightfully go forth homeless that highest end of the holy life, he here and now, knowing, realizing, will attain in the evening, or advised in the evening would realise the next morning." Scott: That was then, this is now. I think that imagining that this time frame might go for us too, if we just work hard enough, is nonsense produced by the popularisation and perversion of the Dhamma and amounts to just getting way too excited. Sincerely, Scott. #78215 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 5:07 am Subject: Conditions, Ch 17, no 7. (the end) nilovg Dear friends, We should come to know the different cittas which arise in our life. To what purpose do we study the conditions of realities? We may study because we want to become “somebody with a great deal of kusala and understanding”, but then we have not understood the purpose of the study of Dhamma. There should be less clinging to the idea of self, more humility. Thus, we need the perfection of truthfulness (sacca), we need to realize when kusala citta arises and when akusala citta; we should not delude ourselves as to the different realities which appear. There must be the firm resolution as to the right purpose we strive after: the eradication of wrong view and other defilements. The perfections of truthfulness and of resolution (aditthåna) support the development of the other perfections. All wholesome qualities condition one another. The study of conditions helps us to have more understanding of the factors which cause us to continue being in the cycle of birth and death. Because of ignorance and clinging life has to go on and on, until there is the elimination of the cause of rebirth. There is no self who chose to be in the cycle of birth and death and there is no self who can eliminate the cause of rebirth. Everything occurs according to conditions, but this should not make us desperate. When we hear the Dhamma and consider it, we learn how to develop the right conditions leading to the end of dukkha. In the “Kindred Sayings”(I, Sagåthå-vagga, V, Suttas of Sisters, § 9), in the “Selå-sutta”, we read that at Såvatthí Måra addressed Sister Selå: Who was it that made the human puppet’s form? Where is the maker of the human doll? Whence, tell me, has the puppet come to be? Where will the puppet cease and pass away? Selå answered: Neither self-made the puppet is, nor yet By other wrought is this ill-plighted thing. By reason of a cause it came to be, By rupture of a cause it dies away. Like a certain seed sown in the field, Which, when it comes upon the taste of earth, And moisture likewise, by these two grows, So the five khandhas, the elements, And the six spheres of sense -- even all these, By reason of a cause they came to be; By rupture of a cause they die away. Then Måra the evil one thought: “Sister Selå knows me”, and sad and sorrowful he vanished there and then. (Conclusion) ******* Nina. #78216 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 5:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon jonoabb Hi Howard I follow your line of reasoning, and it is one you have mentioned before. However, I'm not sure if the problem you have is with: (a) the way the general statement is formulated ("sati and panna being able to know ONLY paramattha dhammas"), given that certain (limited) just-fallen-away dhammas are included, and these must be concepts or memories of dhammas, i.e., a matter of the wording, or (b) the idea that only those concepts that are immediately fallen away namas, and not concepts generally, can be object of sati and panna, i.e., that conceptually it seems to you that all concepts should be capable of being object of sati and panna. Would you mind indicating which of these you see as being the problem. Thanks. Jon #78217 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 5:18 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (70) nichiconn dear friends, Part 8 13. Viisatinipaato 5. Subhaakammaaradhiitutheriigaathaava.n.nanaa verse: 341. "Hitvaanaha.m ~naatiga.na.m, daasakammakaraani ca; gaamakhettaani phiitaani, rama.niiye pamodite. 342. "Pahaayaha.m pabbajitaa, saapateyyamanappaka.m; ... 340. I left the group of my relatives, the slaves and servants, the rich fields and villages, and delightful and pleasant possessions, and I went forth, abandoning no small wealth. txt: Daasakammakaraani caati daase ca kammakaare ca, li"ngavipallaasena heta.m vutta.m. Gaamakhettaaniiti gaame ca pubba.n.naapara.n.naviruhanakkhettaani ca, gaamapariyaapannaani vaa khettaani. Phiitaaniiti samiddhaani. Rama.niiyeti manu~n~ne. Pamoditeti pamudite, bhogakkhandhe hitvaati sambandho. Saapateyyanti santaka.m dhana.m, ma.nikanakarajataadipariggahavatthu.m. Anappakanti mahanta.m, pahaayaati yojanaa. Pruitt: 340. Slaves and servants (daasa-kammakaraani) means: both slaves (daase) and servants (kammakaare). This is said through a substitution of gender. Fields and villages (gaama-khettaani) means: both villages (gaame) and fields of sprouting grain and vegetables (pubb'-a.n.naapara.n.na-viruhana-kkhettaani); or, fields (khettaani) belonging to villages (gaama-pariyaapannaani). Rich means: prosperous. Delightful means: pleasing. Pleasant (pamodite) means: delightful (pamudite). The connection is: there were masses of wealth. Wealth (saapateyya.m) means: belongings and wealth (dhana.m), property and possessions such as jewels, gold, and silver. No small [wealth] means: great [wealth]. It is abandoned, that is the implication. verse: ....eva.m saddhaaya nikkhamma, saddhamme suppavedite. 343. "Neta.m assa patiruupa.m, aaki~nca~n~na~nhi patthaye; yo jaataruupa.m rajata.m, cha.d.detvaa punaraagame. 341. Since I renounced [the world] in faith this way, and [since] the true Doctrine has been well preached, it would not be fitting for me, once I had laid aside gold and silver, to take them back again, for I desire the state of having nothing. txt: Eva.m saddhaaya nikkhammaati "hitvaanaha.m ~naatiga.nan"ti-aadinaa vuttappakaarena mahanta.m ~naatipariva.t.ta.m mahanta~nca bhogakkhandha.m pahaaya kammakammaphalaani ratanattaya~ncaati saddheyyavatthu.m saddhaaya saddahitvaa gharato nikkhamma, saddhamme suppavedite sammaasambuddhena su.t.thu pavedite ariyavinaye aha.m pabbajitaa. 341. Since I renounced (nikkhamma) [the world] in faith (saddhaaya) in this way means: as has been said in [the preceding verse] beginning I left the group of my relatives, I abandoned a great circle of relatives and a great mass of wealth in faith, having faith in what should be trusted like the fruition of each action* and the triple gem. I renounced my home and went forth in the true Doctrine [that] has been well preached, the noble discipline taught by the Teacher, the Fully and Perfectly Awakened One. *Kamma-kamma-phalaani, probably a reference to the law of cause and effect. Eva.m pabbajitaaya pana neta.m assa patiruupa.m, yadida.m cha.d.ditaana.m kaamaana.m paccaagamana.m. Aaki~nca~n~na~nhi patthayeti aha.m aki~ncanabhaava.m apariggahabhaavameva patthayaami. Yo jaataruuparajata.m, cha.d.detvaa punaraagameti yo puggalo suva.n.na.m rajata.m a~n~nampi vaa ki~nci dhanajaata.m cha.d.detvaa puna ta.m ga.nheyya, so pa.n.ditaana.m antare katha.m siisa.m ukkhipeyya? But having gone forth in this way, it would not be fitting for me to go back to sensual pleasures that had been rejected like this. For I desire (patthayaami) only the state of possessing nothing (aki~ncana-bhaava.m), the state of being without possessions. Once I had laid aside gold and silver, to take them back again means: whatever individual has laid aside gold and silver or any other form of wealth, if he should take it up again, how could he hold up his head among wise men? ===tbc, connie #78218 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 5:18 am Subject: Perfections Corner (34) 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. ------------------------------ Truthfulness is the dhamma that enhances the arising and development of all kusala, because truthfulness is sincerity with regard to the eradication of defilements. When kusala does not arise we may realize that we are not sincere in its development, and this, in turn, can be a condition for its arising. When akusala arises we should, again, be truthful and this can condition sati sampaja~n~na to be aware of the characteristic of akusala. In this way akusala can be abandoned and kusala can be developed. The Bodhisatta developed in his daily life all kinds of kusala to a high degree, including very subtle and refined kusala. People who have not yet realized the noble Truths should follow in the Bodhisatta's steps. This means that one should develop all degrees of pa~n~naa with the aim to eradicate defilements. We should reflect on the daily life of the Bodhisatta before he attained Buddhahood. He was truthful in developing kusala with the aim to abandon and eradicate defilements. We read in the Commentary to the "Basket of Conduct", in the "Miscellaneous Sayings", about the way of practice of the Bodhisatta during the time he was developing the perfections. If someone wants to realize the noble Truths, be he monk or layman, he should consider what practice he should follow so that he will realize the noble Truths, and he should be truthful and sincere in his practice. We read: "He should work energetically for the welfare of beings, be capable of enduring everything whether desirable or undesirable, and should speak without deception." This is only a short phrase, but we can grasp the essence of it by considering it deeply and by applying it. In order to be able to apply these words, we should be patient with regard to what is desirable or undesirable. We read: "He should speak without deception. He should suffuse all beings with universal loving-kindness and compassion. Whatever causes suffering for beings, all that he should be ready to take upon himself; and he should rejoice in the merits of all beings." === #78219 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 5:22 am Subject: Preserving the Buddha's Teachings, no 7. nilovg Dear friends, Chapter 2 The Teaching of the Abhidhamma We read in the “Expositor”, the Commentary to “Buddhist Psychological Ethics”, the first of the seven Books of the Abhidhamma (I, Introductory Discourse, 1-4), that the prefix “abhi” in Abhidhamma is used in the sense of preponderance and distinction. The Abhidhamma exceeds and is distinguished from the other Dhamma, namely the Suttanta. In the Abhidhamma all realities are classified fully and in all details. We read in the “Introductory Discourse” of the “Expositor” that the Buddha, during the fourth week after his attainment of Enlightenment, sat in the “Jewel House”, contemplating the seven books of the Abhidhamma. I paid respect at this place when we were in Bodhgaya. Near the Jewel House is a stupa commemorating the cremation place of the great Commentator Buddhaghosa, and I also paid respect there. Buddhaghosa, who lived in the first half of the fifth century A.D. , compiled and translated from Singhalese into Påli the ancient commentarial materials he found in Sri Lanka. He also wrote the “Visuddhimagga”, an Encyclopedia on Buddhism. If the Buddha had not attained enlightenment nobody would know that what we take for a person or self, for things or for the world are only different phenomena which do not last and which are not self or belonging to a self. The Abhidhamma is not theory, it explains everything that is real and that appears in our daily life. Realities that appear in our daily life have each their own characteristic that can be directly known, without having to think about them. The Buddha did not need any words in order to penetrate the truth of realities, but he used words when he explained the truth to others. We read in the Commentary to the “Dhammapada”( Buddhist Legends, Part 3, Book 14, Story 2) that the Buddha, after having performed the “Twin miracle” [1], ascended the Heaven of the Thirtythree (Tåvatimsa) and taught the Abhidhamma for the sake of his mother who had passed away on the seventh day after his birth, as is always the case for the Bodhisattaís mother. When the Buddha wished to return to the world of men, Sakka, the King of the Devas, created three ladders: one of gold, one of jewels and one of silver. The devas descended upon the ladder of gold, Mahå-Brahma and his retinue upon the ladder of silver, and the Exalted One himself upon the ladder of jewels. The Buddha came down at the gate of the city Sankassa. We visited this place and paid respect. We went up the hill that marks the place and there we had a Dhamma discussion. Acharn Sujin reminded us to have patience with regard to the development of the eightfold Path. She said that at the Buddha’s time there were four kinds of people with different capabilities to grasp the Dhamma. Some people could realize the Truth immediately when they heard the teaching (ugghatitaññú), others after a more detailed explanation (vipacitaññú), others could gradually realize the truth through advice and questioning, wise consideration and association with a good friend in Dhamma (neyya puggala), and others again did not attain enlightenment, although they had heard much, learnt much, knew many things by heart (pada parama) [2]. The first two types of people do not exist anymore in this world. With regard to the third type of person, it is only after wise consideration of the Dhamma and mindfulness of realities over and over again that he can attain enlightenment. With regard to the fourth type of person, the pada parama, the understanding he has accumulated is not lost, it can lead to the attainment of enlightenment in a future life. -------- Footnotes: 1. This miracle consisted in the appearance of flames from the upper part of the body and streams of water from the lower part, and then alternatively, there were streams of water from the upper part of the body and flames from the lower part. Moreoever, flames of fire and streams of water also proceeded each in alternation from the right side of the body and from the left side. The Twin Miracle and his ascent to the Heaven of the Thirtythree took place in the seventh year after his enlightenment. 2. Pada parama: one for whom the words (pada) are the utmost attainment. ****** Nina. #78220 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 5:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma, to DC. dcwijeratna Dear Nina, Thank you for your e-m to me. I very much appreciate it. Now, what I told about my upbringing is correct. I confirm that. Parents are "pubbaacariyo" according to Dhamma. But that was not the end of my Buddhist education. Subsequently, I have read a little of the Pali canon. But the basis of all that was that the education my mother gave me. I am not sure whether I mentioned it or not but this was supplemented by my grandmother not at all by teaching dhamma books. But by behaviour. Now what I write below, is written purely in the interests of Dhamma. There is no intention to find fault with you. But just to tell you that I don't see the way you see things. My emotional reaction to your comments is in first line. Now you say: "You said that the Abhidhamma was considered just for learned monks, and now I understand your background much better." This is a very bold statement to make. From a few words that has been attributed to me you claim you understand me. According to the Dhamma I have been taught, which I have accepted as the truth because that Dhamma is confirmed or verified by my experience your statement is based on "blind faith", and not on knowledge. Let me explain. Understanding another human being is understanding the First Noble Truth. Why? Because the first Noble Truth says: "Sankhittena pancuppaadaanakkhandhaa dukkhaa" or Collectively, the five aggregates of grasping is dukkhha. [I leave dukkha untranslated, because there is no single word in English that adequately represents the meaning of these words to a Buddhist]. Now this 'pancu...khandhaa' is the human being. Later, the Buddha says that the all the four truths need to understood with the following words: "pubbe ananussutesu dhammesu cakkhu.m udpaadi, ~naa.na.m udapadi, pa~n~naa, udpaadi, vijjaa, udapaadi" Now with regard to the First Noble Truth, he said, it should be thoroughly and completely known ('pari~n~neyya.m'), and that the Buddha had completely understood (pari~n~naata.m). So the implication of the above is either you claim that you are an arhant (reached sambodhi) or else you are making a statement on "blind faith". On the other hand, your statement, the one I quoted above, is perfect, and I understand fully, if you are a normal human being. Now I'll add a comment of my own: The status of an ariya is not a "act-as-if" situation. It is a basic transformation of the human pesonality (really the pan..kkhanda). And the way to do is to travel the Noble Eightfold Path. The start of that, for a house-holder (gihii kaamabhogii), is the five precepts. You understand that in the normal human way. Killing is bad because if you kill, you will be hung. You rob you'll be put in jail. Not because you understand the "kamma-theory". You keep on developing, for example, until you reach the level even if somebody wants to kill you you will not kill him in return. If there is no escape, you will submit to the killing rather than break the precept. This development is a gradual process. You have pa~n~naa, when you, in a manner of speaking, internalise the precept. Take a person, who habitually kills, say mosquitoes, then he undertakes the first precept. Now well, for a first couple of days, he will abstain, then one day he forgets and kills. (Just take examples of people who try to quit drinking or smoking). Now he breaks the precept. What should he do? He should acknowledge that as a transgression and then find some means to avoid killing in that situation. Then next time same situation has arisen, he wouldn't kill. His pa~n~naa has increased. But this is a long, long, long process. The legend is that it took Bodhisatta, saarasankheyya kalpa laksayak, to perfect this. Then one final conclusion. Your statement, the one started with, shows that you act as a normal human being, and all this analysis in terms of dhammas and so on is mere words or based on "blind faith" and not on knowledge. 2. "But, as Kh Sujin often said: Abhidhamma is not in the book. It is about the realities occurring now, and the investigation of them helps us to better understand anattaa." Here several aspects to consider. 1. As I mentioned above it is not Abhidhamma, it is dhamma. It is part of the realization of the First Noble Truth. The kind of investigation that you talk about is an impossibility. In fact most of our actions are just habitual. When you eat, how many millions of actions are there. Apart from anlysing them, of how many you are aware of? Look at it in another way, If somebody is trying to kill you, I can imagine you sitting down calmly and analysing the conditions. Well at this point, I would like to mention what the Buddha said about dependent-origination. It is atakkaavacaro, cannot be known by rational means, moreover, those engrossed in sensual pleasures can't see it (raagarattaa na dakkhinti.) When Ven. Ananda told the Buddha that he understand the DO, the Buddha said "maa heva.m ananda, maa heva.m aananda. Don't say so Ananda, Don't say so, It is because that both you and I couldn't understand this DO, that we have been travelling in sa.msaara for a long long time." So Kh Sujin if she has understood it, she must claim that she is an arahant or her statements are contrary to the Buddhas teaching, the Dhamma. In fact the term for Dhamma is delusion (avijjaa or moha). There is another point I wish to mention. You can understand anattaa only by the arahatta-magga. Really, if Kh Sujin thinks that you can understand anattaa, without going through the full path to its culmination, then she is talking about a Dhamma which has nothing to do with the Buddha. Dear Nina, I have no wish to argue with you anyone else. So please treat all the above as a dispassionate analysis. With kindest regards, DC (D. G. D. C. Wijeratna) #78221 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 5:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections Corner (34) nilovg Dear Connie, Op 7-nov-2007, om 14:18 heeft L G SAGE het volgende geschreven: > When akusala arises we should, again, be truthful and this can > condition sati sampaja~n~na to be aware of the characteristic of > akusala. In this way akusala can be abandoned and kusala can be > developed. -------- N: In India it was stressed several times that the akusala dhamma that is not known as it is, through awareness and direct understanding, cannot be eradicated. This is a serious warning. If we do not know when there is wrong view of self, it cannot be eradicated. So many moments of cittas that take seeing for my seeing, or hearing for my hearing pass unnoticed. The perfection of truthfulness is indispensable. It will be appreciated if you can add anything. Nina. #78222 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 5:32 am Subject: Re: Conditions, Ch17, no3. ...Some Comments... scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Thanks for the reply: T: "You wrote, 'Sati, as far as I understand, does not have pa~n~natti as object'. The most common explanation I have seen here at DSG is: a pa~n~natti does not have the ti-lakkhana characteristics. But that is not true." Scott: What does a pa~n~natti have, then? I think it is a nothing. A concept is not listed as an ultimate reality. T: "According to PTS, pa~n~natti means "making known, manifestation, description, designation, name, idea, notion, concept". Since an 'idea' is a thought, or a mind object, i.e. 'dhamma', which is one of the six external ayatana, it follows that mind objects are pa~n~natti. And we know that mind objects are not permanent." Scott: Conceptual objects arise in relation to realities - visible object, sound, taste, smell, hardness. The dhammas which are the mind door and which perform various functions within the mind door are realities. These are impermanent. T: "Of course, sati for ariyans is a 'different kind' since it is > supramundane. Worldlings are not able to take an ultimate reality as > an object of "his" citta..." > > Scott: It is sati we are discussing. Not 'wordlings' or 'ariyans'. > This is where I see you to be mistaken. The difference > between 'worldlings' and 'ariyans', in relation to sati, is really > only a difference in the degree to which sati is > developed. 'Wordlings' and 'ariyans' are concepts. > T: "The issue is not about the "difference between 'worldlings' and 'ariyans', in relation to sati" !! Whether the words 'worldlings' and 'ariyans' are concepts or not, it does not matter in the present discussion." Scott: I beg to differ. You are still failing to discriminate concepts from realities. If you were to say that sati at a level of development designated as being that of 'a worlding' is mundane, and that when sati develops by repeatedly arising with pa~n~naa in relation to this or that object over time such that it finally comes to know nibbaana as an object due to its high level of development, and is thus supramundane and designated as sati at the level of development designated as 'an ariyan', then we can let the point rest. I don't think you are saying this. T: "...No, I do not think that "dhammas are concepts until one 'becomes an ariyan' and then they are something else". I do think that non-ariyans fail to see the true dhammas in the ultimate sense and have to use concepts in order to explain things..." Scott: Sati, for example, is not 'a non-ariyan'. Sati is sati. And sati takes objects in its characteristic fashion. These objects are realities in their ultimate sense. They are mundane realities. They are not concepts. When sati arises in a moment of consciousness that takes Nibbaana as object, then this is supramundane. Too much focus on 'worldings' and 'ariyans' - concepts. T: "...The paramattha dhammas are what they are; what we worldlings think of them, considering them, listening to tapes of someone talking about them, or reading books and commentaries, do not 'make' them different from the truth." Scott: Well, enough of that already. Tep, no one here, except for Detractors and Disturbers of the Peace, thinks for a moment that things are as described in the above clause. You just don't value studying and reading and considering. So what? Live and let live, already. Too much 'I'm right, you're wrong'. Too much needless preaching and cajoling and correcting. Too many veiled put-downs. Let's just discuss, shall we? Sincerely, Scott. #78223 From: "dhammanando_bhikkhu" Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 5:36 am Subject: Re: Gandhabba/Gandhabba/Gandhabba dhammanando_... Bhante, Rev. Aggacitto, > The Pali Commentaries define gandhabba as a being that has just > passed > away...Ven.Gotama discusses it as a condition for BIRTH. > GOSH! sounds like reincarnation to me! > A BEING that has just passed away. Yes, but this is a conventional description, not a paramattha one. That is to say, when a description of rebirth is given in terms of persons, selves, or souls migrating from their old dead body to a new living one, it is not held to be true in the ultimate sense, but is merely a manner of speaking that conforms to conventional worldly usage. When a paramattha description of the rebirth process is being given, the gandhabba is no longer treated as a being, but rather is identified with the relinking consciousness. This consciousness is not an evolving self that persists through time, but rather is something that arises and passes away in a moment: "To one who is nearing death, either at the end of a thought-process or at the dissolution of bhavanga, the decease-consciousness, the consummation of the present life, arises and ceases in the way of death. "Immediately after that (death-consciousness) has ceased, a rebirth consciousness arises and is established in the subsequent existence, based on the object thus obtained, either with or without the heart-base as is appropriate, generated by kamma (sankhaara) that is enveloped by latent ignorance and rooted in latent craving. That rebirth (or relinking) consciousness, so called because it links together the two consecutive existences, is conjoined with its mental co-adjuncts, and acts as the fore-runner to the conascent states as their locus (or foundation - adhitthaanabhaavena)." (Abhidhammatthasangaha V 12). If you would like to read the full account, click on this link: http://www.palikanon.com/english/sangaha/chapter_5.htm and scroll down to the section titled "Procedure with Regard to Decease and Rebirth". Best wishes, Dhammanando #78224 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 5:39 am Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) truth_aerator Hi Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Scott: That was then, this is now. >>>>>> Dhamma is Akaliko, visible here and now. >>>> > I think that imagining that this time frame might go for us too, if we > just work hard enough, is nonsense produced by the popularisation and > perversion of the Dhamma and amounts to just getting way too excited. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > With that attitude... Of course it may be hard, heck... Impossible. Remember one of the indriyas is Confidence. Are you that not confident in Buddha's teaching or your own abilities??? As long as you have not commited 5 heinous crimes and as long as you aren't dull, and no kamma obstructions, YOU CAN DO IT! Angulimala did it... Why cant you? What you say can be easily turned against you. Maybe today the Royalty class of the Monks want to be the Brahmins like those of Hindu India. Totally raising standards beyond what was written in the Suttas. Making enlightment be more than it is, a removal of craving and subjective biases... Lots of Metta, Alex #78225 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 5:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma, to DC. nilovg Dear DC, thank you for your kind post. I shall answer later on. Except one remark. Op 7-nov-2007, om 14:24 heeft DC Wijeratna het volgende geschreven: > Now you say: "You said that the Abhidhamma was considered just for > learned monks, > and now I understand your background much better." ------- N: I quote from your post Sarah showed me: I do not find this offensive at all. It was the way it was. An education with many good sides. Thanks for mentioning your grandmother. I quote it because it makes me understand better how you think of Abhidhamma. Again, I have no negative thoughts about this. I see conditions better, that is all. Next time your other points. Nina. #78226 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 5:47 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) truth_aerator Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > However, I don't agree with the characteristic of the teaching on the > not-self characteristic of conditioned dhammas as a *tool for > comprehending stress and abandoning the attachment and clinging that > function as the cause of stress*. >>>>>>> But that is exactly what the Buddha taught. For example in Anattalakhana the Buddha delivers a punch: "Is it worth to consider this as I me mine?" NO WHERE DID THE BUDDHA SAY "Thus monks, there is absolutely no self" a) This would be metaphysics and contradict his entire teaching b) This would unprovable c) This would against his pragmatic teaching which ultimately is what matters. Of course please don't read what I've said as self doctrine. I have a self is as much speculation as I don't have no self and in MN#2 Buddha has called this to be wrong reflection. > > > > I'm would not see such asking "Is this mine?", etc as having anything to > do with "release from attachment, suffering and stress" as taught by the > Buddha. That release comes only from the development of awareness and > insight, as I read the teachings. > > Thanks for bringing up the article. Happy to discuss further. > > Jon > This is HOW BUDDHA HAS TAUGHT NOT SELF. Is it constant or not? Is what is inconstant easeful or stressful? IS IT WORTH TO BE CONSIDERED AS MINE? Maybe this is why there are so few arahants today......... :( Lots of Metta, Alex #78227 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 5:50 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon buddhistmedi... Hi friend Howard (and all), This is one of a few of your replies (less than 10%) that do not leave any door of communication open ! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > > I'm sorry, Tep, but the material you quote neither says nor implies that a past paramattha dhamma, can, itself, and not just a memory of it, be object of current consciousness. In fact, it doesn't deal with that issue at all. > What it says is that no dhamma, past, present, or future, or of any sort, is anything other than anatta. > > With metta, > Howard > T: I respect your opinion & intelligence, Howard. So I shall leave it at that point. :-) People here lately seemed to have very 'short fuses'. Many doors have been slammed shuts ! People have become less tolerant to difference in opinion and disagreement !! Is this because it is the week after the Halloween Day ? Tep ==== #78228 From: "dhammanando_bhikkhu" Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 6:15 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) dhammanando_... Hi Alex, > Why did he have to live all 7 lives? He could have been reborn in > Tusita heaven and then reborn for the final time on Earth. Tusita devas don't live long enough for this to be possible. For that matter, neither does Tusita itself. The destructions and evolutions of the Cakkavaa.la that occur in the interval between two Buddhas leave only certain of the highest Brahma heavens intact. Best wishes, Dhammanando #78229 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 6:20 am Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Thanks for the reply: A: "Dhamma is Akaliko, visible here and now." Scott: But what is visible here and now? Do you think that this supports your idea that just getting excited enough will hasten the arising of the Path? A: "With that attitude... Of course it may be hard, heck... Impossible." Scott: What is an 'attitude', Alex? I think it is nothing more than wishing, which is totally beside the point. Why do you think that Dhamma has to do with 'attitude'? The Buddha wasn't one of those charlatans who get people to pay money to come to exciting seminars to hear about 'attitude' and its non-existent effects on getting anything you feel entitled to. A: "...Remember one of the indriyas is Confidence. Are you that not confident in Buddha's teaching or your own abilities??? As long as you have not commited 5 heinous crimes and as long as you aren't dull, and no kamma obstructions, YOU CAN DO IT! Angulimala did it... Why cant you?" Scott: Please stop cheerleading, Alex. This isn't a hockey game and I'm not your favourite team. I can't do anything. This is a matter of the ongoing impersonal development of kusala dhammas. And, while I'm at it, please don't misunderstand saddhaa. I don't wish to compare saddhaa or get into who has or doesn't have it. I'd be happy to consider this mental factor with you if you're interested. A: "What you say can be easily turned against you. Maybe today the Royalty class of the Monks want to be the Brahmins like those of Hindu India. Totally raising standards beyond what was written in the Suttas. Making enlightment be more than it is, a removal of craving and subjective biases..." Scott: And please stop preaching. And please stop grinding an axe. I'll be happy to consider the Dhamma with you but I find the above to be a rather non-peaceful way of going about anything. Sincerely, Scott. #78230 From: Dieter Möller Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 7:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) moellerdieter Hi KO, you wrote: KO: In the arisen of cetasikas, usually (not always) there would be arisen of Chanda and Adhimokkho, these are the cetasikas thatcondition "wish to do" and decision, there is no I involved in the process. Non action in our stand is not to purposedly to do it as cetasikas like Chanda and Adimokkho already condition it, supported by our accumulations. When we want to study more dhamma, it is chanda that conditioned it. When we decide what to do with our spare time, adhimokkho already done its job. This is further support by our citta as citta thinks. Where is there an I, in such conditioning. ' D: could you try to explain the above in conventional / practical terms ( Pali put in bracket only) ? with Metta Dieter #78231 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 2:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 11/7/2007 1:05:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard, I'm sorry that my post was so badly written. At the time of posting they always seem quite clear, but when I read them back afterwards I often have to wonder what on earth I was on about! :-) ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: While I had a couple questions, I didn't think your post was badly written! --------------------------------------------------- -------------- KH: > >Which came first? Was there a conventional reality which then had to be explained by a theory of ultimate reality? Or was there an ultimate reality which then had to be explained by a theory of conventional reality? I believe the latter. > > > Howard: Me, too. :-) > KH: > > And so I have no trouble believing that citta can experience a dhamma that has just fallen away. > > > Howard: I consider that a non sequitur. > ----------------- Let me rephrase it. In the reality described by the Abhidhamma, citta can directly know a dhamma that has just fallen away. That is how is it is! I don't care how hard it might be to believe. I don't care if conventional logic says it is impossible. That is how it is in the ultimate reality described by the Abhidhamma. As they say in your country: "Deal with it!" "Get over it!" :-) ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: You write "That is how it is!" Well, maybe so, but I have no reason to believe it, there being good reasons to suspect it to not be the case, such as what I wrote to you. In any case, I tend to avoid saying "That is how it is!" even about far less problematical matters, because I do not accept a principle or a habit of intransigent belief-by-faith. The Buddha cautioned against that, and I consider this to be very good advice. Now, perhaps somewhere in the Abhidhamma Pitaka it does say that there can be knowing of a no-longer-existing dhamma directly and not by mere recollecting. I certainly have read Nina and Khun Sujin to have said this. Where in the Abhidhamma is that stated? Can you or anyone else point that out and provide a quote? If it IS in the Abhidhamma itself that would certainly give me reason to further consider the matter. The problem is that *directly* knowing what has fallen away would seem to involve a kind of transcending of time and also be suggestive of the ancient Sarvastivadin heresy of dhammas continuing to exist in some manner throughout past, present, and future. But if it were in the Abhidhamma Pitaka, I would more strongly consider the possibility of my missing something here. ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ H: > In any case, what has just fallen away does not exist, and it thus cannot be an object of consciousness. ------------------------ But if it is immediately taken as an object of consciousness then perhaps we could say it still exists to that extent.(?) I don't know. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Now, here you have said something I really respect, Ken: "perhaps" and "I don't know." I don't know either. -------------------------------------------------------- All I know is, according to the Abhidhamma a just-fallen-away dhamma can become the object of consciousness. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Perhaps it is a fact according to the Abhidhamma. I would like to have that issue put to rest one way or the other, and then go on from there. ------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- <. . .> KH: > > That is the way it is in ultimate reality! The fact that there might not be an exact equivalent in conventional reality does not worry me **one iota.** > > > Howard: I'm not talking about "conventional reality," but about reality. What has fallen away has, in reality, ceased and no longer exists. It is fiction. It is not present, not current, not existent. > ------------------------------------ Which reality would that be? It is not the one described in the Abhidhamma. To the extent that a just-fallen-away dhamma can become an object of consciousness it is not non-existent. ------------------------------------------- Howard: Here I don't know what you are talking about. What has fallen away, i.e., ceased, does not exist. It DID exist, but it no longer does. It seems to me that anyone who really doesn't think so either doesn't understand the words or is a modified eternalist like the Sarvastivadins or is out of his/her mind. ------------------------------------------- ---------------- H: > Don't you always say that there is only the present citta? ---------------- Now you are talking about two different things. A just-fallen-away dhamma has finished performing its functions. A presently arisen dhamma has not. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: My point was that there is but one object of consciousness at any time. Suppose, for example, that the current object of consciousness is the just-fallen-away feeling-as-pleasant of warmth. That feeling of the warmth as pleasant is no longer operative. It is over and done with, having gone out of existence when, as you said, it finished its functioning.. The object of that feeling-as-pleasant was warmth, but that is not the object of the current citta & cetasikas. The *current* object is the just-fallen-away feeling of the warmth as pleasant, and that feeling no longer exists!! It cannot be known directly, because it is nonexistent. Of course, however, it can be known indirectly by recollection. Hey, you know? Perhaps that is the sense of 'sati' in this regard. The recollection would be extremely sharp, as the prior feeling had *just* ceased. In fact, it occurs to me that this might generally be exactly the meaning of 'sati' as used by the Buddha: the recollection of what has just fallen away! ---------------------------------------------- ---------------------- <. . .> H: > > > I have no vested interest or preferred "outcome" in whether the "problem" I see is real or not. > > > KH: > > Those among us who believe in an eternal soul have a vested interest, don't they? > > > Howard: What in the world does that have to do with what is being discussed? ---------------------- Consider it an aside. It seems to me that Ven Thanissaro's teachings (that the Buddha did not teach no-self) are being strongly supported at DSG these days. Not by you, I know, but by several others. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: That's right - not by me. I just didn't understand why you were inserting that at this point. ---------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ H: > In any case, as for souls, I have no truck with any such, eternal or not. You DO know that, don't you? ------------------------------- Yes. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: :-) --------------------------------------------- -------------------- H: > > For them it is imperative that the Abhidhamma be discredited. Or at least, it is imperative that the Abhidhamma not be considered "the actual words of the Buddha." > > > Howard: I don't understand why you make such a point. Who are you talking about? -------------------- I was still talking about the externalists among us. Not about you. However, you do occasionally assert that the Abhidhamma is "not the word of the Buddha" and so, perhaps my criticisms do apply to you to some extent. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I have reason to suspect that it was not, but I do not know that to be so, and I do not presume it to be so. --------------------------------------------------- Why would anybody question the authenticity of the Abhidhamma and the ancient commentaries? It seems to me they must be swayed by something more than just the writings of a few linguistic historians. There must be an ulterior motive. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Are you into conspiracy theories, Ken? ;-)) ------------------------------------------------ But perhaps I have said enough about that for now. :-) Ken H ============================ It's good talking to you, Ken. :-) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream/ (From the Diamond Sutra) #78232 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 7:50 am Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) truth_aerator --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > Thanks for the reply: > > A: "Dhamma is Akaliko, visible here and now." > > Scott: But what is visible here and now? Do you think that this > supports your idea that just getting excited enough will hasten the > arising of the Path? >>>>>> What it teaches such as anicca, dukkha, anatta the paths and the fruits for those who diligently ardently and heedfully follow N8P. > A: "With that attitude... Of course it may be hard, heck... Impossible." > > Scott: What is an 'attitude', Alex? I think it is nothing more than > wishing, which is totally beside the point. Why do you think that > Dhamma has to do with 'attitude'? The Buddha wasn't one of those > charlatans who get people to pay money to come to exciting seminars to > hear about 'attitude' and its non-existent effects on getting anything > you feel entitled to. >>>>>>> You are right. But he also didn't say that awakening is impossible in the present life and all that. By attitude I was talking about Confidence in the Buddha's teaching and in ones own abilities. Which I what I was writting below. > > A: "...Remember one of the indriyas is Confidence. Are you that not > confident in Buddha's teaching or your own abilities??? As long as you > have not commited 5 heinous crimes and as long as you aren't dull, and > no kamma obstructions, YOU CAN DO IT! Angulimala did it... Why cant you?" > > Scott: Please stop cheerleading, Alex. This isn't a hockey game and > I'm not your favourite team. I can't do anything. >>>>>>> When you say "I can't do anything". Does that increase or hinder progress?? Is this the right expression of CONFIDENCE or is it passive resignation to fate? >>>>>>>> This is a matter of the ongoing impersonal development of kusala dhammas. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe this is why the Buddha was carefull with Anatta teaching. What you say is awfully close to a heresy of of Makkhali Gosala "There is no shortening or lengthening, no accelerating or decelerating. Just as a ball of string, when thrown, comes to its end simply by unwinding, in the same way, having transmigrated and wandered on, the wise and the foolish alike will put an end to pain.'" -DN2 Lot of Metta, I wish you lots of progress!!!! Alex #78233 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 2:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 11/7/2007 8:11:14 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Howard I follow your line of reasoning, and it is one you have mentioned before. However, I'm not sure if the problem you have is with: (a) the way the general statement is formulated ("sati and panna being able to know ONLY paramattha dhammas"), given that certain (limited) just-fallen-away dhammas are included, and these must be concepts or memories of dhammas, i.e., a matter of the wording, or (b) the idea that only those concepts that are immediately fallen away namas, and not concepts generally, can be object of sati and panna, i.e., that conceptually it seems to you that all concepts should be capable of being object of sati and panna. Would you mind indicating which of these you see as being the problem. Thanks. Jon ================================== Perhaps the post I just mailed off to KenH will serve to clarify my "problem", Jon. With metta, Howard #78234 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 7:55 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) truth_aerator Dear Han, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > Han: Okay, in that case, do you say that he lived in > Tusita Heaven just for one life time? You said > earlier that, "After Buddha Kassapa he went to Tusita > Heaven from which he came to Earth." Does that mean > that he lived in Tusita Heaven for one life time, > which covered the entire period spanning six Buddhas, > from Kassapa Buddha to Gotama Buddha? > > Respectfully, > Han > He lived after meeting Kassapa Buddha which was in this Aeon. So obviously the MAX time span was 5 X Tusita lifespan (if he became a sotapanna in BK dispensation). Lots of metta, Alex #78235 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 2:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon upasaka_howard Hi, Tep - In a message dated 11/7/2007 8:50:36 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, tepsastri@... writes: Hi friend Howard (and all), This is one of a few of your replies (less than 10%) that do not leave any door of communication open ! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > > I'm sorry, Tep, but the material you quote neither says nor implies that a past paramattha dhamma, can, itself, and not just a memory of it, be object of current consciousness. In fact, it doesn't deal with that issue at all. > What it says is that no dhamma, past, present, or future, or of any sort, is anything other than anatta. > > With metta, > Howard > T: I respect your opinion & intelligence, Howard. So I shall leave it at that point. :-) People here lately seemed to have very 'short fuses'. Many doors have been slammed shuts ! People have become less tolerant to difference in opinion and disagreement !! Is this because it is the week after the Halloween Day ? Tep ================================= In my writing "I'm sorry, Tep, but the material you quote neither says nor implies that a past paramattha dhamma, can, itself, and not just a memory of it, be object of current consciousness. In fact, it doesn't deal with that issue at all. " I do not mean to end our discussion. An appropriate way to continue it would be explain why you view what I said there to be incorrect, and to explain why you believe your quoted material *does* make the point. I haven't put the ball away - it's in your court. ;-) With metta, Howard #78236 From: Ken O Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 9:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) ashkenn2k Hi Alex > > The Nikayas have a certain feel to them unlike any other. The > content had to come from the Enlightened One, Perfectly enlightened Arahant, The Buddha. KO: in the same way, commentaries are also have the same feel unlike any other. If you close your mind to it in the first place, how would you know it is good or not good for you. I leave it here because it takes a lot of faith and open minded to learn the commentaries. As usual, we are the dinosaurs, going to extinction. But thats the way it would be, first the Abhidhamma then.... slowly the all the teachings would be gone. So I am not surprise, people do not believe in Abhidhamma and the commentaries. Nonetheless, when it is still around, there would be people who will benefit greatly. Cheers Ken O #78237 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 9:20 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon buddhistmedi... Hi Howard, - Thank you for the reply. Howard: >I do not mean to end our discussion. An appropriate way > to continue it would be explain why you view what I said there to be > incorrect, and to explain why you believe your quoted material *does* make the point. > I haven't put the ball away - it's in your court. ;-) > The ball was inflated by the air of hope that there might be some mutual benefit from the discussion. Yes, it is in my court now, but it was deflated. Tep ==== #78238 From: Dieter Möller Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 9:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) moellerdieter Hi Jon , KO and others, you wrote: ('D: I missed a statement like that because it offers- as I see it - the chance to clarify misunderstandings: the development of insight leads to No-I/Self ( anatta ), the final fetter (mana/conceit )abolished at Arahant level. Up to that state anatta is a (hypo) thesis .., isn't it?) To my understanding, there can be some experience of the characteristic of anatta well before arahantship. True, only at that stage are the 3 characteristics fully penetrated. But I believe they become partly known as mundane insight is developed. D: there are certainly temporary moments experienced as no self, absence of self. But I understand anatta to be lasting detachment ( liberated from the Khanda attachment, i.e. that is I ,that is mine ) as a result of insight development. So only here anatta becomes a fact/law. Up to that state the delusion I (that is my self) still produces action (kamma), even there may be no belief /doubt in the 'producer'. When now e.g. some people , being wordlings, talk about our reality , this existence here and now , telling other people that in fact there is no self, no persons talking, they take the Arahant position , without having any own base of that perfect view (samma ditthi). I suppose here a source of frequent disputes. J: (D. Hence we , though agreeing to the point of (I/self) delusion , need training, meditation work ' analysing in detail the khandas in order to recognise : that is not mine, that I am not, that is not my self. Only then the thesis can become a law (dhamma). As I see it, the 3 characteristics, which are characteristics of all conditioned dhammas, gradually become known as (mundane) insight into conditioned dhammas is developed. Thus, there is no need for any kind of special practice directed towards the understanding of these characteristics. D: The Buddha requested his disciples to undergo the three fold Path training of moral - meditation and wisdom ( sila - samadhi - panna ) , the development of each part to become the support of the next . This is the described way to develop insight//panna. And by the training the conditions for insight are established. Of course there is a multitude of approaches , depending on accumulations, but in general the standard is repeated in the suttas again and again. Frankly speaking I do not understand why - which seems to me an ' Abhidhammika ' point of view - this teaching is not respected/accepted. As I mentioned there are plenty of canonical sources .. e.g. A.N.III 82 (ff) "82. Bhikkhus, these three are the activities of a recluse. What three? Training in higher virtues, [1]training the mind to a higher degree and training for the higher wisdom. Bhikkhus, these three are the activities of a recluse. Therefore bhikkhus, you should train thus: Our interest will be keen, to train in higher virtues, to train the mind to a higher degree and for a higher training in wisdom." The sequence of path elements 3,4,5 for sila , 6,7,8 for samadhi and 1,2 for panna is the norm. J: (D. When I remember correctly , Khun Sujin mentioned that Sutta and Abhidhamma should not be considered as two separate entities but complementary to eachother. ) Yes, I think she would say there is only 'Dhamma', and that the 3 pitakas are all talking about the same Dhamma. D: I think she was quoted to have said 'complementary ' and that is different in meaning from what you mention , isn't it? J: (D:For the benefit of a complete picture , I believe our 'Abhidhammika' friends' could give a bit more attention to the sutta nikaya , trying to support their point from those sources and enable so more members to reach a consens understanding about the teaching. ) I think that most of the texts quoted here are from the Sutta Nikaya. Even Nina's Abhidhamma writings are full of sutta quotes (see her ADL for a good example of this)! D: quotation does not necessarily mean, that the sutta is has been read and contemplated , does it? ;-) Nina for example - and that is not so serious of course ;-) - talked several weeks ago about her intention to read a sutta I recommended in relation to a quotation for further discussion. I know she is quite busy .. and so you may be too .. (missing to take a look into M.N. 22 and A.N. as suggested...) Hence my proposal again in line with a complementary approach: For the benefit of a complete picture , I believe our 'Abhidhammika' friends' would be well advised not to neglect the 'conventional ' teaching . with Metta Dieter #78239 From: Ken O Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 9:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (2) ... Banana & Mango ashkenn2k Hi Tep But if there are no persons (puggalas), or the role of > Dhamma practitioners is nil, then why was it necessary for the wise author of the Fourth Book to take a trouble to write such a book in the first place? KO: In each of the seven books, it is dealt specifically for a subject. The book is known as Puggalas Pannati, this is an important book because in many instances of the sutta, there were many different types of puggalas. Inside the book, for eg it explains what are the three types of sick man or different path learner etc. Reading the book would helps understand its meaning when being said in the sutta. This is the reason based on my personal opinion. Cheers Ken O #78240 From: Ken O Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 10:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon ashkenn2k Hi Tep What Nina said on message 78101 is another method used in describing past which is fourfold according to extent, continuity, period and moment (this is said in Dispeller of Delusion para 26), which is consistent to what we are saying especially about the last fourfold - moment. According to para 24 24. But in the Abhidhamma description the divison is by way of moment (khana). For there are three moments of materiality, arising, presence and dissolution. The materiality which has ceased after arriving at these three moments, whether it has just ceased or whether in the past at a distance of a hundred thousand kotis of aeons, is all called past. Materiality which has not arrived at the three moments, whether it has not arrived by only as much as one moment of consciouness, or whether in the future at the end of a hundred thousand kotis of aeons, is all called future. Materiality which has arrived at these three moments is called present. Cheers Ken O #78241 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 11:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon nilovg Hi Tep (and Howard), there are two issues: 1.past and future ruupas are ruupas, not concepts. issue 2: can they be objects of satipatthana? It depends in what sense we take past: what is just fallen away can still be the object of satipatthana, such as in a following mind-door process. We used the word photocopy. This has to do with sati, not merely with sa~n~naa, Howard. Sa~n~naa accompanies every citta, sati does not. But being overwhelmed by the number of posts, I stop for a while. Other work is waiting. Nina. Op 6-nov-2007, om 20:47 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > Since past and future ruupas cannot be object of satipatthana, does > it follow that they are not paramattha dhamas ? If your answer is yes, > then you contradict to Nina's words in message $ 78101 ! #78242 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 11:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1), "Paging Yogacara"? nilovg Hi Elaine, Op 6-nov-2007, om 22:12 heeft Elaine het volgende geschreven: > Elaine: If there is past kusala which can condition akusala and > past akusala that can condition kusala, with these kusala and > akusala conditioning each other like that, on and on, aeons after > aeons, how is Nibbana attainable? N: By the development of right understanding that sees realities as they are. No other way. This includes kusala, akusala and all other realities. Pa~n~naa can be accumulated, and it can grow. Nina. #78243 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 11:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) nilovg Dear Dr Manish, very kind of you to post on our list. I am overwhelmed by the number of posts and I have a suggestion. I know that people are discouraged when they see a long post. If you would cut it up into smaller ones, more poeple will read your posts. Do you like this idea? I have to wait a while and will then only take up a part of your post. My physical abilities are limited because of age. Nina. Op 6-nov-2007, om 23:09 heeft vipassana_infonet het volgende geschreven: > dr han's views were stimulating and so I jump in here...this is what > little I understand. please correct me, if I am wrong and forgive me. > > pannatti is all about concepts and apparent truths. but, even if they > are apparent - they are still truths! > > ven. ledi sayadaw said: "pannatti thapetva visesena passati'ti > vipassana" > > vipassana is all about seeing the ultimate truths > (paramattha) with panna. and the utlimate truths are about nama-rupa > (and also nibbana). #78244 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 7:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Tep) - In a message dated 11/7/2007 2:25:09 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Tep (and Howard), there are two issues: 1.past and future ruupas are ruupas, not concepts. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Certainly. (I'd say "They *were* rupas" rather than "They *are* rupas", but, yes, I certainly agree.) --------------------------------------------------- issue 2: can they be objects of satipatthana? It depends in what sense we take past: what is just fallen away can still be the object of satipatthana, such as in a following mind-door process. We used the word photocopy. This has to do with sati, not merely with sa~n~naa, Howard. Sa~n~naa accompanies every citta, sati does not. But being overwhelmed by the number of posts, I stop for a while. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, sati isn't ordinary recollection. As a recollection, it seems to be one that is precursor to and support for wisdom. But there still does remain the question of what is happening when there is the knowing of a just-passed dhamma with mindfulness (sati) or by any mode of knowing, for that matter. The question is whether the knowing can be a *direct* knowing. I think that when the knowing is a knowing with mindfulness or wisdom, it certainly is an extremely clear and insightful knowing, but that it is literally impossible for it to be a *direct* knowing, it being impossible to *directly* know what is not present. However, even though the just-passed dhamma no longer exists, it *was* that dhamma that served as direct condition for the current knowing, and it is the nature of that dhamma that is known - so there is no harm in *saying* that that dhamma is object condition for the current state, so long as one realizes that the dhamma no longer exists. ----------------------------------------------------- Other work is waiting. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: No need to say more, Nina. I am aware of how busy you are!! -------------------------------------------------- Nina. ========================= With metta, Howard #78245 From: han tun Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 2:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) hantun1 Dear Alex, Thank you very much for your kind clarification. Alex: He lived after meeting Kassapa Buddha which was in this Aeon. So obviously the MAX time span was 5 X Tusita lifespan (if he became a sotapanna in BK dispensation). ---------------- Han: But you are not sure whether he became a Sotaapanna in BK dispensation, are you? I ask this question because you used the word “if” - (if he became a sotapanna in BK dispensation). One of your previous posts also showed this uncertainty by using the words “may or may not.” “Buddha May or may not have become a Sotapanna under Buddha Kassapa. If he did then it wouldn't change the fact that according to 4 main Nikayas he did NOT take a vow and all the other "Bodhisattva stuff.” http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/78163 ---------------- Furthermore, I would like to draw your kind attention to Ven Dhammanando Bhikkhu’s post, which was addressed to you. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/78228 “Tusita devas don't live long enough for this to be possible. For that matter, neither does Tusita itself. The destructions and evolutions of the Cakkavaa.la that occur in the interval between two Buddhas leave only certain of the highest Brahma heavens intact.” --------------- Respectfully, Han #78246 From: "vipassana_infonet" Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 1:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dr han tun, sarah and nina vipassana_in... respected dhamma teachers and elders nina and dr han, please accept my regards and greetings. respected nina: many thanks for your reply. please give enough rest to your mind-body and feel free to ignore my posts and questions(past or even this one). your well-being comes first. my questions were not exactly about a sotapanna who attained nirodha-samapatti, as I very well know that this is not possible. anyways, I had asked too many questions ...and with this time lag, things have become blurred. anicca !!! we may need to slowly start afresh. I, too, need some time. I may send just a few question/s and/or short post/s, as and when required, as you have suggested. at my end, I am overwhelmed with lot of study work and so I am taking time to RE-start my interaction again with you and dr han, afresh. respected dr han: I have been thinking about pannatti, sammuti and paramattha and I felt that I may have missed a point or two. please feel free to correct me, wherever I go wrong - so that I may be able to know my mistakes. you will be doing a great service to me by pointing the errors. I feel pannatti (concept) may be about conventional truth (sammuti)or even ultimate realities (paramattha). but, ultimately, a concept is a concept. one may intellectually understand a puggala in terms of conventional truth concept - as a puggala OR intellectually understand a puggala as nama-rupa i.e. paramattha concept - but, even then it still a concept. vipassana is going beyond concept - going beyond ALL pannatti and doing actual experiential bhavana of the paramattha realities of nama-rupa. thus, ven ledi sayadaw said: pannatti thapetva visesena passati'ti vipassana. to me, if it is EXPERIENTIAL - it is vipassana or else pannatti. you may read what ven webu sayadaw has to say on pannatti and bhavana of nama-rupa etc. He is talking about experiential abhidhamma here: http://www.webcom.com/imcuk/Webu/WEBU11.html the ven. sayadaw points out that the WHOLE tipitaka is there when one practices awareness of nama-rupa you may read the paragraph titled "two fold method" in the intro to the abhidhamma book by bhikkhu bodhi: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/abhiman.html as far as the bodhisatta being a sotapanna is concerned, I have already written a lot in my last long and rambling post. just one more point: the bodhisatta was not a sotapanna or else he could not have passed through so many births, as mentioned in the jatakas. those who take a strong vow - do not become an ariya - till their target is reached - till they fulfill their paramis. with warm regards and much metta to respected elders nina and dr han. may both of you be healthy and happy, always. please take good care. manish agarwala #78247 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 1:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Gandhabba/Gandhabba/Gandhabba egberdina Dear Ven Dhammanado, On 08/11/2007, dhammanando_bhikkhu wrote: > > > Yes, but this is a conventional description, not a paramattha one. > That is to say, when a description of rebirth is given in terms of > persons, selves, or souls migrating from their old dead body to a new > living one, it is not held to be true in the ultimate sense, but is merely > a manner of speaking that conforms to conventional worldly usage. > > When a paramattha description of the rebirth process is being given, > the gandhabba is no longer treated as a being, but rather is > identified with the relinking consciousness. This consciousness is not > an evolving self that persists through time, but rather is something > that arises and passes away in a moment: > > "To one who is nearing death,......." Am I wrong in reading this as a conventional description? " either at the end of a thought-process > or at the dissolution of bhavanga, the decease-consciousness," And this is a paramattha description? > the > consummation of the present life, arises and ceases in the way of > death. And back again to a conventional description? > > "Immediately after that (death-consciousness) has ceased, a rebirth > consciousness arises and is established in the subsequent existence, The subsequent existent of what? > based on the object thus obtained, either with or without the > heart-base as is appropriate, generated by kamma (sankhaara) that is > enveloped by latent ignorance and rooted in latent craving. That > rebirth (or relinking) consciousness, so called because it links > together the two consecutive existences, See above. Are you able to make your point without recourse to conventional description? Herman #78248 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 2:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anatta of "Self" and the World egberdina Hi Alex, On 01/11/2007, Alex wrote: > > > "Feeling" feels suffering. There is no need to include any sort of > metaphysical (unprovable in experience) entity behind experience. > Experience (of suffering or bliss) is merely that, experience. > Quite right. And that is why the Abhidhammic cleaving of reality, into namas that know, and rupas that are known, needs to be seen for what it is, metaphysical and unnecessary. To say that there is the seeing of red, or the feeling of pain, or the hearing of sound, is to introduce dualism into what is not-two. What is there is the red, the pain, the sound, Conceiving of experience as a coming together of namas and rupas is to conceive of what is not there, the agent of experience. Herman #78249 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 5:34 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Anatta of "Self" and the World dacostacharles Hi Alex, Good come-back. However, I have to ask: Was the Buddha deluded too while he lived? He did try to teach beings, and if the beings did not really exist then the teachings are one big delusion (lie) also. This would even mean the Buddha's enlightenment was a delusion (lie) also! Is all just delusion, or is it more delusional to see a book and convince yourself what you see is not real? Charles DaCosta #78250 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 5:56 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Buddha Gotama, a Once Returner? dacostacharles Hi Alex, You pointed out a mouth-full :-) The Mahayana stuff came after the Buddha died, but some believe the Buddha never died - just the physical body. And while dead in the minds of most - the Buddha taught (as in the Mahayana sutras, tantras, and Abidharma) . Who knows . I just that is why we have to stay focused on what is important . I will have to comment more later. Charles DaCosta _____ #78251 From: "colette" Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 10:41 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon ksheri3 Good Day Tep, > People here lately seemed to have very 'short fuses'. Many doors have > been slammed shuts ! People have become less tolerant to difference in > opinion and disagreement !! Good point, now RUN WITH IT! I was going to do a typical thing that I do but I can't remember, quickly enough, enough of the lyrics to the song RUN WITH THE WOLF by Richie Balckmore's Rainbow from the Rainbow Rising cd. So I'll have to play this by ear. lol You've made a COGNITION concerning the enivoronment you find yourself in, a part of. Why not apply Buddhist theory to the cognition? Why not, then, meditate on the theories and the cognition(s)? Allow you opinion of others that you seem to follow, to change, to evolve, to grow, etc. Discover who they are, what they want, where they intend on going i.e. coarse & speed, etc. Why would you care to join the likes of them if they are so closed minded, myopic, urethra-like? Well, if you didn't care to join their ranks then why do you follow them so dillegently and carry their behavioral characteristics before you? One way to meditate is on their ameba-like appearance or existance. You will find that it's not an ameba but more of a parasite searching for a host, aka the master-slave relationship. Do they, in their pre-ordained consciousness of superiority, actually practice the Dharma or any of the buddhist teachings when they can only supporty their single-function as a robot or a slave. Oxford, I like how Moog put that bit in on Darth Vader recently, since all members of THE EMPIRE were robots, even Darth VAder, which is exactly the way Bush is to China. <...> Apply Abhidharma theory to your cognitions Tep. Run with it, and do not be affraid to be running with it alone since you cannot be with beings that are not or are nothing more than computer generated arguments. I can get into the communist view of psuedo-inclusion through UTILITARIANISM but we all know that communism has to have somebody at the top distributing the means and that heirarchy suddenly disqualifies the structure to be communist, ask any member of a Kibutz. Facism is a different story and I'll be likely to bring in Pol Pot et al so stick to meditating on what you know which is the congition you made about the group. Maybe it isn't a group, afterall. Look into Hong Kong maybe and you'll find surprising material of how the world turns. It's not as nice as you may think or hallucinate it to actually be, being. Keep up the good analysis and now expand on your congitions, analysis, by applying the theory. Think of it as a large petri dish. After all, the Petri family of Dick Van Dyke did subscribe to the song: "we'll pilage a village and kill every one. I still love Atillha the Hun." You have to grow cultures in petri dishes so that they can be analysized. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Hi friend Howard (and all), > > This is one of a few of your replies (less than 10%) that do not leave any > door of communication open ! > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, Tep, but the material you quote neither says nor implies that > a past paramattha dhamma, can, itself, and not just a memory of it, be > object of current consciousness. In fact, it doesn't deal with that issue at > all. > > What it says is that no dhamma, past, present, or future, or of any sort, is > anything other than anatta. > > > > With metta, > > Howard > > > > T: I respect your opinion & intelligence, Howard. So I shall leave it a that > point. :-) > > People here lately seemed to have very 'short fuses'. Many doors have > been slammed shuts ! People have become less tolerant to difference in > opinion and disagreement !! > > Is this because it is the week after the Halloween Day ? > > Tep > ==== > #78252 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 4:44 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon kenhowardau Hi Howard, -------------- <. . .> > Howard: Here I don't know what you are talking about. What has fallen away, i.e., ceased, does not exist. It DID exist, but it no longer does. It seems to me that anyone who really doesn't think so either doesn't understand the words or is a modified eternalist like the Sarvastivadins or is out of his/her mind. > --------------- :-) I wouldn't be in such a hurry to come to that conclusion. The laws that guide the universe allow for some very strange things to happen. Consider an omniscient Buddha: he can see any dhamma - past, present, future, internal or external - that he directs his mind to. So he could tell you something you did (some cetana cetasika that arose) aeons in the past. Or he could tell you something you are going to do aeons in the future. How could that be possible? I'm sure it would be by more than speculative reasoning. I believe an omniscient Buddha sees those dhammas *directly.* By comparison, our citta's ability - to directly experience a just- fallen-away dhamma - seems quite mundane and run-of-the-mill. :-) Ken H #78253 From: han tun Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 5:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dr han tun, sarah and nina hantun1 Dear Dr. Manish (and Nina), You have written to me on two points. (1) Pannatti and Paramattha. (2) Bodhisatta was not a Sotaapanna. (1) Pannatti and Paramattha This is one of my weakest points. Theoretically, I know the main points of what is pannatti and what is paramattha. But on practical terms, I go by pannatti sometimes, and I go by paramattha sometimes. At times I get all mixed-up. Therefore, I cannot say that I know the subject, let alone to correct you. In fact, I can only listen to the explanations by Nina or you or someone who knows better than me. I will not be able to correct anyone on this topic, because I do not have a clear comprehension of the subject myself. I thank you very much for referring to Webu Sayadaw’s teachings, and Bhikkhu Bodhi’s two fold method. I have Bikkhu Bodhi’s book which I am referring to all the time. But I have not yet read Webu Sayadaw’s teachings. I will read it. I have also a booklet, “Realities and Concepts” by Khun Sujin. That book is also very good, especially the Questions and Answers. I feel that some of these Questions and Answers are good materials for discussion at DSG. So you see I am still learning. But the problem is: what I have learnt goes back to the book :>) and I am still confused and mixed-up again. (2) Bodhisatta was not a Sotaapanna That, I fully agree. With metta and respect, Han #78254 From: LBIDD@... Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 5:20 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,202 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII 202. Here it may be asked: 'But how is it to be known that the mentality-materiality of rebirth-linking has consciousness as its condition?' From the Suttas and from logic. For in the Suttas it is established in many places that feeling, etc., have consciousness as condition in the way beginning 'States with parallel occurrence through consciousness' (Dhs. 1522). But as to logic: From matter seen here to be born Of consciousness a man can tell That consciousness is a condition For matter when unseen as well. Whether consciousness likes it or not, [certain] material instances are seen to arise in conformity with it. And the unseen is inferred from the seen. So it can be known, by means of the consciousness-born materiality that is seen, that consciousness is also a condition for the unseen materiality of rebirth-linking. For it is said in the Pa.t.thaana that, like the consciousness-originated, also the kamma-originated has consciousness as its condition (see P.tn.1, 172-73). This is how the exposition should be known 'by manner of condition'. This is the detailed explanation of the clause 'With consciousness as condition, mentality-materiality'. ************************ 202. tattha siyaa -- katha.m paneta.m jaanitabba.m ``pa.tisandhinaamaruupa.m vi~n~naa.napaccayaa hotii''ti. suttato yuttito ca. sutte hi ``cittaanuparivattino dhammaa´´tiaadinaa (dha0 sa0 dukamaatikaa 62) nayena bahudhaa vedanaadiina.m vi~n~naa.napaccayataa siddhaa. yuttito pana, cittajena hi ruupena, idha di.t.thena sijjhati. adi.t.thassaapi ruupassa, vi~n~naa.na.m paccayo iti.. citte hi pasanne appasanne vaa tadanuruupaani ruupaani uppajjamaanaani di.t.thaani. di.t.thena ca adi.t.thassa anumaana.m hotiiti iminaa idha di.t.thena cittajaruupena adi.t.thassaapi pa.tisandhiruupassa vi~n~naa.na.m paccayo hotiiti jaanitabbameta.m. kammasamu.t.thaanassaapi hi tassa cittasamu.t.thaanasseva vi~n~naa.napaccayataa pa.t.thaane aagataati. eva.m paccayanayatopettha vi~n~naatabbo vinicchayoti. aya.m vi~n~naa.napaccayaa naamaruupanti padasmi.m vitthaarakathaa. #78255 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 5:57 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon buddhistmedi... Hi Nina, - I find this reply of yours most straightforward to understand. The original questions I asked Howard & Jon (message #78131) are : > >T: What do you say, Howard and Jon, about usefulness of a "mental construct" in meditation (either samatha or vipassana) ? For example, let's consider, say, a citta that had ruupa (or any of the five khandhas) as its object and already passed away. Can such a citta be useful as an object of satipatthana now >> > Jon: To my understanding, the object of satipatthana is always a > presently arising dhamma. > Please let me know if this does not answer your question. > > T: So, you mean a past ruupa and a future ruupa (or naama) are not > (and cannot be) objects of satipatthana? > >N (#78209): Only present realities, paramattha dhammas, can be objects of awareness and understanding. When speaking about present, I mean, awareness can arise in a following process and be aware of what just recently has fallen away. Howard referred to this. Of course, a citta with dosa must have fallen away and then after that there can be kusala citta with pa~n~naa that understands the dosa that just fell away. Its characteristtic can be known. Otherwise we could not follow the Buddha's advice in the satipatthana sutta: as to Mindfulness of citta, Mindfulness of dhamma, including the hindrances. T: I agree 100% with what you've explained. Thank you very much. Tep === #78256 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 6:02 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon buddhistmedi... Hi Jon, - We have again peacefully closed another discussion. > > > > T: Does Nina's reply contradict with yours? > > > > I don't think so, but I'll let Nina answer that. > > Always a pleasure to discuss with you, Tep. > > Jon > Nina did and I like her answer for my Point #2. Tep === #78257 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 6:14 pm Subject: Re: Paging Nina? buddhistmedi... Hi Colette, - I appreciate your thoughts in the following email. My reply to you starts at the end of the email message. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette" wrote: > > Hi Nina, > > If it's possible to speak with you? I'm replying to part of your post through a post Tep enlightened me to, firstly here: > > > > > I think your theoretical discussion helps me glimpse a tiny > speck of light at the far-away mind horizon. I am not sure if > that "light" is wisdom or just a Mara's illusion. :-) > > > > > > colette: <...> Tep isn't the only person that deals EXCLUSIVELY > with "theory" in this forum but he is the one gave rise to > the "light" you see or saw which placed the "light" as dynamic which > you had a glimpse of. This also means that the light had motion and > you witnessed the motion (this is a can of worms suddenly for myself > since now I'm seeing Semde and Longde better, I also see a sky > of "blue pancakes"). Transmutation may assist you in deciding if the light is wisdom or not. > > Tep, can I address you concerning a cold shiver I got in your reply > to Jon Nina and Howard? lol > > <...> mostly I laugh at > everything since I've been seriously unloaded upon since 1980 and > there certainly is no end in sight thus I might as well laugh until > the coranor signs my death certificate. They do not care so I can't > care for them and with what they've done to me it's quite clear what > they intend on doing for the rest of their lives and my life. > Christmas is best remembered as the time for giving and I can > certainly verify that giving has to be much better than recieving. > <...> > At least you find some pleasure from some people in this group. > > toodles, > colette > T: I am glad that my earlier comments were entertaining to you. Now please tell me about your thought on the other reply too. Why did you have a "cold shiver" ? Tep === #78258 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 6:39 pm Subject: Re: Damaging the Foundation? buddhistmedi... Hi Colette, - Thanks for the interesting conversation. But this message of yours are difficult to fully understand. So please forgive my reply if it does not sound right. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette" wrote: > > Good Morning Tep, > > > But I only suggest an off-list > > communication when there are opinionated views that may be damaging. > > .............. It is true, Colette, off-list discussions often have a "hidden agenda". You are also right about the possible dangers of "joining groups, orders". One drawback I see is that group core-members (insiders) tend to attach to the group and its 'doctrine'. You also got a good point about the difficulty in maintaining a doctrine. I do not live in Arizona, Collete. BTW what is the true meaning of LOX ? You didn't mean liquidified Oxygen gas, did you? Tep === #78259 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 6:58 pm Subject: Re: Conditions, Ch17, no3. ...Some Comments... buddhistmedi... Dear Scott, - Nina told me that I was "patient", and I thought you were more patient than I until now. This message #78222 distorts that belief a little. ;-) > T (earlier): "...The paramattha dhammas are what they are; what we worldlings think of them, considering them, listening to tapes of someone talking about them, or reading books and commentaries, do not 'make' them different from the truth." Scott(#78222 ): Well, enough of that already. Tep, no one here, except for Detractors and Disturbers of the Peace, thinks for a moment that things are as described in the above clause. You just don't value studying and reading and considering. So what? Live and let live, already. Too much 'I'm right, you're wrong'. Too much needless preaching and cajoling and correcting. Too many veiled put- downs. Let's just discuss, shall we? ........... T; I know, I know. Let's discuss the dhammas as if there were no "we". Further, let's not find fault with each other ! But, by the way, who are those "Detractors and Disturbers of the Peace"? Are they communists in hiding? Are they associated with the Burmese junta? There are some good comments you made in #78222 that I'd like to come back to discuss in my next message (soon). Tep === #78260 From: "tom" Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 6:50 pm Subject: asamvedi zorroelbueno Q. I dont know anything about philosophy. I have no use for meditation or sAdhana or scriptures. Can you give me some simple no-nonsense steps to follow in practical life? A. 1. Identify with your honest needs 2. Live in the present. 3. Be fearless - don't do anything out of fear. 4. Watch yourself unceasingly, with no motive; just be interested in yourself. 5. Be completely honest with yourself. 6. Do all your work yourself. 7. Help whoever you can who are genuinely in need of help. Don't become a professional do-gooder! Asamvedi #78261 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 10:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) jonoabb Hi Robert A Robert wrote: > Hello Jon, > > Thank you for answering my question. > > Jon: > When I said in my post to Han that a correct understanding at the > so-called intellectual level is a necessary prerequisite for the arising > of awareness, I had in mind the numerous references in the suttas to > the importance of hearing the teachings (and to the necessary > prerequisite for that, association with the right person), and to the need > for this to happen not just once or occasionally but repeatedly. > > ... > The difficult thing about all this, as I read the texts, is that > understanding cannot be made to grow by the exercise of an intention > for that to happen. It will happen only because all the right factors are > in place. > > Thus, not steps to be taken, but circumstances that occur, given the > right conditions, in their own good time. > > Robert A: > It would seem that the intention to hear the Dhamma is somehow OK, > but the intention to do any other practice would not be. > You have responded by focussing on the word "intention" and that is perfectly understandable given that I said: "Understanding cannot be made to grow by the exercise of an intention for that to happen." However, that wasn't the focus I was meaning to give to my comment. It is not intention that marks the difference I am trying to explain. So let me try again. I think what I wanted to say was: "Understanding cannot be made to grow by undertaking particular (mental) activities designed to make it arise or grow." I don't know of anything in the ancient texts, correctly understood, that says that in order to develop awarenss or insight it is necessary (or advisable) to undertake a 'practice' consisting of particular mental activities, that is to say, something done for the express purpose of arousing awareness or insight. But if you see it differently, perhaps you wouldn't mind quoting one or two examples for discussion. In the meantime, I'll work on an answer to some of the other comments in your post (which I have snipped for now). Jon #78263 From: han tun Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 10:51 pm Subject: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (5) hantun1 Dear All, [In my last post the subject was wrongly numbered. It should have been Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (5). I am so sorry.] Topic: Decline of Buddha Saasana I wrote to Sarah off-line that in Burma, some believe (but some DO NOT) the following. (1) Buddha Saasana will last only 5,000 years, and it will start to decline from the mid-point of 2,500 years. We have now passed the mid-point by 50 years. (2) When the Buddha Saasana starts to decline, Sakka, the King of devas of Taavatimsa, will protect the Buddha Saasana. We call it Sakka-saasana. Sakka is less merciful than the Buddha, and he will punish the bad people in this very life. (3) We are now in one of the four ages of earth called Kali-yuga, the age of vice, misery and bad luck. The implication of the above is that those who believe will be more afraid of the prevailing situation and they will observe the five precepts better. -------------------- Sarah asked me whether I have textual support to the above beliefs, and said that this is an example of siila being conditioned by attachment to self or fear, rather than by an understanding of the real harm of not observing siila. I replied that I do not have textual support to the above beliefs, and as regards observing five precepts, I said that although what she said was an ideal situation, observing the siila being conditioned by attachment to self or fear is better than not observing at all! -------------------- As regards Sakka-saasana and Kali-yuga, as Burmese and Thai cultures are very similar, we wondered whether Khun Sujin knew anything about them. So we asked Khun Sujin at the Meeting. Khun Sujin immediately asked me who can protect Buddha saasana? I said I do not know who can or cannot protect Buddha saasana, but I was only asking her whether she heard about these things. She then said she did not know anything about Sakka-saasana, but she knew Kali-yuga which is a Hindu belief. I do not think DSG members will also have heard about these, and this topic will be of no interest for the members. I just reported it because it was discussed at the Meeting. Respectfully, Han P.S. Thanks to Nina, we now know that there is some textual support for the decline of Buddha saasana. Kindly read Nina’s Message #78132 on "The Teachings are Dying." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/78132 I like what was written in Nina’s post: [At the last day of our pilgrimage, when we were in Patna, Acharn Sujin said: “The teachings are almost dying, let us develop right understanding”. We do not have to feel depressed when thinking of the disappearance of the teachings. On the contrary, we should have courage and cheerfulness to begin again and again developing right understanding.] ==================== #78264 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 12:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) jonoabb Hi Howard upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Jon (and Dieter) - > > In a message dated 11/6/2007 8:46:26 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, > jonabbott@... writes: > > I don't see myself as a person who believes in non-action. That is a > label that others have given to me ;-)) Clearly, there must be the > development of insight in order to progress towards enlightenment. Our > difference lies in what the teachings say as to how that insight is to > be developed. To my reading, it develops if and when the appropriate > conditions are in place. > > > =============================== > Do those conditions include any conditions underlying intentional, > conventional wholesome actions? > I think the answer is probably 'No', as I see it, but it would be helpful if you could give one or two examples of "intentional, conventional wholesome actions", so I can be sure I've understood the question. In any event, I'd have to qualify any 'No' answer by saying that the factors that are conditions for the arising of insight would also condition the arising of other kinds of kusala (i.e., all wholesome actions). Jon #78265 From: Dieter Möller Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 12:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) moellerdieter Hi Tep and Alex, you asked for my comment regarding Alex' quotatation . In his introduction to MN 22 Ven. Thanissaro writes (similar to what Alex mentioned): 'Thus it is important to focus on how the Dhamma is taught: Even in his most thoroughgoing teachings about not-self, the Buddha never recommends replacing the assumption that there is a self with the assumption that there is no self. Instead, he only goes so far as to point out the drawbacks of various ways of conceiving the self and then to recommend dropping them. For example, in his standard series of questions building on the logic of the inconstancy and stress of the aggregates, he does not say that because the aggregates are inconstant and stressful there is no self. He simply asks, When they are inconstant and stressful, is it proper to assume that they are "me, my self, what I am"? Now, because the sense of self is a product of "I-making," this question seeks to do nothing more than to induce disenchantment and dispassion for that process of I-making, so as to put a stop to it. Once that is accomplished, the teaching has fulfilled its purpose in putting an end to suffering and stress. That's the safety of the further shore. As the Buddha says in this discourse, "Both formerly and now, monks, I declare only stress and the cessation of stress." I do not know what should be wrong with that statement ..( neither do I understand why the Venerable is accused by some to be an eternalist). Please explain the objection you seem to bear..if possible in reference to the sutta (s) with Metta Dieter #78266 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 12:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] dr han tun, sarah and nina nilovg Dear Han, Op 8-nov-2007, om 2:17 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > I have also a booklet, > “Realities and Concepts” by Khun Sujin. That book is > also very good, especially the Questions and Answers. > I feel that some of these Questions and Answers are > good materials for discussion at DSG. -------- N: A good idea. Maybe you can quote a little at a time, and we can discuss? Nina. #78267 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 1:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (5) nilovg Dear Han, we discussed this a few months ago and it may be traced in Yahoo Messages. It is about a pessimistic view etc. Nina. Op 8-nov-2007, om 7:51 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > We are now in one of the four ages of earth called > Kali-yuga, the age of vice, misery and bad luck. #78268 From: han tun Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 2:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (5) hantun1 Dear Nina, Personally, I need not look for any other messages. I believe in Sakka-saasana and Kali-yuga, and I will observe the five precepts even more, whether it is conditioned by attachment to self or fear, or not. At the same time, I will take your advice to have courage and cheerfulness and to develop right understanding. Respectfully, Han #78269 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 3:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (5) sarahprocter... Dear Han, Just a brief note to thank you for all your excellent reports. I'm very impressed by how clearly you recall the details and set them out for others to share. --- han tun wrote: > Topic: Decline of Buddha Saasana > > I wrote to Sarah off-line that in Burma, some believe > (but some DO NOT) the following. ... S: As Nina, pointed out - it was here you shared the details, not off-line. > <..> > I do not think DSG members will also have heard about > these, and this topic will be of no interest for the > members. I just reported it because it was discussed > at the Meeting. ... S: I can see that all the topics you raise are of interest. As I mentioned to another friend, there is a lot of textual support for the decline of the sasana in the texts (see 'Sasana - decline' for more in 'U.P.'). > I like what was written in Nina’s post: > [At the last day of our pilgrimage, when we were in > Patna, Acharn Sujin said: “The teachings are almost > dying, let us develop right understanding”. We do not > have to feel depressed when thinking of the > disappearance of the teachings. On the contrary, we > should have courage and cheerfulness to begin again > and again developing right understanding.] ... S: Yes, this is what we are always reminded! I know you have the same attitude. The teachings may be dying, but we still have the chance to study them and to develop right understanding with 'patience, courage and good cheer', as Azita also reminds us with every post:-) If you have any further reports, pls don't think they are of no interest to others at all. Metta, Sarah ======== #78270 From: han tun Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 4:06 am Subject: Realities and Concepts (1) hantun1 Dear All, I will be presenting a series of Questions and Answers taken from the book, Realities and Concepts by Ajahn Sujin Boriharnwanaket. Comments and different opinions are welcome! -------------------- Question (1): I do not understand very well conventional realities. I see at this moment a pen. You say that when one sees that there is a pen it is evident that the sense-door process has passed and that there is already a mind-door process. I do not know how I should study or practice so that I do not let the sense-door process pass without knowing it. Sujin: One should listen to the Dhamma so that one will really understand when the object of citta (consciousness) is a concept and through which door citta knows a concept. When citta has a paramattha dhamma (ultimate reality) as object, there are no beings, people or things, there is no self. At this moment realities arise and fall away and succeed one another so rapidly that it seems that we see a thing, such as a fan. The fan rotates, and it seems that we can see rupas (matter) moving. In reality there are many series of mind-door process cittas which have a pannatti (concept) as object and thus the characteristics of the paramattha dhammas are hidden. One does not know the characteristics of the paramattha dhammas as they really are. ------------------------------ Question (2): If this is so, how can we do away with concepts? Sujin: That is not possible. However, one should understand correctly that, when one knows that there are beings, people, or things, there are at such moments mind-door process cittas which have a concept as object. ------------------------------ Metta, Han #78271 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 4:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Realities and Concepts (1) nilovg Dear Han, very good, I read it later. You do not have to type, it is on Rob K's web:< http:// www.abhidhamma.org/sujin3.htm > Nina. Op 8-nov-2007, om 13:06 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > I will be presenting a series of Questions and Answers > taken from the book, Realities and Concepts by Ajahn > Sujin Boriharnwanaket. #78272 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 4:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] India 1. sarahprocter... Dear Nina & Shiau Min, --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > India 1. > > This is an extract of a discussion held in a Thai Temple that is in > the process of being constructed, near Rajagaha. We just had lunch in > a restaurant near this temple and here a group of Malaysians from > Padang was waiting in the hall. When a Thai friend saw that they > were holding my ‘Abhidhamma in Daily life” ... S: I also thought it was like this at first, but afterwards a friend told me that a lady the group, Shiau Min, had the book in her luggage and got it out after talking to a Khun Diu from our group (and later others of us). Jon sent Shjau Min an email as suggested and mentioned DSG. He received this kind reply: Dear Jonothan and Sarah, The pleasure is mine ! I just got back Kota Kinabalu on the 4th Nov. As for the dhamma study group , I have been there often , but I only read ,did not join in the discussion . It's hard to find someone to discuss ,to share Abhidhamma , even less in Chinese. But I just a beginer , and with my poor English it's hard for me to join in .^^ ! May be after meeting you , I have more courage , Ha. Thanks anyway . With Metta , Shiau Min .... S: Shiau Min, if you are reading this, please tell us anything further about your interest in Dhamma and how you came to have 'Abhidhamma in Daily Life' in your bag. I think you told me you live in Kota Kinabalu and that copies of the book are distributed there. (I mentioned to you that Jon and I have visited KK and Mt K. several times!). How was your visit to Rajghir and the other Holy Places? .... Nina, thanks for sharing KS's good quotes from the discussions, starting with this one: > Kh Sujin said: < All dhammas are anattaa. This must be firmly > established, otherwise we think that it is ‘I’ who can exert control > over realities. For example, there is an idea of ‘I’ at the moment of > seeing, ‘I see’; at the moment of hearing, there is an idea of ‘I > hear’. Seeing is conditioned, it arises; without conditions there > could not be seeing at all.> .... Shiau Min, how does this sound to you? (Pls don't be concerned about your English at all - it's fine for us, just as in your note above!!) For me, it is the heart of Abhidhamma/Dhamma in daily life. Metta, Sarah ======= #78273 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 11:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) upasaka_howard Hi, Jon (and Robert) - In a message dated 11/8/2007 1:12:45 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: I don't know of anything in the ancient texts, correctly understood, that says that in order to develop awarenss or insight it is necessary (or advisable) to undertake a 'practice' consisting of particular mental activities, that is to say, something done for the express purpose of arousing awareness or insight. ================================= This has of course been discussed thousands of times over the years on DSG, and I don't want to rehash it yet once more. I would like to know whether the following (rom the Satipatthana Sutta) which uses "makes himself" is a correct translation from the Pali. "Furthermore, when going forward & returning, he makes himself fully alert; when looking toward & looking away... when bending & extending his limbs... when carrying his outer cloak, his upper robe & his bowl... when eating, drinking, chewing, & savoring... when urinating & defecating... when walking, standing, sitting, falling asleep, waking up, talking, & remaining silent, he makes himself fully alert." With metta, Howard #78274 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 5:25 am Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Thanks for the reply: A: "What it teaches such as anicca, dukkha, anatta the paths and the fruits for those who diligently ardently and heedfully follow N8P." Scott: You seem to believe in a literal path followed by a person. You also seem to think that a person can be diligent, ardent, and heedful. These refer also to kusala mental factors which contribute to the special qualities inherent in kusala citta. I'm thinking of viriya cetasika, for instance. A: "You are right. But he also didn't say that awakening is impossible in the present life and all that." Scott: Which 'present life'? Life in his day, I'd say. Don't you think there is a difference in the development of the dhammas of which the aggregates of the beings who actually interacted with the Buddha were composed and those of beings today? I do. A: "By attitude I was talking about Confidence in the Buddha's teaching and in ones own abilities..." Scott: Saddhaa is a mental factor - a cetasika. As such, since it arises conascently with kusala citta, it falls away - hence is impermanent. Being so, saddhaa cannot be considered to be something that a person *has*. Why? Because kusala citta does not arise continuously in ordinary cases; there is akusala citta more often in 'the flux'. Confidence is therefore not in any way a continuous state. When it arises with kusala citta it contributes its quality to that particular moment of consciousness while it is present and then no longer. It would be by conditions that kusala citta and accompanying saddhaa cetasika would arise again. What are the characteristics of saddhaa? In Dhammasa"nga.ni: "The faith which on that occasion is a trusting in, the professing confidence in, the sense of assurance..." This is clarified in Atthasaalinii: "In the exposition of the 'faculty of faith' - it is 'faith' as belief in the virtues of the Buddha, etc.; or faith is the habit of believing in the Three Jewels, the Buddha (the Order, the Law). 'Trust' is [the behaviour of mind which] has faith. It dives into the virtues of the Buddha, etc., as though breaking them and entering into them - this is 'confidence'. By this beings have abundant assurances in the virtues of the Buddha, etc. - this is 'assurance'. Or it has great assurance in them - this is 'assurance'...It makes government (over associated states) in the characteristic of choosing..." Scott: Saddhaa has confidence in kusala. A person does not have anything. A: "When you say "I can't do anything". Does that increase or hinder progress?? Is this the right expression of CONFIDENCE or is it passive resignation to fate?" Scott: I'm saying that intention, like confidence, is also a mental factor (cetanaa) is not the same as thinking about doing something - that is just a thought. Me: "This is a matter of the ongoing impersonal development of kusala dhammas." A: "Maybe this is why the Buddha was carefull with Anatta teaching. What you say is awfully close to a heresy of of Makkhali Gosala" Scott: What, are you an officer for the Dhamma Police State or something? Please take off the jack boots after you come down from your high horse. I'm happy to consider the 'heresy of Makkhali Gosala in relation to what I said, since the aim is discussion after all, but seriously dude - please try to calm down a bit. Do you want to discuss this aspect of the question with me? A: "There is no shortening or lengthening, no accelerating or decelerating. Just as a ball of string, when thrown, comes to its end simply by unwinding, in the same way, having transmigrated and wandered on, the wise and the foolish alike will put an end to pain.'" -DN2" Scott: Cool, thanks. I don't know about the 'transmigrated' though. Isn't that some other sort of heresy? Whose translation is this? A: "Lot of Metta, I wish you lots of progress!!!!" Scott: I hope you feel better now, having said this, but please spare me your condescension in the future. Can't we just discuss stuff? Sincerely, Scott. #78275 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 12:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 11/8/2007 3:09:18 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Howard upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Jon (and Dieter) - > > In a message dated 11/6/2007 8:46:26 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, > jonabbott@... writes: > > I don't see myself as a person who believes in non-action. That is a > label that others have given to me ;-)) Clearly, there must be the > development of insight in order to progress towards enlightenment. Our > difference lies in what the teachings say as to how that insight is to > be developed. To my reading, it develops if and when the appropriate > conditions are in place. > > > =============================== > Do those conditions include any conditions underlying intentional, > conventional wholesome actions? > I think the answer is probably 'No', as I see it, but it would be helpful if you could give one or two examples of "intentional, conventional wholesome actions", so I can be sure I've understood the question. ================================ Suppose we are about to embark on a series of actions, we then think it over and realize that harm to others is likely to occur if we take these actions, and so we chooses to refrain from them. That's the sort of thing I have in mind. (You know, good actions taken by people who actually live in this world. Just a drop of unwholesome sarcasm thrown in, Jon! LOL!) Gotta rush - leaving for the hospital; for a routine colonoscopy. With metta, Howard #78276 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 5:36 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (70) nichiconn Dear Friends, Part 9 13. Viisatinipaato 5. Subhaakammaaradhiitutheriigaathaava.n.nanaa verse: 344. "Rajata.m jaataruupa.m vaa, na bodhaaya na santiyaa; neta.m sama.nasaaruppa.m, na eta.m ariyaddhana.m. 342. Neither silver nor gold is [conducive] to awakening or peace. This is not proper for ascetics. This is not the wealth of the noble ones. txt: Yasmaa rajata.m jaataruupa.m vaa, na bodhaaya na santiyaa na magga~naa.naaya na nibbaanaaya hotiiti attho. Neta.m sama.nasaaruppanti eta.m jaataruuparajataadipariggahavatthu, tassa vaa parigga.nhana.m sama.naana.m saaruppa.m na hoti. Tathaa hi vutta.m "na kappati sama.naana.m sakyaputtiyaana.m jaataruuparajatan"ti-aadi (cuu.lava. 446). Na eta.m ariyaddhananti eta.m yathaavuttapariggahavatthu saddhaadidhana.m viya ariyadhammamayampi dhana.m na hoti, na ariyabhaavaavahato. Tenaaha "lobhanan"ti-aadi. Pruitt: 342. Since neither silver nor gold is [conducive] to awakening or peace, they arenot [conducive] to either knowing the path or to quenching. That is the meaning. This is not proper for ascetics (n' eta.m sama.na-saarupa.m) means: this acquisition of possessions such as gold and silver or taking possession of them is not proper (saaruppa.m na hoti) for ascetics who are sons of the Sakyans. This is not the wealth of noble ones (ariya-ddhana.m) means: this property and possessions as stated above are not the wealth (dhana.m) consisting of the characteristics of the noble ones (ariya-dhamma-maya.m) such as the wealth of faith, etc. (saddhaadi-dhana.m). This is because they do not bring about the state of being a noble one (ariya-bhaavaavahato). Therefore she said [the verses] beginning: This is being greedy. verse: 345. "Lobhana.m madana~nceta.m, mohana.m rajava.d.dhana.m; saasa"nka.m bahu-aayaasa.m, natthi cettha dhuva.m .thiti. 343. This is being greedy, and [it is] intoxication, stupefaction, increase of defilement, [being] full of suspicions, and [having] many troubles. There is no permanent stability here. txt: Tattha lobhananti lobhuppaadana.m. Madananti madaavaha.m. Mohananti sammohajanana.m. Rajava.d.dhananti raagarajaadisa.mva.d.dhana.m. Yena pariggahita.m, tassa aasa"nkaavahattaa saha aasa"nkaaya vattatiiti saasa"nka.m, yena pariggahita.m, tassa yato kuto aasa"nkaavahanti attho. Bahu-aayaasanti sajjanarakkha.naadivasena bahuparissama.m. Natthi cettha dhuva.m .thitiiti etasmi.m dhane dhuvabhaavo ca .thitibhaavo ca natthi, ca~ncalamanava.t.thitamevaati attho. 343. There, being greedy (lobhana.m) means: producing greed (lobh'-uppaadana.m). Intoxication (madana.m) means: bringing about intoxication (madaavaha.m). Stupefaction (mohana.m) means: producing delusion (sammoha-janana.m). Increase of defilement (raja-va.d.dha-na.m) means: bringin up the defilements of passion, etc. (raaga-rajaadi-sa.mva.d.dhana.m). Whoever has grasped it goes on to doubt (aasa"nkaaya) immediately after that production of doubt (aasa"nk'-aavaha-ttaa), thus [this is being] full of suspicions (saasa"ka.m). That is why it produces doubt (aasa"nk'-aavaha.m) from somewhere or other for the one who has grasped it. This is the meaning. [Having] many troubles (bahu-aayaasa.m) means: very exhausting (bahu-parissama.m) because [it requires] protecting one's own people, etc. There is no permanent (dhuva.m) stability (.thiti) here means: there is no stability (.thiti-bhaavo) or permanence (dhuva-bhaavo) in that wealth. It is wavering and unsteady. That is the meaning. ===to be continued, connie #78277 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 5:37 am Subject: Re: Conditions, Ch17, no3. ...Some Comments... scottduncan2 Dear Tep, You're the man: T: "Nina told me that I was "patient", and I thought you were more patient than I until now. This message #78222 distorts that belief a little. ;-)" Scott: Nina's right about you and you're right about me! Ha Ha. Everyone wins! T: "I know, I know. Let's discuss the dhammas as if there were no 'we'..." Scott: Let's discuss as if there were a 'we', knowing there isn't. It what we do anyway so - easy! T: "Further, let's not find fault with each other ! But, by the way, who are those "Detractors and Disturbers of the Peace"? Are they communists in hiding? Are they associated with the Burmese junta?" Scott: Ha - good one. I'm tending to think they might actually be aliens from some other planet. Mums the word, though. I've been a Disturber of the Peace in my day, as have you and others. I'd say the Detractors would be those who seem to come, not to discuss, but just to be provocative and contrary. These sorts of interactions just don't go anyway, although might condition patience for some. Its just me but Dhamma discussion is contemplation of Dhamma and a sort of peaceful vibe is always good for that. T: "There are some good comments you made in #78222 that I'd like to come back to discuss in my next message (soon)." Scott: Looking forward to it, Tep. Sincerely, Scott #78278 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 5:56 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) buddhistmedi... Hi Dieter (and Alex, KenH, Scott), - You asked me to "explain the objection" that I seemed to have concerning tne Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu's introctory remark to MN 22. But let's step back in time a little. A few days ago Alex wrote: > > >A: Here is a good paragraph about "self issue" written by Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Regardless of your opinion of him - what he wrote is pure Gold. ... ... Hopefully this helps, Lots of Metta, Alex So I asked you two as follows: > >T: Usually when I tell someone, usually a kid, "I hope that helps you", the intention is to give the kid some advice to help solve his problem. But I am not sure what problem do you think we have here and how this article may help us. And you replied : >Dieter: I do not know what should be wrong with that statement ..( neither do I understand why the Venerable is accused by some to be an eternalist). Please explain the objection you seem to bear..if possible in reference to the sutta (s) T: Where did you see "the objection", Dieter? ;-)) Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Dieter Möller wrote: > > Hi Tep and Alex, > > you asked for my comment regarding Alex' quotatation . > > In his introduction to MN 22 Ven. Thanissaro writes (similar to what Alex mentioned): > #78279 From: Dieter Möller Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 6:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) moellerdieter Hi Jon ( Howard and others) , you wrote: I don't know of anything in the ancient texts, correctly understood, that says that in order to develop awarenss or insight it is necessary (or advisable) to undertake a 'practice' consisting of particular mental activities, that is to say, something done for the express purpose of arousing awareness or insight. D: Jon, I am afraid one need to copy a big part of the Canon to show you otherwise. For a beginning please have a look at A.N.I 35 (382-563) http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/Anguttara1/1-ek\ anipata/016-Ekadhammapali-e.html or A.N. I 26 ( extract ) 297. Bhikkhus, if you develop and make much this one thing, it invariably leads to weariness, cessation, appeasement, realization and extinction. What is it? It is recollecting the Teaching, ... re ... the Community, ... re ... virtues, ... re ... benevolence,. ... re ... gods ... re ... mindfulness of in breaths and out breaths, ... re ... death, ... re ... mindfulness of the body, ... re ... mindfulness of appesement . If this single thing is recollected and made much, it invariably leads to weariness, cessation, appeasement, realization and extinction. ...with the question whether a 'practice consisting of particular mental activities 'is involved? With Metta Dieter #78280 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 6:42 am Subject: Re: Realities and Concepts (1) ... Citta and We... buddhistmedi... Dear Han, - You told us at the beginning that " comments and different opinions are welcome". So I assume that you are in the position to speak for Khun Sujin, when someone asks questions about her teachings. Sujin: One should listen to the Dhamma so that one will really understand when the object of citta (consciousness) is a concept and through which door citta knows a concept. When citta has a paramattha dhamma (ultimate reality) as object, there are no beings, people or things, there is no self. At this moment realities arise and fall away and succeed one another so rapidly that it seems that we see a thing, such as a fan. The fan rotates, and it seems that we can see rupas (matter) moving. T: Is 'we' the same as 'citta', or is 'we' one entity and 'citta' another? Thank you in advance. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear All, > > I will be presenting a series of Questions and Answers > taken from the book, Realities and Concepts by Ajahn > Sujin Boriharnwanaket. Comments and different opinions > are welcome! > #78281 From: "Phil" Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 6:55 am Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) philofillet ?@Hi Jon Not to debate, but just to ask whether Vism. is considered an "ancient text." I'm studying it these days, and it is an incredibly detailed compendium of specific practices. My goodness, chapter after chapter on how to choose meditation subjects. I'm sure I'm missing something - it must be in the "correctly understood" - but isn't Vism. an ancient text? And it can't be said that it is only for people of advanced understanding who dealt directly with the Buddha etc. because it came later and there are passages referring to "clansmen who are beginners", and also, in the section on the various kasinas, there is reference to people to whom the object comes naturally, and others who must make it intentionally. So how is Vism explained away by AS and you folks? I had best get accustomed to that one ASAP because I am in love with Vism. these days, no doubt for all the wrong-view reasons! :) Is it because above you says "awareness and insight" rather than samadhi? That doesn't make sense to me because samadhi is clearly condition for insight. Metta, Phil p.s as for the suttanta, there are many many suttas which point at intentional practices. But they - as shared by those who are enthusiastic about them - are always written off by Sujinists so I guess they do not fall within the awfully tight little "correctly understood" category. > I don't know of anything in the ancient texts, correctly understood, > that says that in order to develop awarenss or insight it is necessary > (or advisable) to undertake a 'practice' consisting of particular mental > activities, that is to say, something done for the express purpose of > arousing awareness or insight. #78282 From: Dieter Möller Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 7:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) moellerdieter Hi Tep (Alex and..) you wrote: 'T: Where did you see "the objection", Dieter? ;-)) D: sorry, Tep ...you are right..;-) when Alex wrote 'regardless of your opinion of him' I assumed somehow objection to follow.. I wonder by what reasons Ven. Thanissaro is criticized .. with Metta Dieter #78283 From: "reverendaggacitto" Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 7:08 am Subject: Malaysia is an interesting place to be! reverendagga... Hi everybody! i'm enjoying Malaysia while i'm here! i decided to stay an extra few day's and see some more. As well i'll take this opportunity to say thank's to Herman for your comment's re:Gandhabba/Gandhabba/Gandhabba. i would have put it a little differently,but you saved me some time! May the Buddha's, Deva,and Angel's bless ALL of you! bhikkhu aggacitto/aka reverend aggacitto #78284 From: han tun Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 7:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Realities and Concepts (1) ... Citta and We... hantun1 Dear Tep (and Nina), I am not going to answer questions on behalf of Khun Sujin, but Nina will kindly do that. So you can ask any questions you like, and Nina will answer. Respectfully, Han #78285 From: "somo" Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 5:29 am Subject: After a long period of no study - how to get started again seonai I studied Buddhism and meditation many years ago with the Thai temple in London and would now like to get back into studying Ahbiddhamma and some meditation. Has anyone got any ideas as to how to go about this from a distance? The nearest I ever got to what I interpreted as 'understanding' was after reading Ajahn Buddhadassa's book Patticasamutpraba. Seonai #78286 From: "colette" Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 9:45 am Subject: Re: Paging Nina? ksheri3 Hi Tep, As for the "cold shiver" I received when I read your response to Nina it was more of a jest THROUGH THE IMPLICATION that "others", myself included, do not give you much of whatever it is you're looking for. In fact, based on your current reply to me stating that you consider my reply to you was gained BECAUSE your reply to Nina was/is an amusement to me. I am certainly "amused" when I see that others have similar insights to things, as myself; that, the near-equality, is a joyful experience for myself since I am "wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy out there" through my study of the esoteric. In the case of buddhism that would mean tantra, dzogchen, etc.: Any person studying these techniques is automatically categorized as being a serious student, which I am and have no problems with that, but is viewed, by the outside public as being "flatline" after having conformed to a rigorous training in doctrine and theory. Certainly I take responsibility for having that impression of my self manifested but there is nothing I can do about it since people do tend to conform themselves to their perceptions of those that study such obscure practices. So lets move on to another of your responses to me based on your uncertainty, or confusions. toodles, colette #78287 From: "colette" Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 9:57 am Subject: Re: Damaging the Foundation? ksheri3 Back again Tep, Since I worked on an aircraft carrier in the Navy I understand the functions of LOX, yes, it is Liquid Oxygen but Lox also goes well with bagels. I often get the two versions of Lox and LOX confused since in social situations when people speak the fail to tell me when LOX is pronounced with all caps or when it is pronounced by capitalizing the first letter. FAst talkers are like that and so I tend to play their game and remove any support lines that may occur in their competition to have life. If you ever studied guerrilla warfare you would know that an army cannot survive without supply lines so it's generally good prudent behavior to cut those supply lines off before engaging the enemy. Anyway, once they realize that their front lines have been compromised it tends to give the ego- maniac pause before they go off into Never-Never-Land or is that the Land of Nod? ------------------------------------------------ > Thanks for the interesting conversation. But this message of yours are > difficult to fully understand. colette: "fully understand", does that mean that any and all persons need to be of the "elementary school" level when they communicate between themselves, to others, or to you? We can go back throughout history and find childrens stories that are soooooo complex that it is almost impossible to "fully understand" even in our day & age let-alone the day & age that the story was written in. ---------------------------------------- > It is true, Colette, off-list discussions often have a "hidden agenda". > You are also right about the possible dangers of "joining groups, > orders". One drawback I see is that group core-members (insiders) tend > to attach to the group and its 'doctrine'. You also got a good point > about the difficulty in maintaining a doctrine. > colette: all ya have to do is remember that a person can only step in the same stream or river once. AFter that first time it's a change or a changing thing. ----------------------------- > I do not live in Arizona, Collete. > colette: cool. Now I'm more enlightened. ---------------------------------- > BTW what is the true meaning of LOX ? You didn't mean liquidified > Oxygen gas, did you? go back to the top. toodles, colette #78288 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 10:37 am Subject: Preserving the Buddha's Teachings, no 8. nilovg Dear friends, We read in the Commentary to the “Middle Length Sayings” (III, 134, Baddhekaratta Sutta, Discourse on “One Single Excellent Night” [1]), that the Buddha, in the Heaven of Thirtythree, taught the Abhidhamma in alternation with the Baddhekaratta Sutta to the devas who could not penetrate the profound and detailed teaching of the Abhidhamma on rúpa and arúpa (nåma) that have the three characteristics (of dukkha, impermanence and non-self). We read in the “Bhaddekaratta Sutta of Lomasakangiya” that the deva Candana approached the venerable Lomasakangiya and asked him whether he remembered the exposition and analysis of the Baddhekaratta Sutta. It appeared that both of them could not remember this, but Candana remembered the verses. He related that the Buddha had taught these when he dwelled in the Heaven of the Thirtythree. They are the following verses: The past should not be followed after, the future not desired. What is past is got rid of and the future has not come. But whoever has vision now here, now there of a present dhamma, The unmovable, unshakable, let him cultivate it [2]. Swelter at the task this very day. Who knows whether he will die tomorrow? There is no bargaining with the great hosts of Death. Thus abiding ardently, unwearied day and night, He indeed is “Auspicious” called, described as a sage at peace [3]. The Buddha taught people to develop right understanding of what appears at the present moment, and this is satipatthåna. The Abhidhamma explains in detail all realities of our daily life, and therefore it is very meaningful that he taught in the Heaven of the Thirtythree Abhidhamma in alternation with satipatthåna. During our journey Acharn Sujin reminded us frequently not to follow after the past nor to desire for what has not come yet, but to be aware of what appears now. Seeing, hearing, attachment or aversion fall away immediately, but we keep on thinking of what is past already, or we may wish to be aware of what has not arisen yet. If there is mindfulness of the characteristic of reality that appears now, understanding can grow. ---------- 1. In the Middle Length Sayings III there is a series of four suttas (no. 131-135) the first one of which is the Bhaddekarattasutta. There are different translations of the title. The P.T.S. translates it as “Discourse on the Auspicious”, whereas Ven. Bodhi translates it as “One Single Excellent Night”. The following suttas in this series of four are the Bhaddekarattasutta of Ånanda, of Mahåkaccåna and of Lomasakaògiya. 2.This is from the translation of Ven. Nåùananda, Wheel 188, Kandy. The P.T.S. translation has: knowing that it is immovable, unshakable. 3. The Thai translation has: he is called someone who has only one night of development. Night in Påli stands for day and night. Someone who knows that he may only have one day and night has a sense of urgency to develop insight. ******** Nina. #78289 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 10:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Realities and Concepts (1) dcwijeratna Dear Han, Your post Re. Realities and Concepts, November 8, 2007 refers. Following is a quote from that: "Sujin: One should listen to the Dhamma so that one will really understand when the object of citta (consciousness) is a concept and through which door citta knows a concept." I find it very difficult to understand the above sentence. Could you please clarify. One should listen to the Dhamma--Clear So that one will really understand--manner of listening; adverbial clause When the object of citta (consciousness) is a concept--adverbial clause of time And through which door citta knows a concept--What is the meaning of this and how does it fit into the sentence. I am also not clear about the use of the capital "D" in dhamma. Is the reference to the Teaching of the Buddha. But this is the most difficult to understand. When you are listening (to Dhamma), object of your mind is sound. Then you say the "object of citta is a concept". The citta has two objects at the same time, so it appears. Very grateful for an explanation. D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #78290 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 11:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: nimitta. Relations Among Rupas/Jon nilovg Hi Howard, I did not answer your other post but still think of it. what you say now in this post is well thought out. ---------- Op 7-nov-2007, om 21:31 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > But there still does remain > the question of what is happening when there is the knowing of a > just-passed > dhamma with mindfulness (sati) or by any mode of knowing, for that > matter. > The question is whether the knowing can be a *direct* knowing. I > think that > when the knowing is a knowing with mindfulness or wisdom, it > certainly is an > extremely clear and insightful knowing, but that it is literally > impossible > for it to be a *direct* knowing, it being impossible to *directly* > know what is > not present. > However, even though the just-passed dhamma no longer exists, it *was* > that dhamma that served as direct condition for the current > knowing, and it is > the nature of that dhamma that is known - so there is no harm in > *saying* > that that dhamma is object condition for the current state, so long > as one > realizes that the dhamma no longer exists. > ---------------------- N: This touches actually on what Kh Sujin said to us about the nimitta of sankhaaras, of conditioned realities. This is not the nimitta in the sense of outward appearance of things and details, or just pa~n~nattis or mind-constructs. A more subtle meaning of nimitta. Scott and I had some posts about it some time ago, quoting Kh Sujin. I wait until I come to it in my tapes, because I have to be careful formulating it. She said: visible object arises and falls away very quickly and the object that just arises vanishes so quickly that we do not know which one is the one that is appearing now. Only a nimitta of it remains. It seems that it lasts for a while. She used the simile of a stick of fire you turn around in a circle and it seems to be a circle of fire. (Ledi Sayadaw mentioned this also). Or it seems that there is one moment that hardness appears. In reality this is not so, there are many moments of hardness arising and falling away. We do not know which one is the present one. There is ruupa-nimitta, vedanaa- nimitta, sa~n~naa-nimitta, sa.nkhaara-nimitta and vi~n~naa.na- nimitta. Only nibbaana is without nimitta, it is animitta. I asked whether this means that one is aware of a concept of that reality. She said yes. But here we have to be carefull with the word concept. It is not in the sense of mind-construct such as a table or a person. It is of a different order, more subtle. We could use the word shadow of a reality. So, we can continue being aware of characteristitcs of dhammas, but now it is clearer that they fall away so fast. It helps to understand their anattaness. We cannot hold them for a moment. She often said: what appears has arisen. And this also means that what has arisen is gone already before we realize it. A good reminder which became more meaningful when we heard about it again in India. Nina. #78291 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 11:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] After a long period of no study - how to get started again nilovg Dear Seonai, welcome to our list. The best is asking questions. My book Abhidhamma in Daily life is on line : http://www.abhidhamma.org/abhid.html and: http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Nina. Op 8-nov-2007, om 14:29 heeft somo het volgende geschreven: > I studied Buddhism and meditation many years ago with the Thai temple > in London and would now like to get back into studying Ahbiddhamma and > some meditation. Has anyone got any ideas as to how to go about this > from a distance? Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 11:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Realities and Concepts (1) ... Citta and We... nilovg Dear Han, Tep and others, Op 8-nov-2007, om 16:19 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > I am not going to answer questions on behalf of Khun > Sujin, but Nina will kindly do that. > So you can ask any questions you like, and Nina will > answer. ------ N: I can add something, but others' opinions and htoughts will be appreciated, also yours Han. You could also quote from your Birmese books. Why not write about your own thoughts and feelings about the subject? Nina. #78293 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 11:29 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) buddhistmedi... Hi my friend Dieter, - Yes, there is one more issue that should be taken care of. >Dieter: > I wonder by what reasons Ven. Thanissaro is criticized .. > T: Ken H and Scott know the answer to your question, Dieter. KenH in particular has expressed his criticism of Ven. Thanissaro's thought on not self and no self. You can search the Search facility of DSG by using the following key words: KenH, no self, Thanissaro. Tep ==== #78294 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 6:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: nimitta. Relations Among Rupas/Jon upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - Thank you for the following. Interestingly (to me! LOL!), I think our understanding is close on this matter. With metta, Howard In a message dated 11/8/2007 2:07:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, I did not answer your other post but still think of it. what you say now in this post is well thought out. ---------- Op 7-nov-2007, om 21:31 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > But there still does remain > the question of what is happening when there is the knowing of a > just-passed > dhamma with mindfulness (sati) or by any mode of knowing, for that > matter. > The question is whether the knowing can be a *direct* knowing. I > think that > when the knowing is a knowing with mindfulness or wisdom, it > certainly is an > extremely clear and insightful knowing, but that it is literally > impossible > for it to be a *direct* knowing, it being impossible to *directly* > know what is > not present. > However, even though the just-passed dhamma no longer exists, it *was* > that dhamma that served as direct condition for the current > knowing, and it is > the nature of that dhamma that is known - so there is no harm in > *saying* > that that dhamma is object condition for the current state, so long > as one > realizes that the dhamma no longer exists. > ---------------------- N: This touches actually on what Kh Sujin said to us about the nimitta of sankhaaras, of conditioned realities. This is not the nimitta in the sense of outward appearance of things and details, or just pa~n~nattis or mind-constructs. A more subtle meaning of nimitta. Scott and I had some posts about it some time ago, quoting Kh Sujin. I wait until I come to it in my tapes, because I have to be careful formulating it. She said: visible object arises and falls away very quickly and the object that just arises vanishes so quickly that we do not know which one is the one that is appearing now. Only a nimitta of it remains. It seems that it lasts for a while. She used the simile of a stick of fire you turn around in a circle and it seems to be a circle of fire. (Ledi Sayadaw mentioned this also). Or it seems that there is one moment that hardness appears. In reality this is not so, there are many moments of hardness arising and falling away. We do not know which one is the present one. There is ruupa-nimitta, vedanaa- nimitta, sa~n~naa-nimitta, sa.nkhaara-nimitta and vi~n~naa.na- nimitta. Only nibbaana is without nimitta, it is animitta. I asked whether this means that one is aware of a concept of that reality. She said yes. But here we have to be carefull with the word concept. It is not in the sense of mind-construct such as a table or a person. It is of a different order, more subtle. We could use the word shadow of a reality. So, we can continue being aware of characteristitcs of dhammas, but now it is clearer that they fall away so fast. It helps to understand their anattaness. We cannot hold them for a moment. She often said: what appears has arisen. And this also means that what has arisen is gone already before we realize it. A good reminder which became more meaningful when we heard about it again in India. Nina. #78295 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 11:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga. Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) nilovg Hi Phil, Larry posts Vis. texts already for years. First from Ch XIV, all about the khandhas, and I gave a summary of the matching tiika. you can find these in dsg organisation. Now on Ch XVII, D.O. This one runs for a long time and perhaps for two more years. Twice a week there is a post, except when I am away. I work on the Pali since there is no English Tiika, that is, subco. You do not have to read Vis. in order. We have had all the details on all kinds of rebirth-consciousness in different planes. Nina. Op 8-nov-2007, om 15:55 heeft Phil het volgende geschreven: > So how is Vism explained away by AS and you folks? I had best get > accustomed to that one ASAP because I am in love with Vism. these > days, > no doubt for all the wrong-view reasons! :) #78296 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 1:08 pm Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) truth_aerator --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > Thanks for the reply: > > A: "What it teaches such as anicca, dukkha, anatta the paths and the > fruits for those who diligently ardently and heedfully follow N8P." > > Scott: You seem to believe in a literal path followed by a person. > You also seem to think that a person can be diligent, ardent, and > heedful. These refer also to kusala mental factors which contribute > to the special qualities inherent in kusala citta. I'm thinking of > viriya cetasika, for instance. Buddha and other Arahants constantly used common expressions. The difference is that they knew that they knew the concepts, and its limitations. When I say "Follow N8P" I obviously do not try to say that "Atta literally do this and that". Buddha used concepts in order to point the way toward Nibbana where all concepts cease. If we start to reify concepts then: a) We are outside of N8P b) We will fall in many philosophical contradictions. > > A: "You are right. But he also didn't say that awakening is impossible in the present life and all that." > > Scott: Which 'present life'? Life in his day, I'd say. Don't you > think there is a difference in the development of the dhammas of which the aggregates of the beings who actually interacted with the Buddha > were composed and those of beings today? I do. >>>>>>> Some of us today may have as much if not MORE good Kamma than people of those times. Look, we can read much more discources of the Buddha (found in DN,MN,SN,AN) than people of those times could hear. The only problem is all the technology, its noise and business. But that can be remedied... Scott, please don't be afraid to use "I, person, being". Buddha certainly wasn't afraid. One doesn't have to be attached to the concepts and their limitations. Oh btw, to me personally, a mind moment is a concept not unlike "A person". Buddha OFTEN used words such as "atta" (in fact a chapter in Dhammapada ch12 is called "Self"). Of course his listeners knew the concepts and their limits. > A: "By attitude I was talking about Confidence in the Buddha's > teaching and in ones own abilities..." > > Scott: Saddhaa is a mental factor - a cetasika. As such, since it > arises conascently with kusala citta, it falls away - hence is > impermanent. Being so, saddhaa cannot be considered to be something > that a person *has*. Why? Because kusala citta does not arise > continuously in ordinary cases; there is akusala citta more often in > 'the flux'. > > Confidence is therefore not in any way a continuous state. When it > arises with kusala citta it contributes its quality to that particular > moment of consciousness while it is present and then no longer. It > would be by conditions that kusala citta and accompanying saddhaa > cetasika would arise again. >> Do you understand how philosophically unsound this is? Following this logic, Sotapannas unshakeble faith in the Buddha lasts a Mind moment... As well as all the other factors of ariyas... Also this logic would mean that some moments a person is an Anagami or an Arahat because greed, hatred or delusion citta is momentary not there. Or to say in a language you prefer: Also this logic would mean that some moments a citta is indistinguishable from an Anagami or an Arahat state because greed, hatred or delusion citta is momentary not there. When Buddha has spoke about impermanence you will notice that it is impermanence on a Grand Scale. Literal rebirth, aging, sickness & death. Lots of Metta, Alex #78297 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 1:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) truth_aerator --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > KO: in the same way, commentaries are also have the same feel unlike > any other. >>>> Who was more Wise, Buddha or some later commentators such as Buddhagosa? >>>>>>>>>>>> If you close your mind to it in the first place, how > would you know it is good or not good for you. >>>>>>>> Buddha's message is the BEST. >>>>> As usual, we are the dinosaurs, going to extinction. >>>>>> With that attitude, maybe. >>>>> > But thats the way it would be, first the Abhidhamma then.... slowly > the all the teachings would be gone. So I am not surprise, people do > not believe in Abhidhamma and the commentaries. >>>>>>>>> Many people didn't accept AP when it came out. Please tell me where the Buddha said about AP going out? It wasn't there to start with! >>>>>>>>>> "And again, there will be in the course of the future monks undeveloped in body... virtue... mind... discernment. They — being undeveloped in body... virtue... mind... discernment — will not listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, profound, transcendent, connected with the Void — are being recited. They will not lend ear, will not set their hearts on knowing them, will not regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, !!!!words of disciples!!! — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping and mastering. Thus from corrupt Dhamma comes corrupt discipline; from corrupt discipline, corrupt Dhamma. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.079.than.html >>>>>>>> Lots of Metta, Alex #78298 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 1:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anatta of "Self" and the World truth_aerator Hi Charles, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Charles DaCosta" wrote: > > However, I have to ask: Was the Buddha deluded too while he lived? >>>>>>>> After his Awakening he had no more delusion. But he DID HAVE left over kamma which propelled his existence. Like a car moving at high speed will continue moving for a while even if it ran out of fuel - same is here. Furthermore he was VERY COMPASSIONATE and compassion as opposed to delusion propelled Him. >>>> He did try to teach beings, and if the beings did not really exist then the > teachings are one big delusion (lie) also. This would even mean the Buddha's > enlightenment was a delusion (lie) also! >>>>>> You speak like in that Mahayana sutta (Diamond sutra?). There is stress... Its origin, its cessation and path leading to cessation. Regardless of "existential status", when you hair is on fire, WHAT WILL NEED TO BE DONE? >>>>> >> Is all just delusion, >>>>> I went to the dentist yesterday... Regardless of ontological status of "The dentist, drill, filling, the cavity, etc" it sure as hell did hurt!!!! >>>>>>>>> or is it more delusional to see a book and convince > yourself what you see is not real? >>>>>>> Pain is painful enough. Look, Buddha taught "What is to be Done?" rather than "What is the ground of all being?" When you get fully awakened, lots of questions will be fully answered. For now the most pressing question is "What is to be Done" to put out all the fire of greed, anger and delusion? Lots of metta, Alex #78299 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 1:56 pm Subject: Re: Anatta of "Self" and the World truth_aerator Dear Bhante Aggacitto, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "reverendaggacitto" wrote: > > Hi Alex! > reverend aggacitto here! > The only problem that exists with this is that therefore life > become's one big solipstic dream In dreams one may see external beings. One may even dream of interacting with those beings... In dreams things can happen in orderly and logical manner as well... In dreams one may not be able to read other beings minds or feelings... >>> where no one can be really sure of anything! >>>>>> This is Samsara for you. Buddha on many occasions have said regarding views "whatever you think it is, it becomes otherwise". Making views and philosophical systems is bound to failure because their basis (sensory experience + craving, conceit, and tendency towards speculations) changes. We can speak about only our own experience. What is beyond experience is by definition outside of what we can prove or refute. And besides, it doesn't matter. >>>>>>>> However,let's remember that in order for one's "self" > to be an illusion(delusion)there STILL has to be the "self" > available to percieve the "illision" or "deluded" state ! > Sorry! >>>>>>> What about a mirage on a hot road? What about a rainbow??? > > May the Buddha's, Deva,and Angel's bless all of you! > > bhikkhu aggacitto/aka reverend aggacitto > You too Bhante!!!! Lots of metta, Alex #78300 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 2:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddha Gotama, a Once Returner? truth_aerator Hi Charles, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Charles DaCosta" wrote: > > Hi Alex, but some believe the Buddha > never died - just the physical body. And while dead in the minds of most - >>>>>>>>>>>> If he is still alive, why doesn't he come to Earth and enlighten us all? Case settled. >>>>>>>>>>>> the Buddha taught (as in the Mahayana sutras, tantras, and Abidharma) . Who knows . >>>>>>>> How convinient. While it is possible to archeologically justify many people found in the suttas, and the places where suttas were spoken. Not so with the above material. Before I became a Buddhist I belonged to a certain tradition... They too had to resort to mythological reasons for certain additional (Higher) teachings... Such as a certain book was hidden for 1000 years because it was TOO advanced for people of those times... Or the fact about provisional teachings which worked only in the past... Or that today "ascetism, monkhood, recluseship" doesn't work and one must work with one's defilments - to receive secret transmissions from a teacher, etc, etc... YUCK! So all these stories about "Higher Teaching, too advanced for people of those times and hidden in Dragon underworlds, etc, etc" make me feel disappointed at the Adhamma circulating around. > > I just that is why we have to stay focused on what is important . > Yes!!!! 4 Noble Truths!! N8P!!!! 37 wings to awakening!!! Lots of Metta, Alex #78301 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 2:17 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) truth_aerator Hi Han, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Han: But you are not sure whether he became a > Sotaapanna in BK dispensation, are you? I ask this > question because you used the word "if" - (if he > became a sotapanna in BK dispensation). >Z>>>>>>> Only one thing is sure, he didn't seem to be a "mahayana like" Bodhisatva almost ready for full Awakening. He acted like a Pujjhana which is what was the point of the post. One can become a sotapanna and long time later become a Buddha. Arahatship is not such a selfish path as Mahayanists claim. > One of your previous posts also showed this > uncertainty by using the words "may or may not." >>>> Of course I am uncertain regarding was he or not a sotapanna in BK dispensation. However I am certain that from what is said in the sutta, He acted like an ordinary worlding, very negatively, toward the ideal he was supposed to strive for 4 Aeons and 300,000MK . > ---------------- > > Furthermore, I would like to draw your kind attention > to Ven Dhammanando Bhikkhu's post, which was addressed > to you. > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/78228 > > > "Tusita devas don't live long enough for this to be > possible. For that matter, neither does Tusita itself. > The destructions and evolutions of the Cakkavaa.la > that occur in the interval between two Buddhas leave > only certain of the highest Brahma heavens intact." --------------- Long enough for what? 4 Aeons and 300,000 MK is a LATER addition. So are the 10 paramis. If Arahatship in BEST cases for BEST people can take as little as ONE MEDITATION SESSION (or a phrase), then it is not unlikely that Bodhisatta did all he had to do in 6 years of his final life and some time under BK. May there be LOTS AND LOTS OF FUTURE BUDDHAS! Lots of metta, Alex #78302 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 2:22 pm Subject: Re: After a long period of no study - how to get started again truth_aerator Hi Seonai, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "somo" wrote: > > I studied Buddhism and meditation many years ago with the Thai temple > in London and would now like to get back into studying Ahbiddhamma and > some meditation. Has anyone got any ideas as to how to go about this > from a distance? > > The nearest I ever got to what I interpreted as 'understanding' was > after reading Ajahn Buddhadassa's book Patticasamutpraba. > > Seonai > I suggest that you read as many suttas as possible: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sutta.html Study Guides: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/index.html Essays: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-title.html Liberation - Relevance of Sutta-Vinaya Dhammavuddho Thera http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha163.htm Wishing you all the best possible success in your studies. Lots of Metta, Alex #78303 From: Elaine Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 2:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) - to Nina shennieca Hello Nina, Thank you for your reply. I have a few more questions. > Elaine: If there is past kusala which can condition akusala and past akusala that can condition kusala, with these kusala and akusala conditioning each other like that, on and on, aeons after aeons, how is Nibbana attainable? >Nina: By the development of right understanding that sees realities as they are. No other way. This includes kusala, akusala and all other realities. Pa~n~naa can be accumulated, and it can grow. Elaine: (1) How is right understanding developed? (2) How can pa~n~naa be accumulated? (3) By reading the suttas and listening to dhamma talks is it enough to get enlightened? Looking forward to your replies. Thank you. Sincerely, Elaine -------------------------------- #78304 From: han tun Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 3:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Realities and Concepts (1) ... Citta and We... hantun1 Dear Tep (Nina), You have quoted the following, “Sujin: One should listen to the Dhamma so that one will really understand when the object of citta (consciousness) is a concept and through which door citta knows a concept. When citta has a paramattha dhamma (ultimate reality) as object, there are no beings, people or things, there is no self. At this moment realities arise and fall away and succeed one another so rapidly that it seems that we see a thing, such as a fan. The fan rotates, and it seems that we can see rupas (matter) moving.” and asked T: Is 'we' the same as 'citta', or is 'we' one entity and 'citta' another? -------------------- Han: I would have preferred Nina to answer the questions, but now that she has given me the permission, I will answer questions in my own way. ‘Citta’ is the paramattha dhamma that really sees the object. [eye-consciousness or cakkhu-vi~n~naana in this case, to be more exact]. ‘We’ is the conventional term or pannatti representing the citta that sees. So these two are not separate entities, but they are also not the same. One is pannatti (we), and the other is paramattha (citta). Respectfully, Han --- Tep Sastri wrote: > > Dear Han, - > > You told us at the beginning that " comments and > different opinions are > welcome". So I assume that you are in the position > to speak for Khun > Sujin, when someone asks questions about her > teachings. #78305 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 3:06 pm Subject: Re: Paging Nina? buddhistmedi... Hi Colette, - Yes, your study of the esoteric subjects has put you "wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy out there". Your special language skills have also put you "wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy out there" relative to me. So I have to ask you to be patient with me and use only the elementary English language for communication. Please also be kind enough to this poor man, who is soooo confusssssssed whenever he is hit with only one slang word, let alone the many slangs that you spit out every now and then. ;-)) Your friend, Tep === ======= ==== #78306 From: han tun Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 3:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Realities and Concepts (1) hantun1 Dear DC (Nina), The text: “Sujin: One should listen to the Dhamma so that one will really understand when the object of citta (consciousness) is a concept and through which door citta knows a concept.” -------------------- Han: Suppose you see a man standing in front of you, and you think you see a man. But a man is a concept. What actually the eye-consciousness sees are the colours that enter the eye-door. This sense impression is passed on to the mind-door process, where it is processed the sense object to be as a man. So, what Khun Sujin was saying was one should listen to the Dhamma (capital ‘D’ denotes Buddha’s teachings) so that one will really understand what the eye-consciousness sees. If it sees the sense object as a ‘man’ it is seeing the concept. And this seeing process is through the eye door. Respectfully, Han --- DC Wijeratna wrote: > Dear Han, > > Your post Re. Realities and Concepts, November 8, > 2007 refers. > > Following is a quote from that: > "Sujin: One should listen to the Dhamma so that one > will really understand when the object of citta > (consciousness) is a concept and through which door > citta knows a concept." #78307 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 3:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) jonoabb Hi Howard Here's the Soma Thera translation of the same passage: << << << "And further, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu, in going forwards (and) in going backwards, is a person practicing clear comprehension; in looking straight on (and) in looking away from the front, is a person practicing clear comprehension; in bending and in stretching, is a person practicing clear comprehension; in wearing the shoulder-cloak, the (other two) robes (and) the bowl, is a person practicing clear comprehension; in regard to what is eaten, drunk, chewed and savored, is a person practicing clear comprehension; in defecating and in urinating, is a person practicing clear comprehension; in walking, in standing (in a place), in sitting (in some position), in sleeping, in waking, in speaking and in keeping silence, is a person practicing clear comprehension. "Thus he lives contemplating the body in the body internally... and clings to naught in the world. Thus, also, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu lives contemplating the body in the body." >> >> >> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wayof.html Perhaps someone (Scott?) could provide the Pali for us. Jon PS Whose translation is yours? upasaka@... wrote: > > > Hi, Jon (and Robert) - > > In a message dated 11/8/2007 1:12:45 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, > jonabbott@... writes: > > I don't know of anything in the ancient texts, correctly understood, > that says that in order to develop awarenss or insight it is necessary > (or advisable) to undertake a 'practice' consisting of particular mental > activities, that is to say, something done for the express purpose of > arousing awareness or insight. > > ================================= > This has of course been discussed thousands of times over the years on > DSG, and I don't want to rehash it yet once more. I would like to know whether > the following (rom the Satipatthana Sutta) which uses "makes himself" is a > correct translation from the Pali. > > "Furthermore, when going forward & returning, he makes himself fully alert; > when looking toward & looking away... when bending & extending his limbs... > when carrying his outer cloak, his upper robe & his bowl... when eating, > drinking, chewing, & savoring... when urinating & defecating... when walking, > standing, sitting, falling asleep, waking up, talking, & remaining silent, he > makes himself fully alert." > > With metta, > Howard > #78308 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 3:23 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Realities and Concepts (1) ... Citta and We... buddhistmedi... Dear Han, - I am happy that now you have got the authority to speak for Khun Sujin. >Han: > `Citta' is the paramattha dhamma that really sees the > object. [eye-consciousness or cakkhu-vi~n~naana in > this case, to be more exact]. `We' is the conventional > term or pannatti representing the citta that sees. So > these two are not separate entities, but they are also > not the same. One is pannatti (we), and the other is > paramattha (citta). T: Okay, 'we' is pannatti and 'citta' is paramattha. Do they co- exist? I ask this question because KS also said : "When citta has a paramattha dhamma (ultimate reality) as object, there are no beings, people or things, there is no self.". And I have some trouble understanding what happens to 'we' when 'citta' has a paramattha dhamma as its object. Is 'we' gone in that moment and then comes back later; or is it gone forever. Thanks. Tep ==== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: #78309 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 3:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon jonoabb Hi Howard upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 11/6/2007 8:49:24 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, > jonabbott@... writes: > > >> You call it an idea. I agree that it is a mental concept or >> projection, as is a concept, but I don't see them as the >> identical sort of construct. >> > > I realise this is what you have been saying all along. What is the > basis for the distinction you are making? Also, do you see any > practical implications, for example, in terms of the development of insight? > ============================= > The basis is my own experience. For me, the distinction is a clear one. > Can you say more about the distinction as you experience it? > As for practical implications with regard to the development of insight, all > I can say is that correct understanding of what is what is an important > requisite for that. > I agree with that as a general statement, but I also suspect that all the necessary things to be correctly understood are mentioned in the Tipitaka and ancient texts. Jon #78310 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 3:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: eCard from India - Benares jonoabb Hi Tep Tep Sastri wrote: > Hi Jon, - > > ... > > T: Thank you very much, Jon, for asking me to join you in the next tour. > Please email me information about it (e.g. time schedule for travel and > total cost per head) to help me make the decision. > Will do. But as that is likely to be some time off (2 years or more, I suspect), consider a trip to Bangkok in the meantime. > Concerning > knowledge of the texts, I am sure there are at least three persons in > DSG who always can find fault in everything I say about the suttas. :-)) > ;-)) Only 3? Look at how many people are finding fault with my latest post (to Robert A)!! > T: Yes, the knowledge regarding molecules and atoms is of limited > use to laypersons. > I would say, is of no use whatsoever to the development of insight. Jon #78311 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 3:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) jonoabb Hi Alex Alex wrote: > Hi Jon, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott > wrote: > >> However, I don't agree with the characteristic of the teaching on >> the not-self characteristic of conditioned dhammas as a *tool for >> comprehending stress and abandoning the attachment and clinging >> that function as the cause of stress*. >> > > But that is exactly what the Buddha taught. For example in > Anattalakhana the Buddha delivers a punch: > > "Is it worth to consider this as I me mine?" > > > NO WHERE DID THE BUDDHA SAY "Thus monks, there is absolutely no self" > I think I indicate that agree with you on this general point. What I'm disagreeing with is the characterisation of the teaching on not-self as being a "tool" of some kind, which I think suggests that it is taught for strategic purposes rather than because if is part of the truth of the way things really are. The not-self characteristic is one of 3 characteristics of conditioned dhammas (and the not-self characteristic is also a characteristic of the unconditioned dhamma). >> I'm would not see such asking "Is this mine?", etc as having >> anything to do with "release from attachment, suffering and >> stress" as taught by the Buddha. That release comes only >> from the development of awareness and insight, as I read >> the teachings. >> >> Thanks for bringing up the article. Happy to discuss further. >> >> Jon >> > > This is HOW BUDDHA HAS TAUGHT NOT SELF. Is it constant or not? Is > what is inconstant easeful or stressful? > > IS IT WORTH TO BE CONSIDERED AS MINE? > But these questions are not given as part of a 'practice', as I read the sutta quoted in the article. > Maybe this is why there are so few arahants today......... :( > The question is whether there are any at all!! Jon #78312 From: han tun Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 3:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Realities and Concepts (1) ... Citta and We... hantun1 Dear Tep, Again, I will answer in my own way. It may or may not truly reflect Khun Sujin’s idea. When a meditator sees a paramattha, he is also seeing with paramattha. Sati and other ceatsikas accompanying cakkhu-vi~n~naana is seeing colours. When not on vipassana meditation, he will be back to the conventional world. Vipassana can abandon kilesas including sakkaaya ditthi only *temporarily* (tadanga-pahana). Not a very good example! Because, during meditation, he will be closing his eyes :>) So let us say, hearing process. Sati and other cetasikas accompanying sota-vi~nnaana will hear sadda which is cittaja-ruupa and utuja-ruupa (not a child crying or a bird singing, it will only be just the 'sound'). The rest of the above is the same. Respectfully, Han --- Tep Sastri wrote: > > Dear Han, - > > I am happy that now you have got the authority to > speak for Khun > Sujin. #78313 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 3:56 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) truth_aerator Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > I think I indicate that agree with you on this general point. > > What I'm disagreeing with is the characterisation of the teaching on > not-self as being a "tool" of some kind, which I think suggests that it > is taught for strategic purposes rather than because if is part of the > truth of the way things really are. >>>>>> Anatta as a strategy does not mean that there is really Atta. What it means is that Anatta HAS TO BE PUT INTO ACTION!!! Simply talking about "I don't exist" won't save one from suffering. But using Anatta strategy to remove all greed/anger/delusion and make suffering cease is what it is about. Ultimately one will definately realize through complete Panna all the intricacies of Anatta, the "world", rebirth and the concepts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>1> > > > This is HOW BUDDHA HAS TAUGHT NOT SELF. Is it constant or not? Is > > what is inconstant easeful or stressful? > > > > IS IT WORTH TO BE CONSIDERED AS MINE? > > > > But these questions are not given as part of a 'practice', as I read the > sutta quoted in the article. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.than.html That line is mentioned many dozens or moretimes in the Suttas. > > Maybe this is why there are so few arahants today......... :( > > > > The question is whether there are any at all!! > > Jon >>>>>> why such pessimism? If N8P is practiced with enough diligency ardency and heedfulness, then there are Arahants. Maha Boowa is claimed to be an Arahant... Sunlun Sayadaw (middle last century) was also called an Arahant... I know one thing, if one doesn't put in correct and strong enough effort - then one won't become an Arahant. Lots of Metta, Alex #78314 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 4:31 pm Subject: Re: Conditions, Ch17, no3. ...Some Comments... buddhistmedi... Dear Scott (Azita), - Let me ask you a crucial question before proceeding. Did the Buddha ever talk about concept(pannatti) in the Suttana Teachings? Now, let the band play on. >T: "There are some good comments you made in #78222 that >I'd like to come back to discuss in my next message (soon)." >Scott (message #78277): 'Looking forward to it, Tep'. ............... > >T: Since an 'idea' is a thought, or a mind object, i.e. 'dhamma', which is one of the six external ayatanas, it follows that mind objects are pa~n~natti. And we know that mind objects are not permanent >Scott: Conceptual objects arise in relation to realities - visible object, sound, taste, smell, hardness. The dhammas which are the mind door and which perform various functions within the mind door are realities. These are impermanent. T: Please give a few examples of conceptual objects. Are invisible ruupas not a reality? Are inaudible sounds not a reality? The eyeball, including the retina, nerve, blood, etc., perform the various functions that support seeing. Isn't the eyeball pa~n~natti, yet it is impermanent? ............ >T: "...No, I do not think that "dhammas are concepts until one 'becomes an ariyan' and then they are something else". I do think that non-ariyans fail to see the true dhammas in the ultimate sense and have to use concepts in order to explain things..." Scott: Sati, for example, is not 'a non-ariyan'. Sati is sati. And sati takes objects in its characteristic fashion. These objects are realities in their ultimate sense. They are mundane realities. They are not concepts. T: Whoa, Scott! You are making the suject matter too complicated. Are you sure that there are BOTH ultimate realities AND mundane realities? Or, is the latter your invention? :-)) ............ Scott: When sati arises in a moment of consciousness that takes Nibbaana as object, then this is supramundane. Too much focus on 'worldings' and 'ariyans' - concepts. T: Only Nibbana? Then, is a sati that takes a ruupa (or a naama) as the object an ultimate reality, or is it a mundane reality? I think you might have made the simple subject complicated. That reminds me of what Azita said about 'overestimating' a simple principle. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > Thanks for the reply: > > T: "You wrote, 'Sati, as far as I understand, does not have pa~n~natti as object'. The most common explanation I have seen here at DSG is: a pa~n~natti does not have the ti-lakkhana characteristics. But that is not true." > #78315 From: "Robert" Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 4:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) avalo1968 Hello Jon, Thank you for your clarification: Jon: You have responded by focussing on the word "intention" and that is perfectly understandable given that I said: "Understanding cannot be made to grow by the exercise of an intention for that to happen." However, that wasn't the focus I was meaning to give to my comment. It is not intention that marks the difference I am trying to explain. So let me try again. I think what I wanted to say was: "Understanding cannot be made to grow by undertaking particular (mental) activities designed to make it arise or grow." I don't know of anything in the ancient texts, correctly understood, that says that in order to develop awarenss or insight it is necessary (or advisable) to undertake a 'practice' consisting of particular mental activities, that is to say, something done for the express purpose of arousing awareness or insight. But if you see it differently, perhaps you wouldn't mind quoting one or two examples for discussion. Robert A From MN 118 "Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, is of great fruit, of great benefit. Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, brings the four frames of reference to their culmination. The four frames of reference, when developed & pursued, bring the seven factors for awakening to their culmination. The seven factors for awakening, when developed & pursued, bring clear knowing & release to their culmination." "Now how is mindfulness of in-&-out breathing developed & pursued so as to be of great fruit, of great benefit? "There is the case where a monk, having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building, sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect, and setting mindfulness to the fore.1 Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out." That sounds fairly intentional to me - this is something you do because when this practice is developed and pursued it brings clear knowing & release. From MN 107 "As soon, brahman, as he is possessed of mindfulness and clear consciousness, the Tathagata disciplines him further, saying: 'Come you, monk, choose a remote lodging in a forest, at the root of a tree, on a mountain slope, in a glen, a hill cave, a cemetery, a woodland grove, in the open, or on a heap of straw.' On returning from alms-gathering after the meal, the monk sits down crosslegged, holding the back erect, having made mindfulness rise up in front of him. He, getting rid of covetousness for the world, dwells with a mind devoid of covetousness, he cleanses the mind of covetousness. Getting rid of the taint of ill-will, he dwells benevolent in mind; compassionate and merciful towards all creatures and beings, he cleanses the mind of ill-will. Getting rid of sloth and torpor, he dwells without sloth or torpor; perceiving the light, mindful and clearly conscious he cleanses the mind of sloth and torpor. Getting rid of restlessness and worry, he dwells calmly; the mind inward tranquil, he cleanses the mind of restlessness and worry. Getting rid of doubt, he dwells doubt-crossed; unperplexed as to the states that are skilled, he cleanses his mind of doubt." Why would the Buddha have gone to such detail as to the procedure to follow if he did not think it was of benefit toward the only thing he thought worth pursuing, which is awakening? There are also many texts about following precepts and being generous, such as the one I quoted previously from the Mangala sutta: "To be generous in giving, to be righteous in conduct,11 to help one's relatives, and to be blameless in action — this is the greatest blessing." Nobody questions the value of hearing the Dhamma and considering what you hear - the activity that is the focus of DSG. I just think your practice would benefit from considering other aspects of the Buddhist path as well. Sincerely, Robert A. #78316 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 4:54 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) buddhistmedi... Hi Alex, - I read your following reply to Jon's question with interest. Alex: Anatta as a strategy does not mean that there is really Atta. What it means is that Anatta HAS TO BE PUT INTO ACTION!!! Simply talking about "I don't exist" won't save one from suffering. But using Anatta strategy to remove all greed/anger/delusion and make suffering cease is what it is about. Ultimately one will definately realize through complete Panna all the intricacies of Anatta, the "world", rebirth and the concepts. ............. 1. What, or who, puts anatta into action? 2. Do the words 'put into action' mean 'control'? 3. Do you believe that greed/anger/delusion/suffering are conditioned dhammas that rise and fall independent of the meditator's effort? 4. How would you condition the right understanding that realizes "all the intricacies of Anatta" without a clear (at least intellectual) knowledge of Anatta right from the beginning? I just ask these questions because I think you know the answers. Thank you in advance. Tep === #78317 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 5:13 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Realities and Concepts (1) ... Citta and We... buddhistmedi... Dear Han, - Thank you very much for answering my question, although your answer may never "truly reflect" KS's ideas. >Han: >When a meditator sees a paramattha, he is also seeing with paramattha. Sati and other ceatsikas accompanying cakkhu-vi~n~naana is seeing colours. When not on vipassana meditation, he will be back to the conventional world. Vipassana can abandon kilesas including sakkaaya ditthi only *temporarily* (tadanga-pahana). >Sati and other cetasikas accompanying sota-vi~nnaana will hear sadda which is cittaja-ruupa and utuja-ruupa (not a child crying or a bird singing, it will only be just the 'sound'). The rest of the above is the same. T: To me your answer seems to say that the conventional world interconnects with the ultimate realities, but the meditator can only experience one world at a time. You seem to say that the two "worlds" will become one when all kilesas are completely and permanently abandoned. Is my interpretation correct, or is it unacceptable? Tep === #78318 From: han tun Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 5:17 pm Subject: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (6) hantun1 Dear All, Topic: Material possessions While I was presenting the Chapter on the Perfection of Equanimity, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/76784 there was one passage in the text. “However, the Great Being rejected the gain and honour which one would receive as a monk. He thought that even though he would not be a monk, he would conduct himself in a praiseworthy way. He would practise fewness of wishes and not have anything in excess.” ------------------------------ Sarah remarked on this paragraph as follows. “The following which you quote is interesting as an example of how we cannot necessarily tell from the outer appearance (in this case there would have been more praise as a monk) what is most appropriate or conducive of 'fewness of wishes'.” http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/77165 ------------------------------ To this, I replied that “As regards ‘fewness of wishes’, if one acquires material possessions it no doubt helps the quality of life, but at the same time one has to watch, to guard, to protect, and to take care of these possessions. This trouble of guarding one’s possessions is called ‘aarakkha dukkha.’ So, one has to weigh the usefulness of these possessions against the trouble to guard and protect them. The details of aarakkha dukkha is elaborated by the Buddha in DN 15 Maha-nidana Sutta.” I added that “So, now-a-days, I do not want to own anything except the basic minimum needs.” http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/77170 ----------------------------- Sarah put this up to Khun Sujin at the Meeting, and before Khun Sujin could say anything, Sukin and other participants immediately said that the trouble of protecting material possessions is not due to the material possessions themselves, but it is due to the “attachment” towards them. I said it was a good point which I missed, and I readily agreed with them. Once back at home, I read the sutta again, and I found the following steps. (1) vedanam paticca tanhaa (feeling conditions craving), (2) tanham paticca pariyesanaa (craving conditions seeking), (3) pariyesanam paticca laabho (seeking conditions acquisition), (4) laabham paticca vinicchayo (acquisition conditions decision-making), (5) vinicchayam paticca chandaraago (decision-making conditions lustful desire), (6) chandaraagam paticca ajjhosaanam (lustful desire conditions attachment), (7) ajjhosaanam paticca pariggaho (attachment conditions appropriation), (8) pariggaham paticca macchariyam (appropriation conditions avarice), (9) macchariyam paticca aarakkho (avarice conditions guarding of possessions), (10) aarakkhaadhikara.nam paticca da.m.daadaana satthaadaana kalaha viggaha vivaada tuvam tuvam pesu~n~na musaavaadaa aneke paapakaa akusalaa dhammaa sambhavanti (and because of the guarding of possessions there arise the taking up of stick and sword, quarrels, disputes, arguments, strife, abuse, lying and other evil unskilled states). Yes, Sukin and other participants were absolutely right! It is a timely reminder for me not to have attachments to whatever I possess. Before concluding, I would like to mention the interesting role of vinicchaya (decision-making), which one does not see much in literature. Suppose I go to the bank to draw my pay. I see piles of money in the cashier’s drawer. I do not attach with lustful desire for those money, because they are not my money. But the moment when the money is handed over to me as my pay, I decide that it is now ‘my’ money. This decision leads to the rest of the chain mentioned above. In SN 35.101 Na Tumhaka Sutta: Not Yours http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.101.than.html the Buddha asked the monks: "Suppose a person were to gather or burn or do as he likes with the grass, twigs, branches, & leaves here in Jeta's Grove. Would the thought occur to you, 'It's us that this person is gathering, burning, or doing with as he likes'?" "No, lord. Why is that? Because those things are not our self nor do they pertain to our self." The monks had not decided that the grass, twigs, branches, & leaves in Jeta's Grove were ‘theirs’, so they did not feel anything when others burned them! Respectfully, Han #78319 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 5:22 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: eCard from India - Benares buddhistmedi... Hi Jon, - How are the five khandhas doing? > > T: Please email me information about it (e.g. time schedule for travel and total cost per head) to help me make the decision. > > > > Jon: Will do. But as that is likely to be some time off (2 years or more, I suspect), consider a trip to Bangkok in the meantime. > T: I only have a small budget, Jon. :-) ............ > > T: Concerning > > knowledge of the texts, I am sure there are at least three persons in DSG who always can find fault in everything I say about the suttas. :-)) > > > Jon: > ;-)) Only 3? Look at how many people are finding fault with my latest post (to Robert A)!! > T: The trouble was your kamma-vipaka, Jon. You reaped what you sowed. ;-) Tep === #78320 From: han tun Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 5:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Realities and Concepts (1) ... Citta and We... hantun1 Dear Friend Tep, T: To me your answer seems to say that the conventional world interconnects with the ultimate realities, but the meditator can only experience one world at a time. You seem to say that the two "worlds" will become one when all kilesas are completely and permanently abandoned. Is my interpretation correct, or is it unacceptable? Han: As far as I am concerned, your interpretation is correct. Respectfully, Han --- Tep Sastri wrote: > Dear Han, - > > Thank you very much for answering my question, > although your answer > may never "truly reflect" KS's ideas. > #78321 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 6:13 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) kenhowardau Hi Dieter and Tep, Before I comment I would like to know in which way you interpret the teachings of Ven Thanissaro. In your opinion, does he maintain (1) there is a self that both acts and receives the fruits of its actions, (2) the doctrine of anatta is a mere tactic, or strategy, used by meditators to calm their minds, and (3) after parinibbana the self is free to "wander wherever it pleases?" Thanks in advance. Ken H #78322 From: "Phil" Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 6:43 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga. Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) philofillet Hi Nina > Larry posts Vis. texts already for years. First from Ch XIV, all > about the khandhas, and I gave a summary of the matching tiika. you > can find these in dsg organisation. Now on Ch XVII, D.O. This one > runs for a long time and perhaps for two more years. Twice a week > there is a post, except when I am away. I work on the Pali since > there is no English Tiika, that is, subco. Nina, I know this of course.Larry and your diligent pursuit of this is very commendable. Personally, I study khandas in my SN anthology, and ayatanas, which you didn't cover. But I do realize that I will understand them more deeply if I study them in Vism as well - and I will. I have read through those chapters quickly - my understanding is that while it would be unwise to think of developing samadhi without understanding "the soil in which understanding grows" (the things you and Larry are posting about) to some degree, the idea of a perfected understanding of that soil without developing the meditation practices taught in the earlier chapters is also questionable. I was referring (and I'm sure you know this Nina) to the 324 pages (in my edition) that are devoted to intentional meditation practices! The great thing about DSG is that when I feel the time is right to get into the concentrated study on those chapters of Vism that you and Larry and others have been covering, your posts will be waiting for me! DO is one topic that is consistently over my head. Even when I read some SN 12 suttas I give up almost?@immediately. Just can'T wrap my understanding around them. That doesn't apply to SN 35, certainly, in my case. And certainly doesn't apply to all the AN suttas I love. (As usally off topic, but my point is that it is wrong to deny that some suttas are easier to understand than others - it seems to me at times that students of AS suggest that all suttas are deep and all suttas are referring to paramattha dhammas in an immediate way.) Please not to pay attention to this, Nina. You are swimming in a churning sea of posts these days! Metta, Phil #78323 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 4:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A bit of a logical argument - for Herman egberdina Hi Howard, On 01/11/2007, upasaka@... wrote: > > > Yes, but what is distinguishing? > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Recognizing as not identical, I suppose. > -------------------------------------------------- Nicely put. The following is not to dispute your point, which is quite valid, but it just led to the following rumination. To recognise is "to cognise again". In order to recognise something, an attribution of identity is made. Something is cognised as being identical with itself or something else. In ultimate terms, I suspect that anicca rules out the foundation of Western logic ie x=x. > > What is the distinction between nama > and rupa , and what is the distinction between this namarupic stream > and that namarupic stream. > ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I can't give you definitions for these. I can't put it into words in any > satisfactory way. Can't we distinguish mental from physical? They don't see > the same to me. And can't we tell you from me (speaking humanly)? > ---------------------------------------------------- Yes, we can, and we do make these distinctions all the time. Well, not all the time :-) But I think that humanly/conventionally speaking, the Buddha's insight that all conditioned phenomena are anicca, anatta and dukkha is false, because it is contradicted by the seeming experience of permanence, self and craving for ongoing existence. On the other hand, kamma is a conventionally acceptable doctrine, because it seems to be the way things work, or are desired to work. Yet, ultimately, kamma becomes meaningless in the context of anatta. So, I wonder, what can be achieved by discussing the Buddha's teachings at a conventional level? Herman #78324 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 6:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Realities and Concepts (1) dcwijeratna Dear Han, I am very grateful to you for your quick response. Again I take only one sentence. "Han: Suppose you see a man standing in front of you, and you think you see a man." Please don't me annoyed with me for being such a slow-witted person. I have difficulty in understanding the above sentence. The difficulty is when I see a man, I don't think I see a man. I SEE a man. I never have the experience that you are talking about. And nobody that I know of. In the next sentence you say say: "But a man is a concept." Taking the first and second sentences together, a concept sees. Because earlier you said "Suppose you see a man..", and I am a man, and then since a man is a concept, I am a concept, and therefore a concept sees. Now go to the third sentence: "What actually the eye-consciousness sees ..." Now it is the eye-consciousness that sees. So we have three things that sees. You(I), a concept, and eye-consciousness. Most probably I'll never be able to understand what you are saying. I again apologise. God has not given me sufficient intelligence, I suppose. But I'll keep trying. With mettaa, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #78325 From: "Phil" Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 6:55 pm Subject: A better way to discourage meditators! philofillet Hi students of AS friends, I would like to give you a friendly tip. There is a much better and easier, more clearly textually supported way to discourage "formal" meditators than the convoluted dance you usually use. (e.g the Bddha's exhortation to go to the root of trees etc is not in fact an exhortation but a description of what is happening due to impersonal conditions at work.) Yes, its right there in the Samadhi section of Vism, ever so explicit. I'll leave this as a friendly homework assignment for you. You may never have to do the Sujin Twist ever again! :) Metta, Phil #78326 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 7:44 pm Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (6) nichiconn thank you, han, for sharing the wealth. fewness of wishes ~ patience. equanimity. truthfulness. a gift. and now you give us REALITIES, too! very good. you must excuse me; i was here to steal a quote for Dear Elaine (& mind-reader Tep), Han: (4) laabham paticca vinicchayo (acquisition conditions decision-making), C: vinicchayo. a judgement call. Discrimination! more vsm. - ch.16/cscd 558. The first sentence answers a question about why it shouldn't be said there is no nibbana... I imagined "you", Elaine: "is there some other way of reading this?!" practice, 'the (right) way', (sammaa)pa.tipatti ? CSCD: Pa.tipattiyaa va~njhabhaavaapajjanato. PPn: Because it then follows that the way would be futile. [508] PoP: Because of the practice of the religion being not barren. [508] CSCD: Asati hi nibbaane sammaadi.t.thipurejavaaya siilaadikhandhattayasa'ngahaaya sammaapa.tipattiyaa va~njhabhaavo aapajjati. PPn: For if nibbana were non-existent, then it would follow that the right way, which includes the three Aggregates beginning with Virtue and is headed by right understanding would be futile. PoP: For should there be no Nirvana, the good practice comprised under the three aggregates of morality and so on, and preceded by right outlook would become barren, === reminded me of our ox-cart, tep. dhp vv.1-2? even if there is very little precious cargo in my case, i'd best see to feeding my scrawny little ox. peace, connie (long live the queen! conversation and minds: when one door closes, another opens.) #78327 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 3:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 11/8/2007 6:20:54 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Howard Here's the Soma Thera translation of the same passage: << << << "And further, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu, in going forwards (and) in going backwards, is a person practicing clear comprehension; in looking straight on (and) in looking away from the front, is a person practicing clear comprehension; in bending and in stretching, is a person practicing clear comprehension; in wearing the shoulder-cloak, the (other two) robes (and) the bowl, is a person practicing clear comprehension; in regard to what is eaten, drunk, chewed and savored, is a person practicing clear comprehension; in defecating and in urinating, is a person practicing clear comprehension; in walking, in standing (in a place), in sitting (in some position), in sleeping, in waking, in speaking and in keeping silence, is a person practicing clear comprehension. "Thus he lives contemplating the body in the body internally... and clings to naught in the world. Thus, also, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu lives contemplating the body in the body." >> >> >> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wayof.html Perhaps someone (Scott?) could provide the Pali for us. Jon PS Whose translation is yours? ================================ Ven. Thanissaro's. (May Buddha forgive me!) Nyanasatta Thera's is similar in using "he applies" in the following: "And further, monks, a monk, in going forward and back, applies clear comprehension; in looking straight on and looking away, he applies clear comprehension; in bending and in stretching, he applies clear comprehension; in wearing robes and carrying the bowl, he applies clear comprehension; in eating, drinking, chewing and savoring, he applies clear comprehension; in walking, in standing, in sitting, in falling asleep, in waking, in speaking and in keeping silence, he applies clear comprehension. Thus he lives contemplating the body in the body..." What do you particularly like about Ven Soma's translation, his use of "a person"? ;-)) With metta, Howard #78328 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 3:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) upasaka_howard Hi again, Jon - In a message dated 11/8/2007 6:20:54 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: PS Whose translation is yours? ============================ Actually, the real determiner isn't whose translation we like but what the Pali actually meant. That should be a fairly straightforward matter I would think for those who know the language. That's what I'd like to hear. With metta, Howard #78329 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 3:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 11/8/2007 6:24:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Howard upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 11/6/2007 8:49:24 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, > jonabbott@... writes: > > >> You call it an idea. I agree that it is a mental concept or >> projection, as is a concept, but I don't see them as the >> identical sort of construct. >> > > I realise this is what you have been saying all along. What is the > basis for the distinction you are making? Also, do you see any > practical implications, for example, in terms of the development of insight? > ============================= > The basis is my own experience. For me, the distinction is a clear one. > Can you say more about the distinction as you experience it? -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Actually no, no more than I could explain the difference between hot and cold as I experience them. -------------------------------------------------- > As for practical implications with regard to the development of insight, all > I can say is that correct understanding of what is what is an important > requisite for that. > I agree with that as a general statement, but I also suspect that all the necessary things to be correctly understood are mentioned in the Tipitaka and ancient texts. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: That's nice, Jon. :-) I have a friend, an Orthodox Jew, who says the same about the Torah. ------------------------------------------------ Jon ========================= With metta, Howard #78330 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 3:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A bit of a logical argument - for Herman upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 11/8/2007 9:50:15 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Howard, On 01/11/2007, upasaka@... wrote: > > > Yes, but what is distinguishing? > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Recognizing as not identical, I suppose. > -------------------------------------------------- Nicely put. The following is not to dispute your point, which is quite valid, but it just led to the following rumination. To recognise is "to cognise again". In order to recognise something, an attribution of identity is made. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think "not quite". All that is required is similarity. We feel some heat and recognize it as "heat", but it may be not identical with any heat ever felt before. ---------------------------------------------- Something is cognised as being identical with itself or something else. In ultimate terms, I suspect that anicca rules out the foundation of Western logic ie x=x. > > What is the distinction between nama > and rupa , and what is the distinction between this namarupic stream > and that namarupic stream. > ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I can't give you definitions for these. I can't put it into words in any > satisfactory way. Can't we distinguish mental from physical? They don't see > the same to me. And can't we tell you from me (speaking humanly)? > ---------------------------------------------------- Yes, we can, and we do make these distinctions all the time. Well, not all the time :-) But I think that humanly/conventionally speaking, the Buddha's insight that all conditioned phenomena are anicca, anatta and dukkha is false, because it is contradicted by the seeming experience of permanence, self and craving for ongoing existence. --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: What seems permanent to you? Nothing I've experienced seems permanent to me. As for "self", I've had a no-self experience that has conclusively satisfied me that so-called self is illusion. I miss your point about craving. ----------------------------------------------------- On the other hand, kamma is a conventionally acceptable doctrine, because it seems to be the way things work, or are desired to work. Yet, ultimately, kamma becomes meaningless in the context of anatta. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't see that to be so. -------------------------------------------------- So, I wonder, what can be achieved by discussing the Buddha's teachings at a conventional level? ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm not really all that clear on exactly what that means. We can speak relatively literally or relatively figuratively, but all speech is conventional. What is ultimate speech exactly anyway? I truly don't know. ---------------------------------------------------- Herman ========================= With metta, Howard #78331 From: "Sukinder" Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 9:06 pm Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (5) sukinderpal Dear Han (Nina and Sarah), In another post you expressed concern about too much insistence on Anatta. Here you seem to be expressing a similar sentiment with regard to Right View in general. I agree that on the whole, anatta is stressed much more than anicca and dukkha and Right Understanding is given attention much more than other aspects of the Teachings. But you will have noted that much of this is in reaction to remarks by others about the Dhamma, which seem to be conditioned by `self view'. For me given that self view is far from having been eradicated, I can't have enough reminders about Anatta and about the need to develop Right View. Of course I do not have the particular problem of "doing" and so there is never any resistance to hearing about this. And sure I don't understand it every time that it is heard or uttered, but when I do, there is in fact a degree of detachment involved, even though very slight. I think it is fair that we should be careful about this concept of anatta when talking to children about Dhamma. But the risk of taking the Dhamma wrongly (i.e. with self-view) is not as great anyway. Unlike adults, children do not have `ambition' and so when talking to them about the value of "good", little or no tanha and ditthi arises with regard to any idea about following the suggestion. Adults are different, the craving for results is much more and when it come to Dhamma, `self view' arises in spite of what in fact the Teachings say about its danger. For an adult it therefore becomes imperative that he be reminded again and again about Anatta. You of course agree that this particular aspect of the Dhamma is the main feature of what constitutes the Buddha's Lion Roar. It is what makes the Dhamma *completely* different from the teachings of other religions and philosophies. And therefore I believe, that it must be taken into consideration *all* the way through from the beginning. Take Sila for example, without factoring Anatta, how different is this from the corresponding teachings of other religions? I think none at all. In fact a Buddhist who thinks that he must first try to perfect Sila or even that this can be developed to any extent without the development of Right View, it impresses upon me at those moments, that he sounds more like a Jain, or Hindu or even a Christian. I don't think that one can be said to be following the Buddha's teachings if Anatta and conditionality is being disregarded. Han, I think a greater understanding of the danger of `self view' is called for. And do you by any chance have some fear that the motivation for kusala in general may lessen when one thinks more in term of anatta? Don't you believe that the `right understanding' actually complements the development of kusala of other levels and this must include the fact of anatta? For example, when kusala is understood as kusala *and* anatta, this adds to seeing the value of that particular dhamma, unlike when it is seen as "my kusala", in which case its true nature is blurred and one ends up in fact often giving importance to something else, such as `my effort', `intention' and so on? Likewise when akusala is seen "as it is" and not as `my akusala', isn't this itself a higher form of kusala, namely that of "right understanding"? Besides doesn't this lead to some degree of `detachment' as against when taken as `my akusala', in which case dosa and kukucha might have arisen instead? As Nina said, we need patience, courage and good cheer with regard to this. And I sincerely believe Han, that so to speak, no one can take away any kusala from you, such that when the opportunity arises, you *will* act as per these accumulated tendencies. There is no need to say "I shall do" and some such, with the fear that too much thinking in terms of Anatta and conditionality will somehow lead to less "action". I believe that when some people think this way, it is because they don't really understand the Path and end up instead insisting on one which is in fact wrong. I realize that the Right Path does not lead to dramatic or even any measurable results, unlike when we "do things intentionally". In the latter, we form a mental picture of "who we are and what we do", generally with little regard to and understanding of the cittas at other times or even while performing those particular acts. This whole attitude is to me, very misleading. True one can't generalize, and I believe as it is for you, there must be many, many moments of genuine sila and other kusala. However if there is an impression of "progress" being made in terms of kusala increasing and akusala decreasing, then chances are that much of what is going on in fact involves some kind of suppression or other psychological technique of `avoidance'. And what is worse is that, one would also end up mistaking what is not kusala for kusala and what is not the path to be so…. We can't rush things, especially given the fact of this being one lifetime following an infinite lifetimes before, in which so much akusala has been accumulated. The simile of the "adze handle" can give us a clue as to how slow the changes occur. And the understanding of the Dhamma as a whole should give the clue of what needs to be developed first, namely Right Understanding. Without Right View as leader, the Path becomes distorted. As Sarah suggested to you to consider the value of Sila in light of the danger of akusala kamma, rather than being motivated by "fear" re: Sakka's wrath. Don't the Buddha's teachings contain all the legitimate reasons for doing what needs to be done? I think we may even safely conclude that if something is not found in the Texts, then it is *against* it, and is suggestive of a "wrong path"! All the right reasons and hence motivation we ever need is there in the Tipitaka. I would suggest that even while the Teachings have not yet been understood very deeply and therefore one may have some difficulty "applying" some principles, one may consider say kamma / vipaka more conventionally. You know that the cause and result all reside in the same citta stream. Should we therefore deviate from this understanding into an idea which could lead us into believing that the cause is one and the result is `decided' by another? For example when the Sasana was 2499 years old, your akusala kamma was decided by one set of law of conditionality and now 51 years later, the law has changed? I'm not saying that you actually believe this to be the case, but there is a danger due to latent tendencies to wrong view, of deviation into a belief such as that reward and punishment is determined by a God, no? I know Han, that you understand all this; nothing new is being said by me as far as you are concerned. Your main reason is to do as much good as possible, which is why you are willing to take all the motivations you can get. So please consider this an encouragement to go on with what you do, but only also to be more patiently sticking only to Dhamma with an underlying understanding of Right View being the only dhamma which can lead to kusala of other levels being developed and perfected. If Right View is seen as possibly being a hindrance to the development of other forms of kusala, know that at that instance, this must be due in fact *not* having Right View (of Right View). ;-) Patience, courage and good cheer - with Right View. ;-) Metta, Sukin Ps: Please don't expect any prompt response, I am quite behind in my reading here and would like to catch up. > Dear Nina, > > Personally, I need not look for any other messages. > I believe in Sakka-saasana and Kali-yuga, and I will > observe the five precepts even more, whether it is > conditioned by attachment to self or fear, or not. > At the same time, I will take your advice to have > courage and cheerfulness and to develop right > understanding. > #78332 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 9:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga. Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) nilovg Hi Phil, you are so kind. I am just happy you post now and then and I do not feel inclined to argue against anything you say. Nina. Op 9-nov-2007, om 3:43 heeft Phil het volgende geschreven: > Please not to pay attention to this, Nina. You are swimming in a > churning sea of posts these days! #78333 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 10:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Gandhabba/Gandhabba/Gandhabba sarahprocter... Dear Ven Aggacitto, I was interested to read your comments. --- reverendaggacitto wrote: > The Pali Commentaries define gandhabba as a being that has just > passed > away...Ven.Gotama discusses it as a condition for BIRTH. > GOSH! sounds like reincarnation to me! > A BEING that has just passed away. .... S: In addition to Ven Dhammanando's clear comments in response to this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/78223 Have you considered the context of the comment in MN 38? The sutta starts with Saati's wrong of rebirth that a persisting consciousness or essence transmigrates (or is reincarnated) from one life to another. A simile is given by the Buddha of different kinds of fires to indicate how there isn't even any transmigration from one doorway to another, let alone from one life to another. This is B.Bodhi's summary of part of the commentary on this: "MA: The purpose of the simile is to show that there is no transmigration of consciousness across the sense doors. Just as a log fire burns in dependence on logs and ceases when its fuel is finished, without transmigrating to faggots and becoming reckoned as a faggot fire, so too, consciousness arisen in the eye door dependent on the eye and forms ceases when its conditions are removed, without transmigrating to the ear, etc., and becoming reckoned as ear-consciousness, etc. Thus the Buddha says in effect: "In the occurrence of consciousness there is not even the mere transmigration from door to door, so how can this misguided Saati speak of transmigration from existence to existence?" " We then read about the conditioned nature of dhammas and about paticca samuppada. Just the five khandhas which arise dependent on conditions and fall away immediately. No reincarnation, no 'evolving self'! as I understand! Best wishes for the rest of your stay in Malaysia and return to Thailand. Metta & Respect, Sarah ======== #78334 From: "vipassana_infonet" Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 10:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dr han tun, sarah and nina vipassana_in... respected dr han, you wrote: > (1) Pannatti and Paramattha > This is one of my weakest points. Theoretically, I > know the main points of what is pannatti and what is > paramattha. But on practical terms, I go by pannatti > sometimes, and I go by paramattha sometimes. At times > I get all mixed-up. you may carefully read the particular discourse by most ven webu sayadaw - where he clears all confusion in his own brilliant way. I mention the link here, again: http://www.webcom.com/imcuk/Webu/WEBU11.html ven. sayadaw has pointed out that sutta/abhidhamma approaches merge in the direct experience of nama-rupa. this experiential awareness clears all doubts. sayagyi u ba khin also said that one needs to know anicca continually and that this direct experience of anicca will answer all questions. you mention about your knowing less about dhamma etc. but, what is knowing more about dhamma? who is the real wise? buddha answers: "vedana parijanati pandito". with the practice of vipassana, one sees the ENTIRE field of sensations (parijanati). such a meditator is a real pandito. with sincere regards, manish agarwala #78335 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 10:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) sarahprocter... Dear Ven Dhammanando, --- dhammanando_bhikkhu wrote: > > Why did he have to live all 7 lives? He could have been reborn in > > Tusita heaven and then reborn for the final time on Earth. > > Tusita devas don't live long enough for this to be possible. For that > matter, neither does > Tusita itself. The destructions and evolutions of the Cakkavaa.la that > occur in the interval > between two Buddhas leave only certain of the highest Brahma heavens > intact. .... S: I know this is a rather academic point, but would you kindly give me a reference to the last line? It is exactly a point that came up in passing while we were in India, i.e life systems in this world as we know it become extinct (when the sasana dies out) but some life continues in some of the highest realms. Metta & Respect, Sarah p.s Also was sorry to hear about your illness and hope you're fully recoverd. ========== #78336 From: han tun Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 10:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Realities and Concepts (1) To Nina please. hantun1 Dear Nina (and DC), (1) DC asked me some clarification about my post on the subject of Realities and Concepts. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/78289 -------------------- (2) I have replied to him to the best of my ability. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/78306 -------------------- (3) But DC could not understand my explanation. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/78324 -------------------- Could you kindly help me out please? Thank you very much. Respectfully, Han #78337 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 10:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Alan Driver's Funeral - final installment sarahprocter... Dear Nina & all, Thx for your feedback. --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: This reminds me that all the ruupas of the body now, all of them > fall away. Just like dust or dirt. > We keep on forgetting this, keeping on thinking of the whole body. ... S: Yes, as I wrote it, I was also thinking of the quotes of hers you've given on atta-sa~n~naa, such as this one when there's the idea of a body as a while: KS:< With regard to mindfulness of Body, kaayanupassana satipatthaana, there is no self who knows this rupa and then that rupa. When sati is aware of hardness there is no self, the body as a whole, from head to toes, does not appear. Sound does not appear at that moment. When hardness appears, atta-sa~n~naa, the wrong remembrance of self, that has been accumulated, cannot let go yet of the idea of self, or of self who knows. But when hardness appears that characteristic can be considered as non-self. It is a long time practice, ciira kaala bhaavanaa. Realities arise and pass away very rapidly. The object of sati arises and falls away very fast and then there is thinking of hardness, of a flower. After sati has fallen away, there are many moments without sati. > ... > BTW Sarah, you mentioned before that some disturbing thing happened. > Was that the letting go of the ashes in the water? ... S: I don't remember anything disturbing (Jon doesn't either). I recall that I was tightly holding the urn of ashes on the boat, watching the beautiful trail of flower petals behind us. K.Sujin asked me to let go of the urn into the water and the instruction had to be repeated by others before I could do so. Not disturbing at all, but sometimes it can be very difficult to let go.....even of dust or dirt when there's atta sa~n~naa! It reminds me of a family member of K.Sujin's who was with us on a recent India trip. In her suitcase she carried around the ashes of her daughter who'd died from a sickness. It was very difficult for her to listen to the Dhamma at all because she could only think about her lovely daughter (understandably, of course). K.Sujin's comment to me was that she just couldn't let go..... Whenevr we are lost in the nimitta-anupyanjana (signs and details), lost in the story of atta (someone or something), there is no 'letting go' of attachment. Metta, Sarah p.s Thx for encouraging me to transcribe and share the Qs and As from the funeral. You (or Ann?)mentioned to me that you'd had a helpful, brief chat with KS at the Sangha-dana in Bodh Gaya (maybe your Qs on seeing and v.o.?). Perhaps you could transcribe these Qs and As when you have time. ====== #78338 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 11:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma, Suttas & Meditation sarahprocter... Dear DC (& Alex), --- DC Wijeratna wrote: > What I give below may be considered as "vohaara dhamma." That is agreed > by people who study "History of Buddhism. Mine is not a direct response > as such. I am giving an "opinion" but not a personal one. It is what is > considered as knowledge by the world. .... S: You then give a long list of so called facts. Some are quite erroneous, I believe, such as the one suggesting that the Abhidhamma Pitaka only came to light at the third council, the first one which implies Dhamma-Vinaya only refers to suttanta and Vinaya, the 'conclusive' evidence that Abhidhamma is a later 'creation' based on the fact that the Theravada Abhidhamma is different from the Saravastivada and Sariputta Abhidhamma-sastra versions. You also suggest that in Sri Lanka no one other that scholar monks had any use for texts other than Dhp, Jataka and their commentaries. I've certainly met many, many people in your country with a far greater knowledge and interest than you give them credit for. At the end, the only references you mention (without any details) are 'Encyclopedia of Buddhism' and 'Sri Lanka Government'! Does this mean that the Sri Lanka Government denies the validity and word of the earliest (I believe) historical chronical in Sri Lanka, the Mahavamsa and the ancient commentaries written and preserved in Sri Lanka? What are the reputable sources your sources rely on? Just one would be interesting to study. We have quite a few historical texts about the Pali Canon in addition to the some of these commentaries, so it's easy to check. ... DC:> 1. At the First Council (sangiiti), only Dhamma and Vinaya were recited. ... S: Let's consider again what is meant by Dhamma and Vinaya as rehearsed at the First Concil. Let me repeat two quotes I've given before: A) Atthasalini (commentary to the Dhammasangani), Introductory discourse (PTS transl): [referring to the reciting of the Abhidhamma at the First Council]: "Thus at the time of the Rehearsal at the First Council, held by the five hundred, the company of the self-controlled who recited under the presidency of Mahaakassapa did so after previous determination: '[This is the Doctrine, this is the Vinaya], these are the first words, these the middle words, these the later words of the Buddha; this is the Vinaya-Pitaka, this the Suttanta-Pitaka, this the Abhidhamma-Pitaka, this the Diigha Nikaaya.....Khuddaka Nikaaya; these the nine parts, to wit, the Suttas, etc.; these the eightly-four thousand units of text.' And not only this: the various literary expedients appearing in the three Pi.takas such as the lists of contents (uddaana), chapters (vagga), elisions (peyyaala), sections (nipaata) of single, double subjects, etc., groups (sa.myutta), fifties (pa~n~naasa) - all this having been arranged, was rehearsed in seven months." ********* B) G.P. Malalasekera, 'The Pali Literature of Ceylon': "When later the text of the canon came to be compiled, arranged, and edited, some of the expositions found their way into the Pitakas and were given a permanent place therein. Thus we have the Sangiti-suttanta of the Digha Nikaya, ascribed to Sariputta and forming a complete catechism of terms and passages of exegetical nature. Such was also the Sacca-vibhanga (an exposition of the four Noble Truths) of the Majjhima, which later found its proper place in the second book of the Abhidhamma-Pitaka, and also the Madhu-pindika-sutta of Maha-Kaccayana, included in the Majjhima Nikaya. "It sometimes happened that for a proper understanding of the text, explanations of a commentarial nature were quite essential; and in such cases the commentary was naturally incorporated into the text and formed part of the text itself.......Then there is the Niddesa, a whole book of commentary on texts now included in the Sutta-nipata; and there are passages clearly of a commentarial nature scattered throughout the Nikayas." ***** S: In other words, it is erroneous I believe to say that Dhamma Vinaya just refers to suttas given by the Buddha and the Vinaya. It is also erroneous to say that there was no mention of Abhidhamma Pitaka until the 3rd Council and that the 84,000 parts of the Teachings rehearsed at the Frist Council excluded all Abhidhamma and commentarial-nature Dhamma. Again, I look forward to examining just one of your sources carefully with you. Metta, Sarah ======= #78339 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 12:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Realities and Concepts (1) sarahprocter... Dear DC,(& Han), --- DC Wijeratna wrote: > Now it is the eye-consciousness that sees. So we have three things that > sees. You(I), a concept, and eye-consciousness. .... S: Only eye-consciousness sees, no You or I. It is dependent on the visible object, the eye-base and contact with these. Only visible object is ever seen. -------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.018.than.html "Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one complicates. Based on what a person complicates, the perceptions & categories of complication assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye. .... S: The translation uses 'one', but actually there are only ever the namas (eye-consciousness, contact, feeling, perception so on) and the rupa (form). After the experience of seeing the form, later there is the thinking about concepts on account of the rupa, attachment and so on. I hope this helps a little. Metta, Sarah ========= #78340 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 2:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Alan Driver's Funeral - final installment nilovg Dear Sarah, thank you for your further comments on alan's funeral. Op 9-nov-2007, om 7:48 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > You (or Ann?)mentioned to me that you'd had a helpful, brief chat > with KS at the Sangha-dana in Bodh Gaya ------ N: Yes, it was lovely and I taped it. I like so much to transcribe it, but then, the amount of emails now. What shall I give priority to? Nina. #78341 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 2:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: nimitta. Relations Among Rupas/Jon nilovg Hi Howard, I am just curious, what is the LOL about? I kept on wondering what was funny. BTW I hope your test was OK, Lodewijk had it several times and it is no joke. Nina. Op 8-nov-2007, om 20:30 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Thank you for the following. Interestingly (to me! LOL!), I think our > understanding is close on this matter. #78342 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 2:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Development of understanding. Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) - to Nina nilovg Dear Elaine, I like your questions, they are deep. I try to answer in a short way, lack of time. Op 8-nov-2007, om 23:23 heeft Elaine het volgende geschreven: > Elaine: (1) How is right understanding developed? -------- N: We have to know what right understanding is, what its object. Usually we live in the world of conventional realities, such as person, tree, table. But these are just concepts we can think of. The Buddha taught us that there are realities appearing one at atime through one of the six doors. Sound is experienced through the ear- door. Sound is always sound, it has its own characteristic, no matter how we name it. It is a dhamma, or paramattha dhamma, ultimate reality. Hearing experiences sound, it is a dhamma, or paramattha dhamma, ultimate reality. It is not a person who hears, hearing hears. Paramattha dhammas have the characteristics of impermanence, dukkha, anattaa. Very gradually understanding can be developed by being aware of one dhamma at a time when it appears. When hearing appears, there is no other reality appearing at that moment. --------- > E:(2) How can pa~n~naa be accumulated? ------- N: One moment of understanding arises and then falls away. It is never lost, there are now conditions that it can arise again and again and thus it is accumulated. It grows. We can compare this with the situation of a child who learns different things at school. Its knowledge develops more and more until it is mature. ------- > E: (3) By reading the suttas and listening to dhamma talks is it > enough to get enlightened? ------- N: What we heard has to be applied in our daily life. With great confidence, with ardent energy, with perseverance. Never being tired to consider again and again what we heard, testing out the meaning, in our daily life now. At the same time performing any kind of kusala through body, speech and mind for which there is an opportunity. Not wasting any opportunities. It helps to think of the wellbeing of others, more than being preoccupied with ourselves. Nina. #78343 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 2:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Alan Driver's Funeral - final installment sarahprocter... Dear Nina, No hurry at all for anything....pls take your time with replies, the transcribing and so on - I'm also very behind with a lot of replies, editing, U.P. and so on which is partly why I had delayed the last part of the Alan's funeral.... Sometimes we make a priority and then by conditions it all changes anyway. Like today, I was meeting my cousin and her husband in Hong Kong, doing some editing work and wasn't planning to write....but it happened anyway. I do hope Lodewijk is fully recovered now. I'm sure he's happy to be home and back to his own projects. We don't want him complaining that you're writing too much! Metta, Sarah --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > You (or Ann?)mentioned to me that you'd had a helpful, brief chat > > with KS at the Sangha-dana in Bodh Gaya > ------ > N: Yes, it was lovely and I taped it. I like so much to transcribe > it, but then, the amount of emails now. What shall I give priority to? #78344 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 1:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "The Teachings are Dying" egberdina Hi Christine, On 06/11/2007, Christine Forsyth wrote: > > > Hello all, > > During Dhamma talks in India, I recall that a statement was made by K. > Sujin to the effect that "The Teachings are dying". My remembrance is > that she seemed of the view that they were dying rather quickly. Do > any others who were present recall something similar? > I've got good or bad news for you, depending on how you would like things to be. But, in a nutshell, the teachings are not dying. In fact, you would be hard pushed to find a non-theistic university graduate today that believes in a soul / agency . People from all walks of life acknowledge the reality of anatta. And most of them understand that there is no such thing as copyright on ideas. In other words, noone owns this realisation of the voidness of experience, so no-one needs to go on pilgrimages, worship relics, pay special attention to folks in particular garb, blah di blah di blah. What is dying is belief in the efficacy of rites and rituals, you know, the silabat.. para..... thing. And let's all praise the Lord for that :-) Herman #78345 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 2:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A bit of a logical argument egberdina Hi DC, On 31/10/2007, DC Wijeratna wrote: > > > Here, we need to make an assumption. That the Buddha was enlightened. Or at least to >discuss these questions withing the 'Laws of the Buddha'. We cannot analyse, for >example, how a fan rotates, if we question the Maxwell's Equations. I am making here a >point which I think is important. If I have not made myself clear please comeback. I understand your point very well. So, do devas cause the weather at their whim? If you say they do because that's what it says the Buddha said in the Tipitaka, we have no common ground. Have you never read anything in the Tipitaka so outrageous as to immediately prompt a realisation of ignorance? I am happy to assume the Buddha was enlightened. But I must insist that you accept that he never penned a single verse, and especially not the ones that makes Him a puppet for a the clueless. > > Now, what the Buddha said was: There are only 'sattaa' within our experience. Now a human being is a human being. It cannot be separated as atman and a physical body. In a language that is closer to us mind and body is not true. But mindbody is true. The Buddha called it Naamaruupa, sometimes, panchakkhanda. But in normal conversation he would use the term purisa-puggala. > > So I kept it short and restricted to one topic: attaa. > Well, if the Buddha said that there are only beings, and then proceeded to teach that beings are anatta, I might be inclined to move to the next stall in the fairground. Maybe to have a look at the guy with the funny hair, or the very long toenails. Herman #78346 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 2:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Alan Driver's Funeral - final installment nilovg Dear Sarah, No, he is not complaining, but has a severe cold and great tiredness after the journey. He was at times on the verge of total exhaustian and almost fainting when in India. could hardly make it to the top of the hill at Rajagaha. He could not walk without shoes, etc. But still he was glad to have made this trip, though for the last time now. James was (friendly) scolding me off line , expressing his concern that I write too much. Nina. Op 9-nov-2007, om 11:38 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > I do hope Lodewijk is fully recovered now. I'm sure he's happy to > be home > and back to his own projects. We don't want him complaining that > you're > writing too much! #78347 From: "tom" Date: Thu Nov 8, 2007 6:55 pm Subject: Ruskin: zorroelbueno No great intellectual thing was ever done by great effort. quoted by tom #78348 From: "Phil" Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 2:59 am Subject: Re: A better way to discourage meditators! philofillet Hi again I'm going to rephrase this because it might have sounded like I was being facetious or snotty, but I was being serious in a roundabout way. > > > I would like to give you a friendly tip. There is a much better and > easier, more clearly textually supported way to discourage "formal" > meditators It's a way to help to discourage unreasonable expectations re the meditation, I think. Now, please have a look for it! :) Metta, Phil #78349 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 3:00 am Subject: Q. re: Realioties and concepts. nilovg Dear Han, DC, Sarah answered the Q in explaining what seeing is. I wonder, could I add more? -------- DC: Again I take only one sentence. "Han: Suppose you see a man standing in front of you, and you think you see a man." Please don't me annoyed with me for being such a slow-witted person. I have difficulty in understanding the above sentence. The difficulty is when I see a man, I don't think I see a man. I SEE a man. I never have the experience that you are talking about. And nobody that I know of. ------- N: Han means: you believe that you see a man. In reality seeing sees only what impinges on the eyesense. A man cannot impinge on the eyesense. In common language we say: we see a person. But when we analyse the different cittas, we gain more understanding of what is really going on. Seeing arises, and after that there is remembrance of shape and form, defining what is seen, etc. We learn that there are many different processes of cittas going on, sense-door processes and mind-door processes. This is meaningful, because it leads to detachment, detachment form the idea of self. -------- DC: In the next sentence you say say: "But a man is a concept." ------ N: On account of what is seen, concepts are formed up, such as a man, a person. What we call man are only ever-changing elements that arise and fall away. ------- DC: Taking the first and second sentences together, a concept sees. Because earlier you said "Suppose you see a man..", and I am a man, and then since a man is a concept, I am a concept, and therefore a concept sees. ------ N: Now, putting things together the way you try, we would get into a tangle. The above makes things needlessly confusing. -------- DC: Now go to the third sentence: "What actually the eye- consciousness sees ..." Now it is the eye-consciousness that sees. So we have three things that sees. You(I), a concept, and eye-consciousness. ----- N: This point was clarified by Sarah. Only seeing sees, not a person. ------ DC: Most probably I'll never be able to understand what you are saying. I again apologise. God has not given me sufficient intelligence, I suppose. But I'll keep trying. ------ N: This is perhaps a new subject for you, but slowly it will come. I see your interest (without mind-reading ;-)) Keep courage. Nina. #78350 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 3:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Realities and Concepts (1) nilovg Dear Han, Op 9-nov-2007, om 0:10 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > So, what Khun Sujin was saying was one should listen > to the Dhamma (capital ‘D’ denotes Buddha’s teachings) > so that one will really understand what the > eye-consciousness sees. If it sees the sense object as > a ‘man’ it is seeing the concept. And this seeing > process is through the eye door. ---------- N: Perceiving a man is not seeing, it takes place in a mind-door process of cittas arising later on. But since cittas are so fast, it seems all the time that we see a person. A very common mistake we all make. Then we learn that this is not the truth, we understand this intellectually. It is by satipatthana that the truth will be penetrated. It takes a long, long time! Nina. #78351 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 3:10 am Subject: Re: sound. [dsg] Realities and Concepts (1) nilovg Dear DC, Op 8-nov-2007, om 19:38 heeft DC Wijeratna het volgende geschreven: > But this is the most difficult to understand. When you are > listening (to Dhamma), object of your mind is sound. Then you say > the "object of citta is a concept". The citta has two objects at > the same time, so it appears. ------- N: Citta experiences only one object at a time. In the ear-door process and the immediately succeeding mind-door process, the citta experiences sound. Later on, in different mind-door processes, the meaning of the sound is known. Then citta knows a concept formed up on account of having heard a sound. This happens all the time in our life, the whole day. The Abhidhamma teaches about daily life.It does not teach abstractions. Nina. #78352 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 3:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Realities and Concepts (1) ... Citta and We... nilovg Hi Tep, Op 8-nov-2007, om 16:19 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > At this > > moment realities arise and fall away and succeed one > > another so rapidly that it seems that we see a > > thing, > > such as a fan. The fan rotates, and it seems that we > > can see rupas (matter) moving. > > > > T: Is 'we' the same as 'citta', or is 'we' one > > entity and 'citta' another? -------- N: The word 'we' is merely used for the sake of explanation. In reality it is citta that notices a fan or mistkenly 'sees' rupas moving. Nina. #78353 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 3:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Alan Driver's Funeral - final installment sarahprocter... Dear Nina, I know it was a really arduous trip for Lodewijk and he wished to keep you company and help look after you everywhere as well as visiting the various places, of course. He's so very devoted and kind. I particularly enjoyed a nice chat with him at Kusinara during the Thai talk. It was a mixture of conventional topics inc. the themes of his memoirs and and Dhamma topics - especially the present moment dhammas. With good rest I'm sure he'll recover well soon. All the tests and trials in India are long gone....just a dream now. Kind of James to show his concern for you. You both have many good friends here. Meanwhile, of course the Dhamma writing is your medicine. Even after your physical difficulties in India, you always make such a quick recovery on return with all the Dhamma reminders and projects! Best wishes to Lodewijk, metta, Sarah (& Jon) #78354 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 4:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: eCard from India - Benares egberdina Hi Tep, On 09/11/2007, Tep Sastri wrote: > > > T: The trouble was your kamma-vipaka, Jon. You reaped what you > sowed. ;-) > I know you are only joking. And I'm sorry to use your good-natured post to highlight how an incorrect grasp of causality leads to the most ignorant of reactions. The following, especially the excerpt between the stars, hopefully shows how anyone who uses kamma to justify what has just happened, is in dire need of a check-up from the neck up. Killer cow put to death From correspondents in Phnom Penh October 17, 2007 09:24am Article from: Agence France-PresseFont size: + - Send this article: Print Email A CAMBODIAN cow arrested by authorities last week after causing a string of traffic deaths has been butchered by its owner to prevent future highway carnage. The animal had repeatedly escaped its enclosure and wandered into a nearby road. Last week a motorcyclist hit it and was killed, local police chief Pin Doman said. Earlier this year, the cow caused a collision between several vehicles on the same road on the outskirts of the capital Phnom Penh, killing five people and injuring several others, police said. But following last week's wreck, the cow was seized and kept at the police station for more than a day before being given to the family of the dead motorist, Pin Doman said. ***But relatives returned the cow to its owner without demanding compensation, saying the dead man's bad karma might have caused his fateful meeting with the wayward beast, he said.*** Its owner, Kob Ry, promptly killed the cow on Sunday and sold the meat, the police chief said. "The owner wanted to avoid trouble in the future,'' he said. Fast driving and wandering livestock often result in crashes on Cambodia's rural highways, although human fatalities are rare. --- Herman #78355 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 4:48 am Subject: Re: Conditions, Ch17, no3. ...Some Comments... scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Thanks for the reply: T: "Let me ask you a crucial question before proceeding. Did the Buddha ever talk about concept(pannatti) in the Suttana Teachings?" Scott: Good question. I found this (not a lot of time to look, but its a start. Plus I'm not sure yet about its meaning): SN 62(10) Pathways of Language (Bh. Bodhi, tr.) "At Savatthi: "Bhikkhus, there are these three pathways of language, pathways of designation, pathways of description, that are unmixed, that were never mixed, that are not being mixed, that will not be mixed, that are not rejected by wise ascetics and brahmins. What three? Whatever form, bhikkhus, has passed, ceased, changed, the term, label, and description 'was' applies to it, not the term 'is' or the term 'will be'...Whatever feeling...perception...volitional formations...consciousness..." [Niruttipatha sutta,m 62. Saavatthiya.m Tayo me bhikkhave, niruttipathaa adhivacanapathaa pa~n~nattipathaa asa.mki.n.naa asa.mki.n.napubbaa na sa.mkiiyanti, na sa.mkiiyissanti appatiku.t.thaa sama.nehi braahma.nehi vi~n~nuuhi. Katame tayo: Ya.m bhikkhave, ruupa.m atiita.m niruddha.m vipari.nata.m, 'ahosii'ti tassa sa.mkhaa, 'ahosii'ti tassa sama~n~naa, 'ahosii'ti tassa pa~n~natti, na tassa sa.mkhaa 'atathii'ti. Na tassa sa.mkhaa 'bhavissatii'ti...] Note 95: "Niruttipathaa adhivacanapathaa pa~n~nattipathaa Spk: Language (nirutti, linguistic expression) is itself the pathway of language; or alternatively, language is called the pathway of language because it is the pathway for the communication of meanings to be understood through language. The other two terms should be understood in the same way; the three are synonyms." Scott: I wouldn't mind if anyone has access to further Commentarial elaboration here. Anyway, Tep, do you know of any others? I can keep searching. Why do you ask? T: "Please give a few examples of conceptual objects. Are invisible ruupas not a reality? Are inaudible sounds not a reality? The eyeball, including the retina, nerve, blood, etc., perform the various functions that support seeing. Isn't the eyeball pa~n~natti, yet it is impermanent?" Scott: I'm wondering whether what you say ("Since an 'idea' is a thought, or a mind object, i.e. 'dhamma'...") is correct. I was going to say a thought is a conceptual object, which it may be, but I'm now not sure - and this may just be an aside - whether an 'idea' is a 'dhamma'. I'll say no for now and suggest that an 'idea', although a 'conceptual object' is pa~n~natti, not paramattha dhamma. But at any rate, I'll tentatively consider a 'thought' or an 'idea' to be a conceptual object. I'm still thinking that sati can't have pa~n~natti as object but I think this is an old matter of speculation here. T: "Whoa, Scott! You are making the suject matter too complicated. Are you sure that there are BOTH ultimate realities AND mundane realities? Or, is the latter your invention? :-))" Scott: Well, my wording was poor there for sure. I was recalling that we concur on the lokiya/lokuttara dichotomy. I mean 'lokiya' for 'mundane'. Sati can arise with lokiya moment of consciousness, if one can put it that way, and have any sort of conditioned dhamma as object or sati can arise with lokuttara moment of consciousness and have Nibbaana as object. Corrections desired. Sorry for the confusion. T: "Only Nibbana? Then, is a sati that takes a ruupa (or a naama) as the object an ultimate reality, or is it a mundane reality?" Scott: No. Two things here. I'm saying that I think sati takes only paramattha dhammas as object. I'm also saying that sati can arise with lokiya moments of consciousness and sati can arise with lokuttara moments of consciousness. In the former case, sati has conditioned ultimate realities as object, in the latter case, sati has Nibbaana as object. T: "I think you might have made the simple subject complicated." Scott: Although I may be wrong in what I suggest, you seem to have misunderstood the gist of my argument - the part coming from a previously agreed to distinction. This is likely due to my imprecise wording. Sorry. T: "That reminds me of what Azita said about 'overestimating' a simple principle." Scott: Hopefully you can stand easy now. Sincerely, Scott. #78356 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 4:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] After a long period of no study - how to get started again sarahprocter... Dear Seonai, Welcome to DSG! A good way to start would also be by saying a little more about your background and asking any questions here. The list is busy, so you may wish to start by just reading answers in the thread you start and other relatively straight forward ones. Do you still live in London? I wonder if you're Thai? I come from England myself and used to occasionally visit the Thai temple when I lived in London many years ago. Thanks again for mentioning your interest and I look forward to discussing Dhamma with you later. Metta, Sarah --- somo wrote: > I studied Buddhism and meditation many years ago with the Thai temple > in London and would now like to get back into studying Ahbiddhamma and > some meditation. Has anyone got any ideas as to how to go about this > from a distance? #78357 From: han tun Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 5:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (5) hantun1 Dear Sukin, I thank you very, very much for taking all the trouble to write a very long post for my benefit. I will keep in my mind all the points you have kindly mentioned. Those who are close to me know that I am a very strange person. So strange that at times, I don’t know myself even. When I was drinking, I drank about 200 ml of black label a day, everyday, for more than 40 years. My close friends used many approaches to persuade me to reduce my drinking. I did not listen. When I was 70 for no apparent reason I suddenly stopped drinking all together. I have not taken a drop of whisky for the past 11 years. In the same way, right now, I cannot *fully* accept no-person attitude. Sometimes I will use no-Han approach, sometimes I will use yes-Han approach. Nobody will be able to persuade me to change my ways. I am also prepared to face the consequences for that kind of attitude. I said I believe in Sakka saasana and will observe more siila. But if someone challenges me I will be prepared to break the precepts and face the Sakka. But when time comes I might be more anatta than those who are advocating anatta today. But I repeat my sincere appreciation for your kind words and wise suggestions. I will keep them in mind. Respectfully, Han --- Sukinder wrote: > Dear Han (Nina and Sarah), > > In another post you expressed concern about too much > insistence on > Anatta. Here you seem to be expressing a similar > sentiment with regard > to Right View in general. I agree that on the whole, > anatta is stressed > much more than anicca and dukkha and Right > Understanding is given > attention much more than other aspects of the > Teachings. But you will > have noted that much of this is in reaction to > remarks by others about > the Dhamma, which seem to be conditioned by `self > view'. #78358 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 12:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Realities and Concepts (1) upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (DC, and Han) - In a message dated 11/9/2007 3:05:20 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.018.than.html "Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one complicates. Based on what a person complicates, the perceptions & categories of complication assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye. .... S: The translation uses 'one', but actually there are only ever the namas (eye-consciousness, contact, feeling, perception so on) and the rupa (form). After the experience of seeing the form, later there is the thinking about concepts on account of the rupa, attachment and so on. =============================== I agree that there is no "one" involved. What is the meaning of the original Pali, though? I've seen this sutta similarly translated in the past. Kalupahana interprets the switch to the "one" usage at the point of feeling as intentional, with that usage in the sutta indicating that it is exactly at that step that the deluded sense of "person" enters in. (Maybe so, maybe not - but interesting.) With metta, Howard #78359 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 5:25 am Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Thanks for the reply: A: "Buddha and other Arahants constantly used common expressions. The difference is that they knew that they knew the concepts, and its limitations. When I say "Follow N8P" I obviously do not try to say that "Atta literally do this and that". Buddha used concepts in order to point the way toward Nibbana where all concepts cease. If we start to reify concepts then: a) We are outside of N8P b) We will fall in many philosophical contradictions." Scott: To which 'concepts' do you refer? The Noble Eighfold Path does not consist of 'reified concepts' it consists of ultimate dhammas. I think you continue to demonstrate a misunderstanding in this regard. There are only paramattha dhammas and the conditional relations with which they 'move' ('move' being merely a concept). A: "Some of us today may have as much if not MORE good Kamma than people of those times. Look, we can read much more discources of the Buddha (found in DN,MN,SN,AN) than people of those times could hear. The only problem is all the technology, its noise and business. But that can be remedied..." Scott: This seems to be more rhetoric. This purely speculative claim doesn't address the question of whether there can be an attitude which can propel a person to Arahatship 'in this very lifetime!!!'. A: "Scott, please don't be afraid to use "I, person, being". Buddha certainly wasn't afraid. One doesn't have to be attached to the concepts and their limitations. Oh btw, to me personally, a mind moment is a concept not unlike 'A person'." Scott: Please spare me the rhetorical advice ("Go Team Buddha!"). The words 'mind moment' designate paramattha dhammas. The idea of mind moment - as 'idea' - is conceptual. The actual dhammas of which this 'mind moment' consists are not concepts. A: "Buddha OFTEN used words such as "atta" (in fact a chapter in Dhammapada ch12 is called "Self"). Of course his listeners knew the concepts and their limits." Scott: Yes, his listeners had highly developed pa~n~naa. This is not the case today. Just sample the multitude of views present in todays 'Buddhism'. A: "Do you understand how philosophically unsound this is? Following this logic, Sotapannas unshakeble faith in the Buddha lasts a Mind moment... As well as all the other factors of ariyas...Also this logic would mean that some moments a person is an Anagami or an Arahat because greed, hatred or delusion citta is momentary not there. Or to say in a language you prefer: Also this logic would mean that some moments a citta is indistinguishable from an Anagami or an Arahat state because greed, hatred or delusion citta is momentary not there." Scott: You still think of sotapanna or anagami or arahat as person. You are taking to the designation and reifying/personifying it and now you have the concept 'Arahat' in mind when you think of these things. The Path consists of a single moment which, depending on its level, eradicates dhammas leading to rebirth. Once the Path has arisen and fallen away, these dhammas no longer arise. A: "When Buddha has spoke about impermanence you will notice that it is impermanence on a Grand Scale. Literal rebirth, aging, sickness & death." Scott: No, not only this. Sincerely, Scott. #78360 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 5:27 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (70) nichiconn dear friends, Part 10 13. Viisatinipaato 5. Subhaakammaaradhiitutheriigaathaava.n.nanaa verse: 346. "Ettha rattaa pamattaa ca, sa.mkili.t.thamanaa naraa; a~n~nama~n~nena byaaruddhaa, puthuu kubbanti medhaga.m. 344. Many men who are infatuated with this and careless, with defiled minds, being obstructed one by another, make a quarrel. txt: Ettha rattaa pamattaa caati etasmi.m dhane rattaa sa~njaataraagaa dasakusaladhammesu satiyaa vippavaasena pamattaa. Sa.mkili.t.thamanaa lobhaadisa.mkilesena sa.mkili.t.thacittaava naama honti. Tato ca a~n~nama~n~namhi byaaruddhaa, puthuu kubbanti medhaga.m antamaso maataapi puttena, puttopi maataraati eva.m a~n~nama~n~na.m pa.tiruddhaa hutvaa puthuu sattaa medhaga.m kalaha.m karonti. Tenaaha bhagavaa- "puna capara.m, bhikkhave, kaamahetu kaamanidaana.m kaamaadhikara.na.m.pe. maataapi puttena vivadati puttopi maataraa vivadatii"ti-aadi (ma. ni. 1.168, 178). 344. Infatuated with this (ettha) and careless means: infatuated by this (etasmi.m) wealth, careless through the absence of mindfulness regarding the ten good characteristics. [Men] with defiled minds (sa.m-kili.t.tha-manaa), their minds are defiled (sa.mkili.t.tha-cittaa) through the corruption of greed, etc. And then, being obstructed one by another (a~n~na-m-a~n~namhi), [they] make a quarrel, even a mother with her child or a child with its mother. In this way, they are hindered by one another (a~n~na-m-a~n~namhi); many beings make a quarrel (medhaga.m = kalaha.m). As the Blessed One said:* "And moreover, bhikkhus, with sensual pleasures as the cause, with sensual pleasures as the origin, as a consequence of sensual pleasures ... mother quarrels with child, child quarrels with mother," etc. *M I 86 (MLDB 181). verse: 347. "Vadho bandho parikleso, jaani sokapariddavo; kaamesu adhipannaana.m, dissate byasana.m bahu.m. 345. Slaughter, bonds, calamity, loss, grief, and lamentation - much misfortune is seen for those who have fallen into sensual pleasures. txt: Vadhoti mara.na.m. Bandhoti addubandhanaadibandhana.m. Pariklesoti hatthacchedaadiparikilesaapatti. Jaaniiti dhanajaani ceva parivaarajaani ca. Sokapariddavoti soko ca paridevo ca. Adhipannaananti ajjhositaana.m. Dissate byasana.m bahunti yathaavuttavadhabandhanaadibheda.m avutta~nca domanassupaayaasaadi.m di.t.thadhammika.m samparaayika~nca bahu.m bahuvidha.m byasana.m anattho kaamesu dissateva. 345. Slaughter means: death. Bonds (bandho) means: being bound with wooden bonds, etc. (addu-bandhanaadi-bandhana.m).* Calamity (parikleso) means: falling into a calamity such as having one's hands cut off (hatta-cchedaadi-parikilesaapatti). Loss (jaani) means: both the loss of wealth (dhana-jaani) and the loss of followers (parivaara-jaani). Grief and lamentation (soka-pariddavo) means: both grief (soko) and lamentation (paridevo). Much (bahu.m) misfortune is seen means: much, various sorts of (bahu-vidha.m), misfortune, bad fortune, is seen, grief and despair that belongs to this world and the next, those spoken of above such as flogging and binding, etc, and those not mentioned. *CPD only gives "eating" as a meaning for addu. I take it here as a variant of andu. On the translation "wooden bonds," see Dhp-a IV 56 (TD 362). For a list of bonds, see Vin III 47 (BD 175). ===to be continued, connie #78361 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 12:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: nimitta. Relations Among Rupas/Jon upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 11/9/2007 5:20:52 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, I am just curious, what is the LOL about? I kept on wondering what was funny. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: At first I was just going to write "interestingly". But then I thought "Hmm, I find it interesting, but perhaps no one else does! It's probably ego-based to assume otherwise." And so, I added the change, with amusement at my own conceit that what interests me also interests others. (I hope that clarifies this, Nina.) ---------------------------------------------------- BTW I hope your test was OK, Lodewijk had it several times and it is no joke. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Thanks, Nina. It went well (unproblematically), and the results were perfect. -------------------------------------------------- Nina. Op 8-nov-2007, om 20:30 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Thank you for the following. Interestingly (to me! LOL!), I think our > understanding is close on this matter. ============================== With metta, Howard #78362 From: han tun Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 6:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Realities and Concepts (1) hantun1 Dear Howard (Sarah, DC), The following is the translation and Pali text. -------------------- Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. Cakkhu~ncaavuso paticca ruupe ca uppajjati cakkhuvi~n~naanam. The meeting of the three is contact. Ti.n.nam sangati phasso. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. Phassapaccayaa vedanaa. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). Yam vedeti, tam sa~njaanaati. What one perceives, one thinks about. Yam sa~njaanaati tam vitakketi. What one thinks about, one complicates. Yam vitakketi tam papa~nceti. Based on what a person complicates, the perceptions & categories of complication assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye. Yam papa~nceti tato nidaanam purisam papa~ncasa~n~naasankhaa samudaacaranti atiitaanaagata paccuppannesu cakkhuvi~n~neyyesu ruupesu -------------------- Han: “yam” and “tam” are translated as “one.” Respectfully, Han ========================= --- upasaka@... wrote: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.018.than.html > #78363 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 6:53 am Subject: Preserving the Buddha's Teachings, no 9. nilovg Dear friends, The Buddha taught that what we take for a person are in reality mental phenomena, nåma, and physical phenomena, rúpa. Seeing or hearing are nåmas, they experience something, they experience an object. Seeing experiences what is visible, colour or visible object. Hearing is quite different from seeing, it experiences sound. Visible object is rúpa, a physical phenomenon that does not experience anything. Visible object impinges on the eyesense that is also rúpa. Eyesense does not experience anything but it is a condition for seeing. Both visible object and eyesense are conditions for seeing. In the same way sound and earsense are conditions for hearing, odour and smellingsense for smelling, flavour and tastingsense for tasting, tangible object and bodysense for body-consciousness. The five senses are rúpas that are called the doorways through which the relevant sense objects, that are rúpas, are experienced. Through the mind-door all kinds of nåma and rúpa can be experienced. We are inclined to cling to a concept of self who is seeing, hearing or thinking, but in reality there are different moments of consciousness, cittas, that experience one object at a time and that do not last. When hearing arises there cannot be seeing at the same time. We cling to an idea of our body that belongs to us, but in reality the body consists of different kinds of physical phenomena, rúpas, that arise and fall away. When we were in the Jeta Grove we saw gardeners at work who were gathering grass and sticks, just as in the Buddha’s time. Later on Acharn Sujin reminded us of the Sutta in the “Kindred Sayings” about grass and sticks that are gathered and then burnt. We read in the “Kindred Sayings”(IV, Saîåyatana vagga, Kindred Sayings on Sense, Second Fifty, Ch 5, §101, Not yours) that the Buddha said: “What is not of you, monks, put it away. Putting it away will be for your profit and welfare. And what, monks, is not of you? The eye, monks, is not of you. Put it away. Putting it away will be for your profit and welfare. Objects are not of you... eye-consciousness... eye-contact... that pleasant or unpleasant or indifferent feeling which arises owing to eye-contact... Tongue is not yours...mind, mental objects, etc. are not yours. Put them away. Putting them away will be for your profit and welfare. Just as if, monks, a man should gather, burn or do what he likes with all the grass, all the sticks, branches and stalks in this Jeta Grove, pray, would he say ‘This man is gathering, is burning us, doing what he pleases with us’?” “Surely not, lord.” “Why not?” “Because, lord, this is not our self, nor of the nature of self.” “Even so, monks, the eye is not of you. Put it away. Putting it away will be for your profit and welfare. Objects and the rest are not of you. Put them away. Putting them away will be for your profit and welfare.” Grass and sticks are physical phenomena, they are rúpas outside that are not part of the body, they do not belong to anyone. However, also the rúpas of the body do not belong to us, they arise because of the appropriate conditions and then they fall away. When right understanding is developed all objects can be seen as non-self, anattå, and there can be detachment from the concept of self. ****** Nina. #78364 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 2:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Realities and Concepts (1) upasaka_howard Hi, Han - ============================ Thank you very much!! Perhaps Kalupahana is correct in his interpretation. With metta, Howard #78365 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 7:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Realities and Concepts (1) nilovg Dear Han and Howard, yam...tam... a relative pronoun and a demonstrative pronoun. That... which, but in Pali the relative is put first. yam first. As to the pronoun one: this does not occur in the Pali here. No need. The English can use one in order to make the sentence easier to understand. It is implied that there are only citta and cetasikas. Nina. Op 9-nov-2007, om 15:45 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > What one thinks about, one complicates. > Yam vitakketi tam papa~nceti. > > Based on what a person complicates, the perceptions & > categories of complication assail him/her with regard > to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the > eye. > Yam papa~nceti tato nidaanam purisam > papa~ncasa~n~naasankhaa samudaacaranti atiitaanaagata > paccuppannesu cakkhuvi~n~neyyesu ruupesu > -------------------- > Han: > “yam” and “tam” are translated as “one.” #78366 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 7:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Realities and Concepts (1) ... Citta and We... nilovg Dear Tep and Han. Op 9-nov-2007, om 0:23 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > T: Okay, 'we' is pannatti and 'citta' is paramattha. Do they co- > exist? I ask this question because KS also said : "When citta has a > paramattha dhamma (ultimate reality) as object, there are no beings, > people or things, there is no self.". And I have some trouble > understanding what happens to 'we' when 'citta' has a paramattha > dhamma as its object. Is 'we' gone in that moment and then comes back > later; or is it gone forever. ------ N: When citta has a paramattha dhamma (ultimate reality) as object, it experiences only that one object, say, sound. It does not experience any other object, nor does it think of any idea of a person. This is only for a moment. The next moment citta may think of a person. This is about the same as what Han says: sometimes Han, sometimes no- Han. No problem. It depends on conditions. Nina. #78367 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 7:24 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) truth_aerator Dear Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > 1. What, or who, puts anatta into action? >>>>> Not who, but "what" ? Vinnana-Nama-Rupa. >>>>>> > 2. Do the words 'put into action' mean 'control'? >>>>>>>> No. There isn't 100% control. But if proper conditions are met, proper results will. Vedana-Tanha is a weak link that can be broken with Vijja. >>>>>>>>>>> > 3. Do you believe that greed/anger/delusion/suffering are conditioned dhammas that rise and fall independent of the meditator's effort? >>>>>>>> Greed/anger/Delusion are conditioned. If the conditions are removed, the conditioned is removed as well. Meditators effort is to make wholesome grow and strengthen and unwholesome qualities to diminish and not appear. Harmonious (right) view, ardency, heedfulness, diligency, mindfulness and samadhi are required. >>>>>> > 4. How would you condition the right understanding that realizes "all the intricacies of Anatta" without a clear (at least intellectual) > knowledge of Anatta right from the beginning? >>>>>>>> Complete understanding comes with Arahatship. Before then it is not 100% complete. Anattalakhana, Pothpada sutta & DN#15, are very good suttas that are very deep and may be enough IF FOLLOWED AND PUT INTO PRACTICE TO PROPERLY. Lots of Metta, Alex #78368 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 7:41 am Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) truth_aerator Hi Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" scduncan@...> wrote: > Scott: To which 'concepts' do you refer? The Noble Eighfold Path does not consist of 'reified concepts' it consists of ultimate dhammas. >>>>>>>>>>>> Anything that can be expressed is a concept. Only when 6 senses cease and paranibbana is realized - only that goes beyond words and concepts. N8P IS NOT PARAMATTHA DHAMMA. It is conditioned and improvised which will have to be LET GO OFF. If there were ANY paramattha dhamma (word not used by the Buddha as in sabhava particle) then liberation would be IMPOSSIBLE. MN22 IF a person creates any sort of ultimates, then there is clinging there. Ego just LOVES ultimate and stable concepts which it can consiously or subconsiously appropriate. Please tell me in which sutta where the Buddha has talked about paramattha dhamma as in "sabhava particles". > think you continue to demonstrate a misunderstanding in this regard. There are only paramattha dhammas and the conditional relations with > which they 'move' ('move' being merely a concept). >> A paramattha dhamma (not taught by the Buddha) cannot act or be acted upon. It is contradictory to have paramattha dhamma & conditional relations. This ridiculous concept has been refuted many times through the history of Buddhist philosophy. Nagarjuna went to great length refuting this. Something that is ultimate would not be empirically visible or experienced. Furthermore in MN#1 Buddha has refuted any attempt to build "conditional relations". He must have spoken to proto-abhidhammikas. >>>>>>>>>>>>> > A: "Some of us today may have as much if not MORE good Kamma than > people of those times. Look, we can read much more discources of the > Buddha (found in DN,MN,SN,AN) than people of those times could hear. > The only problem is all the technology, its noise and business. But > that can be remedied..." > > Scott: This seems to be more rhetoric. This purely speculative claim doesn't address the question of whether there can be an attitude which can propel a person to Arahatship 'in this very lifetime!!!'. >>>>>>>>>> Look, if you are going to insist that, THEN YOU ARE RIGHT! If a "person" insists that "today it is impossible", then he is right - for him/her "self". > A: "Buddha OFTEN used words such as "atta" (in fact a chapter in > Dhammapada ch12 is called "Self"). Of course his listeners knew the > concepts and their limits." > > Scott: Yes, his listeners had highly developed pa~n~naa. This is not the case today. Just sample the multitude of views present in todays 'Buddhism'. >>>>> A person with highly developed panna will be able to distinguish between Dhamma and Adhamma and act accordingly. > > > Scott: You still think of sotapanna or anagami or arahat as person. >>> Well, they can definately walk and talk and recite the teachings. :) They aren't really "people" in a sense of non-clinging to the aggregates. > You are taking to the designation and reifying/personifying it and now > you have the concept 'Arahat' in mind when you think of these things. > The Path consists of a single moment which, depending on its level, > eradicates dhammas leading to rebirth. Once the Path has arisen and > fallen away, these dhammas no longer arise. >>>>> A "person" is a designation for 5 aggregates, a convinient short hand device for linguistic purposes. > A: "When Buddha has spoke about impermanence you will notice that it > is impermanence on a Grand Scale. Literal rebirth, aging, sickness & > death." > > Scott: No, not only this. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > Please provide references. He often defined "birth" as literal birth, and "death" as literal death. Lots of Metta, Alex #78369 From: Ken O Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 7:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A better way to discourage meditators! ashkenn2k Hi Phil We are never against samadhi, we are saying one must have right understanding to start any inclinations one like. Samadhi without the right understanding would result one rebirth to the highest immaterial realm, that does not eradicate defilement completely only suppress them. Please note that Buddha was able to do meditation up the highest level of immaterial realm when he learn from a teacher before becoming a Buddha but he still left something is missing. The samadhi you seen in Vismudhi, did you see the introductory preparation before embarking on the mediation technique about the ten faults of the monastery etc. Nonetheless, if that is your inclinations, pse go ahead, just remember right understanding is always the forerunner Cheers Ken O #78370 From: Dieter Möller Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 7:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: nimitta. Relations Among Rupas/Jon moellerdieter Howard , I found your explanation superb: "At first I was just going to write "interestingly". But then I thought "Hmm, I find it interesting, but perhaps no one else does! It's probably ego-based to assume otherwise." And so, I added the change, with amusement at my own conceit that what interests me also interests others. (I hope that clarifies this, Nina.)" may we find more places of refreshment in the Valley of Dry Bones ! :-) with Metta Dieter #78371 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 7:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma, Suttas & Meditation truth_aerator Hello Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: A) Atthasalini (commentary to the Dhammasangani), Introductory discourse (PTS transl): >>>> That is a later commentary. In DN#16 (4.37) Buddha has said that his skin appears very clear and bright (brighter than golden robe) only on two occasions: a)On the night of His awakenening b) On the night of his parinibbana "Two golden robes were Pukkusa's offering: Brighter shone the Teacher's body than its dress." pg 260 (LDB) NO MENTION OF EMITING RAYS DUE TO THINKING ABOUT Patthana. Why did he in the suttas did not say "check my words against sutta, vinaya, and Abhidhamma"? There wouldn't be any controversy if He mentioned 7 books of Abhidhamma-Pitaka.... Lots of Metta, Alex :) #78372 From: Ken O Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 8:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) ashkenn2k Hi Elaine Sorry for not replying you earlier. Panna arise becuase of wise attention or proper attention to objects impinge on our six senses. Object is neutral, it is only through the meeting of the object and sense consciouness, this is where akusala arise or kusala arise When one sees it as not self, impermanent and suffering. Wise attention arise However when one sees it as endearing, likeable, greed and ignorance arise So you also ask a question about why study and reading would help. Humans are creature of habit. When one expose to sensual desire, one thinks about it, when one thinks one incline to it. Similarily when expose to reading on Dhamma, it has the same effect. Reading must complement with thinking, investigation and reflection then this would help a lot basing on my personal experience. Hence it must start from reading and listening, then would understanding of the dhamma would grow. Slowly it would accumulate and condition wise attention which leads to the growth of panna. Chees Ken O #78373 From: Ken O Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 8:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Realities and Concepts (1) ashkenn2k Hi DC When you see a man, it is already the convergence of seeing cittas that paint you a man. For eg, when we see the pictures in the monitor, it comprises of many pixels combining together. Pixel can be said like paramatha dhammas while picutre is the conventional reality Kind regards Ken O #78374 From: Ken O Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 8:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) ashkenn2k Hi Dieter > D: there are certainly temporary moments experienced as no self, > absence of self. > But I understand anatta to be lasting detachment ( liberated from > the Khanda attachment, i.e. that is I ,that is mine ) as a result > of insight development. So only here anatta becomes a fact/law. > Up to that state the delusion I (that is my self) still produces > action (kamma), even there may be no belief /doubt in the > 'producer'. > When now e.g. some people , being wordlings, talk about our reality > , this existence here and now , telling other people that in fact > there is no self, no persons talking, they take the Arahant > position , without having any own base of that perfect view (samma > ditthi). > I suppose here a source of frequent disputes. KO: Anatta is not something that only a law when one becomes an Arahant. It is law discover by Buddha and this is the law even before Buddha arise. It is a law even one is a wordlings, that is what dependent orignation is about. When this arise, that arise. Just like when pain arise in the body after piercing a thorn, pain arise because of causes and conditions. If pain is not anatta, we would have said, we do not wish to feel pain. We cannot, we would still feel bodily pain. anatta simply means, conditons arise without a self. this is the law. > > D: The Buddha requested his disciples to undergo the three fold > Path training of moral - meditation and wisdom ( sila - samadhi - > panna ) , the development of each part to become the support of > the next . This is the described way to develop insight//panna. > And by the training the conditions for insight are established. > Of course there is a multitude of approaches , depending on > accumulations, but in general the standard is repeated in the > suttas again and again. > Frankly speaking I do not understand why - which seems to me an ' > Abhidhammika ' point of view - this teaching is not > respected/accepted. k: No one said this teaching is not accepted, we are saying right understanding is important when Buddha say these. Understanding is the forerunner. > As I mentioned there are plenty of canonical sources .. e.g. > A.N.III 82 (ff) > "82. Bhikkhus, these three are the activities of a recluse. What > three? Training in higher virtues, [1]training the mind to a higher > degree and training for the higher wisdom. Bhikkhus, these three > are the activities of a recluse. Therefore bhikkhus, you should > train thus: Our interest will be keen, to train in higher virtues, > to train the mind to a higher degree and for a higher training in > wisdom." > > The sequence of path elements 3,4,5 for sila , 6,7,8 for samadhi > and 1,2 for panna is the norm. KO: When it was said would it mean they can purposedly force the mind to a higher degree of wisdom? All dhamma is anatta as declared by Buddha, isn't Buddha contradict himself by asking the monk to move the self where in the first place, there isn't any. When this was said, it was meant to arouse viriya and in investigation of dhamma (panna) as they are pre-dominance conditoning factor and faculties conditioning as well as enlighement factors. What is arouse, it not self, they are just cetasikas, viriya and panna Cheers Ken O #78375 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 9:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Realities and Concepts (1) dcwijeratna Dear Sarah and Han I can't follow your logic. Let me write the three statements I referred to in Han's e-m again. You see Concept sees Eye-conscious sees It is not I who wrote that. I was only trying to clarify. You now say, "Only eye-consciousness sees, no You or I". So the other two statements are false. And the information provided by Han was wrong. That is not the clarification I requested. I cannot understand your statement either. Most probably because of my poor English. I learnt English quite late in life. This is how I understand that statement. I have been taught "sees" is a verb; that it is used with the third person singular pronoun "he/she/it". But note, it is a person who sees. So for me to understand your sentence I have to think of "eye-consciousness" as a person. I feel so sorry for myself. I thought I was rather slow in understanding Han. Now I know I cannot even understand "eye-consciousness sees". I think the quote is from Madhupi.ndika sutta. If so, it is a mistranslation. Your explanation is your own. It is not the way it is understood by people who I think know Pali. D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #78376 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 9:17 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (5) buddhistmedi... Dear Han (and Sukin), - I enjoyed this post ; it is different from all you have written. >Han: > Those who are close to me know that I am a very > strange person. So strange that at times, I don't know > myself even. > Sometimes I will use no-Han approach, sometimes I will > use yes-Han approach. Nobody will be able to persuade > me to change my ways >But when time > comes I might be more anatta than those who are > advocating anatta today. T: The reason you don't know yourself can be because there is no self to call yours. The yes-Han/ no-Han approach is a consequence of the un-controllable arising/falling citta at work. T: Your randomly changing citta might condition a stronger belief in 'atta' than even those who truly believe in permanent ego-identity, who knows? So you'd better watch out! Tep ==== #78377 From: Dieter Möller Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 9:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) moellerdieter Hi Ken H , Tep .., you wrote: 'Before I comment I would like to know in which way you interpret the teachings of Ven Thanissaro.' D: For my part, I am quite open..let me please explain my present point of view : I am grateful and enjoyed the availibilty of sutta translations and essays by this widely respected senior monk . Though I recognised in the past some criticism , it seem to me far from proving the Venerable of spreading false Dhamma, e.g. preaching eternalism, which - I am not sure - you are accusing him (?) Tep indicated already a general interest for the clarification of the issue, and therefore believe , it may be the best if you would be so kind and present the 'case' by quotations/sources , i.e. both in respect to statements of the Venerable as showing its contradiction with the Buddha Dhamma for the members to see for themselves. with Metta Dieter #78378 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 5:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Realities and Concepts (1) upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Han) - In a message dated 11/9/2007 10:13:14 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Dear Han and Howard, yam...tam... a relative pronoun and a demonstrative pronoun. That... which, but in Pali the relative is put first. yam first. As to the pronoun one: this does not occur in the Pali here. No need. The English can use one in order to make the sentence easier to understand. It is implied that there are only citta and cetasikas. Nina. ========================== Thank you, Nina. So, how would the translation go using the "that ... which" terminology? With metta, Howard #78379 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 10:54 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) truth_aerator Dear Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: . > > k: No one said this teaching is not accepted, we are saying right > understanding is important when Buddha say these. Understanding is > the forerunner. >>>>>>>>> An important question is: What is right understanding? How philosophically sophisticated is it supposed to be? When we check the suttas for definition of panna or samma ditthi: "And what is right view? Knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to the cessation of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called right view." — DN 22 "And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view. And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view... (right view is the opposite of the wrong view written above) "One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort, & right mindfulness — run & circle around right view."— MN 117 --- "There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person... does not discern what ideas are fit for attention, or what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas fit for attention, and attends instead to ideas unfit for attention... This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?' "As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of- the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress. "The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — discerns what ideas are fit for attention and what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas unfit for attention and attends [instead] to ideas fit for attention. "And what are the ideas unfit for attention that he does not attend to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality arises in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality increases; the unarisen fermentation of becoming arises in him, and arisen fermentation of becoming increases; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance arises in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance increases. These are the ideas unfit for attention that he does not attend to. "And what are the ideas fit for attention that he does attend to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of becoming does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of becoming is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance is abandoned. These are the ideas fit for attention that he does attend to. Through his not attending to ideas unfit for attention and through his attending to ideas fit for attention, unarisen fermentations do not arise in him, and arisen fermentations are abandoned. "The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones... discerns what ideas are fit for attention, and what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas unfit for attention, and attends [instead] to ideas fit for attention... He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices." — MN 2 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma- ditthi/index.html --- Lots of Metta, Alex #78380 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 11:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Realities and Concepts (1) dcwijeratna Dear Ken O, Many thanks for your e-m. We understand differently. According to Madhupi.ndika sutta, MN: "Cakkhu.m pa.ticca ruupe ca uppajjati cakkhuvi~n~naana.m...." Seeing (eye-consciousness) arises on account of the eye and a form. Along with that arises --vedanaa. Vedanaa is three-fold (pleasant, unpleasant and neutral) as perceived by the one who recognises. (he) recognises the form. (ya.m vedeti ta.m sa.njaanaati.) There is one citta, all these three things happen together. A series of cittas is "Abhidhamma analysis" and is false (micchaa di.t.thi). It doesn't have the authority of the Buddha. As far as we are concerned anything that doesn't have the authority of the Buddha is false. They are mere views. Further, our experience confirms the Madhupi.ndika analysis. When we see a man we see him. That's all. Only "citta" here is the eye-consciousness, vedanaa and sa~n~naa are two "properties" of that. One is the feeling aspect and the other is the knowledge. This sa~n~naa is really what we call knowledge. Since it is coloured by our feelings. It is avijjaa--delusion. Kind regards, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna "Eta.m bhagavataa baaraa.nasiy.m isipatane migadaaye dhammachakka.m pavattita.m appa.tivattiya.m devene va maarena va sama.nena vaa braahmanena vaa brahmunaa vaa kenecivaa lokasmim..." But the Buddha said "Sabbe sa.nkhaaraa aniccaa'ti" The Wheel of Dhamma cannot be turned back. #78381 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 11:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: nimitta. Relations Among Rupas/Jon nilovg Hi Dieter, Howard, yes, very well observed by Howard. There is often conceit involved with the writing of posts: I know better, I correct him. Or: how will he take this from me, etc. etc. If we dwell on this too much we shall not write any more posts. But conceit is conditioned, it is not mine. It is gone immediately. May we all know that the Abhidhamma is not a valley of dry bones but that it pertains to life iself. I am glad, Howard, the test was OK. Nina. Op 9-nov-2007, om 16:56 heeft Dieter Möller het volgende geschreven: > Howard , I found your explanation superb: > > "At first I was just going to write "interestingly". But then I > thought > "Hmm, I find it interesting, but perhaps no one else does! It's > probably > ego-based to assume otherwise." And so, I added the change, with > amusement at my > own conceit that what interests me also interests others. (I hope that > clarifies this, Nina.)" > > may we find more places of refreshment in the Valley of Dry > Bones ! :-) #78382 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 6:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: nimitta. Relations Among Rupas/Jon upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter - In a message dated 11/9/2007 10:57:20 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, moellerdieter@... writes: the Valley of Dry Bones ========================= LOLOL! With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream/ (From the Diamond Sutra) #78383 From: Elaine Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 11:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Development of understanding - to Nina shennieca Hi Nina, Thank you for taking the time to reply to my questions. I appreciate it. ------------------------ > Elaine: (1) How is right understanding developed? > N: We have to know what right understanding is, what its object. Usually we live in the world of conventional realities, such as person, tree, table. But these are just concepts we can think of. ------------ Elaine: A table is a conventional reality, what is the ultimate reality of a table? On Right Understanding: And what, O bhikkhus, is right understanding? To understand suffering, to understand the origination of suffering, to understand extinction of suffering, to understand the path leading to the extinction of suffering; this is called right understanding. ---------------- > E:(2) How can pa~n~naa be accumulated? > N: One moment of understanding arises and then falls away. It is never lost, there are now conditions that it can arise again and again and thus it is accumulated. It grows. We can compare this with the situation of a child who learns different things at school. Its knowledge develops more and more until it is mature. ---------------- Elaine: Does it mean that Panna grows and grows and it is accumulated till the end of time, till Nibbana is attained? From the N8FP, Right Wisdom (Panna) constitutes Right Understanding and Right Intention/Right Thought. And what is right thought? Being resolved on renunciation, on freedom from ill-will, on harmlessness: This is called right thought. ------------------------------- > E: (3) By reading the suttas and listening to dhamma talks is it enough to get enlightened? > N: What we heard has to be applied in our daily life. With great confidence, with ardent energy, with perseverance. Never being tired to consider again and again what we heard, testing out the meaning, in our daily life now. At the same time performing any kind of kusala through body, speech and mind for which there is an opportunity. Not wasting any opportunities. It helps to think of the wellbeing of others, more than being preoccupied with ourselves. ----------------- Elaine: Thank you for your advice. Thank you for writing it in a conventional way that is easy to understand. IMO, reading the sutta and listening to dhamma talk is not enough to get enlightened, unless that person has high intuition like the most Venerable Sariputta. For a conceptual ordinary human being, the way to get enlightened is to follow the N8FP, do you agree? -------------------------- One more question. E: (4) Why did the Buddha have to meditate under the Bodhi tree to get enlightened? Sincerely, Elaine ------------------------- Nina van Gorkom wrote: Dear Elaine, I like your questions, they are deep. I try to answer in a short way, lack of time. Op 8-nov-2007, om 23:23 heeft Elaine het volgende geschreven: #78384 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 11:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Realities and Concepts (1) nilovg Hi Howard, Op 9-nov-2007, om 19:46 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > So, how would the translation go using the "that ... > which" terminology? ------- N: The same as Han had, it is O.K. to insert a subject, such as one. We can also use the word it: it, namely the cetasika feels, etc. Just pointing out that 'one' is not the translation of ya.m...ta.m . the word 'one' is inserted for convenience. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). Yam vedeti, tam sa~njaanaati. What one perceives, one thinks about. Yam sa~njaanaati tam vitakketi. What one thinks about, one complicates. Yam vitakketi tam papa~nceti. Nina. #78385 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 11:53 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) buddhistmedi... Hi KenH (and Dieter) In the message #78321 you made a request: "Hi Dieter and Tep, Before I comment I would like to know in which way you interpret the teachings of Ven Thanissaro. In your opinion, does he maintain (1) there is a self that both acts and receives the fruits of its actions, (2) the doctrine of anatta is a mere tactic, or strategy, used by meditators to calm their minds, and (3) after parinibbana the self is free to "wander wherever it pleases?" Thanks in advance. Ken H" And in the message #78377 Dieter replied: >D: "For my part, I am quite open..let me please explain my present point of view : I am grateful and enjoyed the availibilty of sutta translations and essays bythis widely respected senior monk . Though I recognised in the past some criticism , it seem to me far from proving the Venerable of spreading false Dhamma, e.g. preaching eternalism, which - I am not sure - you are accusing him (?) Tep indicated already a general interest for the clarification of the issue, and therefore believe , it may be the best if you would be so kind and present the 'case' by quotations/sources , i.e. both in respect to statements of the Venerable as showing its contradiction with the Buddha Dhamma for the members to see for themselves." ........................................ T: Now it's my turn :-) I believe that we do not know someone well enough to make a judgment about his intention, unless we closely observe him for several months. In the case of venerable Thanissaro I'd suggest that you carefully study at least 50% of his articles and Dhamma talks before casting your judgement in concrete. Even I, who have carefully studied most (>70%) of his articles and sutta comments, am not yet qualified to say 'I think the venerable's intention is only this, he does not intend to say that', etc.. I can only give an overall impression about him as follows: Venerable Thanissaro Bhikkhu is an exceptional Buddhist monk who has profound understanding of the Dhamma, and he has sacrificed so much to promote the Buddha's Teaching on the Internet for many international readers. Now let me reply to the 3-point request. 1.Because of his profound knowledge of the Dhamma, it is out of question that he "maintains there is a self that both acts and receives the fruits of its actions". What is your evidence to accuse him of holding that wrong view? 2. I only find in one of his article that the anatta doctrine should be carefully interpreted to mean neither 'there is a self' nor 'there is no self'. He also adivises the reader as follows: ".. the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness. At that point, questions of self, no-self, and not-self fall aside. Once there's the experience of such total freedom, where would there be any concern about what's experiencing it, or whether or not it's a self?'. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html 3. I have no idea where you found in his articles the following statement : after parinibbana the self is free to "wander wherever it pleases". Tep ==== #78386 From: Elaine Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 11:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (5) shennieca Hello Dr Han, Your understanding of Anatta is much, much deeper than many people who are advocating their Anatta doctrine. Have faith in the Buddha's words, read the Suttas, do not rely on other people's opinions to learn the Dhamma. Listen to opinions, yes, but only you can make the conclusion on what is right and what is wrong. I like the e-m that you sent to Sukin. Have faith in yourself. Yay!! :-)) Respectfully, Elaine ------------------------- #78387 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 1:34 pm Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) kenhowardau Hi Dieter, You didn't answer my three-part question. Was that because you thought it was rhetorical? I wouldn't blame you if you did. Normally, I would have thought those three points were axiomatic to all Buddhists. That is to say, I would have thought all Buddhists believed (1) while there was action and result there was no self that acted or received the result (2) the doctrine of anatta means that (contrary to all the evidence in the conventionally known world) there is nothing that has continued from the past to the present or that will continue from the present to the future, and (3) parinibbana means the final cessation of all khandhas (including consciousness). But that is not so! There seems to be a large proportion of Buddhists who believe in an eternal soul. (Although they prefer not to call it by that name.) ----------------- D: For my part, I am quite open..let me please explain my present point of view: I am grateful and enjoyed the availibilty of sutta translations and essays by this widely respected senior monk . ------------------ Ditto! AccessToInsight is a valuable source of sutta translations. ---------------------------- D: > Though I recognised in the past some criticism , it seem to me far from proving the Venerable of spreading false Dhamma, e.g. preaching eternalism, which - I am not sure - you are accusing him (?) ---------------------------- It is never nice to accuse people of wrong doing. It is especially unpleasant to accuse a monk. But, thanks to the Buddha's teaching (of no-self), that is not necessary. We can simply discuss views and opinions. We can consider and discuss, 'Which views (according to our understanding of the Dhamma) are right, and which are wrong?' --------------------------------------- D: > Tep indicated already a general interest for the clarification of the issue, and therefore believe , it may be the best if you would be so kind and present the 'case' by quotations/sources , i.e. both in respect to statements of the Venerable as showing its contradiction with the Buddha Dhamma for the members to see for themselves. ---------------------------------------- I did something like that four or five years ago. I posted message #34543 to Victor, a former DSG member who insisted that the Buddha did not teach no-self. (I believe Victor has since become ordained at Ven Thanissaro's temple, Wat Metta.) As for interpretations of Thanissaro's writings, please look at another old post of mine - 34782 - and tell me what you think. Ken H #78388 From: "colette" Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 8:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A better way to discourage meditators! ksheri3 Good Morning Ken O, I guess I've gotta pull my "sheepish grin" out of the bag and put it on since I'm going to try to disagree with you here concerning your thoughts on meditations. For instance, come now, you surely do not mean: > We are never against samadhi, we are saying one must have right > understanding to start any inclinations one like. <....> --------------------------------------------- Samadhi without > the right understanding would result one rebirth to the highest > immaterial realm, that does not eradicate defilement completely only > suppress them. colette: I really do not believe that a person can "eradicate" any such "defilements". Defilements, IMO, are nothing more than degrees of an opinion or a thought. Suppression is a useless operation since suppression causes them to fester and grow themselves, as if in a petri dish. Put those defilements out in the open, deal with them as they should be dealt with, they are emptyand without substance. ---------------------------------- > The samadhi you seen in Vismudhi, did you see the introductory > preparation before embarking on the mediation technique about the ten > faults of the monastery etc. > > Nonetheless, if that is your inclinations, pse go ahead, just > remember right understanding is always the forerunner > colette: good point, which is the point I wanted to make, this right understanding you say which is the forerunner is nothing more than the RIGHT UNDERSTANDING as it developes, matures, coagulates (substantiating itself). As a "forerunner" it can only foretell itself in motion as it developes./ Right Understanding is only right understanding and it cannot change. toodles, colette #78389 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 2:33 pm Subject: Re: Development of understanding - to Nina buddhistmedi... Hi Elaine (and Nina), - I have a few thoughts to share with you, after reading your conversation with Nina (it is partly shown below). 1. Abhidhammikas tend to focus on concepts versus realities and objects of satipatthana. And when they talk about right understanding, it often means 'pa~n~na'. Then it becomes comlicated when I try to understand why concepts do not have the three characteristics of the paramattha dhammas, etc. > Elaine: (1) How is right understanding developed? >Nina: We have to know what right understanding is, what its object. Usually we live in the world of conventional realities, such as person, tree, table. But these are just concepts we can think of. >Elaine: On Right Understanding: And what, O bhikkhus, is right understanding? To understand suffering, to understand the origination of suffering, to understand extinction of suffering, to understand the path leading to the extinction of suffering; this is called right understanding. T: What do you think is the object (or objects ?) of the right understanding (samma-ditthi) above? Immediately, I am confused. But when I do not think about an object of the right understanding, I am clear and have no trouble understanding the right understanding. 2. I appreciate the reminder that 'pa~n~na' is the right wisdom of the Path and that it is the sum of right view(samma-ditthi, or right understanding) and right thought(samma-sankappa, or right resolve). This important truth is often forgotten when we talk about 'right view', 'right understanding', and wisdom' as separate issues. We need to bring these dhammas together to understand them as the "factors" of the Path -- i.e. simulataneously seeing the forest and the trees. It has been stated often by DSG abhidhammikas that pa~n~na is a cetasika, and as such it is an ultimate reality. So it is a conditioned reality that rises and falls away quickly. As an ultimate reality pa~n~na is anicca, and anatta. Therefore, it does not seem to make sense for pa~n~na to "grow and grow and accumulate" like Nina said in the following dialogue with you. Or, have I missed something? > E:(2) How can pa~n~naa be accumulated? > N: One moment of understanding arises and then falls away. It is never lost, there are now conditions that it can arise again and again and thus it is accumulated. It grows. We can compare this with the situation of a child who learns different things at school. Its knowledge develops more and more until it is mature. We can compare this with the situation of a child who learns different things at school. Its knowledge develops more and more until it is mature. ...................... T: By saying that understanding is "never lost", and that "it can arise again and again and thus it is accumulated. It grows" seems to contradict the dhamma characteristics, anicca and anata. Don't you think so, too ? Tep === #78390 From: han tun Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 2:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (5) hantun1 Dear Friend Tep, Tep: So you'd better watch out! Han: Thank you very much for your friendly and brotherly advice. I will do that. Respectfully, Han #78391 From: han tun Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 2:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (5) hantun1 Dear Elaine, Thank you very much for your nice post. Although you are younger than me, you are more mature in the practice of Buddha Dhamma. “Have faith in the Buddha's words, read the Suttas, do not rely on other people's opinions to learn the Dhamma. Listen to opinions, yes, but only you can make the conclusion on what is right and what is wrong.” I really appreciate your above words. With metta and deepest respect, Han --- Elaine wrote: > Hello Dr Han, > > Your understanding of Anatta is much, much deeper > than many people who are advocating their Anatta > doctrine. > #78392 From: han tun Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 2:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Realities and Concepts (1) hantun1 Dear Nina, Thank you very much for your clarification. Respectfully, Han --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Han, > Op 9-nov-2007, om 0:10 heeft han tun het volgende > geschreven: > N: Perceiving a man is not seeing, it takes place in > a mind-door > process of cittas arising later on. But since cittas > are so fast, it > seems all the time that we see a person. A very > common mistake we all > make. #78393 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 2:58 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Realities and Concepts (1) ... Citta and We... buddhistmedi... Dear Nina, - How do you manage to exert much energy and bodily strength to execute several email communications, day after day after day, non stop? > > N: When citta has a paramattha dhamma (ultimate reality) as object, > it experiences only that one object, say, sound. It does not > experience any other object, nor does it think of any idea of a > person. This is only for a moment. The next moment citta may think > of a person. > This is about the same as what Han says: sometimes Han, sometimes no- Han. No problem. It depends on conditions. T: For clarification purpose : is 'citta' same as a single citta -- not a stream of consciousnes or 'mind'? What Han said, I think, is a thought not a single citta. Thanks, Nina. Tep ==== #78394 From: han tun Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 3:10 pm Subject: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (7) hantun1 Dear All, Topic: Consciousness and Feeling In MN 148 Chachakka Sutta, there is the following passage, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.148.than.html "Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there arises what is felt either as pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain.” Based on this, I said at the Meeting that every consciousness is immediately followed by *one of the three* feelings, either as pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain. Sukin and other participants said that eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness are immediately followed by equanimity, not *one of the three*. Heated argument followed. I insisted *one of the three*; they insisted the above-mentioned four consciousness are immediately followed by *equanimity*. Finally, I was shown the book, A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma. Then, I realized that they were right, and I was wrong. Six out of seven akusala-vipaaka-cittas (unwholesome resultant consciousness) are accompanied by equanimity (upekkhaa). Only body-consciousness is accompanied by pain (dukkha). Six out of eight kusala-vipaaka-cittas (wholesome resultant consciousness) are accompanied by equanimity (upekkhaa). Only body-consciousness is accompanied by pleasure (sukha), and investigating consciousness by joy (somanassa). ------------------------------ Then there was a discussion on the following points (as noted by Sarah). - the importance of understanding seeing and visible object. We think we see someone and are therefore attached/angry with someone. But when we appreciate and understand more and more that only visible object is seen, it conditions more metta, less dosa, for example. Are you angry with seeing? With hearing? Here, I would like to request Sarah to kindly expand on the short points noted by her, if she deems it necessary. This is the END of my Report on the Meeting at the Foundation, for the Session which I participated. I thank very much the DSG members for giving their time and efforts to read and discuss on my Report. Respectfully, Han #78395 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 3:31 pm Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) kenhowardau Hi Tep, ------------ <. . .> T: > I believe that we do not know someone well enough to make a judgment about his intention, unless we closely observe him for several months. In the case of venerable Thanissaro I'd suggest that you carefully study at least 50% of his articles and Dhamma talks before casting your judgement in concrete. Even I, who have carefully studied most (>70%) of his articles and sutta comments, am not yet qualified to say 'I think the venerable's intention is only this, he does not intend to say that', etc.. ------------- You are right, of course. And no example is better than your own! After all the time you have spent here at DSG I still don't know your views on anatta. You seem to have been quite dismissive of my explanations (and just about everyone else's). And yet, when Ven Aggacitto wrote the same sort of thing you have been saying, you seemed to question his explanations also. I still don't know where you stand on the issue. So tell me: in the final analysis - in ultimate truth and reality - is there, is there not, a self? --------------------------- T: > I can only give an overall impression about him as follows: Venerable Thanissaro Bhikkhu is an exceptional Buddhist monk who has profound understanding of the Dhamma, and he has sacrificed so much to promote the Buddha's Teaching on the Internet for many international readers. ---------------------------- Yes, his "Wings to Awakening" is widely read around the globe - translated into many languages. I think many Buddhists rely on it as their only commentary on the Dhamma. And yet I totally disapprove of it. I think you will have read the two posts that I mentioned to Dieter. I seem to remember referring them to you once or twice in the past. However, we still don't seem able to communicate on the matter. That's not surprising, of course. No one ever said anatta was easy! :-) Ken H #78396 From: LBIDD@... Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 4:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (7) lbidd2 Hi Han, I would like to respond to one of the points you discussed in this last email: Han: ..."I said at the Meeting that every consciousness is immediately followed by *one of the three* feelings, either as pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain. Sukin and other participants said that eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness are immediately followed by equanimity, not *one of the three*." Larry: It is true that that is what the book says, but I think we have to look at our experience also. When we taste a certain kind of food, pleasant feeling does seem to arise with that tasting and consequently craving arises. In the dependent arising formula feeling conditions craving. Are we to think that the neutral feeling that accompanies tasting conditions that craving? According to the book, pleasant feeling arises with craving, but what causes that pleasant feeling? The neutral feeling of tasting? This is a difficult question to resolve. Perhaps one possibility is that in ordinary experience feeling seems to arise separate from either tasting or craving. Are we not to understand it that way according to satipatthana? On that level, pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral feeling does arise dependent on tasting. And that feeling is instrumental in conditioning craving, aversion, or indifference. But ignorance, or its opposite, also plays a major role. The key point here is that according to the four noble truths, craving causes suffering, and according to dependent arising feeling causes craving. Larry #78397 From: han tun Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 5:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (7) hantun1 Dear Larry, I have the same understanding like you. But what they said was one of the three feelings arises later. But the *immediate* feeling for the four consciousness (eye-, ear-, nose-, tongue-) is neutral feeling. They continued discussing on this aspect. But as my understanding was different, their subsequent discussions did not register in my mind. Therefore I have requested Sarah to expand on their discussions. Respectfully, Han #78398 From: LBIDD@... Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 6:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (7) lbidd2 Hi Han, Han: "I have the same understanding like you. But what they said was one of the three feelings arises later. But the *immediate* feeling for the four consciousness (eye-, ear-, nose-, tongue-) is neutral feeling. They continued discussing on this aspect. But as my understanding was different, their subsequent discussions did not register in my mind. Therefore I have requested Sarah to expand on their discussions." Larry: I think the key concept is "with". Neutral feeling is said to arise _with_ tasting consciousness, etc. There is no "with" in satipattana. Perhaps Sarah could respond to that as well. Larry #78399 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 7:29 pm Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) buddhistmedi... Hi Ken H, - Thank you for your patience to find out about my views on the anatta issue. >KenH: After all the time you have spent here at DSG I still don't know your views on anatta. You seem to have been quite dismissive of my explanations (and just about everyone else's). And yet, when Ven Aggacitto wrote the same sort of thing you have been saying, you seemed to question his explanations also. I still don't know where you stand on the issue. T: Sorry, Ken. Please forgive me for dismissing your views on anatta (and some relating issues) in the past. I promise to be more attentive to your views. Concerning Bhikkhu Aggacitto, I asked him about several things besides the anatta issue, Ken. So you have to be specific to help me recall what I wrote. >KenH :So tell me: in the final analysis - in ultimate truth and reality - is there, is there not, a self? T: Considering the ultimate realities only, in the mind of an ariya- puggala, there is no attaa (only emptiness). But I do not say that there are no attaa in the worlds of beings external to the Ariyans' minds. If you really are interested to know about 'self' (attaa) in detail, please read 'Some Findings About Self and Self Views', messages # 75804 (Part I), # 76046 (Part II), and #76141(Part III). Thanks. Tep ===